Hello again, Everyone!
I would like to touch briefly this morning on a point that Atwell brings up in chapter 6: Minilessons. Atwell begins by talking about third graders and how they begin to become aware of their audience when they are completing creative works and how instead of creating work that is based in their creativity and spontaneity, they begin to create works that they believe are acceptable to their audience (i.e. teachers, peers, parents, etc.). Piaget refers to this phase of a child's development as sociocentricity. Whereas when they were second graders- free to express themselves with creativity and little fear of judgment- by the time they hit this state of sociocentricity they cater their work to the criteria they expect their work to be judged by.
Now, skipping ahead ten years. How do we get students to re-capture that creative flair they had in their youth and undo years of writing to please the teacher. Well, the anwser is: We don't. You see, there is no way to go back and change ten years worth of influence and adjustment. YET, there is still something that can be done as a high school teacher to undo some of the damage. We can create assignments with rubrics that are clearly understood by the students that call for a recapturing of that creative spark of the students' youth.
I understand that not every assignment can be a creative assignment. There is still the need to teach and assess students' understanding of formal writing styles such as book reports. But when we do assign a creative project or writing piece, we can establish clear expectations in the rubric that creativity and spontaneity of thought are important elements of the grading system for that assignment. If a teacher is able to show the students that these sorts of assignments are not just a trick to give them a bad grade, but a chance to really let their creativity flow unhampered, I believe that we may see more success when trying to get students to show some of their creative flair in their assignments. Once again, the key to this, I believe, is giving the students a rubric that shows how heavily stressed creativity is and then reiterating in class the large degree of creative freedom they have to write/present creative works. This may give them the confidence and security they need to relax a little and let their creativity flow.
These are my thoughts. Tell me what you think. And, as always, Keep it classy Kent State.
-Sam
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Blog #3 - Myers Article
Hello again, Everyone.
I would like to begin today's blog by saying: It's good to see how far we've come. In Myers article sent to us via email from Dr. Kist, an excerpt from Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English and Literacy, Myers writes about some of the more antiquated tactics (to say the least) used by teachers to teach discipline and naturalization of American culture to students.
Myers writes that a very popular role of the teacher was "Drillmaster", a role in which the teacher would lead students through the lesson- providing the students only with the information the teacher deemed appropriate. Much more interesting than the role of the teacher in the classroom were the methods that teachers of the time employed to teach their lessons to students.
One method Myers gives us is called the "toe-the-line" method. This method required that students stand perfectly erect, with good posture, and read aloud to the class. This exercies was intended to increase students' mastery of volume control and oral recitation. And while yes, this is a somewhat silly sounding exercise, I believe that we still see its subtler applications in schools today. I remember many times when growing up when I would have to read aloud to the class for a length of time, whether it be for an in-class reading activity or reciting our papers to the class, we had to read aloud on many occasions throughout the school year.
Another tactic used by these "old-time" educators was a method used for voice control, called the "spelling board". The spelling board was a chalkboard, fixed on a fulcrum and able to spin, that the teacher would use to facilitate spelling lessons. If the board were positioned upright- students were to spell words quietly to themselves; if the boad was angled- in a low voice; if the board was flipped- students were allowed to shout the spelling words as loud as they liked. This kind of concept seems strikingly similar to methods I've seen used since I've began my student teaching. I haven't busted out any of my old pedigogy texts to sift through countless pages in order to bring this method's name to light for all of you; but I can describe it to you. The main idea that I see in this "old-time" method and what I've seen in our modern schools is this: It's a good idea to let students to raise a ruckus on occasion when it is discretely sanctioned by the teacher to do so. In other words, students often tend to be restless and easily distracted in school. If they are allowed to relieve some of that restlessness they will be more apt to pay attention when they are brought back to focus by the teacher. So, the teacher permits, rather encourages, the students to be loud and boisterous for a controlled length of time.
The third tactic used by the teachers of yester-year were mouth-movement exercises. This was an exercise in which the students would move their mouths to form all the basic sounds of the English language. Students with the best "mouth wagging" abilities would be complemented on their good form.
The interesting thing about all of these strategies in how "lower-order" they are in relation to Bloom's Taxonomy. Basically, the ideas only require that students be able to recite text, complete basic oratory motor functions such as voice control and sound articulation, and recall basic facts or lines of text from memory. These srategies reflected the notion of education at the time: Teachers are distributors of knowledge and students are to retain what they are taught and be able to recall it.
I think that it's safe to say that, in general, today's teachers have come a long way since the "oldin-days" of education. Thank goodness. Although, you will see a lot of similar exercises still used in modern ESL classrooms.
Keep it classy, Kent State.
-Sam
I would like to begin today's blog by saying: It's good to see how far we've come. In Myers article sent to us via email from Dr. Kist, an excerpt from Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English and Literacy, Myers writes about some of the more antiquated tactics (to say the least) used by teachers to teach discipline and naturalization of American culture to students.
Myers writes that a very popular role of the teacher was "Drillmaster", a role in which the teacher would lead students through the lesson- providing the students only with the information the teacher deemed appropriate. Much more interesting than the role of the teacher in the classroom were the methods that teachers of the time employed to teach their lessons to students.
One method Myers gives us is called the "toe-the-line" method. This method required that students stand perfectly erect, with good posture, and read aloud to the class. This exercies was intended to increase students' mastery of volume control and oral recitation. And while yes, this is a somewhat silly sounding exercise, I believe that we still see its subtler applications in schools today. I remember many times when growing up when I would have to read aloud to the class for a length of time, whether it be for an in-class reading activity or reciting our papers to the class, we had to read aloud on many occasions throughout the school year.
Another tactic used by these "old-time" educators was a method used for voice control, called the "spelling board". The spelling board was a chalkboard, fixed on a fulcrum and able to spin, that the teacher would use to facilitate spelling lessons. If the board were positioned upright- students were to spell words quietly to themselves; if the boad was angled- in a low voice; if the board was flipped- students were allowed to shout the spelling words as loud as they liked. This kind of concept seems strikingly similar to methods I've seen used since I've began my student teaching. I haven't busted out any of my old pedigogy texts to sift through countless pages in order to bring this method's name to light for all of you; but I can describe it to you. The main idea that I see in this "old-time" method and what I've seen in our modern schools is this: It's a good idea to let students to raise a ruckus on occasion when it is discretely sanctioned by the teacher to do so. In other words, students often tend to be restless and easily distracted in school. If they are allowed to relieve some of that restlessness they will be more apt to pay attention when they are brought back to focus by the teacher. So, the teacher permits, rather encourages, the students to be loud and boisterous for a controlled length of time.
The third tactic used by the teachers of yester-year were mouth-movement exercises. This was an exercise in which the students would move their mouths to form all the basic sounds of the English language. Students with the best "mouth wagging" abilities would be complemented on their good form.
The interesting thing about all of these strategies in how "lower-order" they are in relation to Bloom's Taxonomy. Basically, the ideas only require that students be able to recite text, complete basic oratory motor functions such as voice control and sound articulation, and recall basic facts or lines of text from memory. These srategies reflected the notion of education at the time: Teachers are distributors of knowledge and students are to retain what they are taught and be able to recall it.
I think that it's safe to say that, in general, today's teachers have come a long way since the "oldin-days" of education. Thank goodness. Although, you will see a lot of similar exercises still used in modern ESL classrooms.
Keep it classy, Kent State.
-Sam
Monday, September 20, 2010
Blog #2 - In the Middle
Hello again Everyone,
Today I would like to talk a little about what Atwell has to say in Section 4 of her book, In the Middle: New Understandings about Writing, Reading, and Learning. Atwell begins the portion in section 4, Establishing Expectations, by saying that she has been teaching long enough know that a teacher shouldn't expect students' writings to be at the level of an adult. She says, "Although it would be nice some year to have perfect classes that intuited how to engage as writers and readers... it hasn't happened yet, and I'm not holding my breath."
Then, much to my suprise, Atwell extablishes an extensive list of expectations for writing that are hard even me, an adult and proficient writer, to grasp the breadth of. A few of the expectations are what I would consider to be reasonable for high school students: Find topics and purposes for your writing that matter to you; try new topics, purposes audiences, forms, and techniques; listen to, ask questions about, and comment on others' writings.
But I noticed that she a couple of expectations that seem pretty weighty for high school students. These include expectations such as: Produce at least three to five pages of rough draft each week; create a handbook of writing and reading minilessons, recorded chronologically, with a table of contents; keep an individual proofreading list that you check your writing against when you edit and proofread.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel that some of these are asking a lot of students. This would definitely be a blog that I would like to see replies to because I would like to see what the rest of you think on the matter.
Sam P.
Today I would like to talk a little about what Atwell has to say in Section 4 of her book, In the Middle: New Understandings about Writing, Reading, and Learning. Atwell begins the portion in section 4, Establishing Expectations, by saying that she has been teaching long enough know that a teacher shouldn't expect students' writings to be at the level of an adult. She says, "Although it would be nice some year to have perfect classes that intuited how to engage as writers and readers... it hasn't happened yet, and I'm not holding my breath."
Then, much to my suprise, Atwell extablishes an extensive list of expectations for writing that are hard even me, an adult and proficient writer, to grasp the breadth of. A few of the expectations are what I would consider to be reasonable for high school students: Find topics and purposes for your writing that matter to you; try new topics, purposes audiences, forms, and techniques; listen to, ask questions about, and comment on others' writings.
But I noticed that she a couple of expectations that seem pretty weighty for high school students. These include expectations such as: Produce at least three to five pages of rough draft each week; create a handbook of writing and reading minilessons, recorded chronologically, with a table of contents; keep an individual proofreading list that you check your writing against when you edit and proofread.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel that some of these are asking a lot of students. This would definitely be a blog that I would like to see replies to because I would like to see what the rest of you think on the matter.
Sam P.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Blog #1 - In the Middle
Hello again all,
I know, I know- it's been way too long since we've conversed. But the good news is that now we're back in full-force, and ready to become full-fledged teachers!
In my first blog of the new school year I would like to address the very first page of Nancie Atwell's book, In the Middle: New Understanding About Writing, Reading, and Learning. No, this is not a ploy meant to avoid any type of lengthy reading. It just so happens that I feel that the book opens with one of the most important point to learn when trying to become a better teacher. And here is that point, as recollected by Atwell in her book:
"I didn't learn in my classroom. I tended my creation (her curriculum). Today I learn in my classroom... I've become an evolutionist."
The reason that I believe that this quote is so important is because I have spent the last several weeks witnessing first-hand the validity of this statement. Watching my cooperating teacher do her lessons, and even facilitating a few lessons myself, I have seen that no matter how much myself or my superior may feel that a lesson is going to be a smash hit, sometimes it may crash and burn in epic flames. This is why it is so important to be able to adjust and evolve your lesson in mid-stride. I've even learned that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to completely scrap a lesson and head in a entirely new direction with it. The reason good teachers will make these adjustments to their precious, sacred lesson plans is because: It is not about you as the teacher. It is about the student and their learning.
If an element of a lesson is not working, and you know it, it is an injustice to the students to continue without making some attempt to make the lesson work for the students. This definitely takes a little bit of humility and quick thinking on a teachers part, but ultimately it is a teachers job to do what it takes to make sure that the lesson is learned, not just taught. At least that is my take on it anyway.
Signing off for this week, this is Sam P., and as always- Keep it classy Kent State!
I know, I know- it's been way too long since we've conversed. But the good news is that now we're back in full-force, and ready to become full-fledged teachers!
In my first blog of the new school year I would like to address the very first page of Nancie Atwell's book, In the Middle: New Understanding About Writing, Reading, and Learning. No, this is not a ploy meant to avoid any type of lengthy reading. It just so happens that I feel that the book opens with one of the most important point to learn when trying to become a better teacher. And here is that point, as recollected by Atwell in her book:
"I didn't learn in my classroom. I tended my creation (her curriculum). Today I learn in my classroom... I've become an evolutionist."
The reason that I believe that this quote is so important is because I have spent the last several weeks witnessing first-hand the validity of this statement. Watching my cooperating teacher do her lessons, and even facilitating a few lessons myself, I have seen that no matter how much myself or my superior may feel that a lesson is going to be a smash hit, sometimes it may crash and burn in epic flames. This is why it is so important to be able to adjust and evolve your lesson in mid-stride. I've even learned that in certain circumstances it may be necessary to completely scrap a lesson and head in a entirely new direction with it. The reason good teachers will make these adjustments to their precious, sacred lesson plans is because: It is not about you as the teacher. It is about the student and their learning.
If an element of a lesson is not working, and you know it, it is an injustice to the students to continue without making some attempt to make the lesson work for the students. This definitely takes a little bit of humility and quick thinking on a teachers part, but ultimately it is a teachers job to do what it takes to make sure that the lesson is learned, not just taught. At least that is my take on it anyway.
Signing off for this week, this is Sam P., and as always- Keep it classy Kent State!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)