Talk:Teaching method

message: I just wanted to point out that this article needs help... surely more can definitively be said about pedagogy and its methods than the requirements in California?
:And the section on Prussian history doesn't really belong here.  Dbfirs 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

message: The sections "Collaborating", "Learning by teaching" and "Learning through Homework" concern learning exercises, not teaching methods. The teacher merely assigns these exercises to students -- an action that hardly qualifies as "instruction". I propose that these sections be deleted, or at least moved to a more appropriate article (e.g., learning) if not already covered elsewhere. Lambtron (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning vs. teaching 

message: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge needs to be a separate wiki page. It is not part of teaching method (which is pedagogy), it is combination of content, pedagogy and technological knowledge. The redirect should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurukasi (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You have started a discussion, now let it happen.  Your article is just one approach to teaching. Please gain consensus before reverting. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

message: What a load of rubbish. Most teachers teach the same subject to students with the same background year after year. It is, of course, literally true that each class is unique - John Doe, SSN 111-22-3333, sitting in the third chair from the door in Ms Roe's English 5 class will not ever participate in another English 5 class on Monday May 7, 2018 - but the claim that there can't be a one size fits all approach, given a particular course & syllabus, teacher and student demographic requires more than a simple "it's complicated". A reference and not one from a self-serving source is required or this whole section should be removed.98.21.221.175 (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every classroom is unique 

message: This page is simply a statement of instructional ideology that is unsupported by educational research. As such, it has not place in an encyclopedia other than listing the beliefs of specific ideological groups such as constructivists. The bias and unfounded nature of information of this page is evident in the opening paragraph that calls into question any of the information presented afterwards. 
Instructional methods do not enable student learning, learning as been enabled by biology. Instructional methods seek to promote learning, usually of specific knowledge and skills. Idiosyncratic characteristics of the learner may influence the effectiveness and efficiency of instruction, but learning can and does occur all the time via instruction that does not vary based on student characteristics (e.g., learning from a book or Tier 1 of MTSS). 
The trend in today's schools is to focus on standards that are mostly knowledge but include hopeful references to creativity. Creativity, however, is not assessed and is therefore not driving instruction. Humans "advancement" is undefined, but the advance of knowledge comes from science that is based on empiricism, which includes reasoning but relies on empirical evidence. "Original thought" IS creativity, and we have no evidence that reasoning enhances creativity nor have we established that reasoning can be improved via instruction.
In short, this is page is written to support unfounded beliefs and does not reflect the established facts related to instructional methods. The article is so bound in ideology is eschews the accurate term instructional method for "teaching method" which goes beyond instructional methods. Robotczar (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology not evidence 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/df29/e1427ac5cf170e6eb2282cf7b61ba817b080.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Snowycats (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bmitch18 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse

message: I have removed the entire section titled "Explanation". It is based on a few edits by two editors ( and  in June 2019.
I tried to work on updating the old deprecated citation style (inline parenthetical referencing) but ran into so many problems that I suspected copyright violation. In fact, I think the source is this paper:
* Using Explanation as a Teaching Method: How Prepared Are High School Technology Teachers in Free State Province, South Africa? (2014)
* PDF version
Considering some of the edit history of the first editor was removed and redacted, I suspect it was a copy vio then, but the second attempt at inserting the material later in the month wasn't caught.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  00:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed copy vio section "Explanation"