On types of students, a hypothetical English curriculum and even Michelle Rhee

Before I discuss the types of students that I saw on Friday I’d like to give some background information on the classes that they are in. My coop teaches gifted students at Donegal High, and throughout the day on Friday she taught a gifted seminar (the unit is on happiness) and a preparation course for National History Day. In between these two classes, my coop met with several gifted students to discuss their class schedules. In addition to these, I also observed a humanities class taught by another teacher at the school. Since most of my day was spent working with gifted students, the group of students that stood out the most to me on Friday were those that can best be described as “highly able”. I’ve never before seen students that are so enthusiastic about school. Even in this group, there were types.

One type of student that I would like to note were certain “social” students in the humanities class that I observed. It was a group of very well-dressed girls who were much more interested in talking than in working on their worksheets. I would say that their interaction with the subject of English was minimal; they waited until there was almost no time left before wrapping up their conversation and jotting down a few quick answers. After reminding them once to twice to say on track, their teacher left them alone.

A large majority of the students in the gifted seminar class seemed to enjoy the course content and got along with each other very well. They joked with each other and conversed freely while remaining respectful of each other’s ideas and opinions during their discussion of what it means to be happy. They wore jeans and various t-shirts; several were athletes and wore shirts that read “Nike” or “Donegal field hockey”, and all were tidy and clean-looking. They all expressed enthusiasm during their seminar, and when they later returned to work on their history projects, I found creativity and skill in their writing. One student was finishing a website that he had made that detailed the events of the Lattimer Massacre—all of his information was organized by page, and he had even included a four-page paper on process of project. Another student had created a youtube video on nuclear energy, for which had had written a script. Towards the end of the class, the students provided constructive feedback about each other’s projects. There is no doubt that these students used an extraordinary amount of creativity in their writing.

One of the first students I met was “J” (I’ll stay clear of real names here) the eleven-year-old completing ninth-grade classes. J was a small boy who dressed very neatly and articulated himself extraordinarily well when he spoke; speaking with him was like speaking to my mother, who prefers to use formal language and correct grammar in all situations. According to my coop, J’s scholastic achievements have been very impressive—as demonstrated by the way he skipped so many grades—but he has really struggled to make friends.

If all of these students were together in an English class, I think that the two most important elements of their curriculum would be choice and a safe environment. The ability to choose their projects would allow for relevance to the student’s outside lives because they would be the people to design the direction and content of their activities. The students in NHD class thrived on their freedom of choice—why shouldn’t other students? The other factor that I mentioned, the safe environment, would be just as essential for relevance because I don’t think that students will want to share connections to their outside lives if they don’t feel safe enough to do so. Shy students like J should feel free and safe enough to contribute to class discussions and help point out the relevance of the topic at hand.

 

My favorite quote this week:

“If bringing common sense into a dysfunctional system makes me a radical—than I’m okay being a radical"

–Michelle Rhee

Michelle Rhee expressed the wish to develop a way to access teachers and “hold them accountable” for the academic growth of their students. I agree that teachers should be accessed on some kind of level, and not on the basis of whether or not their students are performing well on exams. While I believe that everybody can learn, I don’t believe that everyone wants to learn and a teacher shouldn’t be held accountable for a student who refuses to try. While it is our responsibility to do our best to motivate our students to be the best we can be, there might still be some students that “slip through the net”. For example, my mom teaches math for a cyber-charter school and is accessed, along with her colleges, on several factors that are supposed to exhibit student growth. One of these factors is student attendance. Classroom meetings are virtual, and students often don’t show up, regardless of phone calls, participation points, etc. I think that accessing teachers based on their student’s test scores is just as unfair as testing them based on student attendance. The overall academic growth of their students—growth expressed by not just testing alone, (for instance, by examining student portfolios) is a much better way to measure the effectiveness of a teacher.

We’ve been brainstorming ways to reform our classrooms a lot in the past few weeks. Some elements of reform that have really stuck with me are the need to move from teacher-directed classrooms to those that are more student-centered. Instead of deciding student knowledge based on the curriculum, we should be deciding what goes into the curriculum based on the needs of our students. I think that standardized testing is the biggest obstacle for this kind of teaching because it sets the same goals for all students regardless of their needs. And that goal, when it comes down to it, is not necessarily to have a strong writer’s voice, to understand the deeper meaning or relevance of a text, or really be proficient in lasting skills that are relevant to their outside lives. Like Jon Stewart said in part three of the interview, “Look, I took the SATs. I did fine. But that, to me, is not a predictor of how people were going to work in a collaborative environment, were going to be in terms of creative problem solving…”In order for constructive reform to take place, the emphasis on testing within school systems needs to change.

Responses to “Invitation to Reflection” # 1-3 (page 4 of Bridging English):

1.       I think that the question, “What is English?” can be answered in hundreds of different ways, but very few of these are the same as the way one would answer the same question about algebra or history. True, someone could answer all of these questions with a reply like, “It’s a field of study,” or “it’s a subject in school,” but other than these basic similarities these subjects can each be defined in many different ways. As Milner, Milner and Mitchell point out on pages two and three, the ways in which the question “what is English?” can be answered are indefinite and have long been debated.

2.       Every subject listed in the box would be appropriate content for a high school English course. I would also like to add proper internet usage to this list of appropriate content, since this week’s reading has really impressed upon me the fact that more and more of our language and research is becoming available on the internet and students will need to be able to decipher and work with all of this material in the future.

3.       If a teacher didn’t want to define English in terms of content, he or she could describe their classroom activities as “discovery of language” and/or the “development of communication knowledge and skills”. The point is that students learn and grow in their ability to communicate (in writing, in person, or in any other way) with other people as well as increase their knowledge of the conventions of our language so that they can understand the ideas and opinions expressed by others.

4.       Even though the text says that English is a “young discipline” (page 2), it doesn’t surprise me that it is such a prominent subject in schools today. After all, the ability to communicate clearly is an essential skill in today’s world.

5.       I do not think of teaching as “the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student”. At least, I don’t think that the best kind of teaching works that way. I think that teaching requires that teachers and students have to work together to create understandings. Teachers should merely work as guides and coaches for their students. Teachers may transmit knowledge by modeling behavior or nudging students towards the discovery of an answer, but I think direct transmission of knowledge requires little critical thinking or discovery on the part of the students.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Response to “How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20^th Century” by Wallis and Steptoe

I think that this week’s article drove home some key points about 21^st century classrooms. I especially agreed with the point that balance needs to be achieved between the learning of facts and the development of critical thinking. Technology can provide immediate delivery of information so the memorization of trivial facts seems like a waste of valuable classroom time. However, I think the authors were right to point out that there is a level of base knowledge which is necessary for a student to move forward in a subject. As they say on page 54, “Without mastering the fundamental building blocks of math, science or history, complex concepts are impossible.” How do we distinguish between core concepts and information that does not necessarily need to be memorized?

I wish that Wallis and Steptoe have gone into more detail in their explanation of what it means to be a “global student”. They used examples of schools to illustrate their idea, and my understanding from these examples was only that “global” students are (or work towards becoming) bilingual, exposed to other cultures and technology-savvy. I wonder if there are any other factors that would benefit a “global” student. For instance, the development of good people skills is something that the authors discuss as important for 21^st century education, but not necessarily for global students. However, I think that strong interpersonal skills should be a goal for any school that wishes to develop “global students”.

Notes for an English Curriculum:

Students need to know what to do with the excess of information that is available on the internet. This will require the ability to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources as well as knowledge of what information is relevant or useful to their studies.

Because strong interpersonal skills are necessary in most workplaces, collaboration between students on projects and in classroom activities is an end in itself. Creating a “safe” classroom which students work together to learn is key.

We can help students become “global” by encouraging them to embrace languages and cultures other than their own.

The curriculum needs to balance core knowledge and “portable skills”. Classroom activities should require reflection and critical thinking on the part of the students.

Knowledge should be transferable to other areas of study as well as applicable to life outside of the classroom.

The Circle Classroom [Reflection 1-4]

       As a future English teacher, I definitely see myself using the circle classroom (picture C). The only thing I would modify in the picture on page 7 is the location of the teacher's desk. I would either put my desk in the circle (like in the picture above), or sit at a student desk.

       This desk arrangement was definitely not the way most of the classrooms I attended in school were laid out. Most of them were in rows, much like picture A. I think the circle arrangement implies that every student is equally important; there are no students in the front of the room, and no students in the back corner. Each student is able to look at whomever is speaking and give that person his/her undivided attention. This arrangement definitely applies a sense of groupism and community that I'm looking for as far as atmosphere goes in my classroom. With this desk arrangement, I'm hoping for more student-led instruction rather than myself lecturing the whole time.
      This configuration makes me comfortable as a teacher because I can slip in and out of the learning process as needed. I would've liked this arrangement best as a student also. 

      I would see myself walking around sometimes. Other times I would see myself sitting outside of the circle, letting the students discuss, but I would also facilitate and sit within the circle as needed. The second arrangement I would choose is choice B. I think it expresses a lot of the values of my first choice. I might use choice B if I was teaching something that required the board, like grammar. 

     From most teacher led, to most student led, I would rate them as following:

               a, b, e, d, c

     I see my students discussing a book, or text (whether it be multi-media, or not), and forming their own opinions, questions and answers. This allows them to form their own ideas and relate the work(s) to what matters to them, not what matters to me as the teacher.

Week One

I totally agree with the Time article, “How to Bring our Schools out of the 20^th Century,” we read for class. If we want to give our students an authentic 21^st century education, we must update all aspects of our schools. Until I read the article, I really hadn’t thought how rigid school is, how little it has changed, or how stationary it truly is. There must be a compromise between the 20^th century concept of school and the 21^st century concept. The question is, however: What is that compromise? What does it involve?

I think the answer is the inclusion of technology, collaborative thinking, the elimination of standardized testing. The world is flat. We cannot afford to keep our students in the dark. They must know and understand technology. They must engage in collaborative thinking that acknowledges, accepts, and understands other cultures. They must also be tested in ways that are more authentic than standardized tests.

Overall, we need to rethink our schools. We need more rigorous graduation requirements, more languages in the classroom, more technology, more international mindedness, etc. The walls of our schools must stretch beyond the classrooms, beyond national borders, and into international territories. If we don’t make these changes, our students will not be ready to compete in an increasingly globalized world.

I chose to respond to Invitation to Reflection Section 1-4, which was about the different configurations of classroom seating.

1.     When I imagine my classroom, I see my students sitting in a configuration that allows for group collaboration and group discussion. Thus, my seating arrangement will most likely involve groupings of four or five students that allow discussion. (If you are looking in the book, that’s example d on page 7).

2.     This configuration was common in my school experience, but I certainly don’t think it was the most common configuration. Most teachers in my school had rows in their classrooms. In fact, almost all of my English teachers configured their classrooms into rows. I think this configuration communicated that the teacher was superior to the students—that he or she was more knowledgeable than the students. This configuration (a in the book) allowed for the teacher to be the most intellectually and physically active person in the classroom. It often meant that the teacher and the students were not equally engaged.

3.     If I were a teacher, I think I would be most comfortable with the configuration pictured in figure c (the circle), because all my students are on a level playing field. A circle configuration makes it nearly impossible for a student not to participate. In that sense, it takes some of the pressure off the teacher and places it upon the students. As a student, I was probably most comfortable with the configuration with the desks in rows, because it meant that the teacher had the focus and that I could put my head down and zone out if I wanted to.

4.     In my classroom, I see myself walking throughout the room, zig-zagging and circling, checking up on students. I don’t really see myself sitting all that often.

5.     My second choice of physical arrangement would be the configuration pictured in c (the circle). That change in configuration would definitely change my teaching method, because I would rely less upon student collaboration and more upon student discussion. Both styles hold merit, so in all likelihood, I would probably mix up the configuration depending upon the activity I had planned.

6.     In my classroom, I see my students actively engaged in small group discussion, collaborating on some sort of prompt that requires them to do some critical thinking. Naturally, I think my class design would change depending on the activity. So, if I were, let’s say, assigning my students an activity dealing with Native American narratives, loyalty in friendship, or slang in student writing, I would probably change the configuration to accommodate such an activity. The physical design would match the lesson design by mirroring it as best as I could manage.

7.     On a scale from most student centered to most teacher centered, I would put the configurations in this order:

.Most student centered: D, C, B, E, A : Most teacher centered.

Week 1 responses

The article, “How to bring our schools out of the 20^th century” explains the new basic principles of the global need for 21^st century learners. This relates very much to the first few chapters of 21^st Century Skills, by Trilling and Fadel, which we are reading for Oliver Dreon’s class. These principles (problem solving, teamwork, task-based learning, international literacy) are important concepts that are backed up nicely by data and anecdotes.

However, the article is written as if none of these things take place in our public schools today. Of course, I am not suggesting that our public schools need no improvement, or that they are meeting the needs of the 21^st century economy, but I do think that it is unfair and misleading to imply that none of these ideas can be found in our public schools right now. Some of these new, private schools are very interesting and ideal—hearing about them is very affirming and hopeful—but I wish we could find some example of how teachers are doing these things in public schools. I know they are out there. Not all teachers are still stuck in the 70’s!

In an English curriculum, essential questions and task-based learning are a must. Research and practice shows this. Also the reliance on memorization of facts is far past obsolete. If simple dates, facts, definitions, and rules can be found with the click of a mouse or the swipe of a touch screen, then let’s not focus on these things in our curricula. Units need to be designed around themes—the content will move through these themes. The lessons need to be founded on questions so that the content can help inform our answers. 

Reflection 1-1

1.       Senior year of high-school my favorite teacher Mrs. Ney took us to the park across the street to fly kites. We spent about 40 minutes of a gorgeous spring day running around and doing something that many of us, myself included, had never done before. Later we wrote about our experience in any way we wanted. Running and laughing predominate this memory. I remember being amazed that we were allowed to do this for school.

2.       I remember having a class discussion about Holden Caulfield in Mrs. Ney’s class later that year. When we had finished the book, we were discussing the idea of Holden wanting to be “the catcher in the rye” and I remember her drawing a picture on the board of stick figures falling off of a cliff. Each figure represented some kind of thing that Holden felt “killed” people or made them “phony”. The whole book started to take shape before my eyes and I thought J.D. Salinger was a genius. I knew I wanted to either write fiction or teach fiction after that class.

3.       Mrs. Kaltrieder was my 8^th grade English teacher and she broke rules, told stories, made jokes, swore, and made us think. I loved that about her. She once threw a trashcan at the wall because she was so excited about something someone had said. Mrs. Lomenzo taught me about short stories and poetry. She was so thoughtful and sensitive to things we had to say. Mrs. Ney was a fantastic model teacher. She practiced modeling every day. I remember when we had to partner up to share our stories and I had no partner so she sat down with me and shared a story she had written. Again, I thought this was something special and not-allowed.

4.        Many things I experienced in English class that I wish to avoid are things that I did as a student. I talked to my peers during lessons, texted, made inappropriate jokes, flirted, and once told a teacher I thought poetry was boring. I want to engage students like myself and challenge them to dare to care.

5.       1.print/non-print literature 2. Students 3. Language 4. The act of teaching 5. Schools

6.       Students in high-school are in their most important formative years (in my opinion). High school may well be many students’ last chance to be exposed to people daily who care about them and their futures. I want to positively influence students in any way I can and hopefully “cultivate [in them] a taste for reading, and give them some acquaintance with good literature,” if at all possible. Some hard work here on a teacher’s part can result in a more enjoyable, informed, and enlightened life for these children in the future. 

Reflection Turned Interdisciplinary Rant :P

I took a look at reflection 1-3, which encourages us to think about what English as a subject is. I don't think that "What is English?" is as easily answered as the same sort of question for other disciplines because English blends and bleeds into so many fields. You can pretty much define the edges of say chemistry, even though it bleeds into physics and biology because it's a study of a particular kind of thing, in a particular way. English is harder, because there isn't as clear an object of study. You might say we study the language, but then you leave literature and writing- the use of the language- out in the cold. We bleed into so many fields. Neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, history, art- and those are just some of the easiest to trace. The book puts forth a list of things that might be English: language study (grammar), language skills, writing, speaking, listening, reading, viewing, print literature, non-print literature (film, music), communication skills, students' own lives, social/cultural context of students' lives, other. It asks which we find appropriate for a high school English course. I'd have to say all of them (though maybe not all in one semester). I'm pretty sure the authors expected that answer, because their next question asks us to define English in some way, if it can't really be defined in terms of content. That's not easy. English for me is about connections, between people, events, text, disciplines, times, thoughts. We connect the students to great authors, to each other, their community, and ideas. English is one of the few disciplines (especially in school) where connections can be made between robots, dinosaurs, Shakespeare, and pop music (might take a bit of doing, but I KNOW we can pull it off). This connective property is I think why English is prominent in many schools, though I'm not sure that policymakers think of it that way (assuming that they think about it at all- I suspect for many it's important because it has been for a long time). Or if it isn't why, maybe it should be. I feel there are opportunities and creativity lost when we don't encourage interdisciplinary thinking. So much of the really interesting and engaging things happen at intersections. One quick example- I'm the lead writer for a video game project, I'm in charge of the script, but I'm constantly working with, inspiring and being inspired by the artists, the musicians, and the programmers. Most of us on the project double- or multi- dip into departments other than our main, and that's how I think it should be. In schools the departments rarely collaborate. Science is distinct from art, they're apart from music and English is a whole different thing. Why? Isn't the role of school to prepare us for the working world, make us productive citizens? Why then doesn't school reflect this intersecting of fields? In one English class I've had here at MU the professor asked a friend from the Physics department to come take over class one day to help us understand the relationship between the books we read and the actual science going on right now. Why not do that more?

The Time article expresses a similar thought on interdisciplinary learning, or rather the lack thereof. I can see the schools starting to move in the right direction though, and perhaps once we break the inertia that makes change so ponderous, momentum will take over and these necessary ideas, global, creative, interdisciplinary learning will come to the front. It won't be easy- it'll take a great deal of thought and a broad knowledge base to teach in this way- more collaboration, messier scheduling, and complex assessment, but it's the way our world is running. Our kids need to know how to look at a problem in  many ways, find and evaluate information, write and explain and test in all sorts of ways. They need to understand how they can use this stuff outside of school too and if we can't explain when they might use the knowledge or skill we're teaching, then why are we teaching it?

Bridging English Chapter 1 Reflection

Invitation to Reflection 1-4 (page 7)

1.      I would choose option (b) where the desks are along the outside of the classroom and the teacher is up front and in the center.

2.      I choose this option because it reminded me of my tenth grade English classroom experience and I really liked the set up. I do not like circles but this embodies the idea that the circle has in that the students and the teacher can have class discussions that are student led. The set up implies that the teacher is still leading the classroom, but it also allows for the teacher to step back and let the students work on their own/together. I think that the students and the teacher could be physically active, intellectually active and engaged equally if the teacher uses the advantages the set-up gives.

3.      The configuration I choose (b) would make me most comfortable as the teacher and it is the one I preferred as a student.

4.      I see myself as walking about the room and as characteristically sitting in a comfy chair or stool during discussions. My Spanish teacher always had this high chair with a back she always used in discussions and I thought it was a great idea. To me it said that the teacher was open to just having a conversation with the class.

5.      My second choice would probably be option (c) the circle. I really love discussing books and things of similar importance so the circle really allows for a discussion to take place. In the circle I would be sitting a student desk.

6.      I really want to have a lot of open discussions in my classroom because I think when students are able to share their ideas about a book it really shows the other students that not everyone sees something the same way. It opens your eyes to different perspectives and I think it can create healthy debates in the classroom too. So, no my class design wouldn’t change because all of the examples given of material to teach could incorporate class discussions.

7.      Student centered to teacher centered continuum of seating arrangements: e,c,b,d,a

 

“How to Bring our Schools out of the 20^th Century” Article Response

 I agree with the article and I think education could be affected if the government changed a few things in the education system. By this I am referring to testing and the curriculum. How can we make lessons more in-depth when the schools push teachers to cover so much content for the tests? Why isn’t the U.S. seeing the differences in how successful schools are being taught overseas and how U.S. schools are? Also, does this mean that to be a good teacher I need to learn a second language?

 

To include in the English Curriculum based off the article:

-sharing of current event articles maybe as freewrite prompts or to use when modeling

-more creative projects to encourage innovative thinking

-connect to other disciplines (show English is authentic)

-incorporate technology

-work in groups

-use UbD to make better lessons that use more in-depth/meaningful coverage of a topic

-when doing research projects, go over tips on how to make sure their sources are good sources