When teaching styles in New Zealand and Queensland are considered within the framework of basic value orientations—industrial, social, academic, and humanistic—it is clear that within both educational systems the traditional values are deeply entrenched. Queensland styles are somewhat bland and austere, and show little evidence of the humanistic orientation; New Zealand styles peak on industrial and academic orientations, and dip on the social one. In neither location do schools appear as “humane learning communities” and it would be difficult to sustain a claim that any alleged drop in educational standards is due to “progressivism”, “soft pedagogy”, or “Beebyism”.
References
1.
AdamsR. S.Symposium on teacher role in four English speaking countries. Perceived teaching styles. Comparative Education Review, 1970, 14, 1, 50–59 (a).
2.
AdamsR. S.Some aspects of the secondary teacher's role: a comparative study. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 1970, 5, 83–93 (b).
3.
BrunerJ. S.Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966.
4.
Educational Development Conference. Improving Learning & Teaching. Report of the working party on improving learning and teaching. Wellington: Govt. Printer, 1974.
5.
JoyceB. R.WeilM.WaldR.The training of educators: a structure for pluralism. Teachers College Record, 1972, 73, 371–391.
6.
JoyceB. R.WeilM.WaldR.The teacher-innovator: models of teaching as the core of teacher education. Interchange, 1973, 4, 2, 47–60.
7.
JoyceB.Conceptions of man and their implications for teacher education. RyanK. (Ed.). Teacher Education. 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975, 111–145.
8.
New Zealand Post-Primary Teachers' Association. Education in Change. Auckland: Longman Paul, 1969.
9.
RenwickW. L.Social change and objectives of secondary education. In CoddJ. A.HermanssonG. L. (Eds.) Directions in New Zealand Secondary Education. Auckland: Hodder & Stoughton, 1976, 15–28.
