Upon reviewing feedback from my first group, and after discussing this with my colleague, she recommended that I go "deeper" with them in terms of instruction; meaning, in short, that I needed to get "heavy" with them in terms of what they are getting out of the class. Several things have prompted this: an insistence that I provide every single detail of instruction (step-by-step) regarding the research and projects I have them working on, and explaining precisely "why" we / they are doing something in the class.
So in last Wednesday's class, I started out by asking them how many cards I was holding. (In the absence of playing cards, I used some colorful little calendar cards I found.) I deliberately made it look like I was holding three, and showed them back and front of my hand holding the cards. Satisfied, they all agreed that I had three cards. I then revealed that behind one of the cards I held two more, making five cards where they were certain there were three.
My point, which I carried forth, was that you cannot always be satisfied by appearances, and that further investigation is ALWAYS required, particularly when teaching students. This seemed like a novel idea to them, so I expounded on the fact that even though we see what is in front of us all the time, we simply must look beyond at the greater world to discover more - and encourage our students to do likewise. So I have been trying to break through this wall with my students / teachers here and get them to start looking elsewhere - like the rest of the planet. I actually challenged them when I asked if they believed that through their jobs as teachers they can change the world simply by affecting their students. Most shook their heads and said no. Do you know what I told them? Then you should NOT be a teacher! That got the discussion going ...
In many ways already noted, these teachers are a product of a much more regimented education system that produces desired "results" (exam scores) than we have in the United States. But I believe that we may have an advantage in the US in that, with all our comparatively uneven school accountability (because it varies greatly state-by-state, district-by-district, even school-by-school), our teachers are just not ever going to be -- conformists.
But then, we have to remember something about Ukraine - it has only been independent from USSR since 1991, and they are still struggling with their identity - one need only read the recent political news for confirmation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I spoke with an outstanding high school math teacher here in Colorado to get a feel for his perspective on national standards/set national (or state) curriculum. He made the interesting point that he wonders if the American school system is a "wider" system - that we teach more things at a “shallower level” - than other countries do. It brings to mind other discussions I have had on progressive vs. traditional education – the idea being that progressive ed. is a mile deep and an inch wide, and traditional ed. is a mile wide and an inch deep. They both have their pros and cons. I see the advantage of having all students learn the same subject (though I have to wonder how successful it is, as teaching is not just about curriculum, but about the makeup, advantages, and disadvantages of students, teachers, and schools) but to not be able to consider things outside of the charted lesson plan seems to me to make for graduates who might produce things effectively, but will never innovate. And if as a country your workforce doesn’t have the skills to innovate, how does the country grow?
ReplyDelete