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.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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)