Hey guys,
I just thought I'd also share this video - I love it! It totally addresses some of our assessment struggles...
Just go to www.notonthetest.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Reflections on January 26th
One thing that caught my attention in class was when we were discussing teaching to student interests.
I do think it is important to address student interests in school, and try to use these interests as much as we can. It is a good way to hook students into learning, and also to show them the relevance of what they learn to their own lives. I do not, however, think that everything should be tailored to student interest. Isn't our job to educate our students? They already KNOW cell phones. So why do we need to incorporate them into the classroom? Not to say we shouldn't EVER, but I don't think it needs to become an integral part of the curriculum. Students also aready KNOW computers. But just like anything else, I don't think we need to "computer" them to death. Why not do more technology-free group work instead in order to counteract the amount of time that is spent outside of school sitting alone in front of a computer? Students also already KNOW all of the "music" on Hot 103...so why would we incorporate that into school? Again, I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. I just think it should all be in moderation.
Take music, for example. My students are constantly asking me, "Why can't we listen to OUR music in music?". My usual answers to them are: a) "Because most of it is not appropriate", and b) "Because I want you to learn about all kinds of music". Then I silently say "and c) it is not music. It's heavy breathing and yelling." :) (that is meant to be a smiley face - not a colon and a bracket...haha).
At the risk of sounding like an 89 year old, set-in-her-ways woman, I think that part of the problem is that we have become accustomed to getting what we want, when we want it. There seems to be very little "want" for most middle to upper class Canadians. I even see many children who come to school without food, but as soon as the newest game console comes out they've got it. And I think this "I want it, and I want it now" mentality might be filtering into our school systems. We have become so concerned with what students want and maybe not so concerned with what they need. So, there's my "old lady rant". On the flipside, however, I certainly don't mean to say that kids are all spoiled and teachers are all pushovers. I just think that sometimes we might worry a little too much about what students want. I think we need to keep in mind that our job is to expose students to the new. Perhaps start with what they're comfortable with (ie. Justin Beiber), and progress to the new (ie. jazz, classical, opera, country, musical theatre, etc.).
This sort of brings me to the question that arose during Lana's presentation - "How much freedom should teachers have?" (in regards to the curriculum). I definitely don't think that all teachers in all schools should be exactly the same! This is because the students are not all exactly the same! How can some government people sitting in offices, or people sitting at home watching the news possibly know what our students need? It is the teachers who know these kids the best. We know who they are, what they need, and how they need it. So yes, I think there should be some flexibility in the curriculum so that we can tailor it to what will benefit our students. At the same time, I think it is beneficial for teachers as well. It is a lot easier to be passionate about what we are doing if we can do it in a way that appeals to/inspires/excites us as well.
I do think it is important to address student interests in school, and try to use these interests as much as we can. It is a good way to hook students into learning, and also to show them the relevance of what they learn to their own lives. I do not, however, think that everything should be tailored to student interest. Isn't our job to educate our students? They already KNOW cell phones. So why do we need to incorporate them into the classroom? Not to say we shouldn't EVER, but I don't think it needs to become an integral part of the curriculum. Students also aready KNOW computers. But just like anything else, I don't think we need to "computer" them to death. Why not do more technology-free group work instead in order to counteract the amount of time that is spent outside of school sitting alone in front of a computer? Students also already KNOW all of the "music" on Hot 103...so why would we incorporate that into school? Again, I'm not saying it has to be all or nothing. I just think it should all be in moderation.
Take music, for example. My students are constantly asking me, "Why can't we listen to OUR music in music?". My usual answers to them are: a) "Because most of it is not appropriate", and b) "Because I want you to learn about all kinds of music". Then I silently say "and c) it is not music. It's heavy breathing and yelling." :) (that is meant to be a smiley face - not a colon and a bracket...haha).
At the risk of sounding like an 89 year old, set-in-her-ways woman, I think that part of the problem is that we have become accustomed to getting what we want, when we want it. There seems to be very little "want" for most middle to upper class Canadians. I even see many children who come to school without food, but as soon as the newest game console comes out they've got it. And I think this "I want it, and I want it now" mentality might be filtering into our school systems. We have become so concerned with what students want and maybe not so concerned with what they need. So, there's my "old lady rant". On the flipside, however, I certainly don't mean to say that kids are all spoiled and teachers are all pushovers. I just think that sometimes we might worry a little too much about what students want. I think we need to keep in mind that our job is to expose students to the new. Perhaps start with what they're comfortable with (ie. Justin Beiber), and progress to the new (ie. jazz, classical, opera, country, musical theatre, etc.).
This sort of brings me to the question that arose during Lana's presentation - "How much freedom should teachers have?" (in regards to the curriculum). I definitely don't think that all teachers in all schools should be exactly the same! This is because the students are not all exactly the same! How can some government people sitting in offices, or people sitting at home watching the news possibly know what our students need? It is the teachers who know these kids the best. We know who they are, what they need, and how they need it. So yes, I think there should be some flexibility in the curriculum so that we can tailor it to what will benefit our students. At the same time, I think it is beneficial for teachers as well. It is a lot easier to be passionate about what we are doing if we can do it in a way that appeals to/inspires/excites us as well.
For Vikki
I apologize for getting a little sentimental here, but I just wanted to take a moment to share my appreciation for Vikki.
I truly enjoyed listening to all of Vikki’s stories, and was so pleased to see that she was in this class as well, so that we could hear more. When she shared her stories and experiences they were always so heartfelt and honest. There was one thing in particular that she said one day, and it has stuck with me since. She was talking about the H1N1 shots, and how she was on the priority list because she was aboriginal. She told us that she struggled with whether or not she should get it before it opened up for everyone else because she felt ashamed of being called a priority. She had also heard a caller on CJOB complaining about aboriginal people and saying that they were probably on the priority list so that they could be the guinea pigs to make sure the shot was safe. And from this came her statement: “I always feel like I have to justify myself”. That one phrase has stuck with me since then. Nobody should have to feel that way – like they have to prove their “worthiness” for anything to anyone. And I am so thankful for this phrase. Vikki’s comment opened my eyes and shed a new light for me. She was someone who was hard-working, kind, responsible – I could go on – and struggled with the knowledge that some people did not think that she, as an aboriginal person, was of worth or deserved kindness in return. I don’t even know if she was aware of how amazing she was. Listening to stories of her life, the things she had overcome, her strength of character and determination to push on inspired me. I had planned on telling her what an impact her stories had on me. Unfortunately we did not have the chance for another conversation, but I think she knows now.
Vikki was amazing. She was so special. And I’m not saying these things because they’re the things to say at a time like this, I’m saying them because they’re true. I think that anyone who had the privilege of talking with Vikki most likely felt very blessed to know her.
I truly enjoyed listening to all of Vikki’s stories, and was so pleased to see that she was in this class as well, so that we could hear more. When she shared her stories and experiences they were always so heartfelt and honest. There was one thing in particular that she said one day, and it has stuck with me since. She was talking about the H1N1 shots, and how she was on the priority list because she was aboriginal. She told us that she struggled with whether or not she should get it before it opened up for everyone else because she felt ashamed of being called a priority. She had also heard a caller on CJOB complaining about aboriginal people and saying that they were probably on the priority list so that they could be the guinea pigs to make sure the shot was safe. And from this came her statement: “I always feel like I have to justify myself”. That one phrase has stuck with me since then. Nobody should have to feel that way – like they have to prove their “worthiness” for anything to anyone. And I am so thankful for this phrase. Vikki’s comment opened my eyes and shed a new light for me. She was someone who was hard-working, kind, responsible – I could go on – and struggled with the knowledge that some people did not think that she, as an aboriginal person, was of worth or deserved kindness in return. I don’t even know if she was aware of how amazing she was. Listening to stories of her life, the things she had overcome, her strength of character and determination to push on inspired me. I had planned on telling her what an impact her stories had on me. Unfortunately we did not have the chance for another conversation, but I think she knows now.
Vikki was amazing. She was so special. And I’m not saying these things because they’re the things to say at a time like this, I’m saying them because they’re true. I think that anyone who had the privilege of talking with Vikki most likely felt very blessed to know her.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thoughts on Questions Posed in Class on January 19th
After last week's class I've had a hodgepodge of thoughts floating around, but I think I will address two of the questions asked in class - "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?", and "What knowledge is of most worth?".
My first thought is in regards to our government apologizing for residential schools. The question was posed, "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" I thought this was an interesting question. While I do think the residential schools were a huge mistake and definitely called for an apology, I think there will always be mistakes. There are things that have been done all throughout history that we look back on thinking, "how could we have let that happen?" - for example, slavery. Now, obviously this is a big, BIG mistake, as were the residential schools. But I have to wonder if the people making these mistakes at the time actually realized the extent of their horror? I am by no means standing up for what was done, I'm just thinking out loud here. But take residential schools. It can probably be stated fairly certainly that those implementing and carrying out the residential schools plan most likely thought they were helping. Obviously they did not go about it the right way, but I think many things are much more easily seen from afar...after things have taken place...after we have seen the effects. We can judge the mistakes of others, but the fact is that sometimes when one is in the moment of the mistake he/she may not see the mistake being made. It is only after it is done and the effects occur that eyes are opened. The positive side is that many of us learn from these past mistakes and take care not to repeat them.
That being said, I'd like to go back to the question "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" with reference to education. I think we are probably making all kinds of mistakes! Not to say that we do nothing right, because I'm sure that there are many, many things we do well. But because mistakes are difficult to see when we are in the act of making them, we just have to try things, wait them out to see the effects, and adjust accordingly. Trial and error. The unfortunate thing about education is that we try and fail (and try and succeed) with the world watching.
A second thought was on the question, "What knowledge is of most worth"? Of course one could make a list that would wrap around the world twice. However, while I think certain subjects important (and honestly, I do think we're doing pretty well on that - math, science, social studies, L.A., arts), I think what is most important may not be the subject material itself (gasp!). Really, when I think back, I don't actually remember much of what I learned in grade 11 Biology. I'm sure some things have stuck around, but like they say, "if you don't use it, you lose it"! But I definitely do not think that it was a waste of time. This brings me to my personal "answer" of sorts to the question, "what knowledge is of most worth?". Perhaps the most important things we gain from our education are our values and skills. I think that while students may not remember exact content of the subjects, they will take with them the skills that were practiced (for example, working in a group, creating hypotheses, carrying out experiments, knowing how to find information when it is needed, etc.). They will also absorb the values that were positively modeled for them (and also those that were not modeled (excluded) - or modeled in negative ways). I most definitely think it's important, when designing curriculum, choosing course content, or creating a single lesson, that we think about what skills and values are also being learned, because this is what students will take with them!
My first thought is in regards to our government apologizing for residential schools. The question was posed, "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" I thought this was an interesting question. While I do think the residential schools were a huge mistake and definitely called for an apology, I think there will always be mistakes. There are things that have been done all throughout history that we look back on thinking, "how could we have let that happen?" - for example, slavery. Now, obviously this is a big, BIG mistake, as were the residential schools. But I have to wonder if the people making these mistakes at the time actually realized the extent of their horror? I am by no means standing up for what was done, I'm just thinking out loud here. But take residential schools. It can probably be stated fairly certainly that those implementing and carrying out the residential schools plan most likely thought they were helping. Obviously they did not go about it the right way, but I think many things are much more easily seen from afar...after things have taken place...after we have seen the effects. We can judge the mistakes of others, but the fact is that sometimes when one is in the moment of the mistake he/she may not see the mistake being made. It is only after it is done and the effects occur that eyes are opened. The positive side is that many of us learn from these past mistakes and take care not to repeat them.
That being said, I'd like to go back to the question "What are we doing now that might need to be apologized for in the future?" with reference to education. I think we are probably making all kinds of mistakes! Not to say that we do nothing right, because I'm sure that there are many, many things we do well. But because mistakes are difficult to see when we are in the act of making them, we just have to try things, wait them out to see the effects, and adjust accordingly. Trial and error. The unfortunate thing about education is that we try and fail (and try and succeed) with the world watching.
A second thought was on the question, "What knowledge is of most worth"? Of course one could make a list that would wrap around the world twice. However, while I think certain subjects important (and honestly, I do think we're doing pretty well on that - math, science, social studies, L.A., arts), I think what is most important may not be the subject material itself (gasp!). Really, when I think back, I don't actually remember much of what I learned in grade 11 Biology. I'm sure some things have stuck around, but like they say, "if you don't use it, you lose it"! But I definitely do not think that it was a waste of time. This brings me to my personal "answer" of sorts to the question, "what knowledge is of most worth?". Perhaps the most important things we gain from our education are our values and skills. I think that while students may not remember exact content of the subjects, they will take with them the skills that were practiced (for example, working in a group, creating hypotheses, carrying out experiments, knowing how to find information when it is needed, etc.). They will also absorb the values that were positively modeled for them (and also those that were not modeled (excluded) - or modeled in negative ways). I most definitely think it's important, when designing curriculum, choosing course content, or creating a single lesson, that we think about what skills and values are also being learned, because this is what students will take with them!
Monday, January 18, 2010
Initial Thoughts on "Metaphorical Roots of Curriculum Design"
I thought the three metaphors for curriculum design posed by Kliebard were quite interesting! It was a neat way to look at it!
In the first section, “The Metaphor of Production”, students were titled “raw material” and were expected to be “transformed into a finished and useful product”. I am sure that for some the term “raw material” works for this metaphor, but to me it sounds like the whole “blank slate” idea. Students come to school with a variety of background knowledge, varying life experiences, and extremely varied personalities. They are already people before they come to school! But I do understand where he was going with the metaphor, so perhaps "raw material" was fitting in that particular case.
In the metaphor of Growth, Kliebard likened plants to students when he stated, “The plants that grow in the greenhouse are of every variety, but the gardener treats each according to its own needs, so that each plant comes to flower. The universal blooming cannot be accomplished by leaving some plants unattended”. I love this metaphor, and as much as I would like to think we follow it at all times, I don’t think we do. How can standardized tests possibly treat each “flower” according to it’s own needs? What about the American “No Child Left Behind” policy, which basically expects all students to learn all material in the same capacity and at the same time, regardless of individual learning needs? And Canada’s “no fail” policy most definitely does not support individual needs either. I think anything that is black-and-white, all-or-nothing, is not a good way in which to support our students. Every student is different, and therefore each case needs to be assessed and dealt with on an individual basis, just like the variety of flowers in the greenhouse need to be treated accordingly by the gardener.
I also liked that Kliebard noted that “Each traveller will be affected differently by the journey”. There are so many things that can affect what we get out of our learning (such as past experiences, background knowledge, family life, interests and aspirations), and it is important to remember that each of our students, although experiencing the same content may come away with varying sets of knowledge, skills and values.
In the first section, “The Metaphor of Production”, students were titled “raw material” and were expected to be “transformed into a finished and useful product”. I am sure that for some the term “raw material” works for this metaphor, but to me it sounds like the whole “blank slate” idea. Students come to school with a variety of background knowledge, varying life experiences, and extremely varied personalities. They are already people before they come to school! But I do understand where he was going with the metaphor, so perhaps "raw material" was fitting in that particular case.
In the metaphor of Growth, Kliebard likened plants to students when he stated, “The plants that grow in the greenhouse are of every variety, but the gardener treats each according to its own needs, so that each plant comes to flower. The universal blooming cannot be accomplished by leaving some plants unattended”. I love this metaphor, and as much as I would like to think we follow it at all times, I don’t think we do. How can standardized tests possibly treat each “flower” according to it’s own needs? What about the American “No Child Left Behind” policy, which basically expects all students to learn all material in the same capacity and at the same time, regardless of individual learning needs? And Canada’s “no fail” policy most definitely does not support individual needs either. I think anything that is black-and-white, all-or-nothing, is not a good way in which to support our students. Every student is different, and therefore each case needs to be assessed and dealt with on an individual basis, just like the variety of flowers in the greenhouse need to be treated accordingly by the gardener.
I also liked that Kliebard noted that “Each traveller will be affected differently by the journey”. There are so many things that can affect what we get out of our learning (such as past experiences, background knowledge, family life, interests and aspirations), and it is important to remember that each of our students, although experiencing the same content may come away with varying sets of knowledge, skills and values.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Reflections On Our First Class
So…after this first class, what else could I talk about but Christmas! Being a music teacher, one of the first things I think about when I hear the word “Christmas” is CHRISTMAS CONCERT! It’s the highlight of a music teacher’s year! However, with all the joys of putting on a “Christmas concert” (or should I say, “winter concert”!) come all of the politics as well! These are what came to mind when we were discussing the different types of “Christmas” that have all seemed to fuse into one.
I am still allowed to call it a Christmas concert. But there are rules. “Secular Christmas” (reindeer, Santa, Elves, etc.) is fine. However, if “Sacred Christmas” is to be mentioned, so too must other “spiritual” holidays that occur in December (such as Kwanzaa and Hannukah). I am not saying this is “wrong” – of course we should be exposing students to as many traditions and points of view as possible! But I do think I am one of the lucky ones. Many colleagues are not even allowed to mention the "C" word in their schools! I just find it somewhat odd that most school communities expect there to be an elaborate concert - held in December - with somewhat of a celebratory air to it – maybe even decorated with Christmas trees and Christmas lights, and children sporting Santa hats and reindeer antlers - but it is NOT a “Christmas” concert. It is a “winter” concert. Are we really fooling anyone? I think the majority of students performing in these concerts, as well as the majority of the members in the audience know that a celebration of the Christmas season is in the air. Don’t get me wrong – I know that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and that should most definitely be respected. I just find it odd that we are trying to “hide” or “disguise” these concerts when their purposes seem so obvious. And considering all of my students spend all of December and half of January talking about Christmas (especially their Christmas presents!), I’m not entirely sure why we feel the need to put on this façade that it is not “Christmas” – it is “winter”.
At the risk of getting too deep here, it makes me wonder how we can possibly be accurately teaching our students when we have to hide parts of who we are at school. We don’t want to “offend” anyone by talking about Christmas (and personally, I have to wonder...what about peace, love, gift-giving, and celebrating family is offensive anyway?). Christianity is taboo and all traces are removed from the schools. Prayers of any kind (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so on) are not permitted. Is it possible that we are teaching children to hide who they are in order to create a “one-dimensional, nobody-can-be-different” world? As a country that boasts being a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”, are we actually practicing what we preach?
I do agree that in the past public schools were probably too “Christian”. But now I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and we are afraid to be anything (at least in public). I think we need to find a healthier balance.
Just a thought.
I am still allowed to call it a Christmas concert. But there are rules. “Secular Christmas” (reindeer, Santa, Elves, etc.) is fine. However, if “Sacred Christmas” is to be mentioned, so too must other “spiritual” holidays that occur in December (such as Kwanzaa and Hannukah). I am not saying this is “wrong” – of course we should be exposing students to as many traditions and points of view as possible! But I do think I am one of the lucky ones. Many colleagues are not even allowed to mention the "C" word in their schools! I just find it somewhat odd that most school communities expect there to be an elaborate concert - held in December - with somewhat of a celebratory air to it – maybe even decorated with Christmas trees and Christmas lights, and children sporting Santa hats and reindeer antlers - but it is NOT a “Christmas” concert. It is a “winter” concert. Are we really fooling anyone? I think the majority of students performing in these concerts, as well as the majority of the members in the audience know that a celebration of the Christmas season is in the air. Don’t get me wrong – I know that not everyone celebrates Christmas, and that should most definitely be respected. I just find it odd that we are trying to “hide” or “disguise” these concerts when their purposes seem so obvious. And considering all of my students spend all of December and half of January talking about Christmas (especially their Christmas presents!), I’m not entirely sure why we feel the need to put on this façade that it is not “Christmas” – it is “winter”.
At the risk of getting too deep here, it makes me wonder how we can possibly be accurately teaching our students when we have to hide parts of who we are at school. We don’t want to “offend” anyone by talking about Christmas (and personally, I have to wonder...what about peace, love, gift-giving, and celebrating family is offensive anyway?). Christianity is taboo and all traces are removed from the schools. Prayers of any kind (Christian, Muslim, Jewish and so on) are not permitted. Is it possible that we are teaching children to hide who they are in order to create a “one-dimensional, nobody-can-be-different” world? As a country that boasts being a “mosaic” rather than a “melting pot”, are we actually practicing what we preach?
I do agree that in the past public schools were probably too “Christian”. But now I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way, and we are afraid to be anything (at least in public). I think we need to find a healthier balance.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
