Page 143 - Štremfel, Urška, ed., 2016. Student (Under)achievement: Perspectives, Approaches, Challenges. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Digital Library, Documenta 11.
P. 143
teaching and learning. One must not think of the teaching and learning pro- 143
cesses as being automated and changes to them cannot be understood as an
automatic, but rather as a complex process.
An educational effect is not arrived at mechanically and directly, but indi-
rectly through complex human interaction, a mix of active and multi-direction-
al relationships between students, teachers and parents, as well as between
teachers, counselling and management staff in an educational institution. The
so-called ‘onion model’, which shows the layers of a teacher’s personality and
places his/her beliefs and notions into one of its deeper layers, is presented as
the key model by some authors (Korthahen, 2004; Marentič Požarnik, 2005).
5 (5) … learning skills,
teaching methods and
techniques
4
(4) … competencies
3 (wider capabilities)
(3) … notions (mental
2 models, beliefs), e.g. in
relation to learning, teaching
and knowledge
1
(2) … professional identity
(1) … (authentic)
personality
Figure 9: Layers of a teacher’s personality: the onion model
Source: Korthahen, 2004; Marentič Požarnik, 2005
The model presupposes that the deepest and hardest-to-reach level re-
garding changes is (1) the teacher’s authentic personality as a unique set of
his/her psychological and physical characteristics, followed by (2) the teacher’s
most general definition of his/her own role – his/her professional identity (in
answer to the question: Who am I when I’m teaching and what is my mission
in the school?). The layer above that is (3) teacher’s perceptions about the var-
ious aspects of the education process: his/her mental models, notions about
knowledge, teaching, classes. Layer (4) is the layer of competencies, a com-
plex system of knowledge, skills, strategies and routines for their application
as well as emotional elements. On the surface are (5) methods, techniques and
a teacher’s actions. The layers located deeper down influence the layers clos-
er to the surface, but are less accessible to the consciousness and are more dif-
contextualising teaching (in)effectiveness and student (under)achievement
cesses as being automated and changes to them cannot be understood as an
automatic, but rather as a complex process.
An educational effect is not arrived at mechanically and directly, but indi-
rectly through complex human interaction, a mix of active and multi-direction-
al relationships between students, teachers and parents, as well as between
teachers, counselling and management staff in an educational institution. The
so-called ‘onion model’, which shows the layers of a teacher’s personality and
places his/her beliefs and notions into one of its deeper layers, is presented as
the key model by some authors (Korthahen, 2004; Marentič Požarnik, 2005).
5 (5) … learning skills,
teaching methods and
techniques
4
(4) … competencies
3 (wider capabilities)
(3) … notions (mental
2 models, beliefs), e.g. in
relation to learning, teaching
and knowledge
1
(2) … professional identity
(1) … (authentic)
personality
Figure 9: Layers of a teacher’s personality: the onion model
Source: Korthahen, 2004; Marentič Požarnik, 2005
The model presupposes that the deepest and hardest-to-reach level re-
garding changes is (1) the teacher’s authentic personality as a unique set of
his/her psychological and physical characteristics, followed by (2) the teacher’s
most general definition of his/her own role – his/her professional identity (in
answer to the question: Who am I when I’m teaching and what is my mission
in the school?). The layer above that is (3) teacher’s perceptions about the var-
ious aspects of the education process: his/her mental models, notions about
knowledge, teaching, classes. Layer (4) is the layer of competencies, a com-
plex system of knowledge, skills, strategies and routines for their application
as well as emotional elements. On the surface are (5) methods, techniques and
a teacher’s actions. The layers located deeper down influence the layers clos-
er to the surface, but are less accessible to the consciousness and are more dif-
contextualising teaching (in)effectiveness and student (under)achievement
