Mad · Ramblings

One of the main goals I have in life is to do things I enjoy. I enjoy reading. I enjoy explaining things to people. I enjoy simplifying. And I enjoy technology. In my classroom I try my best to combine all these aspects. For the purposes of this paper, however, I would like to talk about integration of new advancement in communication technology and how it could apply to a classroom.
( Read more... )

There are a lot of small groups in the class that I am observing. This is not something out of the ordinary. After all it is high school. However beyond these "natural" cliques there are some groups that were forced into existence by the physical environment of the class. The classroom consists of 8 round tables, which hold up to four students. This allows the teacher to divide the class into groups much more efficiently. This, however, allows for inherent sense of competition within the tables themselves. In this classroom these artificial cliques override the "Natural" cliques at least in academic terms.

There are two ways in class when the students talk about the books and the writing: in small (table) groups and in large group discussions. It was interesting to observe the different groups, i.e. jocks, cheerleaders, brains and so on; entire "Breakfast Club" gang, work together in the intellectual environment. Each one brought something unique and different to the table. It is difficult to see, at least without further analysis, how these groups translate outside this particular classroom.

In a large group discussion everyone has to participate, which builds up a sense of comradery between the students. The need to bounce questions of each other, therefore it is in everybody's best interest that people bring up interesting and valid points in these discussions. It is much easier to participate then.

P.S. I figure I'll give some stats about the class I am observing

30 kids
93% white/caucasian
7% asian

60% male

Upper middle class economic background

Leave comments if you want to know more info.

The teacher sets high expectations when it comes to text interaction. The students are familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy and are expected to discuss the book with the higher-level thinking questions. The students are expected to draw direct quotes from the text. The text is treated as the source of information that is open to interpretation. Obviously, they can't say that the text is about snakes because of the abundance of the letter "S", but within reason the interpretations are allowed.

There are several guiding questions that are passed out before each discussion. These questions are used as discussion starters but the students are encouraged to come up with their own questions. Barely do the students fail to do so. The discussions are not there to critique the text, but to analyze it. Sometimes some critique is issued but without any analysis the student will lose discussion points. Again, I must reiterate that the there is barely any discussion of the plot itself, but mostly analysis and evaluation, which are the higher-order questions.

Sadly I have not observed other interactions with the text, such as presentations and small group discussions, but I am sure the underlying goals would still be the same, hence the procedures would not be that much different.

It is hard to pin-point the social arrengements in the classroom. The kids did not select their own seats, so as the teacher explained to me the selection was rather random. There is at least some diversity in gender at each table, which was also done o purpose. The teacher did put a lot of thought in creating a good social atmosphere for the kids. The kids, for the most part cannot pick their partners in group projects, except in small presentations that the have to do about a specific grammatical concept. The teacher justifies it by noting the decline in productivity when she did allow self-selection in the past. According to her, this arrangement is optimal.

Physically the classroom is devided into eight groups by tables. There are three to four people per table. This arrangement encourages group work, but, again, they are unable to select their partners. Noone seems to have a problem working with their groups, which might be due to a certain lack of diversity in the classroom.

Usually the only time any academic talk occurs is with teacher participation. These kids, seniors, know each other well enough to have other things to talk about. I have not heard the talking about favorite books or writers, or anything like that. Most of the "on topic" talk occurs in big discussions. If a student does not participate in the discussion, he or she will lose points. This actually works quite well, as long as all the kids know the system. From my observations the discussion itself went quite smoothly.

Kids know that it is really hard to get an A in this class so they don't act out. The really can't afford to. But their eyes do tend to glaze over from time to time. I am yet to see anything more than that from them, and I really don't expect to. They do need to graduate afterall.

I love media literacy. I truly believe that it is the way of the future. But it is important not to over do it. I think blogging is a great tool to substitute journals. It is more interactive and fun. Kids get a chance to post their thoughts online. It might lead to prolonged discussion that we can't even anticipate. It will start the exchange of knowledge and it will probably keep going even after the class is over. We need to embrace the technology, but we also need to remember that they should be kept optional thus to no alienate the kids who don't have the consistent internet access.

I think that it has all been said before. But the next step in teaching evolution is internet and we should embrace it.

I was really impressed that every table has at least one Webster’s dictionary on a table. There are also several shelves filled with books that might be helpful to students. There are several more that are filled with fun books. Student’s can check out every book from the classroom by filling out a pre-made form. I have personally seen students checking out books. I realize that they are probably doing it to fulfill their reading contracts, yet it still gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

I am yet to witness any in class reading in the classroom. The reason might be that the school is wealthy enough to have a book for each student. At least in the case of Hamlet. There is a lot of choice in the book they have to read for their reading contracts, however, there is no visible choice in the books that they have to read for class. It’s understandable, I guess, since the unit was called “Hamlet Unit.”

When it comes to writing the interaction is mostly through the comments that the teacher leaves in the margins. As far as the reading goes the main interaction comes through discussion and presentation in which the teacher and the students are active participants.

I think that the main thing that is done in the classroom to establish community is consistency. Everyone knows what to expect. At the same time everyone comes in and sits at the same place. My teacher uses a lot of different techniques in her lessons but students know their roles for all of these situations. They know how she wants the discussion to go and they know how she wants group work to go. This allows everyone to feel at ease. The safe environment is created and the sense of community is established.

That is not to say that everyone acts like a zombie. They all know that the have to participate in a discussion, so everyone is feeling the pressure. So while their response and the timing of are not known, the participation itself is almost guaranteed. I was amazed as to how well that worked in the classroom.

This belief in equality is also helped by everybody’s desire to go to college and get decent grades. Granted this wasn’t a remedial class but still the feeling was rather homogenous. No one really rebelled since, really, there was nothing to rebel against. Everyone was fairly comfortable within the community, since they all shared the same goal of getting an A and going to college. Perhaps, for some it was more like going through the day, but the end result was the same.

Sorry, I really wanted to write some snide remarks and observations here but, alas, I got to observe a really complacent class. Not that it’s a bad thing. ;-)

My interview with my cooperating teacher. I paraphrased and summarized a lot but I made sure to keep the general idea intact.
( Read more... )

I must admit, the grammar and I have a rather awkward relationships. I think we both understand why we need each other but it doesn't mean we have to like it. I actually know grammar, I really do, but I find it less important then the ability to read and analyze the text critically. Of course we still should teach it. The main question is how?

Over the years I have perfected the art of zoning out during grammar lessons, therefore I don't find the lectures and worksheets all that effective, I mean what is the point of teaching something that the students will not get? We also can't not teach grammar because reading the papers without any semblance of grammar is going to drive me even more insane than I already am. Really, there's only one way to teach grammar and that is in the context.

Last week my cooperating teacher had asked me to do some quick grammar mini-lessons. In those lessons I quickly explained the rule in general and provided at least ten examples of the use of this rule. Five of those examples we did as a class and the rest students did in their notebooks. Then I went over every example and told the when they will need to use this rule, how important the rule is and how often the teachers concentrate on this particular rule, since not all grammar rules are created equal. I feel that this personalization will help students to be more receptive towards grammar or any other subject matter.

I have been thinking a lot about different ways of engaging ELL students in the literature studied in English classes. The question is: Should it be any different? The sense that I get from the readings is that, yes, it should; however, none of them provide any suggestions that are different from the strategies that I learned in my previous classes. So good news is: I was already planning on engaging my students; the bad news: I’m still not sure, if ELL students should be engaged differently.
My stance on the matter has been consistent.It is hard for Language Learners to integrate into the society that is so new to them,when they are being treated differently. Now, of course, they need support, but I don’t think that when it comes to studying literature, which most of them had done in some way before in their country, there should be significant differentiation in our engagement practices. Of course we should show things like movies and tie the books to historical and social context, but do we really need anything else? I don’t think so.
I am indeed curious to see that most of the authors we had to read don’t seem to think that engagement is necessary for non-ELL kids. They don’t explicitly say that, yet it is apparent from their stress on engagement for ELL kids. I understand the effect that they are going for and I understand that they are not really concerned with the kids outside of their research, but I am! Since I am likely to teach both ELL and non-ELL kids in my classes, I am inclined to concentrate on the big picture, on the adjustments I will need to make and so on. The thing is: the more I read these books and articles, the more I realize that I won’t have to do much. I’ll do my best to use my ELL background to connect and support ELL kids, but I really don’t think they need it to the extent that the articles make it appear.

Continuing my rather impressive streak of ignoring Williams, today I want to focus on two ideas that Spandel touched on. Going "off-topic" and assessing.

Before we criticize teachers who punish students for going off-topic, we must discuss why they do that. It is important for students to be able to write on any topic aside. This skill, while unpleasant for students, is essential for their future lives. The might need to write proposals or research papers, they will not be able to choose the topics, so there is an importance to staying on topic. With that said, teachers need to keep the goal in mind. How specific should prompts be? I think not very. Make the topic broad enough for them to find something they like and we don't have a problem. It's not very realistic, but as long as the teachers use some good judgment and common sense, the issue will not become a major problem. (Of course some teachers lack that sense)

As far as assessments go, Spandel has nice idealistic ideals. Theoretically I agree with her, yes we should provide two examples (good and bad) for every section in the rubric. But imagine how much time would have to be accommodated for that. It'd be improbable to get that much time in the filled unit. Spandel doesn't really address the issues that her approach creates, which I find unfortunate. Bummer.