I thought the discussion we had in class on how to best arrange classrooms was a very interesting one. I got to thinking that one need not necessarily have a singular arrangement for the classroom. With proper training, one could get the children to be able to move the tables or desks around for different situations.
I saw this fifth grade teacher in Bellingham do this once, she was in this tiny little portable of a tiny little school and she had 36 5th grade students (23 of them boys) and she had to be very creative with space. She had this set up though where students would move the desks around for different situations, the system was a little rough but it was near the beginning of the school year so I'm sure with some training they could do it really efficiently.
It reminded me of 18th and 19th century wooden naval vessels like in the movie Master and Commander with Russell Crowe. The sailors would sleep in hammocks on the gun deck, and when an enemy ship came into sight the officers would shout the command "Beat to quarters" and the crew would convert the whole area into a space of battle.
While students should not be asked to combat French privateers, I think the general idea is a sound one that can be applied in the classroom. One can have different table arrangements the children know, like one that's in a horseshoe shape, one that's in a circle, one that's in different table groups so small groups can collaborate, or stack the tables around the edge if the entire floor space is needed.
It would require some refinement but it could create opportunities that a traditional static classroom may not.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Lecture, WEST-E, and Knowledge Oh My!
I've been giving some thought to some of the themes in this class, and I'm beginning to feel a little pushback to some of them. Namely in how we discuss schooling and how it needs to be changed. I think though that maybe not everything should be changed, just because something is old or traditional does not mean that it is bad. So here are some ponderings I have. My main note is to say that this is not meant to be excessively critical, I just think these should be adressed and I prefer to listen when I'm in class.
1. One of the themes of the last class period seemed to be that lecture should be avoided when at all possible. I don't think this is true. There is a place for lecture in delivering content knowledge when the teacher has more expertise than the students. That is not to say that lecture should be the only way that knowledge is communicated, only that it should be be valued and used. Indeed, some people actually do learn best through lecturing, and some people really do enjoy a well done lecture, I would say therefore that including lecturing is a matter of teaching every student. One must also keep in mind that lecturing should only be implemented when the teacher has rich and extensive content knowledge of the subject on which he or she is lecturing, and can do a good job of delivering the lecture in a way that conveys the knowledge, is rhetorically pleasing, and frames the knowledge in a way that the students to turn it into a deeper truth with additional study. But content knowledge is key in all of this, which leads me to my next point.
2. At the last class period it was said that the WEST-Es were of limited value, but I am not so sure about that. I think that some apparatus needs to exist to measure content knowledge, because I think that that is very important. While I agree that teachers should not have to know absolutely everything about what they teach, that would require more than a handful of advanced degrees, I think it is important to have a rich knowledge on what one teaches, and this requires some extra work outside the class. If one does not take the time to learn content knowledge, one runs the risk of being wrong and spreading false information. One example of this is an incident I have seen more than a few times: the teacher is talking about Columbus with the a class and says something to the effect that Christopher Columbus was the only man in Europe who knew the earth was round. This is patently false and gives the wrong impression of the middle ages and the Renaissance. Any educated person of the day knew the earth was round, and therefore every clergyman knew it. It is alongside the term "dark ages" in making the middle ages seem like a time only of ignorance and stagnation, a "world lit only by fire." This is false however, the middle ages were actually a period of great innovation, art, and growth in Europe.
3. Finally, I understand that schooling has a multitude of purposes, and diffusion of knowledge is not the only one, but I certainly think that it is one. It is my belief that deep knowledge is good in and of itself. The intrinsic value of knowledge is devalued when completely outsourced to the internet. Google is a great tool, and it can lead to great deal of knowledge, but I do not want to completely outsource my ability to know facts to a computer. There is value in developing deep knowledge of a subject without the aid of a computer. It builds perseverance and depth of knowledge. Maybe that makes me a luddite, but if it does then I'm a luddite, and proudly so. I'm not saying that we should resort to rote memorization of the capitals and such. And I do believe that teaching skills to get knowledge on the internet is important. What I am saying is that there is a place for diffusing knowledge in the classroom. This is the type of deep knowledge that can be so ingrained that the child can turn it into a truth that is meaningful to them, and thus let the knowledge turn to wisdom and shape them as they grow.
I hope that didn't sound like a tirade, at least not an angry one. I acknowledge that my comments are diffuse and need to be further developed before they are of any use. They are some old fashioned notions I think. But that doesn't make them bad.
Flavius Arrianus
1. One of the themes of the last class period seemed to be that lecture should be avoided when at all possible. I don't think this is true. There is a place for lecture in delivering content knowledge when the teacher has more expertise than the students. That is not to say that lecture should be the only way that knowledge is communicated, only that it should be be valued and used. Indeed, some people actually do learn best through lecturing, and some people really do enjoy a well done lecture, I would say therefore that including lecturing is a matter of teaching every student. One must also keep in mind that lecturing should only be implemented when the teacher has rich and extensive content knowledge of the subject on which he or she is lecturing, and can do a good job of delivering the lecture in a way that conveys the knowledge, is rhetorically pleasing, and frames the knowledge in a way that the students to turn it into a deeper truth with additional study. But content knowledge is key in all of this, which leads me to my next point.
2. At the last class period it was said that the WEST-Es were of limited value, but I am not so sure about that. I think that some apparatus needs to exist to measure content knowledge, because I think that that is very important. While I agree that teachers should not have to know absolutely everything about what they teach, that would require more than a handful of advanced degrees, I think it is important to have a rich knowledge on what one teaches, and this requires some extra work outside the class. If one does not take the time to learn content knowledge, one runs the risk of being wrong and spreading false information. One example of this is an incident I have seen more than a few times: the teacher is talking about Columbus with the a class and says something to the effect that Christopher Columbus was the only man in Europe who knew the earth was round. This is patently false and gives the wrong impression of the middle ages and the Renaissance. Any educated person of the day knew the earth was round, and therefore every clergyman knew it. It is alongside the term "dark ages" in making the middle ages seem like a time only of ignorance and stagnation, a "world lit only by fire." This is false however, the middle ages were actually a period of great innovation, art, and growth in Europe.
3. Finally, I understand that schooling has a multitude of purposes, and diffusion of knowledge is not the only one, but I certainly think that it is one. It is my belief that deep knowledge is good in and of itself. The intrinsic value of knowledge is devalued when completely outsourced to the internet. Google is a great tool, and it can lead to great deal of knowledge, but I do not want to completely outsource my ability to know facts to a computer. There is value in developing deep knowledge of a subject without the aid of a computer. It builds perseverance and depth of knowledge. Maybe that makes me a luddite, but if it does then I'm a luddite, and proudly so. I'm not saying that we should resort to rote memorization of the capitals and such. And I do believe that teaching skills to get knowledge on the internet is important. What I am saying is that there is a place for diffusing knowledge in the classroom. This is the type of deep knowledge that can be so ingrained that the child can turn it into a truth that is meaningful to them, and thus let the knowledge turn to wisdom and shape them as they grow.
I hope that didn't sound like a tirade, at least not an angry one. I acknowledge that my comments are diffuse and need to be further developed before they are of any use. They are some old fashioned notions I think. But that doesn't make them bad.
Flavius Arrianus
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Thoughts on our Religion in Schools discussion
I think our class discussion on Religion in the Public Schools yesterday was really quite interesting, and I've been thinking about this and have a couple of questions/comments on religion in school and classroom community.
1. The scenario with the child who upon being asked what they did over the weekend says, "I was saved by Jesus." This is a delicate situation that requires a delicate touch by the teacher, but I think one thing that should be avoided is what I think of as the "kids say the darndest things approach." This is a really easy approach, and totally understandable, especially for those teachers that themselves are not religious. However, I think that it's important to acknowledge that this it is very likely that this is an important part of this child's life. If a teacher, someone whose opinion the child probably values hugely, does not seem to take the child seriously, is this building bridges to the child? Would instead a comment like, "I'm very happy for you, that must have been an important moment for you, I'm glad you felt you could share that with me," be legal/appropriate?
2. The scenario that was brought up where one child, I'll call him Johnny, offends another child's, I'll call him Paul, takes exception to this due to religious beliefs. While I understand, and support, the fact that I can't tell Johnny to put his feet down because Paul's or my own religions have some compunction against it, can I turn this into a lesson on classroom community? Could I for example explain to Johnny that when he puts his feet up it makes Paul feel like he is not welcome in our class, and while he may not himself see anything wrong with putting his feet on the furniture, everyone is different, and it helps our class when everybody loves and respects each other.Does this constitute state advancement of a religion, or does it constitute promoting a tolerant and welcoming classroom community? Or maybe both? I hope that made sense, on a grammatical level.
I thought it was a really interesting discussion we had yesterday and I value the cohorts opinions on these matters. Whether we as individuals are religious or not, religion is in our classrooms, in incredible diversity, and this is a great opportunity! Religious freedom is an intrinsic part of the American Republic, and I am so glad we live in a nation where a students religion is not repressed. Many countries even in the developed world, I'm looking at you France, do not give this liberty. Considering that this is how America is, what do we as teachers do about it?
Flavius Arrianus
1. The scenario with the child who upon being asked what they did over the weekend says, "I was saved by Jesus." This is a delicate situation that requires a delicate touch by the teacher, but I think one thing that should be avoided is what I think of as the "kids say the darndest things approach." This is a really easy approach, and totally understandable, especially for those teachers that themselves are not religious. However, I think that it's important to acknowledge that this it is very likely that this is an important part of this child's life. If a teacher, someone whose opinion the child probably values hugely, does not seem to take the child seriously, is this building bridges to the child? Would instead a comment like, "I'm very happy for you, that must have been an important moment for you, I'm glad you felt you could share that with me," be legal/appropriate?
2. The scenario that was brought up where one child, I'll call him Johnny, offends another child's, I'll call him Paul, takes exception to this due to religious beliefs. While I understand, and support, the fact that I can't tell Johnny to put his feet down because Paul's or my own religions have some compunction against it, can I turn this into a lesson on classroom community? Could I for example explain to Johnny that when he puts his feet up it makes Paul feel like he is not welcome in our class, and while he may not himself see anything wrong with putting his feet on the furniture, everyone is different, and it helps our class when everybody loves and respects each other.Does this constitute state advancement of a religion, or does it constitute promoting a tolerant and welcoming classroom community? Or maybe both? I hope that made sense, on a grammatical level.
I thought it was a really interesting discussion we had yesterday and I value the cohorts opinions on these matters. Whether we as individuals are religious or not, religion is in our classrooms, in incredible diversity, and this is a great opportunity! Religious freedom is an intrinsic part of the American Republic, and I am so glad we live in a nation where a students religion is not repressed. Many countries even in the developed world, I'm looking at you France, do not give this liberty. Considering that this is how America is, what do we as teachers do about it?
Flavius Arrianus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)