It is a singular privilege when finished with a difficult task to be able to look back and reflect on the experience. This is a particularly satisfying pleasure when looking back on my first experience in the cohort program at Montclair. I found the program thus far to be quite rewarding from a number of different points of view. My first observation is that I am extremely grateful that the courses had a very practical focus. From designing blogs and collaborative web pages to being able to design a pedagogically focused museum exhibit with the help of experts in the field, this was an experience that will inform my teaching for years to come. I will be able to implement all of these experiences into my teaching with a minimum of additional effort. More importantly these were projects that could only have been done in the context of the cohort program. In neither a traditional lecture based course nor an online course (which many of my colleagues suggested I take in order to simply “move up the guide”) would I have been able to learn these valuable lessons, and my students will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this work. Having a firm background in theory is of course important and the many readings served well to reinforce my background in this area. Having a specific methodology as a guide was a great help as well, although I still do not consider myself a true believer in the Wiggins model, feeling that I still do not know what the specific research that supports his model is, or if there really is a solid body of evidence to back up his claims and approach - nevertheless having any well defined model where congruence is stressed is bound to make a teacher’s lessons more effective and I feel I have benefited from the Wiggins approach in this area and I am looking forward to using his method as one of the tools in my lesson planning toolbox.
By far the most useful and enjoyable part of the experience was being able to work hand in hand with my colleagues. For the last four weeks we and our instructors have been working extremely hard under a tremendously compressed timeframe in order to meet the requirements of a rigorous sequence of courses in teacher leadership. Even though it was only four weeks the course requirements were just as demanding as if they were being run during an entire semester. The only way to survive in such an atmosphere is with the help of fellow professionals. My colleagues in the courses were all professionals in the highest sense of the word – people who cared deeply about their teaching, their students, the quality of their work, and dedication to helping each other through towards the noble goal of becoming even better teachers than they already were. Without their help and support I would have never been able to finish the first courses in the program. I sincerely hope we have the opportunity to work together again and until that time I wish each and every one of them the best as they endeavor to complete their work to become teacher leaders in our field. Thank you all!
Friday, August 1, 2008
Wonder in the City
I just came across something exciting that I feel encapsulates the teaching of wonder to which this blog is dedicated. It is an article about scientist Steven Farber in the NY Times. Dr. Farber is a scientist that runs BioEyes, a program to get kids excited and interested in science in inner city Baltimore. Beyond the fact that this is exactly the approach that needs to be taken for exceptional teaching I found it interesting that when asked why he doesn't involve more scientists he unabashedly points out that most scientists couldn't teach at any level, never mind the advanced level necessary to teach younger students! As an alternate route teacher myself I found this very amusing and quite agree - many people out there who think that teaching is just a matter of transferring subject matter knowledge and that the ultimate measure of a teacher is the extent to which they have mastered that subject matter knowledge (are you listening, NCLB people with your naive ideas about what constitutes being 'highly qualified?) has another thing coming if the actually think they can take that attitude into a real classroom with real students! Dr. Farber makes it a point to only allow teachers to teach in his program, preferably elementary. Long live Farber and BioEyes!
Apropos
During one of my all too frequent quests around the web (on my vacation!) I came across a very interesting educational site. Actually it's a commercial site for Apple Computers, but like many companies they occasionally make some effort at supporting education. This page was particularly interesting after having put together an exhibit at the Newark Museum. Apropos to this experience I wanted to share an interesting idea for an exciting lesson. At Apple's site they provide plans on how to lead students through setting up an audio tour of a museum exhibit using their IPod product. I thought this would be a great lesson for students in putting together their own pedagogical unit through a museum exhibit. It would also be a great formative assessment for a field trip to the museum! I will talk to the people at Newark Museum and let you know if they are interested in incorporating superlative podcasts of these tours into their exhibits...
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Barbie's Full of It
Numbers show girls as good at math as boys
Well this should finally put those old stereotypes to rest (Harvard's president not withstanding). How will it inform teaching math to girls? Only time will tell...
Jill Tucker, Chronicle Staff Writer
(07-24) 11:04 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Researchers say the long-running debate is settled: Girls are just as good as boys at math.
"Today, we do know that women can do math," said Marcia Linn, UC Berkeley education professor and co-author of the report, published in this month's issue of the journal Science.
Decades ago, girls took fewer advanced math and science courses, and those who did posted lower scores. The old line of thinking seemed to say: Girls, who don't like math and aren't good at it, should shy away from those brainy courses.
That perspective was embraced by the popular doll Teen Talk Barbie, who briefly proclaimed in 1992: "Math class is tough."
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Theory and Practice of Interactive Learning Centers
In Taylor and Otinsky's “Embarking on the Road to Authentic Engagement: Investigating Racism Through Interactive Learning Centers” the researchers seek to understand how deep affective learning on the topic of racism can be achieved. The interactive learning center is shown to be an extremely effective structure to reach this goal. With my experience at the Newark Museum I have seen just how powerful the potential for genuine learning can be in this environment. I would like to reflect on what I think is effective in light of findings of the article and my own experience of setting up an interactive museum exhibit/interactive learning center at the museum as well as observing the exhibits of my peers.
The study makes clear that slowing down the normal class flow is important to the process of implementing the learning center. An distinct advantage of the interactive learning center is that it helps student see material in a new context. Knowing that they are stepping out of a sometimes hurried and harried rush towards completing material this type of activity signals that something special will be happening – it conveys the message that what is about to take place will be significant and important to them personally. The interactive learning center is an excellent choice for a topic such as racism – it prepares the student for an experience that hopefully will change their outlook on an important issue in the society in which they live.
That the learning center must be interactive goes without saying, but what is the best way to implement this? First and foremost it should be inviting – it should literally extend an invitation into the experience as well as immerse the student in it. The experience should be unified and total. It must appeal to all learning modalities (visual, tactile, etc.) and appeal to the multiple intelligences of the student. It is important that the learning center be designed with the developmental and cognitive level of the students that will be using it in mind. Most importantly however it should take into account the socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of the students. In the article these students had little experience with people of color although they had been exposed to or immersed in many second hand ideas, unfounded beliefs and outright stereotypes through many media. Finally it is important that the center be a long term experience. At Grover Cleveland Middle School the center was set up for three months and served as a unifying point for successively planned units on racism. To have the kind of success related in the article it is important that the interactive learning center not be approached as a gimmick but an integral part of the long term curriculum.
Although a short term project my exhibit at the Newark Museum was designed to be the kernel of an interactive learning center for an inter-disciplinary unit for sophomores. The exhibit entitled “Sacred Geometry of the Circle: The Cosmology and Cosmogony of Cultures” was designed so that students could look at a seemingly simple idea (the circle) from the perspectives of math, religion, art, and culture and discover many new insights that they hadn't realized were possible. Interdisciplinary by nature it was designed to be a jumping off point for exploration of themes in all of their academic classes in order to see how these disciplines approach basic ideas such as this from different perspectives. This unifying experience is one of the hallmarks of an effective interactive learning center as pointed out previously. Students would not be the only ones working collaboratively – teachers from these disciplines would also collaborate in designing units for the learning center. Multimedia lessons which appeal to visual, analytical, and other intelligences would naturally flow from such an effort. It would hopefully be an inspiration to students to design their own exhibits based on an inquiry question of their own design, a very effective formative assessment. Ultimately the goal would be affective, to ensure that the students would come away from the experience looking at the world from a more enlightened frame of mind.
The study makes clear that slowing down the normal class flow is important to the process of implementing the learning center. An distinct advantage of the interactive learning center is that it helps student see material in a new context. Knowing that they are stepping out of a sometimes hurried and harried rush towards completing material this type of activity signals that something special will be happening – it conveys the message that what is about to take place will be significant and important to them personally. The interactive learning center is an excellent choice for a topic such as racism – it prepares the student for an experience that hopefully will change their outlook on an important issue in the society in which they live.
That the learning center must be interactive goes without saying, but what is the best way to implement this? First and foremost it should be inviting – it should literally extend an invitation into the experience as well as immerse the student in it. The experience should be unified and total. It must appeal to all learning modalities (visual, tactile, etc.) and appeal to the multiple intelligences of the student. It is important that the learning center be designed with the developmental and cognitive level of the students that will be using it in mind. Most importantly however it should take into account the socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of the students. In the article these students had little experience with people of color although they had been exposed to or immersed in many second hand ideas, unfounded beliefs and outright stereotypes through many media. Finally it is important that the center be a long term experience. At Grover Cleveland Middle School the center was set up for three months and served as a unifying point for successively planned units on racism. To have the kind of success related in the article it is important that the interactive learning center not be approached as a gimmick but an integral part of the long term curriculum.
Although a short term project my exhibit at the Newark Museum was designed to be the kernel of an interactive learning center for an inter-disciplinary unit for sophomores. The exhibit entitled “Sacred Geometry of the Circle: The Cosmology and Cosmogony of Cultures” was designed so that students could look at a seemingly simple idea (the circle) from the perspectives of math, religion, art, and culture and discover many new insights that they hadn't realized were possible. Interdisciplinary by nature it was designed to be a jumping off point for exploration of themes in all of their academic classes in order to see how these disciplines approach basic ideas such as this from different perspectives. This unifying experience is one of the hallmarks of an effective interactive learning center as pointed out previously. Students would not be the only ones working collaboratively – teachers from these disciplines would also collaborate in designing units for the learning center. Multimedia lessons which appeal to visual, analytical, and other intelligences would naturally flow from such an effort. It would hopefully be an inspiration to students to design their own exhibits based on an inquiry question of their own design, a very effective formative assessment. Ultimately the goal would be affective, to ensure that the students would come away from the experience looking at the world from a more enlightened frame of mind.
Back to Dewey
In the three chapters from this reading Dewey considers what experience means universally in general and additionally what the particular experience of thinking involves. I have become interested in what it means specifically for a student to have an experience of learning.
Dewey's idea of the esthetic (his spelling) – developed further as the expressive in chapter 14 – relates directly to the question of what is essential. Apart from this crucial element what most truly generates a true experience of learning is synthesis, for as Dewey puts it experience can only be considered genuine if it embodies the characteristic of unity. If art is experience then learning is clearly art in its purest form. The crucial question then becomes: How is learning a genuine artistic experience? Clearly it must be primarily generative. Additionally it must be inherently esthetic (dealing with underlying essence) and lastly unifying/synthetic.
In the teaching of mathematics there are many opportunities to bring about such deep learning experiences for students. In learning mathematics students naturally generate deep meaning for themselves under the right conditions and guidance. Of all the subject matter disciplines mathematics lends itself most naturally to approaches that delve into the essence of the particular content being examined. And being a self-consistent logical system it is inherently unified leading quite naturally to synthetic experiences. It must then be considered an artistic experience of the highest order and therefore intrinsically a genuine learning experience.
Dewey's idea of the esthetic (his spelling) – developed further as the expressive in chapter 14 – relates directly to the question of what is essential. Apart from this crucial element what most truly generates a true experience of learning is synthesis, for as Dewey puts it experience can only be considered genuine if it embodies the characteristic of unity. If art is experience then learning is clearly art in its purest form. The crucial question then becomes: How is learning a genuine artistic experience? Clearly it must be primarily generative. Additionally it must be inherently esthetic (dealing with underlying essence) and lastly unifying/synthetic.
In the teaching of mathematics there are many opportunities to bring about such deep learning experiences for students. In learning mathematics students naturally generate deep meaning for themselves under the right conditions and guidance. Of all the subject matter disciplines mathematics lends itself most naturally to approaches that delve into the essence of the particular content being examined. And being a self-consistent logical system it is inherently unified leading quite naturally to synthetic experiences. It must then be considered an artistic experience of the highest order and therefore intrinsically a genuine learning experience.
Obectivism Redux
Kinsch's “Connecting Knower and Known” is an interesting survey of the development of constructivist thought within the matrix of prevailing objectivist world views back to the Greek idealists and up through modern feminist theory. I found relevant connections to my teaching and personal philosophies as well as my particular academic interests in the chapter. The constructivist views detailed in this article seem consonant with the Eastern worldview many aspects of which I have come to adopt in my life. Buddhism particularly seems to correspond most closely with constructivist thought detailed in the chapter. The area which this seems to be most the case is the rejection of subject-object duality. In classic Buddhist doctrine the perception of duality is a delusional interpretation of experience which leads inevitably to suffering. It certainly stands in stark contrast to the Cartesian duality of self vs. thought as detailed in the reading. Indeed Buddhism goes so far as to propound that the self is not an inherent feature of reality but a situational, compounded (read constructed) phenomenon more dependent on language than anything else. This echoes the view of Vytogsky that: “There is every reason to suppose that the qualitative distinction between sensation and thought is the presence in the latter of a generalised reflection of reality, which is also the essence of word meaning: and consequently that meaning is an act of thought in the full sense of the term” (Chapter 1 “Thinking and Speech”).
The thesis that there can be known without the knower seems to the classical objectivist as unscientific in the extreme. Yet modern theories of science are more akin to constructivism than classical bjectivism. Indeed the epitome of modern (and post-modern) science is the development of quantum physics. I would argue that the prevailing interpretation of the theory, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, is more closely related to constructivism than it is to classical Newtonian physics. This interpretation indicates that there can be no event without an observer, and that in fact the observer effects the event irrevocably simply through the act of observation. This view stands in stark contrast to the Newtonian-Cartesian view of an external physical reality as a stage on which events occur independently of their physical background. I was a bit surprised that Kinsch did not bring this up in his section where he contrasts Newtonian-Cartesian objectivist thought with the development of the constructivist worldview.
The development of constructivist thought reflects a development of my own teaching. I have come to realize at a very deep level that teaching and learning are not two separate activities – they are an holistic unity. This approach absolutely does not allow for the claim”I taught it but they didn't learn anything.” As humbling as it was I had to realize that if they didn't learn a lesson I in fact never taught it. I could have planned perfectly, implemented flawlessly, and appealed to every learning style and theory of pedagogy possible. However if the students did not learn then it was not teaching, the tremendous effort notwithstanding. The bottom line is that learning and teaching are one activity not two separate things connected by the tenuous thread of the personality of the teacher. Real learning is always internal and can only be enabled and empowered, never imparted.
This is not to say that a rote use of constructivist practice in the classroom is any more effective than a rote unthinking application of any pedagogical approach. Additionally teachers do well to be wary of making effective progress in the curriculum by pacing the class so that all students are able to completely develop their own personal meaning. I believe the most effective part of the constructivist approach is to force teachers to really get to the fundamental meaning of the area they are responsible for so that they can guide the students on their own personal journey in making sense of content knowledge. Although it would be impractical to think that we can guide a classroom of students through each of their own personal and unique journeys towards meaning, the better a teacher can grasp the fundamental meaning of a subject the more effective they will be in sheparding their students through their own individual journeys towards deep and lasting learning
The thesis that there can be known without the knower seems to the classical objectivist as unscientific in the extreme. Yet modern theories of science are more akin to constructivism than classical bjectivism. Indeed the epitome of modern (and post-modern) science is the development of quantum physics. I would argue that the prevailing interpretation of the theory, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, is more closely related to constructivism than it is to classical Newtonian physics. This interpretation indicates that there can be no event without an observer, and that in fact the observer effects the event irrevocably simply through the act of observation. This view stands in stark contrast to the Newtonian-Cartesian view of an external physical reality as a stage on which events occur independently of their physical background. I was a bit surprised that Kinsch did not bring this up in his section where he contrasts Newtonian-Cartesian objectivist thought with the development of the constructivist worldview.
The development of constructivist thought reflects a development of my own teaching. I have come to realize at a very deep level that teaching and learning are not two separate activities – they are an holistic unity. This approach absolutely does not allow for the claim”I taught it but they didn't learn anything.” As humbling as it was I had to realize that if they didn't learn a lesson I in fact never taught it. I could have planned perfectly, implemented flawlessly, and appealed to every learning style and theory of pedagogy possible. However if the students did not learn then it was not teaching, the tremendous effort notwithstanding. The bottom line is that learning and teaching are one activity not two separate things connected by the tenuous thread of the personality of the teacher. Real learning is always internal and can only be enabled and empowered, never imparted.
This is not to say that a rote use of constructivist practice in the classroom is any more effective than a rote unthinking application of any pedagogical approach. Additionally teachers do well to be wary of making effective progress in the curriculum by pacing the class so that all students are able to completely develop their own personal meaning. I believe the most effective part of the constructivist approach is to force teachers to really get to the fundamental meaning of the area they are responsible for so that they can guide the students on their own personal journey in making sense of content knowledge. Although it would be impractical to think that we can guide a classroom of students through each of their own personal and unique journeys towards meaning, the better a teacher can grasp the fundamental meaning of a subject the more effective they will be in sheparding their students through their own individual journeys towards deep and lasting learning
Constructivism reconsidered
When I first entered teaching I was very opposed to ideas of constructivist teaching such as delineated in the Yilmaz article. The first reason for this is that my supervising teacher was in the midst of tete-a-tete over the direction of math instruction in her department with her supervisor who was fresh out of grad school and a strong advocate of constructivism. Working with her as a cooperating teacher I was encouraged to look at constructivism with a pessimistic eye from the start. The second is that I entered the teaching profession through the alternate route program, coming from a technological industry with a scientific degree. In my ignorance it seemed at the time that constructivism must be muddle headed nonsense from ivory tower researchers who never saw a day in the 'real world' let alone ever stepped foot in a classroom. Yet as I have progressed through the profession I have seen the absolute necessity of teaching to meaning and that the constructivist perspective is a useful point of view for reaching this goal. I found it interesting that Yilmaz does in fact stress that constructivism is not so much a cogent theoretical structure as it is a group of perspectives with social, psychological, and radical dimensions. As I have progressed through teaching many different high school math classes I have come to find myself very much in agreement with positions such as Piaget's (excerpted from Gillani) that “...an individual encountering a new learning situation draws on prior knowledge to make a new experience understandable.”
The field that most choose to communicate their doubt in the efficacy of a constructivist approach is invariably mathematics. At first blush this seems to be the quintessential example of a discipline which must surely be devoted to the imputation of external unchanging facts. A popular example cited is that no matter what, 2 + 2 = 4. Since this is the example that was also discussed in class I would like to examine it. Far from being a trivial matter whose meaning should not be examined and understood, the concept of the number 2 as a cardinal rather than an ordinal was a crucial development of human thought. Indeed there are some cultures (the Tauade of New Guinea and to some extent in Japanese) where there is no number 2 per se – the term for 2 things depends on the objects being enumerated. Cardinal numbers in general are more properly thought of as the first piece of modern technology and therefore to be examined as a constructed tool whose meaning should be fundamentally understood before being used.
From a practical point of view in the classroom if we do not have an appreciation for the meaning that underlies the concept of number we will not be able to answer some rather natural questions from students first learning this concept in the early grades. This will necessary hobble learning the dependent critical concepts upon which it builds on in later grades. For example why is it that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet for a totally different operation, multiplication, 2 * 2 also = 4? We can use this for a jumping off point for exploration – an activity normally seen as only fruitful for 'exceptional' children. What other numbers work like this? What if we use three numbers in each operation instead of just 2? Is there a pattern where this always works where the numeral itself is the same as the number of operands, and if so why, if not why not?
I have had direct experience with an even simpler example than that above. In conversations with members of the public or even the teaching profession in the math wars on the side of 'good old-fashioned' math teaching one will invariably hear that 'No matter what 1 plus 1 will always equal 2', and thus we should eschew teaching to fundamental meaning in the interest of teaching students basic skills. Yet I have had the opportunity of teaching a computer class where it was decidedly not the case that one plus one equals two - in the binary number system of computers one plus one equals ten! When I reached this unit in my curriculum what I thought would be a straightforward lesson in digital electronic components became a fascinating discussion of why this shocking statement is true in binary, and the discussion quickly extended out to a discussion of number base systems in general. Students took the ball and ran with it: “Can we do math in binary and if so how does it work? Is it easier than the math that I am learning in my math class? If so can we please learn it right now?” This kind of invigorating student directed inquiry is the natural by-product of encouraging students to construct and discover their own meaning in topics that seem to be natural candidates for a non-constructivist approach.
The field that most choose to communicate their doubt in the efficacy of a constructivist approach is invariably mathematics. At first blush this seems to be the quintessential example of a discipline which must surely be devoted to the imputation of external unchanging facts. A popular example cited is that no matter what, 2 + 2 = 4. Since this is the example that was also discussed in class I would like to examine it. Far from being a trivial matter whose meaning should not be examined and understood, the concept of the number 2 as a cardinal rather than an ordinal was a crucial development of human thought. Indeed there are some cultures (the Tauade of New Guinea and to some extent in Japanese) where there is no number 2 per se – the term for 2 things depends on the objects being enumerated. Cardinal numbers in general are more properly thought of as the first piece of modern technology and therefore to be examined as a constructed tool whose meaning should be fundamentally understood before being used.
From a practical point of view in the classroom if we do not have an appreciation for the meaning that underlies the concept of number we will not be able to answer some rather natural questions from students first learning this concept in the early grades. This will necessary hobble learning the dependent critical concepts upon which it builds on in later grades. For example why is it that 2 + 2 = 4 and yet for a totally different operation, multiplication, 2 * 2 also = 4? We can use this for a jumping off point for exploration – an activity normally seen as only fruitful for 'exceptional' children. What other numbers work like this? What if we use three numbers in each operation instead of just 2? Is there a pattern where this always works where the numeral itself is the same as the number of operands, and if so why, if not why not?
I have had direct experience with an even simpler example than that above. In conversations with members of the public or even the teaching profession in the math wars on the side of 'good old-fashioned' math teaching one will invariably hear that 'No matter what 1 plus 1 will always equal 2', and thus we should eschew teaching to fundamental meaning in the interest of teaching students basic skills. Yet I have had the opportunity of teaching a computer class where it was decidedly not the case that one plus one equals two - in the binary number system of computers one plus one equals ten! When I reached this unit in my curriculum what I thought would be a straightforward lesson in digital electronic components became a fascinating discussion of why this shocking statement is true in binary, and the discussion quickly extended out to a discussion of number base systems in general. Students took the ball and ran with it: “Can we do math in binary and if so how does it work? Is it easier than the math that I am learning in my math class? If so can we please learn it right now?” This kind of invigorating student directed inquiry is the natural by-product of encouraging students to construct and discover their own meaning in topics that seem to be natural candidates for a non-constructivist approach.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Psurprised by Psychology
In the course of our summer curriculum class we have had the opportunity to hear about a great number of educational psychologists whose work has been fundamental to the foundation of research into best teaching practices. Amongst those our professor mentioned were Nancy Lesko, Albert Bandura, Frank Pajares, and Jerome Bruner. The list of researchers was a bit daunting to someone not steeped in the world of educational psychology - nevertheless I intended to research at least one of these further. Since I had the opportunity to read sections of Bruner's “The Will to Learn” I decided I would look more into his work, so I checked out his series of essays entitled "On Knowing" and dove in. I was glad I did – it seems that much of Bruner’s interest runs to the understanding of the learning of mathematics, especially as it is concerned with some of the social and personal aspects behind that learning. One interesting case was that of an adolescent student who would work himself up into a near aggressiveness when faced with a math problem. In particular it is mentioned that he saw fractions as confusing, "cut up numbers". This was particularly interesting to me since many of my students have a hard time with working with fractions. It does not seem to be so much a difficulty with the mechanics rather than a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept and, as was the case of the student in the Bruner essay, a near hostility to the topic. I decided to try to put myself into the shoes of a student learning fractions for the first time. for those of you who aren't teachers, putting yourself into the students shoes is probably the most effective method of understanding what a student needs to understand and gaining crucial cognitive empathy with their difficulties. I realized that fundamentally fractions were not numbers at all but two numbers in a specific relationship where one is a precise number of times the other. With that in mind it was easier to see how students could have difficulty with the standard operations of cross-multiplication and common denominators and helped in developing a strategy to address these common problems.
In reading “On Knowing” I was impressed with the fact even though Bruner was recruited to do work in industrial psychology (the science of turning multi-dimensional human beings into cogs in a capitalist tool shop - my definition) he nevertheless was astute and caring enough to glean lessons in human cognitive development which are still cited today. I also found his discussion of experience, art and meaning much more approachable than Dewey’s writings on the same topic, which seemed to be more a sermon than anything else. Indeed his theme of left handed vs. right handed mind seems to have anticipated similar terms in the popular vernacular by at least 20 years. I also found it an interesting happenstance that particular topics he mentions in the book – non decimal base number systems, topology, and truth tables are in fact ones that I gave my students for summer assignments in my new Honors Geometry class to prepare them for enrichment lessons I have planned around those very topics! I guess I’m on the right track…
In reading “On Knowing” I was impressed with the fact even though Bruner was recruited to do work in industrial psychology (the science of turning multi-dimensional human beings into cogs in a capitalist tool shop - my definition) he nevertheless was astute and caring enough to glean lessons in human cognitive development which are still cited today. I also found his discussion of experience, art and meaning much more approachable than Dewey’s writings on the same topic, which seemed to be more a sermon than anything else. Indeed his theme of left handed vs. right handed mind seems to have anticipated similar terms in the popular vernacular by at least 20 years. I also found it an interesting happenstance that particular topics he mentions in the book – non decimal base number systems, topology, and truth tables are in fact ones that I gave my students for summer assignments in my new Honors Geometry class to prepare them for enrichment lessons I have planned around those very topics! I guess I’m on the right track…
My Misson (I Chose to Accept)
My mission as a teacher is to effect change in my students' personalities - to change who they are as people. In particular I endeavor to infect them (Latin in-facere - to effect within) with the intense curiosity which empowers genuine learning. I believe that learning is not real learning until it is affective - until it has effected a change in the students' outlook on life and their worlds. What kind of change am I looking to produce and how do I gauge the effectiveness of my efforts? Until they have integrated the 'ideal teacher' into their personalities they have not learned or more importantly learned how to learn. My function within this milieu is to model specifically how the ideal learner learns (problems solving strategies, research skills, etc.), impart this to them, and then totally take myself out of the equation. I am a success to the point that they no longer need me or even need to remember me or my teaching.
Raison d'être
This blog is about the wonder of teaching. The wonder of guiding a young life towards their greatest good, the wonder of the rich world around us, but most of all the wonder that we all felt when we asked that first question - Why? - and how to help students get back to recapturing that spontaneous, natural and untrammeled sense of wonder. Apropos to this the blog is called Staajabu.
staajabu noun Swahili
1 wonder, miracle
2 amazement, astonishment
staajabu noun Swahili
1 wonder, miracle
2 amazement, astonishment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
