Industrial Age vs. New Science Thinking
I believe that the most important aspect of teaching is the relationship that is built between the child and the teacher. Without that relationship learning cannot take place. Placing a lot of value on the relationship that should be formed means that I relate very little to the Industrial Age education. In that type of education children come down the line and we throw as much information at them as we possibly can for that brief moment hoping that maybe something will stick. This does not lend itself to forming much of a relationship with our students. I very much believe that I should be partners with the students as we explore different things. Sometimes I may guide them and sometimes they may guide me. I think that our children learn best through their experiences and socializing with each other. It is interesting though because even though I believe very strongly that children should be talking and sharing it is still something that is not in my comfort zone to watch and observe in a classroom. I think all of us have grown up in the industrial age where we sat in our rows and worked quietly in our seats. We all also greatly benefitted from that way of learning as we have now become people passionate about education. Our visual in our minds of what education actually looks like from our years of school in the industrial age is very different than what we may claim we believe. I need to work on finding my comfort zone in learning environments that look nothing like I experienced in school so that my philosophy and vision can meet the reality of my classroom.
As far as how I implement the New Science Thinking of community learning and exploration, my first graders have sort of baptized me by fire in this theory. They rarely respond to the Industrial age so I have constantly reinvent things I used to do the boring way. A good example of this was today during writing. Instead of having my first graders sit and write sentences about a picture or prompt I gave, I had them work in groups. The job of each group was to come up with a complete sentence together. In each group a child has a card with a question word on it that would be their part of the sentence. (With the exception of the "action" person) They wrote their part on the back of the card. When a group created a sentence they all stood in front of the class in order and read their sentence part by part person by person. They were really into it! They were working together solving a problem, talking about the different parts of the sentence, helping each other spell and write words, presenting it orally, and resolving conflicts. There were so many skills that were being practiced, and no matter what level they were at they could participate, so it motivated my low ones as well. At one moment though, I had three to six kids crowding around me all with questions and the class a whole was very loud when working with their groups. I was a little overwhelmed by the site of what I felt was chaos and I was close to shutting it down, but I reminded myself that it was okay and worked to embrace the chaos. After I answered the questions (after reminding them of their manners in not calling out my name a million times) and took a second glance at my students I noticed that everyone was actually engaged, learning and having fun. But now I don't have any papers to grade... :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Testing -
ReplyDeleteGinny
Meghan--I understand what you're saying about the convention wisdom of "sit down and shut up" (sorry to be so crass!). There's this assumption that if kids are sitting working quietly, they're learning and too much "noise" takes us out of our comfort zone. At DMA, we've taken on a new literacy curriculum which is all about interacive read-aloud wherein the students are engaging with one another primarily, as well as with the teacher. It's really turned my head about student discussion. It's fairly non-directive and when done well, the students are highly engaged and really lead the teacher--a la what you say about the students directing you. When you have a rainy day (or month!), check out Lucy Calkins' THE ART OF TEACHING READING. I think you'd enjoy it!
ReplyDeleteMeghan--I think at the heart of your point is the movement away from that sage on the stage industrial assumption, where the teacher is the keeper of all knowledge. In your class you need to recognize in quick instances sometimes what may be working even if it isn't according to plan and then get out of the way. I think it takes some humility for us to accept that students' approach to things may in fact be better than the way we learned and that risking giving up some control can perhaps lead to greater student interest and achievement.
ReplyDeleteMeghan,
ReplyDeleteThat is a great anecdote that exemplifies New Science teaching. Rather than telling the students that they need to learn to do un-engaging activities, you created an engaging one. And, I suspect, they have a better understanding of sentences as a result.
Here's an idea... can you prove that your lesson was more effective than the sit-by-yourself lesson? If you have a test from when you did it the old way, you could give it to this class and see if scores improved. Just an idea.
I agree, the relationship between teacher and student is key. In my class, I find that when the relationship is lacking communication, the student doesn't realize what he or she is capable of. It sounds to me that you are doing a great job implementing New Science thinking. Reinventing activities and lesson plans is difficult. Whenever I am putting lessons on a PowerPoint and adding in sound or animation to make it more 'entertaining' for the students, I'll sometimes think to myself 'no one ever did this for me!'As a teacher of any age, I think it's a constant struggle to break out of the Industrial-Age way of teaching (that we all experienced) and begin to embrace New Science thinking, come on...don't you love that you don't have to correct those papers :)
ReplyDelete