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
Flavius: What's the difference between information and knowledge? How do each fit within your overall goals for your students?
ReplyDeleteThis is a good question and I suppose different folks would define them differently. I would say the difference is that knowledge is information that a human being has internalized. For example, if I read Socrates phrase, "There is only one good: knowledge, and one evil: ignorance" on the internet, it is just information until I remember it and understand it. In short, information becomes knowledge when the individual knows it. I believe the process of a skilled teacher is to mediate the transition of information into knowledge, and when additional content knowledge is required, lecture can be a powerful tool when done well.
ReplyDeleteFully agree on your distinctions. And likely exactly why in spite of computers, we need excellent teachers.
ReplyDeleteIs there a minimal age at which lecture is not likely to be powerful?
That's a good question, I think there probably is although I am ignorant as to what that exact age might be. I would speculate that by 5th and 6th grade students are ready for lecture in certain topics on a limited basis, with there being more time when that's appropriate as students age and teachers specialize.
ReplyDeleteOn your second point, I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding teachers needing to have a strong understanding of the topics they teach. I would much rather tell the students that "I don't know" than lead them down a false path. It is my intent to continue studying so that I am fully-equipped to present, answer questions, and explore with my students all of the topics we study in my classroom. With that said, I spent about a week poring over a WEST-E study guide, cramming with flashcards, and taking electronic practice tests right up until the day of my exam. I was intent on memorizing every bit of information that I could. I walked away from the testing center with the paper in my hand indicating that I had passed and felt two things, relief and a bit of frustration. I was very excited about having completed one more of the items I needed to gain access to the UWB Teaching Program. I was also certain that if I took the test again in 2 weeks, I would not have fared as well. I felt it was a test of how well I could memorize information, not how much knowledge I would bring with me to the classroom. I hope that the students leaving my classroom will have felt that they connected to the lessons and really learned something, not that they will have memorized a list of facts that they may or may not recall the following school year.
ReplyDelete