Yes, it is uncommon.
I was reading a study this morning titled The Beliefs, Practices, and Computer Use of Teacher Leaders. Two of the research questions they try to answer: How does the philosophy of professionally engaged teachers compare to that of other teachers? And, how does the pedagogy of professionally engaged teachers compare to that of other teachers?
In the study they classify teachers into one of four groups: teacher leaders, teacher professionals, interactive teachers, and private practice teachers. Teacher leaders are collaborative and tend to follow a constructivist model in their teaching, while private practice teachers tend to not be collaborative and use more traditional models of instruction. Now, what percentage of teachers fell into these categories?
Out of 4,083 participants:
3% were teacher leaders
12% were teacher professionals
30% were interactive teachers
55% were private practice teachers
From these percentages, you could conclude that a small percentage (15%) use constructivist methods in their classes, while an overwhelming percentage (85%) use more traditional methods.
Also in the study there was an interesting bit on professional development:
Teachers are often required to attend workshops given by ‘outside experts’ in teaching and learning while their knowledge - gained from years of practice - is undervalued. This encourages a view of teaching as technical, learning as packaged, and teachers as passive recipients of objective research.
How true… The expertise of teachers, at least the teacher leaders, is undervalued. And teachers are expected to be passive recipients. The complaint I hear most about our professional development (Understanding by Design, Brain-based research, Academic Literacy and Framework for Teaching) is that it is the same old stuff in new packaging - hence, ‘objective research.’
Next entry: More...
Previous entry: Is it that uncommon?