The
opening of this reading showed what I think is the hardest challenge for
new teachers. Knowing how to teach the material and be able to measure what
works and what doesn't work. In his antidote, Nate is knowledgeable on his
content area but has trouble articulating how and why he will use a certain
teaching method. When I develop my first unit, it will be difficult to know
what exactly is going to work because I do not know my students. I can go with
a best guess pulling from courses I’ve taken at RIC but truth be told I wouldn't be surprised if I have to drastically alter my methods if I’m seeing the
students succeed. I think that is one of the most important characteristics of
a good educator, being responsive to the students. The authors gives Nate some
great advice. This reading argues that teachers have to be ever conscious
of their methods and always should be asking themselves is what they are doing working
and how do we know. I agree with the notion that our
educational system abandons guiding students through the zone of proximal
development once they reach middle school and high school. I definitely experienced
that in my secondary education. Teacher expect the students to learn the
material that is presented to them no matter what methods are used. If the
student fails the blame is often put on the student and not on the fact that
the teacher did not allow them to progress to the point where they could master
the material on their own. I agree with
the authors when he says that Vygotsky’s theory should be applied throughout a student’s
education. I found this portion of the reading to be very helpful in clarifying
an effective method of teaching. Releasing responsibility to the student seems
to be a great way to guide a student into a self-reliant learner with tools to
use when approaching any task.
The
second chapter dealing with the three theories regarding what happens when we
read was very interesting. The first is the bottom up or part to whole and new
critics find meaning that is already in the text. Applied in the classroom, it is
the teacher’s job to “transmit textual knowledge to the student” and the
students job “to know what the text means”. This was the case in my own
education in middle school and high school where I was given a reading and the
meaning was already determined, it was my job to find the right one. The third theory
is what I found very interesting, the top down theorist who argue that meaning
comes from the mind of the reader. This seems like the more effective approach
because it empowers the reader. Although I was never a
student who refused to read but if I was, being given the opportunity to have
my interpretation heard and validated would defiantly motivate me. I thought
this reading was important for us as prospective educators. It raises important
points that every teacher should consider. Being able to ask how and why you
are teaching your students is critical for every teacher. I defiantly gave me
some ideas on what I might use when I start teaching.
Jacob -
ReplyDeleteI agree with your thoughts on the student teacher's scenario. Going into a classroom with no knowledge of the students will be difficult. Having to alter methods and lessons will probably occur often at the beginning of our careers as educators depending on the students we receive. We will most likely have a heterogenous groups of students and unlike at the elementary level we will have various groups of students to teach. A lesson may work for one period of US History but not so much for the next.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteI agree with one of your first sentences here. I think responsive teaching will always be effective, especially when we first begin (and really throughout our careers seeing we get to meet new students each year). When we begin teaching, I'm sure all of us will find ourselves in Nate's position. But, we will put our own minds at ease knowing at least 20 others are in the same position!
Unfortunately, it seems as though we have had some of the same experiences with reading. Teachers used to give us reading assignments and assumed we knew exactly how to pick apart and analyze them.
I'm glad to see you agree with Vygotsky, as do I. I've always considered his beliefs some of the best.
Jacob - I agree with you about the appeal of the top-down theorist approach to reading (and the related subjective reader response literary theory) in that it values the subjective response of the reader - the bottom-up theorists and New Critics who see the text as the sole source of meaning are a bit terrifying (conjuring up the image of the passive learning that happens in curriculum-centered teaching where the empty vessels of the students minds are filled with the one and only "truth" as told by the teacher and text) - however, like Wilhelm, the top-down approach troubles me a bit too as it's too one-sided - while there is value in the student's response, if their response alone is all that matters, are they really learning and getting as much out of the text as they can? I like that Wilhelm says "expertise needs to be more actively shared than this model suggests" - in the more two-sided approaches that Wilhelm outlines, teachers work with the students, not giving them the "right" response, but lending their expertise with dealing with particular types of texts so that the students can engage more fully with the text - the teacher gives the students the tools necessary to go deeper than their response alone would take them - and in this way, students are not only gaining content from the text but skills that they can use in other contexts.
ReplyDelete