Isn't it amazing that in so many of our readings, the authors give voice to what common sense, teaching experience, instinct, and basic knowlege of the educational process has already told us? While I read, I keep thinking, "Well, of course." But the authors, and often Brian in his podcasts, put into concrete words and bring into focus nebulous ideas that have been floating around in my head for years. I know what I teach, but now I know WHY I teach it the way I do. Some of the ideas in this week's readings sort of lend authority to what we all do by experience and instinct. Scaffolding can be as simple as asking a harder follow-up question leading the student from what he or she knows to what he/she doesn't know, but can know with a little bit of direction.
The idea of Zone of Proximal Development is the idea of starting where they are at and going from there. That is not an easy thing to do especially on the high school level where the students are scattered from pre-operational to formal operations, but is never-the-less extremely important. How can a student start far beyond their own level? In high school, the only result a teacher gets from that is students melting onto their desks followed by deep breathing, drool on desks, and snoring.
Of course, I can't let a blog go by without complaining about the biggest obstacle I have to being a better teacher: class size. How do we cover classes of 40 to 45 students per class? How do we get a Zone of Proximal Development for all our students without spending hours upon hours just getting that one thing? How do we tailor our lessons to what our students need when it is a challenge just to get all their names memorized? It drives me crazy. I don't see an answer to this anywhere from anyone. I hate the fact that I have to aim my lessons toward what I hope is the mid-range of all my students, guessing and hoping that a majority will gain something from what I am teaching. It doesn't help that our administration is telling us that we will have 50 students a class next year. I'm going to have to hang them from the lights just to fit them in the room.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Bruner
I have to write my experience with this reading. I had to go to a "training session" for a large upcoming community event that involves a silent auction that raises a great deal of money. I am one of the people who helps with this auction by being an auctioneer of sorts. I've done this now for about 7 years and I know the procedures very well. But I still am required to go to this training. So I took my Bruner readings to the training session in an attempt to use valuable time productively. I settled into a large room with many others, all adults, and began reading as the trainer went through a Power Point and taught the procedures for this auction. I mostly tuned out the trainer and focused on my readings, but would occasionally look up just for some basic awareness.
The training was not going well. People were deeply confused. Now the trainer apparently was not a trained teacher (at least I hope not!). I began to contrast what the trainer was doing and what Bruner had written and could not help but notice that the trainer was violating every principle Bruner promoted. There was no attempt to predispose the audience to learn, no structure that I could find, the sequencing was disastrous with the trainer going back and forth, and the only intrinsic reward was the hope of avoiding looking like a fool. There was no enactive or iconic representations, even in the Power Point, only symbolic. The training should have lasted about 20 minutes but went on for about 75 minutes, because of no economy whatsoever.
I don't mean to pick on this trainer, but the contrast was remarkable. Now Bruner himself says that we really can't learn something well by showing what it is not. But I could not help but notice that good teaching is a rare thing outside of school. I also have no doubt I will be doing a great deal of on-the-spot training during this auction.
Another point I want to bring up out of the Bruner readings is the idea of vertical teaming in relation to the sequencing of our curriculum, the stages of enaction, iconic, and symbolic, and the interface of Piaget's stages of development. Vertical teaming is the idea that every high school department meets with the corresponding department of every middle school and elementary school that feeds into that high school. Imagine what could be the result if this could happen on a regular basis with every teacher understanding Bruner's and Piaget's ideas. One of the things high school teachers deal with is that we can't always teach on a high school level because the kids aren't always thinking on the high school level. Could vertical teaming change this? I don't know but I would like to try it.
Another point I really liked in Bruner is the idea that, "giving the material to them [students] in terms they understand... turns out to involve knowing the mathematics oneself, and the better one knows it, the better it can be taught." Amen and Amen. And this applies to every subject. No one can teach what they do not know and know very well. And, I would add, knowing how to teach what they know. Knowledge of subject is essential; knowledge of how to teach that subject is just as essential.
The training was not going well. People were deeply confused. Now the trainer apparently was not a trained teacher (at least I hope not!). I began to contrast what the trainer was doing and what Bruner had written and could not help but notice that the trainer was violating every principle Bruner promoted. There was no attempt to predispose the audience to learn, no structure that I could find, the sequencing was disastrous with the trainer going back and forth, and the only intrinsic reward was the hope of avoiding looking like a fool. There was no enactive or iconic representations, even in the Power Point, only symbolic. The training should have lasted about 20 minutes but went on for about 75 minutes, because of no economy whatsoever.
I don't mean to pick on this trainer, but the contrast was remarkable. Now Bruner himself says that we really can't learn something well by showing what it is not. But I could not help but notice that good teaching is a rare thing outside of school. I also have no doubt I will be doing a great deal of on-the-spot training during this auction.
Another point I want to bring up out of the Bruner readings is the idea of vertical teaming in relation to the sequencing of our curriculum, the stages of enaction, iconic, and symbolic, and the interface of Piaget's stages of development. Vertical teaming is the idea that every high school department meets with the corresponding department of every middle school and elementary school that feeds into that high school. Imagine what could be the result if this could happen on a regular basis with every teacher understanding Bruner's and Piaget's ideas. One of the things high school teachers deal with is that we can't always teach on a high school level because the kids aren't always thinking on the high school level. Could vertical teaming change this? I don't know but I would like to try it.
Another point I really liked in Bruner is the idea that, "giving the material to them [students] in terms they understand... turns out to involve knowing the mathematics oneself, and the better one knows it, the better it can be taught." Amen and Amen. And this applies to every subject. No one can teach what they do not know and know very well. And, I would add, knowing how to teach what they know. Knowledge of subject is essential; knowledge of how to teach that subject is just as essential.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Situated Cognition
Learning is doing and doing is learning. I have always questioned the idea that we take kids during their highest energy levels and stick them in desks for eight hours a day and then expect them to sit still and listen. Sounds like a recipe for failure doesn't it? But I have never found an alternative for where I have ever taught that works. Between overloaded, huge classes, poor funding, and the lack of support, nothing of this type is actually working. I do not doubt the theory because I have seen it work for me and many others, e.g.-student teaching.
We have had community based internships, school-to-work coordinators, and many apprenticeship-like programs for years in the schools. Very, very few students ever participate. I am sure there are many reasons why, but the answer I get most often is that the students have no idea what area they would do an internship in. Despite continual career classes and emphasis, (most of which is a waste of time when done previous to high school) most kids graduate with little or no idea of what they are going to be "when they grow up." Think of this: how many times did you change your major when you were in college? Some of the ones that do have some idea, pick fields they are unsuited for. I have a 12th grade student aide right now who says she is going to be an opthalmologist. She has a terrible time with math, biology, and chemistry. She is actually behind her peers in terms of the level of classes she is taking in each of those subjects. Her grades are very mediocre. No one wants to discourage her so no one says a word about it.
As a teacher I am constantly struggling with how I bring history to life. No teacher wants a time travel machine more than I do. We do a lot of historical research. I hope that is hands on and I try to spend enough time with each individual student to know what will actually matter to them. For example, I had a student who was Latino and very much into her culture. For a research paper I suggested doing a paper on the 212th Coastal Artillery in World War II. This regiment came from New Mexico and was predominantly Hispanic. They were sent to the Philippine Island where they were surrendered and they became prisoners of war with a terrible loss of life. But I fear that is more following her interests rather than actual situated learning.
I have no doubt that situated cognition is vitally important to learning. I hope to learn more as I read other people's lesson plans and gain some ideas.
We have had community based internships, school-to-work coordinators, and many apprenticeship-like programs for years in the schools. Very, very few students ever participate. I am sure there are many reasons why, but the answer I get most often is that the students have no idea what area they would do an internship in. Despite continual career classes and emphasis, (most of which is a waste of time when done previous to high school) most kids graduate with little or no idea of what they are going to be "when they grow up." Think of this: how many times did you change your major when you were in college? Some of the ones that do have some idea, pick fields they are unsuited for. I have a 12th grade student aide right now who says she is going to be an opthalmologist. She has a terrible time with math, biology, and chemistry. She is actually behind her peers in terms of the level of classes she is taking in each of those subjects. Her grades are very mediocre. No one wants to discourage her so no one says a word about it.
As a teacher I am constantly struggling with how I bring history to life. No teacher wants a time travel machine more than I do. We do a lot of historical research. I hope that is hands on and I try to spend enough time with each individual student to know what will actually matter to them. For example, I had a student who was Latino and very much into her culture. For a research paper I suggested doing a paper on the 212th Coastal Artillery in World War II. This regiment came from New Mexico and was predominantly Hispanic. They were sent to the Philippine Island where they were surrendered and they became prisoners of war with a terrible loss of life. But I fear that is more following her interests rather than actual situated learning.
I have no doubt that situated cognition is vitally important to learning. I hope to learn more as I read other people's lesson plans and gain some ideas.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Teaching and storytelling
At last!! I've found a respected educational researcher who verifies what I've thought and done for years. Roger Schank is so controversial yet I find myself in agreement with him much of the time. Now remember, I am a history and English teacher. I've taught several other subjects - math, health, P.E., and a host of others, but principally, history and English.
I am a storyteller. I say that to my students at the start of every year. The literature aspect of English is a no-brainer in terms of storytelling. But think about the word history - HIS - STORY. Now excusing the gender bias, history is the story of mankind meeting human needs and wants. I tell my students that history is not dates or even names or places. History is stories that happen to be true (hopefully). The dates, names and places come automatically if the story is interesting enough. Making it interesting enough is my job. I can't show history as it happens like a chemistry lab; I can't take these kids to the places history happened. There are simulations, most of which are a waste of time. All I can do is tell the story in the right way, using technology such as films, websites, and the Internet to help.
Every great teacher uses stories. Aesop, Confucius, Buddha, Christ, Plato, as well as some of the readings we have been doing such as Piaget. In fact, without the stories, Piaget would be very difficult to understand. (And after reading this week's readings I now understand Brian when he says that for Piaget, things get lost in translation. A master's in French - my hat's off to you.)Everyone loves a good story and storytelling has been the means of education since humans learned language.
This brings me, at last, to the second key to teaching that my mentor, Willard Jessop, taught me. (I told the first key in my first blog entry.) He was one of the greatest teachers this state has ever seen. He told me, "Lorna, to be a good teacher, you have to be at least half an actor. Every time you stand up to teach, it somewhat of a performance. And it has to be a good performance. Your students have to come to believe you and trust you." I believe this is true and I've worked for years to become a good classroom actor. When I tell a story, I am dramatic, I use strong words, I express emotion. If I am talking about someone in history who did something stupid, I express dismay, disappointment, and anger. On the other I hand, I cheer the successes and achievements.
Don't think I am like this by nature; I'm not, but I have remembered Mr. Jessop and worked to be that actor. I have often wondered what my own kids would think of me if they saw me teach because I am a different person in the classroom. But I have no trouble holding my students' attention. My biggest problem is keeping up the energy to do this.
I am a storyteller. I say that to my students at the start of every year. The literature aspect of English is a no-brainer in terms of storytelling. But think about the word history - HIS - STORY. Now excusing the gender bias, history is the story of mankind meeting human needs and wants. I tell my students that history is not dates or even names or places. History is stories that happen to be true (hopefully). The dates, names and places come automatically if the story is interesting enough. Making it interesting enough is my job. I can't show history as it happens like a chemistry lab; I can't take these kids to the places history happened. There are simulations, most of which are a waste of time. All I can do is tell the story in the right way, using technology such as films, websites, and the Internet to help.
Every great teacher uses stories. Aesop, Confucius, Buddha, Christ, Plato, as well as some of the readings we have been doing such as Piaget. In fact, without the stories, Piaget would be very difficult to understand. (And after reading this week's readings I now understand Brian when he says that for Piaget, things get lost in translation. A master's in French - my hat's off to you.)Everyone loves a good story and storytelling has been the means of education since humans learned language.
This brings me, at last, to the second key to teaching that my mentor, Willard Jessop, taught me. (I told the first key in my first blog entry.) He was one of the greatest teachers this state has ever seen. He told me, "Lorna, to be a good teacher, you have to be at least half an actor. Every time you stand up to teach, it somewhat of a performance. And it has to be a good performance. Your students have to come to believe you and trust you." I believe this is true and I've worked for years to become a good classroom actor. When I tell a story, I am dramatic, I use strong words, I express emotion. If I am talking about someone in history who did something stupid, I express dismay, disappointment, and anger. On the other I hand, I cheer the successes and achievements.
Don't think I am like this by nature; I'm not, but I have remembered Mr. Jessop and worked to be that actor. I have often wondered what my own kids would think of me if they saw me teach because I am a different person in the classroom. But I have no trouble holding my students' attention. My biggest problem is keeping up the energy to do this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)