Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would love to know what asinine methodology led the educators to think that the kids were going to study all the material on their own AND ask questions about it?
Are they out of their mind?
If you can't get kids to do normal reading at home, why would they think that suddenly they're going to want to do even more work?
Why should the student do the work for the teacher?
For all intents and purposes, a teacher who hands out packets essentially is a sub.
The idea is wonderful, but not grounded in reality.
All that does is water down the material for the smart kids and has the smart kids essentially do the lazy kids' homework since they just copy from the smart kids. And since the smart kids are sitting right there, it's hard to say "No, you're not copying." With homework, the smart kids could just not take it out.
Also, you mentioned that it will take longer to get through the material.
How do you purport to get through a world history curriculum in 9 months if it is going to take even longer than before?
So would I but I just do as I'm told. The idea is to get students talking to each other. It's believed this style of teaching engages students more than a lecture format. I will defend this style of teaching in classes like geometry though because geometry is applied mathematics. I cannot teach you how to reason through a proof. I can show you proofs but my doing 1, 10 or 100 doesn't teach you how to do them because you must reason through them to do them (you just can't learn to think critically by watching someone else think critically. You learn to think critically by trying to think critically, failing, trying again, failing, trying again, getting some right, trying again and then it starts getting easier.). Since they are learned by reasoning through them, this is, exactly, how a class like this should be taught. The discussion comes after the kids have tried on their own and with friends to figure it out. IMO, my job in my geometry classes is to get the kids unstuck when they get stuck and, while they complained like the dickens early on, many have come to appreciate that they can now think their way through a geometry problem, often, without my help. More and more my job is to confirm that they got it right, which is really cool. We got to this point BECAUSE i made them butt their heads against the wall, let them get stuck and then helped them see where they got stuck and why and then we added more stuff and they got stuck again, rinse and repeat. Some classes do lend themselves to this style of teaching. Others do not, IMO. I hate teaching chemistry this way. If I give kids two test tubes containing clear liquids and they mix them and get a yellow precipitate....they have NO CLUE what just happened. I can let the students talk until the cows come home and they will not figure out what happened. I need to tell them what happened and why it happened and most still won't get it. Next year will be interesting if I'm still teaching.
The student shouldn't work for the teacher. They should work for their own education. THIS is what is missing from education in the US. The idea that the student is responsible for their own learning regardless of whether the teacher lectures or hands out a packet and expects the students to work togther to problem solve and figure it out.
I agree with you on watering things down for the smart kids and the other kids just copying. That's why I don't like this format for classes like chemistry but one of my metrics on my PR is evidence of student talk and students discovering the material. In order to accomplish this, I can't stand up there and hand it to them. I have to give them something to chew on and struggle with. If I stand up there and ask questions, 2/3 of the class will not engage. The only advantage I see is that I can walk around the room during group work and nudge the ones who don't seem to be participating. I do, however, think the top learns less in most classes this way and the bottom just copies anyway. The middle might actually benefit.
But what I think of this style of teaching doesn't matter because the powers that be have declared this is the direction we are going. What you don't realize is that education is one big ongoing experiment. We're not allowed to do what worked yesterday because that's old fashioned and outdated. We have to keep up with the times if we want to keep our jobs and the times say that student talk not teacher talk is the way to teach now that and using technology...never mind it seems to be more of a distraction than anything else....sigh...
I don't know about world history, but we're being instructed to pick out the most important topics and only teach those in science. We're being told to teach fewer topics but teach what we teach to a greater depth. So we aren't teaching the entire content in 9 months. We're going to teach about 2/3 of the content. They call these standards "Power standards" so parents won't realize that what we're really doing is teaching less material. They're not power standards because they matter most. They're power standards because we think we can actually get those in.
All of this makes you wonder why anyone goes into education. Unfortunately, you learn the truth only after taking the job. We all entered this profession as naive as you are about the way education works (nothing against you. I'm just saying that until you've stood in front of a classroom you just don't know what goes on in education. Being a teacher is different than being a student.).
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 05-12-2013 at 06:59 AM..
In response to your comment I don't spend my spare time building bridges or doing neurosurgery, so I'd have less expertise there to tell those folks what to do. However as someone who has worked in various healthcare related jobs, people do give opinions to health professionals frequently.
I can say while I am no expert in classroom management, I have been a teacher to my children. I can tell some of the methods that have been used in school that don't work. I've actually spent quite a bit of time with one of my kids when they didn't grasp the way things were being taught in school.
I really don't agree with your logic. If I have a plumber come to my house, and his repair doesn't work, does that mean I am unable to criticize him, because I have never been a plumber?
Your criticism of him -the plumber - not doing the job correctly is fine, but since you had to call him in the first place means either you 1) don't actually know how to do his job or 2)you would rather not do it. Think about this logc: if you already knew what to do to fix your problem, then why call him? Do it yourself and prove that you can do it. OTOH, if you don't know what you're doing or would rather not make the effort yourself, but you keep telling him how to do his job, he's likely to tell you to shut up or do it yourself. Yes, you do have the right to criticize him if the job doesn't get done right - absolutely. What you don't have is the right to tell him how to do his job you don't know how to do yourself. That's called stupidity.
And just because you've had children doesn't mean you've encountered the whole gamut of children presonality-types that public school teachers have to encounter daily. When you've done that job for a few years - and done it successfully - then you have the right to tell other teachers how to do it. Until then, all you have the right to do is criticize those whose job you've never done. That is a right you have, just as it is their right to tell you to stop talking out of your a$$.
I'm not saying the teacher in this case was correct or not. I'm not even criticizing the kid. We will probably never get an unbiased truthfrom either, which is why we should NOT make summary judgements on a whole profession based on this 90 second video. That's logic.
Last edited by Starman71; 05-12-2013 at 09:11 AM..
Some of the comments about how teachers should be doing their jobs are downright insulting and ignorant. Without actually spending time in the classroom for some reasonable amount of time, you have no idea of the challenges teachers face, you can only make assumptions.
Some of the comments about how teachers should be doing their jobs are downright insulting and ignorant. Without actually spending time in the classroom for some reasonable amount of time, you have no idea of the challenges teachers face, you can only make assumptions.
The majority of History and English teachers I had didn't really do anything but paraphrase the book. The books were usually about 500 pages or more and we covered less than half of them so all they really had to do was specify what part of the book would be on a test and I could have gotten a B or a C without them.
Most teachers seem to believe they are necessary. Maybe for some students they are. But not for all of them. The majority of teachers were just boring to me. Better books would be an improvement.
1632 by Eric Flint made European history more interesting than any class I had. I don't recall anything about the Vasa'a of Sweden in the version of history I was taught.
Is the point now that these tablet computers make the classroom technique obsolete?
You don't have to be an expert to tell a bridge builder to build his/her bridges in the right way for the right bridge. That is the issue.
This 'packet' method might benefit some students. But its going to leave some lost in the cold. Students and bridges are much the same in that. I'd just go dump the packet on the teachers desk and tell them to start talking about it since it wasn't working this way. Then if she/he didn't I'd skim the surface and get a D to get it over and not care if I wasn't interested. If I was I'd go and complain each day to the teacher. I personally wouldn't care if anyone was bothered because I wouldn't be ignored. I'd tell my parents and maybe someone else. My parents would have been in the VP's office complaining to them.
The problem is that lecturing is also NOT the best way to teach for most students. This is research on students learning college physics, but the same holds for any high school class. The problem is that kids tend to hold onto their *intuitive* knowledge even when that knowledge is wrong. Unless they are engaged and have an *aha* moment, they will not learn the new concepts well. They will memorize what they need from the teacher's lecture to put it down on a test and then promptly return to their own ingrained way of thinking.
Researchers and instructors have developed a number of "interactive-engagement" techniques in recent years that have proven more effective than lectures for teaching large classes. Mazur uses an approach that he calls "peer instruction." It's hard to know how many instructors are using these approaches, but experts say most large, introductory classes – especially in the sciences – are still taught using the conventional lecture method.
Mazur says even now, years after the first articles about the FCI and the establishment of dozens of Physics Education Research programs, a lot of professors still have a hard time getting their heads around the idea that there is anything wrong with lecturing.
"Most of the people who are teaching are products of this approach to teaching," he says. "They were successful in this approach."
What Mazur has found over nearly 20 years of using peer instruction is that many more students choose the right answer after they have talked with their peers. And it's not because they're blindly following their neighbor's lead. By the end of the semester, students have a deeper understanding of the fundamental concepts of physics than they did when Mazur was just lecturing. Students end up understanding nearly three times as much now, measured by a widely-used conceptual test.
In addition to having a deeper grasp of concepts, students in Mazur's classes are better at solving conventional physics problems, despite the fact that Mazur no longer spends class time at the board doing problems. He says this shows something that may seem obvious.
"If you understand the material better, you do better on problem-solving," Mazur says. "Even if there's less of it done in class."
Peer instruction has proven effective in a range of subjects from psychology to philosophy.
I agree with you that the old system worked. But I'm told I'm old fashioned when I defend it. The way I see it, we put a man on the moon with the education system we had in the 1950's and we did it without computers to help us. I'd call that success.
You cannot be serious. We did not put a man on the moon without computers. These were pretty basic computers, but they were absolutely still necessary for the moon landing.
By today's standards, the IT Nasa used in the Apollo manned lunar programme is pretty basic. But while they were no more powerful than a pocket calculator, these ingenious computer systems were able to guide astronauts across 356,000 km of space from the Earth to the Moon and return them safely.
Quote:
The lunar mission used a command module computer designed at MIT and built by Raytheon, which paved the way to "fly by wire" aircraft.
Quote:
The so-called Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) used a real time operating system, which enabled astronauts to enter simple commands by typing in pairs of nouns and verbs, to control the spacecraft.
Quote:
Along with the APG, mainframes were also heavily used in the Apollo programme. Over 3,500 IBM employees were involved, (pictured below). The Goddard Space Flight Center used IBM System/360 Model 75s for communications across Nasa and the spacecraft
But that isn't what teaching should be. Teaching should be opening minds to possibilities. And you aren't teaching things, you are teaching how to learn new ones. You are teaching how to look at tomorrows world with eyes wide open.
So if the teacher obediently pulls out packets of stuff that the state says is what they need to get test scores and sits at the desk, they are by defination NOT teaching. Schools today have been hijacked by non thinkers, non educators, and non questioneers.
What this 'teacher' should have said was calmly, and yet with conviction that he was right. That she was doing what the school tells her to do, that he needs to tell the admins and the people up the line that all they are doing is passing the buck. That if she did as they all wished she'd be gone and replaced with a new robot, but the students don't have to stand for that. That students should feel free to speak up when they feel they are NOT being taught
Yes, many jobs require that. That is why you have homework, and reptitus work, because even in the most challenging of jobs you have 'stuff' that has to be done. But you don't waste those precious hours in the classroom with packets of selected material. You engage the students when they are there, challenge them, ask questions which require time and thought to begin to answer. That is what *school* time should be for.
That is how you wake up the ones who will not be shuffing electronic paper and thinking about something entirely different. This is *when* you open up the possibility to the student you can do anything that you believe you can. Raise the bar, not lower it to the lowest level...
You know why high school and first year college classes have about the same content? Why the college classes are acceptable in many schools for both credits but colleges do not accept your high school ones without a do over? Because college classes are less about bean counting and more about thinking and learning and giving students an increased responsibility in their own education.
Back when schooling began, when the industrial revolution required children who could read simple instructions so they could work in factories with printed instruction, there was a two layer based on class. Children were observed and those who seemed to react properly were further tested with the goal of providing sufficently knowlegable and subserviant servants. It was an honored profession, to go into service, becasue it was one with upward mobility and self responsibility. Those who were not suited by personality to service went to factories. Those of sufficent class went to other schools, but even those who failed the 'thinker' were found places they wouldn't hurt themselves or get in the way.
Today we wouldn't want to do that, so we flatten the field. Make school about challenge even if it doesn't make the test scores soar. The ones who can't meet the challenge or are not ready to educate anyway. The more we know and the greater the variety the better, even if we don't 'use' it that we know of. But push enough the prime minds surface and they themselves find their direction.
If I had the choice of a school where they really taught but the test scores were iffy and one where they taught the test there would be NO question which would serve my kid in LIFE and which I'd choose.
We are not all square pegs and standardized minds and until we realize this only those really smart kids who go into programs like GATE where much is expected to come from themselves are really getting an education today. The rest are the equivilant of the factory workers of old.
You make some valid points, but you're aiming your frustration at the wrong targets. I agree that many of the teachers in our school's could be better, but there's a deeper, underlying cause that poses a much greater problem. The real culprit is us. The average person thinks that he or she's an expert in education. Laypeople get too involved in the educational process and don't really have any idea what they're talking about, but are either too proud or too ignorant to realize it. These are your results.
A large number of teachers are quitting their jobs for others, or tutoring or going to private schools too. These are people voting with their feet. Yes, you have to pay heed to the reality of the situation. No, you should not sit back and be silent. The teacher was *directly* challenged. She should either defend her 'method' (I'd say non-method) or better use it to see what the rest of the class thought. I'll bet as she seemed to be zoning at her desk while she was supposed to be 'teaching' she would be really surprised.
She could go sell shirts at walmart and at least not harm anyone as she is in her classroom by teaching that only following the rules is okay.
She could, but then there's a pretty good chance that someone else would step in her place and probably do the same thing. Again, why would any teacher with the potential to become an effective molder of young minds want to be thrust into a situation in which they're not encouraged or allowed to develop their own teaching skills. The field doesn't attract the right people.
The question is, why?
Look at the video and then look at how the school administrators have handled that issue and you'll get your answer. Imagine being in a situation in which you're supposed to be the leader but the people you lead get to evaluate you and thwart you on the basis of whether or not they like you or like what you're telling them. Imagine if soldiers could just spazz out and walk out on a drill instructor - what kind of military would we have? Imagine if the government had laws that forced corporations to tolerate insubordination from their employees - what kind of corporations would we have? Imagine if the government forced parents to listen to their children air their grievances and gave them the constitutional 'right' to run away for the whole night to show their displeasure at their parents' disciplinary methods - what kinds of children would we have? You cannot have inmates running the asylum. Period.
But that's what's happening in a lot of our schools. The teacher's just told to present information and 'do their job', so that's what they do. We really shouldn't complain about it, because that's a situation that we've created for ourselves. As I said, we pay college football coaches about 10 to 20 times what the best school at that university gets paid. That shows me how much we really value education.
I had a history teacher like that in high school. He would just tell us to read a chapter out of our books and then give us a short test.
He never asked us a single question or spent a millisecond teaching out loud.
There was zero class discussion.
I used to wonder how the hell he justified his paycheck.
You saw 1 minute and 27 seconds, most of which featured an incoherent teenager who has the vocabulary of someone about five or six years younger ranting like a schizophrenic. There's no way you can look at that video and get any sense for what's happening in the class. Maybe the teacher lacks enthusiasm, but boring people still have important information to pass along once in a while.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
