I have been out of the classroom for several years. This was my first year back in a special ed classroom. I have been able to have many "Aha's" while reading this. I have been able to connect the dots with what I learned this year in the classroom. I've also had moments of "clarity" when reflecting on the years of teaching I had done in Florida and in Lexington 1. I only wish I had this book to guide me way back then!
Flexibility rings through this discussion about planning instruction- start with the student, build on strengths. Another point that jumped out at me was to shift from a deficit model (find out what is wrong and fix it) to begin by building on the strengths of students. Teach for understanding! I loved the exampled Regie gave about trying to learning something technical.. How many students leave their grade having felt the same way- yes- I might have "covered the material" but did my students really make that understanding leap.
This leads into teaching responsively. It is so important that we teach our students how to assess their own learning-to "really" know what you know and know what you don't- that is so powerful!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I participated in an inquiry study through the district last summer with Dr. Heidi Mills, and she really opened my eyes to a different way of planning where you do concentrate more on your vision and goals for the end of the year instead of planning weekly activities. With your vision in mind, you open up opportunities for teachable moments instead of pre-planned activities. She also talked about uncovering the standards instead of covering them. I've learned that inquiry is a way of life where you do start with the student and not the standard. In one of my sessions today at the reading and writing conference in Perry, Georgia, Bob Wortman said that what matters more is what children are getting from what you teach rather than the topic or unit that you are teaching.
ReplyDeleteI first read about "the whole being greater than the sum of its parts" in the wonderful book Flipped. It's a great philosohpy, and one I completely agree with. And I think what Routman is doing in this chapter (4) is showing how to deal with standards in the context of, and without sacrificing, good teaching. I think this concept is interesting: the standards do not make children smarter, the type of instruction does. Naming a thing, such as transition and summary, is not as important as being able to DO that thing. Talking about a book is more important than creating and completing an acitivty on one. Authentic writing is more important than school writing. I really agree with Krysten and Erica that inquiry-based instruction, and teaching students to question(it is okay to know what you don't know!) is the most important aspect teaching.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of this, yet here again I am in an interesting situation. Why is it that, after elementary and middle school, the focus suddenly jumps in ELA courses almost exclusively to academic, "school" writing? (By academic writing, I mean analytical essays on texts, literary critiscm on classics--genres most excusivley used by English majors in college.) I am caught in an impossible situation: I can teach the way I know to be powerful, and shortchange my students when they start getting bombarded with academic writing, or I can give them more academic writing, and shortchange them on authentic experiences. It is just awful. Either way, I feel like I am setting my students up for failure--either when they are in my class or when they reach high school. I try to find a balance, but that is something I struggle with constantly. This chapter, however, has empowered me with research-based reasons to lean more heavily to the authentic.
PS--wish they had spell check and italic options on comment posts! ;)