Typically, when I read introductory pieces, particularly as they pertain to teaching, they function as inspirational pieces more than functional ideas that could actually be applied in the classroom. However, all three of the assigned texts, in addition to being inspirational and calling teachers to action, offered strategies that could actually be put into practice almost immediately.
One line that stood out to me from the Christensen introduction and that I will likely post up as a reminder to go back to when I find myself in the classroom was "just because students lack skills doesn't mean they lack intelligence." I think that situations in which a student's lack of skill is misinterpreted as a lack of intelligence or, even worse, a lack of effort occur too frequently in the classroom. While doing my service learning at The Met, I was placed in a classroom where all of the students were struggling with English literacy. Not only did these students have a bad reputation around the school as "slackers," but they also thought very little of themselves and their ability. Before I had finished my time there, I came to learn just how sharp and intuitive many of these students were, and was even able to help them with some of the building blocks of writing and grammar once their confidence had grown a little bit.
The entire metaphor that Gallagher used in her chapter about "The Literacy Stampede" resonated with me. One of my main priorities when tackling curriculum and crafting lesson plans is to find a way to make the material contextually relevant. In one fell swoop (sorry for the cliché), Gallagher provides context and reasoning as to why being literate in reading and writing is of the utmost importance, especially if students want to succeed in today's demanding society. I will definitely be using a similar strategy at the beginning of the year when I have a classroom of my own.
In the post from plthomasedd, "To High School English Teachers (and All Teachers)," one of the authors pieces of advice is "Teach students-- not programs, standards, test-prep, or your discipline." This aligns directly with a point that has been driven home by every professor I've had in the School of Ed: not to lose sight of the importance of building trust and relationships with our students and finding ways to assist and allow each and every one of them to succeed, and not to get caught up in the pressure of teaching to high-takes tests and disciplines. This is advice that I want to keep in the back of my mind at all times, especially during my first years, as the pressure to prepare students to meet all standards threatens to take priority over everything else. I want to always be a teacher that molds the curriculum to reach my students, not forces all of my students through the same cookie cutter.
Glad you found these inspiring and useful! I like that you connected the readings to your experiences in schools. Wondering more about how you found the the Met--I've heard mixed reviews. Also, it does my heart good to hear that relationship-building is something you have heard about throughout the program. Teacher education programs are being accused of not attending to students' emotions, etc. I know we can do a better job, but we DO talk about it.
ReplyDeleteHi Dustin -
ReplyDeleteI loved how you were able to connect the readings to your experience. I, too, am curious about how you got involved with the Met and what your experience was like. I had some involvement with the Met school in Newport.
The "literacy stampede" sort of terrified me. I hope we can find a way to help our students interact with information in a way that's helpful and not overwhelming.
Your reading of Christiansen's piece seemed to echo mine. I think it's going to be crucial for us to remember not to lose sight of building trust, relationships, and points of connection with our students. I don't EVER want to be cookie cutter either!! :)