Throughout this first semester, I've gone back and forth a lot on the role I'd like traditional tests to play in my classroom. As it stands now, I don't give very many of them, and even though they tend to be some of the heaviest assignments in the grade book, they constitute a relatively small amount of marking period's point total. It is enough, though, that if a student does very poorly on the marking period's 3-4 tests/quizzes, it's very difficult for that student to get an A overall. I've been torn--should struggles with test taking limit some students who can produce very high quality work in other media?
To say that teaching the writing process has been a challenge would be an understatement. Our first writing workshop, composing an analytical essay to wrap up our study of Ender's Game, was, naturally, structured chronologically: thesis, intro paragraph, body paragraphs, conclusion. Everything you need to know to write an essay, right?
Obviously wrong. Writing is so hard to teach because it involves dozens of interrelated skills and techniques that are virtually impossible to isolate and teach, since most proficient writers perform them completely unconsciously. As my students attempted to follow my instructions, I found them too often getting tripped up on some skill or technique that somehow never occurred to me to include in my direct instruction or in composing any of the copious handouts I was sure would guide students painlessly through the process. Everybody Loves to Hate LecturesIn our coursework regarding differentiated instruction, examples of successful differentiation are often contrasted with lecturing as the gold standard of dull, traditional, unresponsive teaching. The narrative is often that you distill your direct instruction down to a minimum--a few unfortunately necessary minutes of lecture for which even the least focused students can focus--after which they practice this new content via expertly crafed "activities," which are dynamic and exciting and appeal to multiple intelligences. I think this is a false dichotomy. As unsexy as lecturing is amid a sea of discourse promoting student-centered and hands-on practice, I doubt any education model could (or should) omit direct instruction entirely. At the very least, lecturing is an effective and ubiquitous method of transmission of information and learning through exposure to a more-knowing other--provided the student has the familiarity to engage with ideas through this medium. Lecturing will inevitably be a part of any lifelong learner’s education, and I don’t think students should be sheltered from it on the basis of it seeming boring during the early stages of their exposure.
But, stepping down from my soapbox, the point I would like to make here is that direct instruction shouldn’t be condemned to a boring, static necessity at the start of class. Rather, a lecture can (and should) be dynamic and exciting, even for high schoolers, once we realize that differentiation belongs there too. "Are You Serious?"Recently, I taught a lesson on propaganda posters. It's a topic of personal interest for me, so I was excited to introduce my students on the subject (and to my enthusiasm for it). I prepared a presentation with some attention-grabbing and thought-provoking examples. I defined a few criteria for categorizing different posters, giving students the vocabulary for examining different kinds of appeals and visual tactics. I was ready and excited for a vibrant and interesting discussion. But as the lights dimmed and I launched into the lesson, I was promptly derailed.
A particularly striking poster projected behind me, I tossed out a few guiding questions and began fielding interpretations: What symbols do we see? How does the image make you feel? How does the artist make you feel this way? Who might the intended audience be? Lots of hands--students were eager to put their visual interpretation skills to the test and show off their background knowledge by connecting to their history classes. Discussion was enthusiastic and fluid, but, in this rising level of energy, one excitable student, probably in a carry over of a before class interaction, made a rude gesture at one of his table-mates. Misbehavior and disrespect are not common in my class, so I was (maybe visibly) shocked and annoyed. I don't really consider my teaching to be an "act," but I definitely dropped something when I blurted out "Are you serious?" Not the smoothest move. The ensuing exchange, though brief, slowed the class's momentum and failed to resolve anything: "Are you serious?" "What?" "What was that?" "What?" "We're gonna talk after class." "Me?" |
Louis FantiniLongtime Student,
First Time Teacher. Archives
March 2016
Categories |