I think I am finally getting the hang of this CBC thing. In fact, it is so on my mind that I find myself thinking in CBC terms regarding my own work. To whit:
C: Given a graphic organizer on direct instruction, B: the student will fill in all the boxes, C: within 3 (okay, 5!) hours, without error, and with no breakdowns.
OR, HOW ABOUT:
C: Given a 12 question quiz (actually a test, masquerading as a quiz!) B: the student will answer all the questions C: within 4 (okay, 6!) hours, with no errors and no more than two episodes of procrastination to play Free Cell.
There is so much to learn, that it boggles my mind. I am a person who needs to get lots of different sources on the same topic, and go over and over and over it, until it locks in my mind. This Methods class is perfect for me! I went from knowing only the most basic information on assessment and direct instruction to feeling like a pro on both topics. I can now go into an interview and sound like I know what I'm talking about...because I do!
Speaking of direct instruction, I was fascinated by Jeff Lindsay's study which was posted on the WebCT under Course Topics. If you missed it, here it is:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml
Lindsay presents documented data in defense of direct instruction's effectiveness and, I have to say, it's provacative and compelling! Lindsay believes that DI has been given short thrift in most schools in favor of the currently more popular interactive, indirect, inquiry based methods. According to Lindsay, DI's clear cut objectives and measurement, combined with the "sage on a stage" approach, is thoroughly effective in both teaching basic knowledge and promoting higher order thinking and self esteem. Is Lindsay a zealot or a visionary? I agree that DI has gotten a bad rap over the years simply because it is not touchy feely. Like Lindsay, I don't think that makes it an ineffective method. However, Lindsay appears to promote a DI only environment, and that does not sit well with me. As I like to say "everything in moderation". I like and use DI. I also like the other methods. Though I 've only worked in a substitute capacity, over the years I have found myself combining DI, indirect, and interactive methods intuitively. Kids have short attention spans and they are digital natives, fully capable of multitasking and requiring lots of stimuli. The only way to reach them is through mixing it up, but it must be done thoughtfully in order to be effective. Bottom line, teaching is all about planning, followed by implementing, assessing, revising, and modifying your plans, in one big continuous cycle, until you find what works best for you and your students. Here's my take:
Truly good teaching comes down to one's desire to do more than pass on the basic skills. It comes down to desiring to effect long lasting change in your students, to be the catalyst for "aha" moments, both cognitive and affective, to impart knowledge and skills that improve your students' lives, even if they don't even fully recognize it yet. When this is your goal, your passion, you will work (hard!) to discover the best ways to do this and you will open to trying all methods (singly and in combination) with equal thought and evaluation. It should not be a contest of methods with just one winner. It should be what works best. Design good assessments of all your methods and let the results be your guide!
Now, stepping off my soap box, let's move on. Also under Course Topics, I found another great piece on the amount of time wasted in classrooms each day. Computed over the course of a school year, the number was astronomical! According to a referenced study, actual academic learning time is less than 1 hour a day! If that isn't an incentive to plan carefully and stay on task, I don't know what is! Next time I sub I am going to really monitor this in my classroom and report my findings in my next blog.
As many of you know, NCLB is up for review and the educational community is (rightfully)demanding changes. National Education Association (NEA) President, Reg Weaver urged the House Education and Labor Committee not to accept the latest draft of the law saying,“The draft that has been provided for discussion makes only minor tweaks in the divisive and dysfunctional law that parents, teachers, and public schools have been saddled with these past five years. If they’re not going to make meaningful changes that truly address the needs of America’s public school students, a major opportunity will have been missed. The draft language is still too focused on high stakes testing, punishments, labeling of children, and unfunded federal mandates. It fails to adequately address the issues that parents and teachers know best provide a positive impact on student success such as reducing class size, increasing the training and retention of highly qualified teachers, expanding access to early childhood education, and providing adequate funding for improved school facilities and materials."
What is good news is that it appears the american public is beginning to agree that NCLB needs to be radically changed. Check out this gallup poll... http://www.nea.org/esea/pdkgallup07.html
This is a major development in our favor. Lawmakers can more easily defeat special interest groups than they can the majority voting public.
But now we must do our part! Please use this link to "Sign the Petition" demanding that NCLB reflect the changes stated above. Remember, this is the law under which we will be working!
It will take you only seconds to send an email to your state and federal legislators.
http://www3.capwiz.com/nea/issues/alert/?alertid=9728111&type=ml
While you're there, sign up for the NEA newsletter--it's free, it's informative, and it has great teacher links!
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment