A few weeks ago, as my College Comp II class was reading Mark Bauerlein's The Dumbest Generation, I found several dozen articles on the web discussing the millennials and their strengths and weaknesses.
So I matched up one article per student and had them summarize it and then explain how it related to Bauerlein's text.
As we discussed the articles, we really became interested in this one, which focused on the Ten Things Teachers Should Unlearn. It generated such a great discussion, that I thought I'd open it up to students on google docs and ask them to devise their own list. Then I decided to share it with our principal to see what he thought (to be fair, I thought the students generated a great list).
As we talked more about this, the thought struck me, what would teachers wish students would unlearn? So I created a google doc and shared that with many staff members. While I didn't get the response that I got from my students, I still got a good list.
Tomorrow in class, I'm going to share it with them and see what happens.
Here is the list of what students wish teachers would unlearn.
Things Teachers Should Unlearn
Here is the list of what teachers wish students would unlearn.
What Students Should Unlearn
If you wish, please let me know what you think.
3 comments:
I found this very interesting. What struck me the most--and has been a question in my mind for some time is--to engage the student, or tell them not to expect to be 'entertained?' I think the difference in the connotation of those two words is very important. To be engaged is to be deeply involved. To be entertained gives a more surface value involvement, from the way people use it. Entertainment like TV does have the ability to teach me (TEDtalks), using the internet is a good way to teach myself (using proper sources). A great teacher involves me, inspires me, makes me love learning. Engaging and entertaining do not seem to mean anything different, but the difference in the way they were used was fascinating. The students wanted to be engaged--the teachers didn't want to entertain.
Sometimes I think you either have what it takes to be a great teacher--or you don't. Whether they were born with it or had the right mentors, it is hard to learn to do something so paramount as engaging and entertaining students. It's an art form.
I agree that students should be both engaged and entertained. And that is what I try very hard to do in all of my classes.
Now I will have colleagues that will fire back with, "But students won't be entertained out in the real world or at work."
And there is some truth to that. However, learning is quite different from work. We are trying to instill kids with the skills that will allow them to be successful in the workforce. That doesn't mean we have to replicate the tediousness of the workforce while supposedly 'teaching' out students.
I think we all (whether we like to admit it or not) have an intrinsic desire to be entertained or engaged. It's not easy to do, especially as a teacher. And it's a lot easier to just show up and expect students to be eager recipients of knowledge. But that's not how it works. I've seen plenty of teachers complain about boring presentations at staff development days, yet do they even question their own practices?
I'm very fond of this quite, which I stole from our principal in an article entitled the "Ten Practices of a Highly Effective Instructors" by Mike Lanoutte:
"More importantly, high effective instructors know that if they cannot be more dynamic, more dazzling, more interactive & more interesting than that electronic gizmo in their student's hand, they have no business being in front of them in the first place."
I agree completely.
When we discussed the things teachers thought students should unlearn in class, I asked my students to vote for their top three that they thought were legit things to unlearn.
The top vote getters from students were #9, #12, and #3.
When we discussed what teachers should unlearn, the top vote getters from students were the dangers of group work, teachers treating students like kids, have a more open classroom environment conducive to discussions.
I agree that teachers have to be role models for their students. Without question. We need to model curiosity, conflict resolution, keeping an open mind, and respect. I like what one of my favorite people in education, Deborah Meier did when she was a principal. Whenever she knew a parent was mad at her or disgruntled, she asked to meet with them and asked them to bring their son or daughter. Meier knew the parent had probably already dragged her over the coals in private over the situation, so she wanted to show the child how two adults could resolve a conflict without ranting or insulting each other.
I am not totally against standardized tests. They serve a couple vital purposes: gauge student growth and teacher effectiveness. My main issue with the former is that Hartz actually spends more testing kitty litter than America does testing or evaluating our kids. John Merrow notes this in his book "Below C Average." So I wish we had more effective standardized tests. For instance, as Leon Botsteing points out in an excellent podcast from California Berkley, that the problem with standardized tests is that a kid doesn't get immediate feedback that is useful to them in any real sense. A kid can take a writing test and then six months later get a letter in the mail that his essay was rated a 4. Well, what does that mean? Botstein admits, and I agree, that such a practice is a foolish way to test kids. So if we had tests that gave better feedback (or feedback that was really useful) in a timelier fashion, that would be useful. And we could, but the bubble type tests are quite cheap right now.
As for the latter issue of gauging teaching effectiveness, I like to see what many states are doing now under RTTT: they are instituting a variety of ways to access teacher effectiveness. Michelle Rhee couldn't believe how conflict adverse the majority of her principals were in her tenure as head of Washington, D.C. schools. They didn't like to challenge teachers or rate them subpar. This, rightfully so, enraged Rhee and she worked very hard to change that. First, the new legislation is instituting a series of observations from both administration and other teachers. Second, standardized tests will be used for a significant factor (32%) to evaluate effective teachers. Finally, students and parents will have a say as well.
I far prefer this method to what is currently in place. In fact, I like what Colorado is doing. In "That Used To Be Us," Thomas Friedman illustrates how Colorado legislation allows for teachers, through the three types of assessments I mentioned above, to be evaluated. If they are found to be highly effective, they are granted a type of 'tenure' for three years. They will still be evaluated and accessed during that time, but not to the same extent. If a teacher is found to be in need of improvement, the teacher, if memory serves me correctly, has one year to improve. If they aren't rated higher, the principal can choose to not rehire them.
In addition, what this program does is it allows highly effective teachers to receive a stipend for modeling some of their more effective lessons or practices and have them video taped and uploaded to a website where other teachers can log on and see effective practice and lessons.
While I'm not a fan of pay for performance, I really do like the idea of teachers learning from the best in their fields.
Post a Comment