I have just finished reading a dissertation of a doctoral student who attends, shall we say, Behemoth State U (BSU), which is not the school where I teach.
By way of background, my editing specialty is taking dissertations of people who are in some kind of trouble (often poor writing skills) and editing them so that these people can pass. Often the people have good ideas--they just don't know how to get those down on paper. And a dissertation offers special writing challenges because of its complexity.
In this case, there were some writing issues, but there were also many issues that could have been prevented, had someone helped this student out--someone on the committee.
Because BSU has as its focus the desire to stay highly ranked in the US News and World Reports college issue, faculty at BSU have as their focus the need to get something--anything--even a grocery list--published in peer-reviewed journals. This focus takes up most of a faculty member's waking hours, those that are not devoted to various kinds of meetings (e.g., the committee to determine whether it would be a good idea to make "The" part of BSU's official, copyrighted name--so it would be The Behemoth State University and all the old stationery would have to be junked). (Okay, I graduated from BSU and I think my dissertation is probably the only one that left out the "The").
Therefore, because professors' time is taken up with research and committee meetings, they have no time to teach, either their classes or their graduate students. So, even though a graduate student provides multiple copies of her proposal and drafts of her work over a couple of years (as this student did), all that paper rarely gets read until the night before the defense. As a result, the defense becomes a nasty surprise and a disheartening and overwhelming experience.
Add to that a defense that falls near the end of the term. If the student does not produce a passable dissertation in a matter of a couple of weeks, the student will have to pay $$$$ for tuition for the following term. Tuition many students don't have, but the professors remain blissfully ignorant of this. Or they have forgotten this stage in their own lives.
There are professors who use the conceptualization and writing of a dissertation as an opportunity to teach how research goes. This is what needs to be done consistently. What saddens me is that the number of doctoral students one has contributes to one's ability to get a promotion, and yet, all too often the number does not reflect the quality of the dissertation adviser or committee member's actual participation in the project.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Relevancy
What on earth do we think we are doing?
Just because colleges and universities have always run in one way doesn't mean that they always have to run in the same way.
The world around us has changed. More people are going to college, and tuition is very high. This means that students have to work in order to avoid going into a completely crippling amount of debt before the age of 22.
What students need to know has changed drastically with technology. Being able to use a computer is now as important as being able to read, write, and compute. At the same time, knowing particular facts is less important; being able to find information and critically assess its quality and value has become extremely important. Yet right now we have a bunch of young people who have passed a bunch of tests and who don't know how to tell the difference between an authoritative web page and one that is a sales pitch.
Textbook companies have gotten onto the "let's make as much money as possible from students" bandwagon. They have many professors going along with them by having the teachers write textbooks (that royalty income is a really nice little supplement to a professor's salary) and through providing free textbooks to professors in hopes that those texts will be adopted.
Yet given the robust possibilities with multimedia through technology, textbooks themselves are an anachronism. [Note: I love reading a real book as much as anyone--yet textbooks are a genre designed only to impart information that is presumably to be memorized and regurgitated back on some test based on questions the textbook company provides to the professor--few textbooks are written with any kind of artful, inherently interesting prose. Textbooks are texts for a captive audience, bestsellers only in the sense that if you don't read the textbook, you may have wasted whatever tuition dollars you spent on the class in addition to the $150 book.]
Do we want a university degree to simply be a "union card?" Or do we want it to mean something?
If what we do is to be meaningful, we need to drastically reassess what students need and provide it for them. This means recognizing the financial position students are in and accommodating that position, e.g. through on-line courses that allow students to learn around their work schedules and recognizing that expecting students to be on campus five days a week is not realistic. It means understanding the world into which students will enter and connecting learning to that world--making university activities relevant. It means having the creativity to give students something new by building bridges from where they are to where we would like them to be. If we believe that a particular course is good for a student, let's help them to understand how they will benefit from that course in the world.
Finally, college students are in a transition in their lives whether they are 18 years old or 50 years old. Transitions are exciting but also scary. If we are to help students to make the transition in the most intellectually promising way, then we need to know who our students are and what their needs are--not just in terms of our little subject area, but in terms of their lives. The foundation of teaching is the relationship between student and teacher.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Pit and the Pendulum
It is attributed to Hegel, the idea of the dialectic--thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That is, there is an idea, then its opposite, and then some form of solution. Marx used this idea to analyze history and then to predict communism as a system.
In the field of education, we have thesis and antithesis and only wise teachers find a synthesis. Take the reading wars for example. I was working as a graduate student in a college of education at the time and I witnessed first hand the type of sniping that was going on. I was working in the same office as the editor of a major journal in literacy, and I saw the manuscripts and the mean-spirited letters to the editor.
That was at the theoretical level. In the pit, or trenches, were the front-line teachers. What would be the best practices? If you listened to the so-called experts, you could never tell. One workshop might suggest one set of practices and another would suggest a completely different set of teaching strategies. Districts would allow one set of practices and then suddenly mandate a different set.
In fact, if you look at the field of education globally, you see this constantly swinging pendulum from the left to the right and back again. Right now, we are in a time of excessive attention to accountability using the strategies that conservative accountability buffs tend to like--standardized tests. This followed a time of no accountability. I was licensed during the no accountability phase and I can take any class, including Underwater Basket Weaving, to maintain my license as long as the class has a graduate level number. In my state, teachers now have to have a plan for how classes will benefit them as teachers--and this is actually a positive thing.
The ship of education creaks slowly side to side. Teachers who have no sense of themselves slide back and forth in response to the roll of the ship, out of control and at the mercy of the weather. Yet wise teachers know a few things: First off, there is something of value in most educational ideas--it is only when these ideas are pushed excessively that they become really dumb. So, in the reading wars, wise teachers borrowed the best of phonics and the best of whole language and came up with a synthesis that matched their own personalities and the needs of their students. Secondly, wise teachers know that one size does not fit all. Different kids need different approaches to learning, and good teachers learn strategies from a variety of sources.
Does this mean that good teachers have no philosophy of teaching? Some might say that teachers have to commit to a certain philosophy and that borrowing from here and there is intellectually dishonest.
Yet, I believe good teachers understand what they are teaching and they desire for their students to become competent not only in a particular subject matter but also in life in general. So the philosophy of education that I am proposing is one that is centered on the quality of relationship between teacher and student and the ability of the teacher to meet each student's needs.
In the field of education, we have thesis and antithesis and only wise teachers find a synthesis. Take the reading wars for example. I was working as a graduate student in a college of education at the time and I witnessed first hand the type of sniping that was going on. I was working in the same office as the editor of a major journal in literacy, and I saw the manuscripts and the mean-spirited letters to the editor.
That was at the theoretical level. In the pit, or trenches, were the front-line teachers. What would be the best practices? If you listened to the so-called experts, you could never tell. One workshop might suggest one set of practices and another would suggest a completely different set of teaching strategies. Districts would allow one set of practices and then suddenly mandate a different set.
In fact, if you look at the field of education globally, you see this constantly swinging pendulum from the left to the right and back again. Right now, we are in a time of excessive attention to accountability using the strategies that conservative accountability buffs tend to like--standardized tests. This followed a time of no accountability. I was licensed during the no accountability phase and I can take any class, including Underwater Basket Weaving, to maintain my license as long as the class has a graduate level number. In my state, teachers now have to have a plan for how classes will benefit them as teachers--and this is actually a positive thing.
The ship of education creaks slowly side to side. Teachers who have no sense of themselves slide back and forth in response to the roll of the ship, out of control and at the mercy of the weather. Yet wise teachers know a few things: First off, there is something of value in most educational ideas--it is only when these ideas are pushed excessively that they become really dumb. So, in the reading wars, wise teachers borrowed the best of phonics and the best of whole language and came up with a synthesis that matched their own personalities and the needs of their students. Secondly, wise teachers know that one size does not fit all. Different kids need different approaches to learning, and good teachers learn strategies from a variety of sources.
Does this mean that good teachers have no philosophy of teaching? Some might say that teachers have to commit to a certain philosophy and that borrowing from here and there is intellectually dishonest.
Yet, I believe good teachers understand what they are teaching and they desire for their students to become competent not only in a particular subject matter but also in life in general. So the philosophy of education that I am proposing is one that is centered on the quality of relationship between teacher and student and the ability of the teacher to meet each student's needs.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Friends in high places
I tell my students that there are two people they need to know and get along with in whatever school they teach: the school secretary and the custodian.
The school secretary knows everything that is going on and how to get things done by the book or by the loopholes in the book.
The custodian is the person who cleans up after a kid has lost his Cheerios. This is a job one wants accomplished quickly. Also the custodian cleans up large spaces and if you want to schedule a large space in such a way that the cleaning has to be accomplished more quickly, then only by being friends with the custodian will this get done.
In other words, it pays to have friends in high places.
At the same time, we place emphasis on diversity which is theoretically related to valuing every person. This is something that needs to be not just taught but modelled for students and how better to model it than to be respectful and kind to the people who are low on the school district totem pole?
The school secretary knows everything that is going on and how to get things done by the book or by the loopholes in the book.
The custodian is the person who cleans up after a kid has lost his Cheerios. This is a job one wants accomplished quickly. Also the custodian cleans up large spaces and if you want to schedule a large space in such a way that the cleaning has to be accomplished more quickly, then only by being friends with the custodian will this get done.
In other words, it pays to have friends in high places.
At the same time, we place emphasis on diversity which is theoretically related to valuing every person. This is something that needs to be not just taught but modelled for students and how better to model it than to be respectful and kind to the people who are low on the school district totem pole?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Advocacy
I just got a phone call from a friend of mine who lives in "assisted living." The ombudservice showed up and she was able to tell them about some serious problems she has been experiencing at this institution.
The reason the ombudservice showed up is that I listened to her and then made several phone calls and e-mails. The ombudservice explained to me how they operate and I gave them the information they needed. Both my friend and I are really excited about the possibility of things changing for her.
I have a lot of experience in advocacy--I ran a battered women's shelter for 3.5 years. It was my job to see that women and their children got the services they needed. It was my privilege to watch people grow and change because they had the things they needed in order to do so, including my complete support.
Having worked in an advocacy role has strongly influenced my teaching. I believe that my job as a teacher is to be an advocate for my students--to be aware of their whole lives, to address whatever issues they are facing in whatever aspect of their lives, to set up a class so that nothing in the class trumps my advocacy role--including assessment.
So, I have looked up opthalmologists for a student who had an eye infection, provided food to students who came to class hungry, let a student who was cold wear my jacket, written lots of encouraging notes to students, and even helped a student who had been abused by her husband.
I teach reading methods, writing methods, educational psychology, and art. But I teach people who are often in that awkward stage of not being a child or even a teen but not yet really being an adult. They are getting ready to take on one of the most challenging adult roles, being a teacher--and I enjoy watching them grow into that role, since I have my students for more than one course.
The learning process is a fragile one. It can be easily derailed by unmet physical needs, by the feeling of emotional danger (the fear of being ridiculed, for example), by the feeling of being overwhelmed, by boredom, by teaching that is not in the zone of proximal development, by the lack of a relationship between the teacher and the learner.
I really want my students to learn. I kind of feel like Dr. Phil when at the beginning of the show the voice over says, "this is going to be a changing day in your life" or whatever. Learning is about changing and I want to be part of that process--of people "getting real" about what they know and what they need to learn and then getting ready to set goals and meet them. And part of my job is to make sure that all resources are in place for this process to happen.
Is this a counselor's approach to learning? Yes, it is. And, it works.
The reason the ombudservice showed up is that I listened to her and then made several phone calls and e-mails. The ombudservice explained to me how they operate and I gave them the information they needed. Both my friend and I are really excited about the possibility of things changing for her.
I have a lot of experience in advocacy--I ran a battered women's shelter for 3.5 years. It was my job to see that women and their children got the services they needed. It was my privilege to watch people grow and change because they had the things they needed in order to do so, including my complete support.
Having worked in an advocacy role has strongly influenced my teaching. I believe that my job as a teacher is to be an advocate for my students--to be aware of their whole lives, to address whatever issues they are facing in whatever aspect of their lives, to set up a class so that nothing in the class trumps my advocacy role--including assessment.
So, I have looked up opthalmologists for a student who had an eye infection, provided food to students who came to class hungry, let a student who was cold wear my jacket, written lots of encouraging notes to students, and even helped a student who had been abused by her husband.
I teach reading methods, writing methods, educational psychology, and art. But I teach people who are often in that awkward stage of not being a child or even a teen but not yet really being an adult. They are getting ready to take on one of the most challenging adult roles, being a teacher--and I enjoy watching them grow into that role, since I have my students for more than one course.
The learning process is a fragile one. It can be easily derailed by unmet physical needs, by the feeling of emotional danger (the fear of being ridiculed, for example), by the feeling of being overwhelmed, by boredom, by teaching that is not in the zone of proximal development, by the lack of a relationship between the teacher and the learner.
I really want my students to learn. I kind of feel like Dr. Phil when at the beginning of the show the voice over says, "this is going to be a changing day in your life" or whatever. Learning is about changing and I want to be part of that process--of people "getting real" about what they know and what they need to learn and then getting ready to set goals and meet them. And part of my job is to make sure that all resources are in place for this process to happen.
Is this a counselor's approach to learning? Yes, it is. And, it works.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
And the response...
What I have been doing is very irresponsible and I'm really sorry. I was so concerned about my grade that I never thought that by doing what I'm doing, could actually hurt me in the end. I wish there was more time in the class so that I could prove to you I can be a better student. It doesn't matter now because it was a very irresponsible thing to do and I'm really embarrassed by what I've done. Again I'm sorry, and I know we only have a few more tests to take, but I will show you that I can do better than that.
My response back:
I admire people who are able to admit they are wrong and who are able to do something better in the future. You have my 100% respect. I know you are a good student because good students do exactly what you have done--take responsibility.
My response back:
I admire people who are able to admit they are wrong and who are able to do something better in the future. You have my 100% respect. I know you are a good student because good students do exactly what you have done--take responsibility.
Cheating, revisited
I read some more test responses this week and finally figured out a way of handling the "cheating" issue. I find if I wait for awhile, I am usually able to come up with a way of addressing a problem that is in line with my philosophy of education. So here is the e-mail I sent to everyone in the course:
Hello everyone,
Pretty soon you all will be reading about assessment in your Ed Psych books and in the interest of encouraging certain approaches to the tests in this course, I would like to discuss my philosophy of assessment.
I believe that assessment is a representation--it is supposed to represent an ability. That's why reading tests involve reading and math tests involve math. However, I believe that tests are a particularly poor form of representation of a person's skills. If a math test involves reading (e.g., word problems) then a student who is good in math but poor in reading cannot demonstrate his or her skills. Therefore, because I don't believe tests are a good representation of people's abilities, I don't give tests in most of my classes.
However, the Educational Testing Service disagrees with me and the state of xxxxxx requires you to take a test, the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching, which basically covers the material that is in this class. Therefore, in the interest of helping you to gain the skills necessary to pass that test (I'm talking not just about knowledge but about test taking skills themselves, such as being able to write constructed responses), I have developed tests for this course.
What may not be clear, because you probably have never had a teacher like me, is that I am NOT using these tests as assessment--I am using these tests as practice--guided practice, where I am available to give you feedback, particularly with the constructed responses. This is why it is possible to take the tests more than once.
More than one person seems to be looking at the answers that are given as part of feedback and then paraphrasing the answers on the constructed response, a strategy designed, I'm sure, to get a good grade. I really don't care about how you choose to take a test in this class because I don't believe those tests tell me a lot about you as a teacher. That's why I have those discussion board things for you to respond to. But I would like to suggest that you attempt to write your own answers because I think I can help you to learn more that way.
I'm sending this out to everyone, partially in the interest of sharing with my fellow teachers (you all) an interesting if problematic response to on-line learning, partially to share a view of assessment that is not foregrounded in your book, and partially to communicate with the folks who have made the choice to paraphrase answers in the most general way I can so no one is embarassed. I welcome any responses to this.
Hello everyone,
Pretty soon you all will be reading about assessment in your Ed Psych books and in the interest of encouraging certain approaches to the tests in this course, I would like to discuss my philosophy of assessment.
I believe that assessment is a representation--it is supposed to represent an ability. That's why reading tests involve reading and math tests involve math. However, I believe that tests are a particularly poor form of representation of a person's skills. If a math test involves reading (e.g., word problems) then a student who is good in math but poor in reading cannot demonstrate his or her skills. Therefore, because I don't believe tests are a good representation of people's abilities, I don't give tests in most of my classes.
However, the Educational Testing Service disagrees with me and the state of xxxxxx requires you to take a test, the Praxis II Principles of Learning and Teaching, which basically covers the material that is in this class. Therefore, in the interest of helping you to gain the skills necessary to pass that test (I'm talking not just about knowledge but about test taking skills themselves, such as being able to write constructed responses), I have developed tests for this course.
What may not be clear, because you probably have never had a teacher like me, is that I am NOT using these tests as assessment--I am using these tests as practice--guided practice, where I am available to give you feedback, particularly with the constructed responses. This is why it is possible to take the tests more than once.
More than one person seems to be looking at the answers that are given as part of feedback and then paraphrasing the answers on the constructed response, a strategy designed, I'm sure, to get a good grade. I really don't care about how you choose to take a test in this class because I don't believe those tests tell me a lot about you as a teacher. That's why I have those discussion board things for you to respond to. But I would like to suggest that you attempt to write your own answers because I think I can help you to learn more that way.
I'm sending this out to everyone, partially in the interest of sharing with my fellow teachers (you all) an interesting if problematic response to on-line learning, partially to share a view of assessment that is not foregrounded in your book, and partially to communicate with the folks who have made the choice to paraphrase answers in the most general way I can so no one is embarassed. I welcome any responses to this.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Get out of the way!
PIA revisited
I have had an opportunity to do some experimentation with a class where the stakes are not particularly high. No one has to be able to pass a national test based on information in this class (they do in another class I teach).
I used to teach this class with someone who didn't subscribe to my PIA theory, so there were a lot of PIA assignments in the class. When you team teach, you can't just nix what another person wants to do. Besides, my teaching partner had been involved in the class longer than I had. I was the new comer. And, the class was okay in many respects. It just wasn't everything it could be and I think the PIA stuff really got in the way of people wanting to use the arts in teaching (using the arts to teach the regular curriculum is the subject of the class).
So, my teaching partner went onto bigger and better things and I got to ditch the PIA stuff. Beginning with the textbooks and quizzes.
What happens when you ditch stuff? Is it a party every day? Well, I just got back from a session of the class where we cooperatively planned the rest of the semester. They decided on their own to do what had been a big PIA assignment. The difference is, that if I assign it, it's a problem. If they choose to do it, then it's not a problem. So, they chose to learn.
I don't think we have to force people to learn. In fact, I don't think that force works at all in the learning process. Yes, as teachers we have the right to force people to do things, but when force is used, students become defensive instead of open learners.
There are plenty of external factors that students will face. For instance, my students will be teachers. They will have to pass several tests in this process and they will have to succeed at several field placements. I can force preparation for this or I can let them see the enormity of the undertaking and make plans for how they will learn the things they need to learn. If I force people, then I have to judge people. If I make known the external factors (what real life will be when college is done) then I am the advocate. I would much rather be an advocate than a person who forces people to do things. And, I think they will really learn.
I have had an opportunity to do some experimentation with a class where the stakes are not particularly high. No one has to be able to pass a national test based on information in this class (they do in another class I teach).
I used to teach this class with someone who didn't subscribe to my PIA theory, so there were a lot of PIA assignments in the class. When you team teach, you can't just nix what another person wants to do. Besides, my teaching partner had been involved in the class longer than I had. I was the new comer. And, the class was okay in many respects. It just wasn't everything it could be and I think the PIA stuff really got in the way of people wanting to use the arts in teaching (using the arts to teach the regular curriculum is the subject of the class).
So, my teaching partner went onto bigger and better things and I got to ditch the PIA stuff. Beginning with the textbooks and quizzes.
What happens when you ditch stuff? Is it a party every day? Well, I just got back from a session of the class where we cooperatively planned the rest of the semester. They decided on their own to do what had been a big PIA assignment. The difference is, that if I assign it, it's a problem. If they choose to do it, then it's not a problem. So, they chose to learn.
I don't think we have to force people to learn. In fact, I don't think that force works at all in the learning process. Yes, as teachers we have the right to force people to do things, but when force is used, students become defensive instead of open learners.
There are plenty of external factors that students will face. For instance, my students will be teachers. They will have to pass several tests in this process and they will have to succeed at several field placements. I can force preparation for this or I can let them see the enormity of the undertaking and make plans for how they will learn the things they need to learn. If I force people, then I have to judge people. If I make known the external factors (what real life will be when college is done) then I am the advocate. I would much rather be an advocate than a person who forces people to do things. And, I think they will really learn.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Cheating
I just got through "grading" a test a student took on-line. I give the students opportunities to take their tests more than once so they can have control of the grade they get. When they get an answer wrong, I give them feedback that I hope helps them to actually learn the material in the process of doing better on the test. The multiple-choice tests randomize the order of the questions and the order of the distractors so each successive attempt at the test requires the student to read the test question and all the possible answers.
First of all, why is a crunchy granola type teacher giving tests? This class prepares students not just to be good teachers but also to pass the gate-keeping test that can bring a budding teaching career to a screeching halt. So, as an advocate for my students, I see my job as preparing my students as well as I can for this test. Hence, I give tests as much like the "target test" as possible. The target test has both multiple choice and short essay questions--and all the questions on this test must be done in a ridiculously short amount of time.
So, the student in question has figured out how to get the answers to the short essay questions because her answers are a rewrite of the "given" answer. She's cheating. But who is she cheating? Not me. She can take the test as much as she wants and I will be very happy to give constructive feedback so she can do better in the future.
She is cheating herself. I gave her the high grade she wanted because technically her answer is right and it is written in different language from the "given" answer although in the feedback section I asked her if she felt ready to take the target test. I don't think an accusation will stand up against a denial--and making an accusation will probably place her in a defensive position, which is antithetical to a learning position. I may e-mail her at some point, though (it's an online class).
I believe in cheat-proof teaching--in creating situations where students don't have to cheat in order to succeed. I listen carefully to students not just when they are addressing me directly but also when they are talking to each other. I know some of the ways they cheat--for instance, having a friend do the on-line tests or copying from something on the web or faking an assignment instead of actually doing what is being requested. So, I try to make assignments that bring in the student's perspective and that have a real obvious utility for the teacher wannabe.
No matter how much we guard against cheating in terms of traditional types of assignments and assessments, it's going to happen. In my day, it was hand-copying the encyclopedia for a report and now it's getting on the web and copying and pasting someone else's writing. In my day, it was a cheat sheet hand-written in tiny print and smuggled into the test. Now it's text messaging a friend.
We can either continue to up the ante on security or we can get out of the game altogether and find things for students to do that are meaningful, interesting, and useful. Most students don't cheat on those activities.
First of all, why is a crunchy granola type teacher giving tests? This class prepares students not just to be good teachers but also to pass the gate-keeping test that can bring a budding teaching career to a screeching halt. So, as an advocate for my students, I see my job as preparing my students as well as I can for this test. Hence, I give tests as much like the "target test" as possible. The target test has both multiple choice and short essay questions--and all the questions on this test must be done in a ridiculously short amount of time.
So, the student in question has figured out how to get the answers to the short essay questions because her answers are a rewrite of the "given" answer. She's cheating. But who is she cheating? Not me. She can take the test as much as she wants and I will be very happy to give constructive feedback so she can do better in the future.
She is cheating herself. I gave her the high grade she wanted because technically her answer is right and it is written in different language from the "given" answer although in the feedback section I asked her if she felt ready to take the target test. I don't think an accusation will stand up against a denial--and making an accusation will probably place her in a defensive position, which is antithetical to a learning position. I may e-mail her at some point, though (it's an online class).
I believe in cheat-proof teaching--in creating situations where students don't have to cheat in order to succeed. I listen carefully to students not just when they are addressing me directly but also when they are talking to each other. I know some of the ways they cheat--for instance, having a friend do the on-line tests or copying from something on the web or faking an assignment instead of actually doing what is being requested. So, I try to make assignments that bring in the student's perspective and that have a real obvious utility for the teacher wannabe.
No matter how much we guard against cheating in terms of traditional types of assignments and assessments, it's going to happen. In my day, it was hand-copying the encyclopedia for a report and now it's getting on the web and copying and pasting someone else's writing. In my day, it was a cheat sheet hand-written in tiny print and smuggled into the test. Now it's text messaging a friend.
We can either continue to up the ante on security or we can get out of the game altogether and find things for students to do that are meaningful, interesting, and useful. Most students don't cheat on those activities.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Easy and hard teaching
There are two things that are usually easy for anyone who wants to be a teacher: teaching people whose learning styles are the same as yours and teaching anything that you struggled to learn.
As we grow up, we learn about our own learning processes. We learn where our strengths are and we learn how to deal with our particular set of deficits. As we learn to teach, our starting point is to think about ourselves as learners and to try to create lessons that we would have responded to when we were children or young adults. We tend to go at the pace that we learn best with and to provide the amount of detail that we would have needed in order to understand the concept. We use media that we are most comfortable with.
Likewise, if we have struggled with something, we know what it feels like to struggle and we also are aware of misconceptions we had or areas of weakness we had to overcome in order to learn that subject. We know where we made mistakes and how we learned to get around those mistakes.
The hard part of teaching is teaching people who are fundamentally different from us and to teach things that are easy for us.
When I speak of differences, I am concerned with how people think, which can be related to culture, history, and language but also psychology and neurology. Current attempts at teaching people to teach a diverse population continue to essentialize and stereotype people. I think it might be better to understand that people, whatever they look like, are going to have different patterns of thinking, different personalities, and different educational needs. It might be more fruitful to ask ourselves: what is the nature of this student's thinking? What does this student understand? What does this student misunderstand? How does this person learn? Given everything I have learned about teaching and learning, how can I create a successful learning experience for this person? This means using strategies, paces, and means of learning that are different from our own preferences.
Likewise, when teaching something that we found easy, we have to learn about where the struggles are for students who don't find it easy. We have to watch ourselves and guard against a negative attitude towards people who don't find a particular topic (or even a lot of topics) easy. We have to use our own struggles in other subjects to help us remember what it feels like to be frustrated. We have to learn from other teachers and other students strategies that work for breaking a topic down or teaching key aspects of a topic that is difficult for students.
The people who go into teaching are often people who enjoyed school. We need to be able to reach out to people who don't enjoy school for one reason or another and to learn from these people in the process of teaching them.
As we grow up, we learn about our own learning processes. We learn where our strengths are and we learn how to deal with our particular set of deficits. As we learn to teach, our starting point is to think about ourselves as learners and to try to create lessons that we would have responded to when we were children or young adults. We tend to go at the pace that we learn best with and to provide the amount of detail that we would have needed in order to understand the concept. We use media that we are most comfortable with.
Likewise, if we have struggled with something, we know what it feels like to struggle and we also are aware of misconceptions we had or areas of weakness we had to overcome in order to learn that subject. We know where we made mistakes and how we learned to get around those mistakes.
The hard part of teaching is teaching people who are fundamentally different from us and to teach things that are easy for us.
When I speak of differences, I am concerned with how people think, which can be related to culture, history, and language but also psychology and neurology. Current attempts at teaching people to teach a diverse population continue to essentialize and stereotype people. I think it might be better to understand that people, whatever they look like, are going to have different patterns of thinking, different personalities, and different educational needs. It might be more fruitful to ask ourselves: what is the nature of this student's thinking? What does this student understand? What does this student misunderstand? How does this person learn? Given everything I have learned about teaching and learning, how can I create a successful learning experience for this person? This means using strategies, paces, and means of learning that are different from our own preferences.
Likewise, when teaching something that we found easy, we have to learn about where the struggles are for students who don't find it easy. We have to watch ourselves and guard against a negative attitude towards people who don't find a particular topic (or even a lot of topics) easy. We have to use our own struggles in other subjects to help us remember what it feels like to be frustrated. We have to learn from other teachers and other students strategies that work for breaking a topic down or teaching key aspects of a topic that is difficult for students.
The people who go into teaching are often people who enjoyed school. We need to be able to reach out to people who don't enjoy school for one reason or another and to learn from these people in the process of teaching them.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
The Highest Status Jobs
Our culture labels certain jobs high status. Usually these jobs pay a lot and people who have them have a lot of influence.
Let me add to that, the job of teaching. No, we're not all highly paid. Some paychecks have gotten better in the past ten years and some remain abysmal.
But our influence?
Just remember, the kids you teach today are going to be taking care of you (or not taking care of you) in the nursing home.
Let me add to that, the job of teaching. No, we're not all highly paid. Some paychecks have gotten better in the past ten years and some remain abysmal.
But our influence?
Just remember, the kids you teach today are going to be taking care of you (or not taking care of you) in the nursing home.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Teaching is such fun!!
Teaching is a performance art. When I consider my class, I think about what I can do that will get them to think differently (i.e., learn). I really enjoy this process--making plans that will surprise and delight my students. I also enjoy the actual teaching process--watching them as they interact with the ideas I bring to the classroom.
When I am with other people who feel about teaching the same way I do, we have wonderful conversations about things we have tried and what the results have been. The feeling I get is very similar to the feeling I get as a musician when the music I'm playing is going well.
I have been a teacher of one sort or another for thirty years and I am still not tired of watching people learn and being a part of people's lives in this way.
When I am with other people who feel about teaching the same way I do, we have wonderful conversations about things we have tried and what the results have been. The feeling I get is very similar to the feeling I get as a musician when the music I'm playing is going well.
I have been a teacher of one sort or another for thirty years and I am still not tired of watching people learn and being a part of people's lives in this way.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Groups
Okay, the Ed Psych book that I use in teaching says that groups are a wonderful thing. But I shared my PIA theory with my students in one class, and told me that they HATE group work. They had some good reasons!
1. It's frustrating to be given a grade on something when someone else in the group is a slacker and doesn't do any of the work.
2. It's frustrating to know that someone else's work is not up to par, but you have no control over that or the resulting grade.
3. You can't be honest with people--they bring something for you to look over and the expected response is, "this is great."
4. It's hard to schedule time with other people in a group.
5. It's a guarantee that at any given time, one or two members of a four member group are not going to be really into doing the work because they have something else they would rather do.
6. Groups are really hard on people who commute to campus and who have other jobs.
There are sound educational reasons for working in groups, namely, bringing in the dynamics Vygotsky describes. Also, a project done by a group is likely to be successful but a project done by individuals is likely to have some people not succeeding. Groups allow people to be part of something successful. I have had really wonderful group work done in classes I have taught--but I try to avoid giving group grades. I also now give students an opportunity to work by themselves if they like.
The main thing is, I think it is really important to find out what students think is a PIA and to find out how they think the goals can be achieved without the PIA factors.
1. It's frustrating to be given a grade on something when someone else in the group is a slacker and doesn't do any of the work.
2. It's frustrating to know that someone else's work is not up to par, but you have no control over that or the resulting grade.
3. You can't be honest with people--they bring something for you to look over and the expected response is, "this is great."
4. It's hard to schedule time with other people in a group.
5. It's a guarantee that at any given time, one or two members of a four member group are not going to be really into doing the work because they have something else they would rather do.
6. Groups are really hard on people who commute to campus and who have other jobs.
There are sound educational reasons for working in groups, namely, bringing in the dynamics Vygotsky describes. Also, a project done by a group is likely to be successful but a project done by individuals is likely to have some people not succeeding. Groups allow people to be part of something successful. I have had really wonderful group work done in classes I have taught--but I try to avoid giving group grades. I also now give students an opportunity to work by themselves if they like.
The main thing is, I think it is really important to find out what students think is a PIA and to find out how they think the goals can be achieved without the PIA factors.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The PIA factor
I have a new theory of teaching. It involves what I call the PIA factor, which stands for pain in the derriere, as the French say.
The higher the PIA factor is, the lower the true learning factor is. I'm not talking about regurgitated learning where the student coughs up some facts (or is able to recognize some information on a multiple choice test) and then promptly forgets everything within a week.
I'm talking about learning that is a real change in a person's thinking, learning that makes the world seem a little different to the person. To me, this is what real learning is.
So the PIA factor has an inverse correlation to true learning, as the numbers people might say.
What are PIA's? They differ according to student. One person's PIA is another person's fun activity. Some kids love flash cards and others hate them. Some love homework and others hate homework. Some students find value in tests and tests turn others off from any kind of engagement with school.
And this is the problem. There are kids who have a high tolerance for PIA's. They can crank out the book reports and term papers and worksheets. There are other students who cannot tolerate PIA's and will not learn because the PIA's become barriers for them.
Another name for PIA-sensitive students is "at-risk" students. But I think "PIA-sensitive" really gets at the issue--that meaningless activity doesn't belong in the classroom, and that we need to know enough about each student to find out what constitutes meaninglessness.
The higher the PIA factor is, the lower the true learning factor is. I'm not talking about regurgitated learning where the student coughs up some facts (or is able to recognize some information on a multiple choice test) and then promptly forgets everything within a week.
I'm talking about learning that is a real change in a person's thinking, learning that makes the world seem a little different to the person. To me, this is what real learning is.
So the PIA factor has an inverse correlation to true learning, as the numbers people might say.
What are PIA's? They differ according to student. One person's PIA is another person's fun activity. Some kids love flash cards and others hate them. Some love homework and others hate homework. Some students find value in tests and tests turn others off from any kind of engagement with school.
And this is the problem. There are kids who have a high tolerance for PIA's. They can crank out the book reports and term papers and worksheets. There are other students who cannot tolerate PIA's and will not learn because the PIA's become barriers for them.
Another name for PIA-sensitive students is "at-risk" students. But I think "PIA-sensitive" really gets at the issue--that meaningless activity doesn't belong in the classroom, and that we need to know enough about each student to find out what constitutes meaninglessness.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Same old same old
In thinking about this blog, I realize that I probably have a cranky sounding voice. I really am not a cranky person, but I perceive of our education system as being in crisis and I am really interested in being part of creating change--effective change.
I forget who said that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again in response to a problem. I always think of a colleague of mine 20 years ago who had a notebook, the front cover of which had come off. He had originally fixed it with six or so pieces of horizontal tape, from the front of the notebook, onto the spine. The original six pieces of tape had broken, so he had taped over those pieces. By the time I saw the notebook, it had a quarter of an inch of horizontal tapes on it. That's crazy.
We've done the testing thing. We've done it to death--intellectual death of millions of students. We have done the hippie granola thing (that was the biggie when I was a kid in the sixties). Not enough accountability.
Kids (and their teachers) are not french fries, so we can't just import a program that was successful 1000 miles from here. Education is a delicate art, involving the personality and interests of the educator and the educatee.
We can demand professionality on the part of teachers and not just define this as a set of behaviors that someone unprofessional can fake. Professionality is having a plan, having a sense of who individual kids are and what they need. There are plenty of documents that describe professionality. The Educational Testing "Service" does a good job with its four domains, as does INTASC. My main beef with ET"S" is how those four domains are assessed, particularly in Praxis II. Not to mention ET"S"'s virtual monopoly on gatekeeping tests across all professions and the obscene amount of money it makes from all the people who have to take those tests. But, I digress.
We know that people are far more than their external behaviors, so let's start assessing teachers this way. Let's ask them what they are thinking and as teacher educators, let's help pre-service teachers learn how to articulate their thoughts and to make thoughtful decisions.
Let's encourage teachers to use their professional judgment to address the educational needs of each student. Let's require that school administrators be equally professional. I think we can do this--moreover, I believe we must.
I forget who said that the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over again in response to a problem. I always think of a colleague of mine 20 years ago who had a notebook, the front cover of which had come off. He had originally fixed it with six or so pieces of horizontal tape, from the front of the notebook, onto the spine. The original six pieces of tape had broken, so he had taped over those pieces. By the time I saw the notebook, it had a quarter of an inch of horizontal tapes on it. That's crazy.
We've done the testing thing. We've done it to death--intellectual death of millions of students. We have done the hippie granola thing (that was the biggie when I was a kid in the sixties). Not enough accountability.
Kids (and their teachers) are not french fries, so we can't just import a program that was successful 1000 miles from here. Education is a delicate art, involving the personality and interests of the educator and the educatee.
We can demand professionality on the part of teachers and not just define this as a set of behaviors that someone unprofessional can fake. Professionality is having a plan, having a sense of who individual kids are and what they need. There are plenty of documents that describe professionality. The Educational Testing "Service" does a good job with its four domains, as does INTASC. My main beef with ET"S" is how those four domains are assessed, particularly in Praxis II. Not to mention ET"S"'s virtual monopoly on gatekeeping tests across all professions and the obscene amount of money it makes from all the people who have to take those tests. But, I digress.
We know that people are far more than their external behaviors, so let's start assessing teachers this way. Let's ask them what they are thinking and as teacher educators, let's help pre-service teachers learn how to articulate their thoughts and to make thoughtful decisions.
Let's encourage teachers to use their professional judgment to address the educational needs of each student. Let's require that school administrators be equally professional. I think we can do this--moreover, I believe we must.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Anxiety of Teachers
Teachers have always been under pressure to prove that what they are doing is worthwhile. Arts teachers (music, dance, visual arts) try to prove that the arts are valuable when the district budget is tight. English Language Arts teachers want to prove that they are teaching writing and reading. The list goes on.
What is the best way to prove you are teaching? Get the students to perform in some way. After all, as teachers, we have the right to demand this performance--that is part of the authority we have. So, we create tests, we ask students to write a term paper of a certain length with a certain number of resources, we tell students to write a book report that proves they have read the assigned books, we try to create "rigor" in our classes so we know that we are good teachers.
And we are rewarded when the handful of compliant students take the test and develop the values of trying to figure out what the teacher wants in writing the papers. These students get A's. Another group of students is less compliant, but they manage to get the job done. B's and C's. And a group of students figures that most of the assessment activities are a royal waste of time and this group doesn't do the homework, doesn't study for the tests, doesn't write the papers. F's. And yet, this group may have the smartest, most creative students in it.
So, we figure we are teaching because the majority of our students are passing our assessments and it's just a handful of unmotivated students who aren't, and that's just going to be inevitable. In behaviorist terms, we have a fairly powerful set of reinforcements in this system--you have variable rewards because not every student goes along with the system. As anyone knows who has overcome a gambling addiction, intermittent rewards reinforce a behavior far more than consistent positive rewards. Not that I am a behaviorist, but the theory does occasionally explain phenomena.
But, are they learning, or, more to the point, what are they learning? A lot of them become experts on figuring out what a teacher wants or doesn't want. The straight A students assess the teacher on the first day of class, figuring out how demanding a teacher is, how hard it will be to get that A. The straight F students might be figuring out how to make the teacher angry, which can be good sport. The C students are figuring out which of the A students might be willing to do someone else's homework.
They may even be learning content. They may be passing achievement tests. But what kind of work ethic do they have? Can they work independently? Can they pursue their own interests because they know how to find information? Can they tell the differences between an informative website and one that is biased? Can they solve novel problems?
When they are out in the world of work, they aren't going to have a boss who gives them a grade every nine weeks. They are not going to be given a bunch of information to memorize and then cough back up on a test. They aren't going to be given decontextualized facts--they are going to have to figure out things and solve problems and put new ideas together.
The fact is, getting back to the anxiety of teachers, that people were born to learn. The vast majority of people learn an extremely difficult thing before the age of three: language.
It stands to reason that given certain kinds of encouragement and flexibility, students will also learn in a classroom. The key is, different students will learn different things, which is a little hard to manage in these days of accountability and benchmarks.
Yet, the art of teaching lies in the ability of teachers to figure out their students' interests and to make connections between those interests and the curriculum. The art of teaching lies in encouraging curiosity, in teaching not TO the achievement test, but well BEYOND the test. We don't have to force students to prove something to us as the authority so we can prove something to the authorities over us. We can meet the benchmarks and help students to develop a love of learning, which is the foundation for being a productive employee in the world of work.
What is the best way to prove you are teaching? Get the students to perform in some way. After all, as teachers, we have the right to demand this performance--that is part of the authority we have. So, we create tests, we ask students to write a term paper of a certain length with a certain number of resources, we tell students to write a book report that proves they have read the assigned books, we try to create "rigor" in our classes so we know that we are good teachers.
And we are rewarded when the handful of compliant students take the test and develop the values of trying to figure out what the teacher wants in writing the papers. These students get A's. Another group of students is less compliant, but they manage to get the job done. B's and C's. And a group of students figures that most of the assessment activities are a royal waste of time and this group doesn't do the homework, doesn't study for the tests, doesn't write the papers. F's. And yet, this group may have the smartest, most creative students in it.
So, we figure we are teaching because the majority of our students are passing our assessments and it's just a handful of unmotivated students who aren't, and that's just going to be inevitable. In behaviorist terms, we have a fairly powerful set of reinforcements in this system--you have variable rewards because not every student goes along with the system. As anyone knows who has overcome a gambling addiction, intermittent rewards reinforce a behavior far more than consistent positive rewards. Not that I am a behaviorist, but the theory does occasionally explain phenomena.
But, are they learning, or, more to the point, what are they learning? A lot of them become experts on figuring out what a teacher wants or doesn't want. The straight A students assess the teacher on the first day of class, figuring out how demanding a teacher is, how hard it will be to get that A. The straight F students might be figuring out how to make the teacher angry, which can be good sport. The C students are figuring out which of the A students might be willing to do someone else's homework.
They may even be learning content. They may be passing achievement tests. But what kind of work ethic do they have? Can they work independently? Can they pursue their own interests because they know how to find information? Can they tell the differences between an informative website and one that is biased? Can they solve novel problems?
When they are out in the world of work, they aren't going to have a boss who gives them a grade every nine weeks. They are not going to be given a bunch of information to memorize and then cough back up on a test. They aren't going to be given decontextualized facts--they are going to have to figure out things and solve problems and put new ideas together.
The fact is, getting back to the anxiety of teachers, that people were born to learn. The vast majority of people learn an extremely difficult thing before the age of three: language.
It stands to reason that given certain kinds of encouragement and flexibility, students will also learn in a classroom. The key is, different students will learn different things, which is a little hard to manage in these days of accountability and benchmarks.
Yet, the art of teaching lies in the ability of teachers to figure out their students' interests and to make connections between those interests and the curriculum. The art of teaching lies in encouraging curiosity, in teaching not TO the achievement test, but well BEYOND the test. We don't have to force students to prove something to us as the authority so we can prove something to the authorities over us. We can meet the benchmarks and help students to develop a love of learning, which is the foundation for being a productive employee in the world of work.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Accountability and teaching
No Child Left Behind as a concept (not as this concept has been enacted) is a great idea. This is the first generation to make a goal of teaching every child and I think that is wonderful.
Along with that idea has come a series of standards, from professional organizations, from states, from districts. Having these standards makes sense, also. Standards challenge teachers to make sure that students get certain types of content. We do have a lot of overturn, with families moving across town or across the country, and standards can help to make sure transient kids don't miss out on important content.
Standards also can be, if used judiciously and wisely, a form of evaluation of teachers. If students are making no discernable progress in relation to standards, it is time to take a look at what is going on in a classroom or school. Maybe there are good teachers with no administrative support or maybe there are burned out teachers who have given up. In any case, these things can be remedied.
The breakdown becomes between the rock of standards and the hard place of planning a class session. It's easy to look at a math goal and then to create a lesson plan where the students are told about the concept and then given a math worksheet to practice and homework on page 56 of their textbook, do the odd-numbered problems. Or, to go onto chapter 4 of the social studies text and have the students write answers to the questions at the end of the chapter. Or to give students facts about scientific method and then a series of scientific facts about biology or geology to be on the midterm test. Or, to do the next phonics worksheet in the series to make sure that all phonics information is covered during a given period of time.
When we plan lessons this way, we can be sure that content is covered. Or can we?
Yes, in every classroom, there is a group of kids (mostly female, but some males) who will do anything the teacher asks--who will do 1000 worksheets in a year (180 days in a school year x 5.5 worksheets per day--math, science, social studies, spelling, grammar, phonics--equals 1000) and some of these kids might even learn some content this way.
But many kids will not learn this way. They don't have the psychological tolerance, for whatever reason, to cooperate with this form of teaching. Some kids are too advanced and are therefore bored and some have critical learning disabilities. Some are from families where "book learning" is less important than common sense. Some are from families (across the economic spectrum, by the way) where there are not enough organizational skills to make sure that homework gets done and then gets in the backpack to go to school. Some have neurological differences that require them to get different types of explanations than those typically given in a textbook. Etc.
What can be done? How can we ensure that content standards are being met?
This is the essential art of teaching: to take a set of content standards and to take a given classroom of individuals and to build a bridge between them. This means knowing, for example, the interests of individual kids and then having the creativity to figure out how to incorporate that interest into a series of learning activities that meet the standards. It means figuring out how students can construct knowledge and how they can take responsibility for their own learning in relation to those standards (it might mean sharing the standards and challenging the students to figure out ways of learning the material).
I do not believe that every lesson has to be a masterpiece of the art of teaching. Everyone has to learn the times tables and this is not exactly fun. But at least one really good, creative lesson a week will help students to stay engaged with the classroom when the learning is less fun.
Along with that idea has come a series of standards, from professional organizations, from states, from districts. Having these standards makes sense, also. Standards challenge teachers to make sure that students get certain types of content. We do have a lot of overturn, with families moving across town or across the country, and standards can help to make sure transient kids don't miss out on important content.
Standards also can be, if used judiciously and wisely, a form of evaluation of teachers. If students are making no discernable progress in relation to standards, it is time to take a look at what is going on in a classroom or school. Maybe there are good teachers with no administrative support or maybe there are burned out teachers who have given up. In any case, these things can be remedied.
The breakdown becomes between the rock of standards and the hard place of planning a class session. It's easy to look at a math goal and then to create a lesson plan where the students are told about the concept and then given a math worksheet to practice and homework on page 56 of their textbook, do the odd-numbered problems. Or, to go onto chapter 4 of the social studies text and have the students write answers to the questions at the end of the chapter. Or to give students facts about scientific method and then a series of scientific facts about biology or geology to be on the midterm test. Or, to do the next phonics worksheet in the series to make sure that all phonics information is covered during a given period of time.
When we plan lessons this way, we can be sure that content is covered. Or can we?
Yes, in every classroom, there is a group of kids (mostly female, but some males) who will do anything the teacher asks--who will do 1000 worksheets in a year (180 days in a school year x 5.5 worksheets per day--math, science, social studies, spelling, grammar, phonics--equals 1000) and some of these kids might even learn some content this way.
But many kids will not learn this way. They don't have the psychological tolerance, for whatever reason, to cooperate with this form of teaching. Some kids are too advanced and are therefore bored and some have critical learning disabilities. Some are from families where "book learning" is less important than common sense. Some are from families (across the economic spectrum, by the way) where there are not enough organizational skills to make sure that homework gets done and then gets in the backpack to go to school. Some have neurological differences that require them to get different types of explanations than those typically given in a textbook. Etc.
What can be done? How can we ensure that content standards are being met?
This is the essential art of teaching: to take a set of content standards and to take a given classroom of individuals and to build a bridge between them. This means knowing, for example, the interests of individual kids and then having the creativity to figure out how to incorporate that interest into a series of learning activities that meet the standards. It means figuring out how students can construct knowledge and how they can take responsibility for their own learning in relation to those standards (it might mean sharing the standards and challenging the students to figure out ways of learning the material).
I do not believe that every lesson has to be a masterpiece of the art of teaching. Everyone has to learn the times tables and this is not exactly fun. But at least one really good, creative lesson a week will help students to stay engaged with the classroom when the learning is less fun.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
If they aren't learning...
You aren't teaching.
It amazes me that people can spend all day doing something that either has no effect or has a negative effect. Yet that is what is happening in our schools.
Teaching changes people, but people only change under certain circumstances. Counseling research is actually very helpful here. Carl Rogers suggests that the therapeutic relationship should be characterized by unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence; that is, the helper needs to accept clients as people--without judgment, to be able to stand in the shoes of the clients, and to be honest.
The same is true for teaching. It is very hard to take the risk of changing, of learning something, when the teacher is judgmental, negative, or dishonest. Maslow would agree--the basic need of safety is not being met in this instance, so learning is probably not going to happen (or the learning will consist of: I don't want to go to school).
I have worked with people for a long time, across a variety of circumstances, including social services, private music lessons, and college classrooms. While there are people who are wilfully opposed to doing anything positive, most people really want to succeed at what they are doing. When they don't succeed, it is probably because they are lacking something: maybe a tool, maybe the proper understanding of the task or how to accomplish it, maybe just the belief that they are able to succeed. Yet how many teachers feel free to yell at kids under this kind of circumstance?
If they aren't learning... you aren't teaching. Why are we wasting so much time--the "teacher's" time, the students' time?
It amazes me that people can spend all day doing something that either has no effect or has a negative effect. Yet that is what is happening in our schools.
Teaching changes people, but people only change under certain circumstances. Counseling research is actually very helpful here. Carl Rogers suggests that the therapeutic relationship should be characterized by unconditional positive regard, empathy, and congruence; that is, the helper needs to accept clients as people--without judgment, to be able to stand in the shoes of the clients, and to be honest.
The same is true for teaching. It is very hard to take the risk of changing, of learning something, when the teacher is judgmental, negative, or dishonest. Maslow would agree--the basic need of safety is not being met in this instance, so learning is probably not going to happen (or the learning will consist of: I don't want to go to school).
I have worked with people for a long time, across a variety of circumstances, including social services, private music lessons, and college classrooms. While there are people who are wilfully opposed to doing anything positive, most people really want to succeed at what they are doing. When they don't succeed, it is probably because they are lacking something: maybe a tool, maybe the proper understanding of the task or how to accomplish it, maybe just the belief that they are able to succeed. Yet how many teachers feel free to yell at kids under this kind of circumstance?
If they aren't learning... you aren't teaching. Why are we wasting so much time--the "teacher's" time, the students' time?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Teaching is not a zero-sum game
I keep wondering about what people think they are doing when they try to force knowledge into peoples' heads, particularly against the will of the students. It's pretty obvious, this is not going to work. Nevertheless, we keep on with the same old tired curriculum that is designed to meet the goals which are assessed by the achievement test the state requires.
In fact, having goals and benchmarks are not so bad. Accountability is a good thing--and we need to have all kids making progress. We need to KNOW that kids are making progress, so I'm not opposed to the idea of accountability.
What I am opposed to is an accountability that uses problematic forms of assessment and that encourages zero-sum teaching.
What I mean by this is that teaching becomes an "I win you lose" zero-sum situation when the teacher is set up to have all the intellectual authority in the classroom. And in a school where there is concern about students passing achievement tests, this has a tendency to happen because it's easier to make sure specific content is covered when the teacher has all the control.
Yet this turns compliant students into automatons without intellectual curiosity, people who really don't like learning because their experience with it is that it is either boring in the process (e.g., lecture, worksheets, and test) or boring in the topic.
Noncompliant students get stuck in the ghetto of special education and drop out. Then for some strange reason, they have a tendency to get involved in drugs and other illegal activities. Or else they work under the table for less than minimum wage because they don't have a high school diploma. Our school system perpetuates the under class.
So, if I'm complaining, then surely I have some kind of answer. We all know there is a mess. The question becomes, how to clean it up.
First off, teachers and students are not robots. Currently we have the franchise model of education, where we think we can transport an educational program or curriculum from one set of people to another set of people if only we write a thorough manual and script everything the teachers do.
This is an insult to the professionality of teachers, and it also means that teachers are not required, much less encouraged, to address the individual needs of each student.
I think the fear is, if we allow teachers to "do what they want," then there will be chaos and classrooms will be very different from one another. Benchmarks won't be met and kids won't learn.
Many, many kids are not learning now. The drop out rate is appalling. I have seen kids in classrooms who were jaded in second grade and virtually uncontrollable by fourth grade.
Perhaps, if we put an emphasis on benchmarks but also meeting the needs of students and allowing schools to choose how they are going to show that their students are meeting the benchmarks, we might be better off. Yes, there are some teachers who cannot handle this level of responsibility, who cannot meet the needs of all the learners in the class. But with the scripted programs, NONE of the teachers are meeting the needs. With more choices for teachers about how they teach and more respect for the teacher's professionality, perhaps more children will be learning.
Education is a cooperative activity in the final analysis. It's not "banking pedagogy" as Friere said, where the teacher makes a deposit in the head of the student. Benchmarks can be met AND children can learn to make good decisions about how they learn. Instead of zero-sum, we can have win-win.
In fact, having goals and benchmarks are not so bad. Accountability is a good thing--and we need to have all kids making progress. We need to KNOW that kids are making progress, so I'm not opposed to the idea of accountability.
What I am opposed to is an accountability that uses problematic forms of assessment and that encourages zero-sum teaching.
What I mean by this is that teaching becomes an "I win you lose" zero-sum situation when the teacher is set up to have all the intellectual authority in the classroom. And in a school where there is concern about students passing achievement tests, this has a tendency to happen because it's easier to make sure specific content is covered when the teacher has all the control.
Yet this turns compliant students into automatons without intellectual curiosity, people who really don't like learning because their experience with it is that it is either boring in the process (e.g., lecture, worksheets, and test) or boring in the topic.
Noncompliant students get stuck in the ghetto of special education and drop out. Then for some strange reason, they have a tendency to get involved in drugs and other illegal activities. Or else they work under the table for less than minimum wage because they don't have a high school diploma. Our school system perpetuates the under class.
So, if I'm complaining, then surely I have some kind of answer. We all know there is a mess. The question becomes, how to clean it up.
First off, teachers and students are not robots. Currently we have the franchise model of education, where we think we can transport an educational program or curriculum from one set of people to another set of people if only we write a thorough manual and script everything the teachers do.
This is an insult to the professionality of teachers, and it also means that teachers are not required, much less encouraged, to address the individual needs of each student.
I think the fear is, if we allow teachers to "do what they want," then there will be chaos and classrooms will be very different from one another. Benchmarks won't be met and kids won't learn.
Many, many kids are not learning now. The drop out rate is appalling. I have seen kids in classrooms who were jaded in second grade and virtually uncontrollable by fourth grade.
Perhaps, if we put an emphasis on benchmarks but also meeting the needs of students and allowing schools to choose how they are going to show that their students are meeting the benchmarks, we might be better off. Yes, there are some teachers who cannot handle this level of responsibility, who cannot meet the needs of all the learners in the class. But with the scripted programs, NONE of the teachers are meeting the needs. With more choices for teachers about how they teach and more respect for the teacher's professionality, perhaps more children will be learning.
Education is a cooperative activity in the final analysis. It's not "banking pedagogy" as Friere said, where the teacher makes a deposit in the head of the student. Benchmarks can be met AND children can learn to make good decisions about how they learn. Instead of zero-sum, we can have win-win.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Who am I?
In the best tradition of the internet, I'm not revealing personal data, however, I am a teacher at a small mid-western college. I say a teacher because I believe that is different from being a professor. A professor is a person who professes, which implies lecturing. Instead, I teach, which implies trying to be part of people learning, however that learning takes place.
It's an honor to be part of my college students' lives, on their way to becoming teachers; my students will be elementary teachers or music teachers. I try to model effective teaching, the kind of teaching I want my students to do, the kind of teaching that addresses the whole lives of students. I'm constantly tinkering with my courses, trying to figure out better ways to do things.
I find teaching to be infintely fascinating. I enjoy having conversations with people about teaching, particularly about lessons that were a challenge to teach and that worked! I like to set challenges for myself and my students and then work to reach those challenges, such as a performing arts project.
One of the things I am thinking about is the generation I am teaching now. While I do occasionally have older students (whom I really appreciate because they bring maturity and experience to my classroom), most of my students are between 18 and 21. In this age of accountability, these students have grown up with achievement tests and consequently, a lot of "teaching to the test." While my juniors and seniors don't show a lack of interest in their coursework, my younger students do. Particularly, when there is something where I have to do a little talking to share some information, I can see their eyes glaze over. Also, they really don't seem to like the Socratic method of my asking questions in an effort to get a discussion going.
So, my current quest is to think about ways of getting information across in the context of a mostly hands-on class (it's a class on the arts).
It's an honor to be part of my college students' lives, on their way to becoming teachers; my students will be elementary teachers or music teachers. I try to model effective teaching, the kind of teaching I want my students to do, the kind of teaching that addresses the whole lives of students. I'm constantly tinkering with my courses, trying to figure out better ways to do things.
I find teaching to be infintely fascinating. I enjoy having conversations with people about teaching, particularly about lessons that were a challenge to teach and that worked! I like to set challenges for myself and my students and then work to reach those challenges, such as a performing arts project.
One of the things I am thinking about is the generation I am teaching now. While I do occasionally have older students (whom I really appreciate because they bring maturity and experience to my classroom), most of my students are between 18 and 21. In this age of accountability, these students have grown up with achievement tests and consequently, a lot of "teaching to the test." While my juniors and seniors don't show a lack of interest in their coursework, my younger students do. Particularly, when there is something where I have to do a little talking to share some information, I can see their eyes glaze over. Also, they really don't seem to like the Socratic method of my asking questions in an effort to get a discussion going.
So, my current quest is to think about ways of getting information across in the context of a mostly hands-on class (it's a class on the arts).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)