I did a lesson in class last night. We did a Webquest. We were talking about General Semantics. The very quick and dirty definition is "the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory."
If you go to this site and search for General Semantics, you'll see the web inquiry, or Webquest. I linked to articles from different media outlets concerning Tom DeLay's indictment. It was interesting because each source used a different picture and they definitely used different language. For instance, the Fox News headline was something like "DeLay Charge Ammo for Dems," which definitely put a different spin on things. You can make these webquests for any topic. You can give the student a guiding question and several sites, and then ask them to find the pattern or interpret the information. Good technique, I think.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Teaching
Teaching is an interesting activity isn't it. There are good days and bad. I don't know if this one is good or bad. Something I was reading the other day was talking about sharing your approach to teaching. There are a lot of different approaches and it is important to make yours explicit. I wish I could remember what I was reading. I had two students come in and one of them said that half of my class is really happy with how things are going and half if frustrated. I can kind of sense this in class sometimes. I noticed in that some students want me to tell them exactly what to do. Some students feel very focused on the grade. I guess I haven't made me approach explicit. I think I did a better job in high school, although it is always difficult to teach a class for the first time. If you do all of the work and do it well, you get an A. Don't worry about the grade because then you are missing the point. So, how do I tell them the story of my approach. I used to worry about grading all of the time, and then I would sit down with a student who got a C (and I felt bad that they got a C), and he or she would say, "Gosh, thank goodness I got a C. That's all I really wanted." Or, I started noticing that before I added grades I could kind of "tell" what grade people would have.
I think I'm going to have them create a schedule for me. What do I want turned in? Unit plan. discovery notebook with everything, inquiry paper,
a couple of things I will ask for--a reflection on the lessons, a mid-semester reflection, a self-evaluation, a reflection on their reading autobiography.
I think I'm going to have them create a schedule for me. What do I want turned in? Unit plan. discovery notebook with everything, inquiry paper,
a couple of things I will ask for--a reflection on the lessons, a mid-semester reflection, a self-evaluation, a reflection on their reading autobiography.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Burke
"This aspect of identification, whereby one can protect an interest merely by using terms not incisive enough to criticize it properly, often bring rhetoric to the edge of cunning" (p. 36). Burke gives an example of politicians doing this, but he also brings up that "Whatever the falsity in overplaying a role, there may be honesty in the assuming of that role in itself; and the overplaying may be but a translation into a different medium of communication, a way of amplifying a statement so that it carries better to a large or distant audience" (p. 36).
I think he is saying that if we use the rhetoric as persuasion, even if we are seemingly against what we are supporting, we might actually come to believe it, and we aren't even being dishonest. It may appear that the politician cares for his or her constituents, and in fact, the politician may care a litte, but act like she cares a lot. Burke says that she is not dishonest, only carried away with the role in an effor to have the message heard to a large audience.
You'll probably think I'm pretty naive here. Although I do not, generally, trust politicians, I never felt like many were blatantly lying through their teeth. Unfortunately, as I type this, I'm thinking about former President Clinton. When he lied about what's-her-name, he was not feeling rhetorically dishonest, if you look at what Burke says.
I picked the quote about "terms not incisive enough" because I think about the language we use that is not very clear. Politicians or people in general talk about ideas so abstractly without grounding the ideas in concrete examples that a debate turns into a swirl of words where nothing gets accomplished because you can't really put your finger or argue what they say because there really is no substance. I thought of Hayakawa.
I think he is saying that if we use the rhetoric as persuasion, even if we are seemingly against what we are supporting, we might actually come to believe it, and we aren't even being dishonest. It may appear that the politician cares for his or her constituents, and in fact, the politician may care a litte, but act like she cares a lot. Burke says that she is not dishonest, only carried away with the role in an effor to have the message heard to a large audience.
You'll probably think I'm pretty naive here. Although I do not, generally, trust politicians, I never felt like many were blatantly lying through their teeth. Unfortunately, as I type this, I'm thinking about former President Clinton. When he lied about what's-her-name, he was not feeling rhetorically dishonest, if you look at what Burke says.
I picked the quote about "terms not incisive enough" because I think about the language we use that is not very clear. Politicians or people in general talk about ideas so abstractly without grounding the ideas in concrete examples that a debate turns into a swirl of words where nothing gets accomplished because you can't really put your finger or argue what they say because there really is no substance. I thought of Hayakawa.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Book Pass
Two students in my class did a lesson with a modified book pass. They had students decorate brown paper bags with quotes or images that reflected the novel. Then, students filled the bags with objects that related to the novel. As I watched the lesson, I wondered if they would give students any criteria for what went into the bag.
Last night, as I sat on my friends back porch, she had a wonderful idea. She said that you could ask each students to include an object that represents a character, one that represents a theme, one that represents setting, etc. What a great idea? The students in the methods class really liked the idea, but I think this idea takes it a step further.
I'll have to post the link to that site.
Last night, as I sat on my friends back porch, she had a wonderful idea. She said that you could ask each students to include an object that represents a character, one that represents a theme, one that represents setting, etc. What a great idea? The students in the methods class really liked the idea, but I think this idea takes it a step further.
I'll have to post the link to that site.
More on Murray
"We may need to, for example, to reconsider our attitude toward those who delay writing. We may, in fact, need to force many of our glib, hair-trigger student writers to slow down, to daydream, to waste time, but not to avoid a reasonable deadline" (Murray, Learning to Teach, p. 39).
This quote reminds me of a former professor's work on Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Teachers need to realize that everyone's personality does affect how they go about writing. I have an article written by Jensen and Hinnen called "The Dynamics of Teaching and Learning." I have not read it yet, but looking at the biblio. I see that they cite Murray, Macrorie, and Elbow. I'll have to read this article and comment on it.
I loved Murray's snippets of writing in Ch. 7. Here were some quotes I especially liked:
"I have students who don't know the rules, but nobody ever stands up to denounce goody-goody students who follow the rules right over the cliff, taking their writing with them" (p. 47).
A friend and I were talking about a student like that last night. She was an extremely hard worker, but she could only do it "right" and the "way the teacher wanted it." Now for 99% of teachers I'm sure that is a dream. I found it painful because she could not think for herself.
"My students do not need to study form to know form. form is not made, then poured full of information" (p. 47).
"I hope my students feel the twice-lived life of the writer, know the double experience of this kind of living" (p. 46).
Murray has a memoir called My Twice-Lived Life.
"Often I have to write badly to write well. My students want to write too well, too early. I have to get them to put something down on the page, no matter how bad it is, so they can see and hear what they have to work with" (p. 49).
This quote is very Elbow-ish, isn't it?
One of the items on his canon is "write fast." Another bow to Elbow.
Writing and Images--I guess I was thinking about this because Dr. Fox's article referenced how thinking of language as visual is really important. I saw hints of these ideas in Murray's work:
"The visual aspect of discovering writing is important," although Murray goes on to say that hearing is more important than seeing.
"Too often, when we teaching writing, we give our students the misconception that we plan writing, that we intend what will appear on the page. They are frustrated when they are not able to visualize before the first draft what will appear on their page. The students think they are dumb. We must be honest and let them know how much writing is unconscious or accidental. You do not think writing; you write writing."
This quote reminds me of a former professor's work on Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Teachers need to realize that everyone's personality does affect how they go about writing. I have an article written by Jensen and Hinnen called "The Dynamics of Teaching and Learning." I have not read it yet, but looking at the biblio. I see that they cite Murray, Macrorie, and Elbow. I'll have to read this article and comment on it.
I loved Murray's snippets of writing in Ch. 7. Here were some quotes I especially liked:
"I have students who don't know the rules, but nobody ever stands up to denounce goody-goody students who follow the rules right over the cliff, taking their writing with them" (p. 47).
A friend and I were talking about a student like that last night. She was an extremely hard worker, but she could only do it "right" and the "way the teacher wanted it." Now for 99% of teachers I'm sure that is a dream. I found it painful because she could not think for herself.
"My students do not need to study form to know form. form is not made, then poured full of information" (p. 47).
"I hope my students feel the twice-lived life of the writer, know the double experience of this kind of living" (p. 46).
Murray has a memoir called My Twice-Lived Life.
"Often I have to write badly to write well. My students want to write too well, too early. I have to get them to put something down on the page, no matter how bad it is, so they can see and hear what they have to work with" (p. 49).
This quote is very Elbow-ish, isn't it?
One of the items on his canon is "write fast." Another bow to Elbow.
Writing and Images--I guess I was thinking about this because Dr. Fox's article referenced how thinking of language as visual is really important. I saw hints of these ideas in Murray's work:
"The visual aspect of discovering writing is important," although Murray goes on to say that hearing is more important than seeing.
"Too often, when we teaching writing, we give our students the misconception that we plan writing, that we intend what will appear on the page. They are frustrated when they are not able to visualize before the first draft what will appear on their page. The students think they are dumb. We must be honest and let them know how much writing is unconscious or accidental. You do not think writing; you write writing."
Friday, September 23, 2005
On a lighter note
I'm exploring Donald Murray like I said in my earlier post. I'm supposed to be taking notes, but before I started I tried to frame Murray and Elbow into some larger questions. We talked about Elbow last week and one day later I received an email from a former colleague telling me about an interaction that she had with a colleague who said that she "didn't believe in Elbow because she was a social constructivist." I don't see how those two things have much to do with one another. Elbow is talking about writing and social constructivism is a belief about how knowledge is constructed. Maybe that is too simplistic, so please correct me.
But this comment bothered my colleague and it made me go right back to my notes from the previous day. People misunderstand Elbow. He espouses writing before planning. Get the words out without censoring yourself in the early stages. What is wrong with that? Why are those statements so bothersome? The Elbow-haters seem to take this small part of Elbow and take it to mean that he is a proponent of unorganized writing and that he only values expressive writing. I believe he means that writing "quick and dirty" and writing about topics that are meaningful to the writer is a place to start.
Murray's implication number 10 (1982) seems to agree: "The student finds his own subject. It is not the job of the teacher to legislate the student's truth" (p. 16). The same teacher I mentioned above also said that since she was a social constructivist that she needed to give students prompts and tell them what to write. In my mind, that seems to go against social constructivism which would be a teacher and student co-constructing--similar to what Murray explains about the teacher's job in the classroom: "In the writing process approach, the teacher and the student face the task of making meaning together" (p. 26). Now that sounds like social construction.
Another comment I hear when Elbow and freewriting is mentioned being used in a classroom is "what if students won't write?" I promise that has never happened. Elbow mentioned in one of his essays in Everyone Can Write that if a student didn't write that he used to make him and then he changed his thinking and he left him or her alone as long as they didn't disrupt other people's writing. When I would tell people that 99% of the time students wrote, I could tell they didn't believe me. But now, I can site Murray: "Nine hundred and ninety-nine students out of a thousand will write on demand. But if one doesn't write, not to worry. Writing is contagious. It is almost impossible to resist the desire to write in your own voice, of your own concerns, when you are part of a supportive writing community." Amen, brother.
In my mind, before I started reading Murray, I tried to write down some questions about both of them and what I know about each of them. Who is Murray? Did he come up with "the writing process." What does he say that revolutionized writing instruction? Why do people hate Elbow? Why don't they hate Murray? How have they affected writing instruction?
But this comment bothered my colleague and it made me go right back to my notes from the previous day. People misunderstand Elbow. He espouses writing before planning. Get the words out without censoring yourself in the early stages. What is wrong with that? Why are those statements so bothersome? The Elbow-haters seem to take this small part of Elbow and take it to mean that he is a proponent of unorganized writing and that he only values expressive writing. I believe he means that writing "quick and dirty" and writing about topics that are meaningful to the writer is a place to start.
Murray's implication number 10 (1982) seems to agree: "The student finds his own subject. It is not the job of the teacher to legislate the student's truth" (p. 16). The same teacher I mentioned above also said that since she was a social constructivist that she needed to give students prompts and tell them what to write. In my mind, that seems to go against social constructivism which would be a teacher and student co-constructing--similar to what Murray explains about the teacher's job in the classroom: "In the writing process approach, the teacher and the student face the task of making meaning together" (p. 26). Now that sounds like social construction.
Another comment I hear when Elbow and freewriting is mentioned being used in a classroom is "what if students won't write?" I promise that has never happened. Elbow mentioned in one of his essays in Everyone Can Write that if a student didn't write that he used to make him and then he changed his thinking and he left him or her alone as long as they didn't disrupt other people's writing. When I would tell people that 99% of the time students wrote, I could tell they didn't believe me. But now, I can site Murray: "Nine hundred and ninety-nine students out of a thousand will write on demand. But if one doesn't write, not to worry. Writing is contagious. It is almost impossible to resist the desire to write in your own voice, of your own concerns, when you are part of a supportive writing community." Amen, brother.
In my mind, before I started reading Murray, I tried to write down some questions about both of them and what I know about each of them. Who is Murray? Did he come up with "the writing process." What does he say that revolutionized writing instruction? Why do people hate Elbow? Why don't they hate Murray? How have they affected writing instruction?
Donald Murray
I'm reading Donald M. Murray's Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching for Tuesday's doc seminar. I had read his book about his daughter's death two summer's ago: The Lively Shadow: Living with the Death of a Child. I read it because it was by Donald Murray. I decided to do a quick Google Search on Murray. I don't know why, I guess these days I just do that, and I came across an archive of his articles that are published weekly in the Boston Globe. I clicked on this article because I saw that it referenced his daughter's death and teaching. When I read the article, I saw glimmers of a connection between his words and our discussions in my class Rhetoric of Emotions. I want to pull one part specfically to look at:
We are all teachers.
It took me a while to understand that profound truth when we lost our daughter 28 years ago. I will never forget the thoughtfulness of our friends and neighbors, but one thing bothered me. They repeatedly asked me, ''How are you doing?"
I felt that they were really asking, ''How would I do if . . . ?" I was focused entirely on Minnie Mae, Anne, Hannah, and myself. Why did they want me to speculate on how they would do?
I finally stepped back and realized they saw me as a teacher. I had lived their worst fear. What could they learn to do or not do from my example? How could they survive as we appeared to be doing?
Connections from readings:
"The man whose sympathy keeps time to my grief, cannot but admit the reasonableness of my sorrow" (Ch. 3)
"That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it . . . " (Section 1, Ch. 1, para. 1)
"Grief and joy, for example, strongly expressed in the look and gestures of any one, at once affect the spectator with some degree of a like painful or agreeable emotion" (I.I.6).
I want to make some more connections to our readings. Do you have any ideas?
We are all teachers.
It took me a while to understand that profound truth when we lost our daughter 28 years ago. I will never forget the thoughtfulness of our friends and neighbors, but one thing bothered me. They repeatedly asked me, ''How are you doing?"
I felt that they were really asking, ''How would I do if . . . ?" I was focused entirely on Minnie Mae, Anne, Hannah, and myself. Why did they want me to speculate on how they would do?
I finally stepped back and realized they saw me as a teacher. I had lived their worst fear. What could they learn to do or not do from my example? How could they survive as we appeared to be doing?
Connections from readings:
"The man whose sympathy keeps time to my grief, cannot but admit the reasonableness of my sorrow" (Ch. 3)
"That we often derive sorrow from the sorrow of others, is a matter of fact too obvious to require any instances to prove it . . . " (Section 1, Ch. 1, para. 1)
"Grief and joy, for example, strongly expressed in the look and gestures of any one, at once affect the spectator with some degree of a like painful or agreeable emotion" (I.I.6).
I want to make some more connections to our readings. Do you have any ideas?
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Burke and Elbow
We just discussed Writing Without Teachers in my doc seminar yesterday. Tonight, I was prepping to read Burke, and I decided to do a little searching. I found this article. http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.2/Articles/9.htm If anyone is interested.
My paradigm changed right in front of me!
I was completing my first interview for my class project in qualitative research. After researching blogs, I found two ethnographies by Nardi, et al. When I checked my Hatch book, he said that ethnographic studies were about in-depth interviews. Okay, that makes sense, and that the paradigm would be post-positivist, meaning that we can't identify one "truth" although it may be floating around there somewhere.
Well, I was surprised, frankly, because I really see my understanding of knowledge as constructivist. I thought. But last night, in a practice interview with a classmate where she was interviewing me, at the end of our interview she echoed my story--in five phrases. Which, by the way, is really weird to hear your whole life in five steps. What do you say? "Well, looks like you about covered everything." "No, I can't think of anything to add." Can't think of anything to add? That was so depressing to me.
Anyway. I asked her about echoing my life story--if that was okay to do. She said it depended on your paradigm. Her paradigm was constructivist, so she needed to check back with me to see if she was hearing what I said and she was constructing my story along with me. Even as we talked she tried to pull certain events to the front. She tried to generalize a bit and make these connections with me. (It felt weird, but that's another story.) So, as I spoke with D. in the interview today, I almost echoed her story/history back to me. I wanted to share with her the article that I found Nardi. I wanted to share the percentages I had read about blogging activities. But I stopped myself because I had chosen this post-positivist paradigm. In this paradigm, I just see myself as collecting data, and later making generalizations and looking for patterns. So, what am I?
Well, I was surprised, frankly, because I really see my understanding of knowledge as constructivist. I thought. But last night, in a practice interview with a classmate where she was interviewing me, at the end of our interview she echoed my story--in five phrases. Which, by the way, is really weird to hear your whole life in five steps. What do you say? "Well, looks like you about covered everything." "No, I can't think of anything to add." Can't think of anything to add? That was so depressing to me.
Anyway. I asked her about echoing my life story--if that was okay to do. She said it depended on your paradigm. Her paradigm was constructivist, so she needed to check back with me to see if she was hearing what I said and she was constructing my story along with me. Even as we talked she tried to pull certain events to the front. She tried to generalize a bit and make these connections with me. (It felt weird, but that's another story.) So, as I spoke with D. in the interview today, I almost echoed her story/history back to me. I wanted to share with her the article that I found Nardi. I wanted to share the percentages I had read about blogging activities. But I stopped myself because I had chosen this post-positivist paradigm. In this paradigm, I just see myself as collecting data, and later making generalizations and looking for patterns. So, what am I?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Harlan
This is so funny. Watch it if you have time.
http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream.flv&t=Harlan%20Mcraney,%20Presidential%20Speechalist%205000
http://www.badmash.org/videos/videos_flv.php?v=george_bush_512K_Stream.flv&t=Harlan%20Mcraney,%20Presidential%20Speechalist%205000
blogging in the rain
Well, it is Monday evening. I drove to Columbia this morning. I went to my stats class this morning, worked in the office a bit, and then went to my rhetoric class. It's raining really hard here, and I finally went to the rec center. It was about six and it wasn't too busy. I changed clothes in the locker room, turned the corner and came face to face with one of my students from Kickapoo. It was surreal. I swear I looked at her for 15 seconds with a blank face. I just couldn't make the connection that someone I knew was up here although I did run into a student I had several years ago who is now a senior here. His sister is a freshman.
I'm working on my conceptual framework for my qualitative class. Wish me luck.
I'm working on my conceptual framework for my qualitative class. Wish me luck.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Who is Adam Smith?
I'm reading about Adam Smith today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
This is the part that relates to my rhetoric class:
"In 1759 he published his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work, which established Smith's reputation in his day, was concerned with how human communication depends on sympathy between agent and spectator (that is, the individual and other members of society). His capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument is much in evidence. He bases his explanation, not as the third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, on a special "moral sense", nor (like Hume) on utility, but on sympathy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
If you want to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
This is the part that relates to my rhetoric class:
"In 1759 he published his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, embodying some of his Glasgow lectures. This work, which established Smith's reputation in his day, was concerned with how human communication depends on sympathy between agent and spectator (that is, the individual and other members of society). His capacity for fluent, persuasive, if rather rhetorical argument is much in evidence. He bases his explanation, not as the third Lord Shaftesbury and Hutcheson had done, on a special "moral sense", nor (like Hume) on utility, but on sympathy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments
If you want to read The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS.html
Friday, September 16, 2005
what a slacker
I can't believe I haven't blogged in twelve days (at least). I was doing so well there for a while. I guess that always happens when school gets into the swing. Right now, I'm writing a conceptual framework for my class project in qualitative research. I'm not really sure what I'm doing, but I've been working on it most of the day.
Tuesday was an interesting day of teaching. A few of them said that they wanted to make a rule that I couldn't post anything on blackboard except for Tuesday and Thursday. Which doesn't work for me at all. I guess I saw blackboard not necessarily as this place to put lesson but as a way to share resources. So, when I had a minute on the weekends I would post some secondary sources that I thought might help them in some of their other classes and most definitely in their student teaching and future teaching. But they perceived these as assignments that needed to be done. I'll take part of the blame because I am the teacher. But what I saw on that day was that these students have been totally socialized to "do what the teacher says" and then stress out about it. Many of the statements were "(YOU) Tell me what to put in the portfolio," "(YOU) Tell me what homework I have this week." "There are too many little assignments." Also, I told them they could turn the portfolio in on Tuesday or Thursday and they wanted me to just tell them which day. That reminded me of a story that a friend and student mentioned about field work. The teacher gave the students several choices about what assignment they could do--they were all fun and artistic. The kids said, "Just pick one for me."
Don't get me wrong. They weren't being disrespectful when they explained this, but I was a tad frustrated for a moment. I thought about it off and on for a couple of days. Used to, I probably would have been upset and kicking myself for being a bad teacher until I started analyzing what these statements meant.
I'm teaching teachers, and who we are as students says a lot about who we will be as teachers. We are reading about constructivist teaching methods and they want me to tell them what to do. It's really fascinating. Two weeks ago we finished this statement "I want students who..." One student said, "These would be great kids, but I think it would be really boring." You know, I really agree with her. When I think back, one of the most frustrating students I had was so concerned about what I wanted--almost obsessively--that she never learned anything. She was always trying to guess my mind, and I was always trying to get her to think for herself. It was painful for both of us, and she was such a nice and kind girl.
I guess my point is that I really want them to recognize these assumptions that they have. These assumptions are being played as students. When I pulled together a student-centered class in high school, there would be some tension and a lot of kids didn't like it at first. But I think it is harder for college students because they are so used to the "university-style" of teaching I guess.
There is a lot of suspicion that goes along with that. I notice that suspicion with high school and college. You offer a choice, and they may think that you'll pull the rug out from under them later and then give them a bad grade.
Grades: I really want to talk about this. I see my "assignments" as something more than that. They are completing assignments for a grade rather than considering how it might work in the classroom and reflecting. The assignment and the grade may matter more to a lot of them. That reflection piece is the most important piece of these methods class, and it is really hard to make that reflection explicit and useful. Hmmm.
Tuesday was an interesting day of teaching. A few of them said that they wanted to make a rule that I couldn't post anything on blackboard except for Tuesday and Thursday. Which doesn't work for me at all. I guess I saw blackboard not necessarily as this place to put lesson but as a way to share resources. So, when I had a minute on the weekends I would post some secondary sources that I thought might help them in some of their other classes and most definitely in their student teaching and future teaching. But they perceived these as assignments that needed to be done. I'll take part of the blame because I am the teacher. But what I saw on that day was that these students have been totally socialized to "do what the teacher says" and then stress out about it. Many of the statements were "(YOU) Tell me what to put in the portfolio," "(YOU) Tell me what homework I have this week." "There are too many little assignments." Also, I told them they could turn the portfolio in on Tuesday or Thursday and they wanted me to just tell them which day. That reminded me of a story that a friend and student mentioned about field work. The teacher gave the students several choices about what assignment they could do--they were all fun and artistic. The kids said, "Just pick one for me."
Don't get me wrong. They weren't being disrespectful when they explained this, but I was a tad frustrated for a moment. I thought about it off and on for a couple of days. Used to, I probably would have been upset and kicking myself for being a bad teacher until I started analyzing what these statements meant.
I'm teaching teachers, and who we are as students says a lot about who we will be as teachers. We are reading about constructivist teaching methods and they want me to tell them what to do. It's really fascinating. Two weeks ago we finished this statement "I want students who..." One student said, "These would be great kids, but I think it would be really boring." You know, I really agree with her. When I think back, one of the most frustrating students I had was so concerned about what I wanted--almost obsessively--that she never learned anything. She was always trying to guess my mind, and I was always trying to get her to think for herself. It was painful for both of us, and she was such a nice and kind girl.
I guess my point is that I really want them to recognize these assumptions that they have. These assumptions are being played as students. When I pulled together a student-centered class in high school, there would be some tension and a lot of kids didn't like it at first. But I think it is harder for college students because they are so used to the "university-style" of teaching I guess.
There is a lot of suspicion that goes along with that. I notice that suspicion with high school and college. You offer a choice, and they may think that you'll pull the rug out from under them later and then give them a bad grade.
Grades: I really want to talk about this. I see my "assignments" as something more than that. They are completing assignments for a grade rather than considering how it might work in the classroom and reflecting. The assignment and the grade may matter more to a lot of them. That reflection piece is the most important piece of these methods class, and it is really hard to make that reflection explicit and useful. Hmmm.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)