Matching Strategy with Teacher Style (EDU 6526)

This week’s module on direction instruction and cultural literacy reinforced my belief that instructional strategies can only take a class so far – the engagement of students is often more a result of the teacher. As we moved along through the Survey of Instructional Strategies course, we studied many strategies that essentially opposed the traditional approach of direct instruction. Even members of the class posted comments regarding their bad experiences with direct instruction in history classes. Yet their concerns don’t really seem to be about direct instruction, as it is the engagement with material. My guess is that most students (at least college age or older) have experienced at least one professor or teacher who used direct instruction and kept the class enthralled in the topic. My point is that the strategy itself isn’t flawed – it is the combination of the wrong strategy at the wrong time with the wrong teacher.

I advocate for teachers at least trying to use as many instructional strategies as possible. This variety keeps the class’ attention and keeps a teacher thinking of new ways to introduce content. At the same time, most teachers should hone in on the strategies that work for them the best. With this said, teachers must have an idea for how the classroom should generally look like on a daily basis. I enjoy the approach of Mortimer Adler and the “Paideia” program. The emphasis on values and ideas that people face throughout history is a perfect approach for our Collegio curriculum at Seattle Prep. As an integrated course of English and History, we teach from the perspective of big ideas, themes, and essential questions. This makes more a curriculum that allows students to connect ideas from the 17^th century with those from the 21^st. History no longer becomes a classroom of facts, dates, and names. It becomes a room where ideas are discussed based on time periods and context.

The Classroom Environment (EDU 6526)

This week in Survey of Instructional Strategies the online discussion centered around uniformity versus variety. How do we get students and parents invested when as teachers we teach to one style or to the masses? This may just be the millionaire dollar question. As classes grow in size and time shrinks quickly, the one on one time with students seems to go by the way side. Not to mention that in many public schools teaching to the test is necessary (or at least feels that way) since funding and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) are at stake. Yet many feel that students get disengaged and disinterested quickly when this is the case.

I feel that because of these issues it is essential to create a classroom where personalities, emotions, and the variety of intelligences can find time to shine. This isn’t to say I do it perfectly or make every kid happy all the time, but I do work hard at making it a reality. In many ways the best way to tell if students feel comfortable enough to let their personalities be a part of the classroom environment is how much they are willing to risk. Obviously this refers to safe risk-taking behavior in a classroom where a student may ask a difficult question or feel ok with struggling to understand something in front of the class. It may be acting out a scene from a novel. It may be group work. It can be a lot of things, but I know my students are engaged when they feel that way. Yet I can’t let them get goofy; I must keep them engaged in content not just in the class. This is where the variety of strategies and tapping into different learning styles comes into play. Letting students work on a visual representation of a historical event or acting out a scene from history gets students interested in material beyond my “normal” assignments. The more I allow students to be themselves and feel safe doing it, while varying my assessments and instructional strategies, the more my classroom environment will feel comfortable to all.

Cooperative Learning – Not Just for 1st Graders (EDU 6526)

Despite the fact that cooperative learning reminds some of kindergarten play time, in reality it proves to be one of the more influential and challenging instructional strategies that a teacher faces. No matter which age group a teacher uses cooperative learning experiences, there are challenges with socialization (both too much and too awkward). Yet in spite of these difficulties, the reward gained for student engagement and achievement wins out when deciding whether or not to use cooperative learning in a high school classroom.

Many of my lessons follow a format of me introducing a topic with some content followed by work individually that is followed up in cooperative learning groups of some kind. This often looks like pair work, but can many times be up to four members in a group. As the lecture states this week, there are many potential pitfalls to watch out for in using cooperative learning experiences. When the groups get too large (which I have done before), there are students who simply will not participate. Assigning tasks for each member can alleviate some of this, but it still makes it hard for a quiet kid to participate when there are even five or six members in a group. Additionally I find that my role in setting up the cooperative learning, as well as monitoring can greatly change the success or failure rate of a lesson. In other words, the more clear I am with my instructions, often times the better the work groups will produce. While this seems fairly obvious, I don’t think it can be overestimated. Secondly, the more I am physically present near groups by walking around the room and checking in, the better work they produce. Sometimes this comes about because they see me near them and they ask a question. Sometimes it is simply because they know they can’t screw around.

More often than not my cooperative learning involves the jigsaw. This works well in history as I can divide up a document or provide multiple primary sources for students to answer questions about or analyze. They then learn much more as a group by hearing from all members. As Dell’Olio and Donk state in Models of Teaching, “Rather than focusing on rote memorization of facts, her students are working as historians to construct the meaning of their documents contextually” (Dell’Olio, 270). Thus the jigsaw does not allow students to be passive. In order to truly participate, students are forced to use higher level thinking skills. Because of this and because of the social interaction it causes, I strongly support the jigsaw in high school history classrooms. Yet it is also very clear from my experience that I must have a very active role for the cooperative learning experience to be successful. This isn’t a time for passive teachers either.

Concepts in the Classroom (EDU6526)

What needs improvement? More higher level questions for class discussion. Or….provide opportunities for critical

Bloom's Taxonomy

thinking. These comments stood out to me in my classroom observations over the past few years as a Collegio (integrated History and Engligh) teacher at Seattle Prep. While I flourished in many ways and students enjoyed my style, the challenge continued to be finding ways to push those students to grapple with higher level thinking. How do I move beyond content and into concepts? This question riddled many teachers and in fact, still provides struggles for many with years of experience. Hence this “radical” approach to thinking was the central focus of last week’s module in the Survey of Instructional Strategies course.

Professor Tracy Williams highlighted in the lecture PowerPoint how the idea of teaching concepts or themes can benefit students regardless of curriculum. She stated: “while content may change from unit to unit and from year to year in a curriculum, the themes remain as conceptual points of reference. The themes have the power of ideas, and ideas are the mortar which holds together the curricular building blocks” (Williams). This is Collegio at Seattle Prep – or at least after we revised the curriculum this summer. In my junior Collegio with the focus on American History, we take essential questions and a theme for each unit and it builds upon the previous unit. In many ways, we stick with the question of what it means to be an American and who gets included in the definition? As we move from the Revolutionary Era to the Civil War we start to see very clearly that the North and South view the definition differently and that African-Americans are not included. Then the students get to wrestle with the theme of power (politically, militarily, economically and socially) and how that influences the definition. The units are not about names and dates; they are about ideas and concepts.

A Water Class or Concept Class?

This continues with my senior course called Ecology, Economics, and Ethics: The Global Water Crisis as we teach students to become advocates of change. The course features the issues surrounding water, but it isn’t really about that. We could teach the course on hunger, disease, religion, forgiveness or any other multitude of topics. The theme is how do seniors in high school learn to combat the system and become agents of change? How do they advocate for the disadvantaged? We simply use the content to teach those skills. This is concept learning at its best and it makes me very proud to be a part of it.

Innovating Beyond EALRs (EDU 6526)

This week’s readings and discussion on the inductive model of teaching and innovation in relation to Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) in the state of Washington seems to have polarized the class in many ways. Many teachers in our group seem to yearn for the chance or freedom to use inductive learning as created and developed by Hilda Taba (Dell’Olio), they feel stifled by curriculum documents, school districts, and above all EALRs. Others seem to think that the EALRs simply provide a guide that we can follow in order to teach the students. In fact, we can use inductive teaching techniques and ideas like those of Charlotte Mason’s to reach our students and ultimately reach those EALRs.

I struggle with the balance between these two viewpoints that seem to be emerging in our discussion group. As a teacher at a private school that attempts to stretch students beyond the “normal” limits in the classroom, I am given the autonomy to use innovative teaching models like those introduced by Taba. I spend a lot of time in my classroom emphasizing critical thinking, thus inductive teaching works very well for me. As Dell’Olio and Delk state in Models of Teaching, “During Inductive Model lessons, teachers can assess the quality of students’ critical thinking and then use this information to design additional lessons to further specific skills” (Dell’Olio, 170). Yet as a private school teacher, I get the sense from this group that I am lucky. I don’t get the same kind of scripted curriculum and pressure to conform to it that some other teachers seem to face. In this same idea, the EALRs cannot be our ultimate guiding force in the classroom. We must teach learning and critical thinking and then we will reach the EALRs. Charlotte Mason states: “Teachers deprecate their office when they do the work of learning for the child by preparing lessons that have been diluted, predigested, and are void of thought… meals of sawdust.  The work of the teacher is secured in preparing lessons with ‘prophetic power of appeal and inspiration.’  The communion develops from mind to mind, and the teacher acts as guide, philosopher, and companion.” (Mason). In order to be these companions we cannot focus on that end goal of EALRs – we must use innovative teaching techniques as describes in this week’s reading in order to to inspire and prepare. It is essential.

References

Dell’Olio J.M.. & Donk. T. (2007). Models of Teaching: Connecting Student Learning with Standards. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Effective Teaching: Not One Philosophy or Instructional Strategy (EDU6526)

As we wrap up the first week in Survey of Instructional Strategies, the class readings and discussion provided a great overview of what it means to be a good teacher. Although it may not have been originally designed in this manner, I interpret this information to be all the various sources that lead to good teaching. So what does this mean? I believe that there isn’t one instructional strategy provided by Marzano that should be used much more than any other. The key to good teaching is using the variety of strategies effectively to engage students in material and push them to think critically, especially at the high school level. In the same way, a teacher should pick and choose aspects of the various philosophies of education as outlined in Jeanine M. Dell’Olio and Tony Donk’s book Models of Teaching. To stick exclusively to one type of philosophy does not make an effective teacher who makes a positive impact.

In reflecting on my three years of experience as a Social Studies teacher at Seattle Prep, I can see my own philosophy embedded in almost every philosophy outlined in the Models of Teaching text. There are times I find myself sticking to the academic rationalism approach (Dell’Olio, 29) and ensuring students understand content, especially with my freshmen taking Western Civilization. However, I rarely stand at the front and lecture. I tend to look to the maieutic method while providing questions and cues as Marzano states in his text Classroom Instruction that Works. As both texts state, higher level questions provide students with the opportunity to analyze information and come to their own conclusions on significance (Marzano, 112, Dell’Olio, 30). This is vitally important in a history classroom. I refuse to allow my students to be passive learners. I constantly ask them “so what”? Why does it matter that Sparta treated women better than Athens when comparing city states in Greek civilization? Why does it matter that the North won the Battle of Gettysburg?

At other times I look toward the cognitive processing model of teaching students how to learn or how to think (Dell’Olio, 31). In many ways, this is essential to a Jesuit education. We strive to graduate students who embody the profile of a graduate at graduation which means they are intellectually competent, open to growth, loving, spiritually alive, and committed to justice. For students to reach this profile, they must learn how learn not just content. This is essential. At the same time, I believe I must develop positive, healthy relationships with students in my classes. This fits right in with the self-actualization philosophy in which I take into account the affective domain or feelings and beliefs of my students before I ever reach content or skill development (Dell’Olio, 37). And the list goes on and on. To be the most effective teacher possible, I cannot limit myself to one philosophy or one instructional strategy. I must utilize them all at the right moments so that my students are positively impacted as much as possible. I do this by listening, being attentive, asking questions of students and other teachers and being open to growth myself. It isn’t a static process; it is ever dynamic and I love every minute of it.

References

Dell’Olio J.M.. & Donk. T. (2007). Models of Teaching: Connecting Student Learning with Standards. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Outside the Classroom (April 18-23)

This past week provided a couple different opportunities for me as a teacher that don’t fit into a normal work week. In celebration of Earth Day, our school joins together for an all-school Day of Service in the neighborhood surrounding Seattle Prep. The following day, on Friday, I joined our principal and a few other fellow teachers at a day long conference on Cultural Competence. While both days provided different experiences, they both allowed for great professional growth.

Earth Day at Seattle Prep

As students get older at Seattle Prep, they tend to bemoan the prospect of working outside on Earth Day. After experiencing the laborious nature of pulling ivy and blackberry from the neighborhood (mostly at Interlaken Park), they strive to do anything else! With this in mind – and last year being a rainy day – it inevitably makes for a less than exciting day in many cases. As teachers we feel like we are herding students back and then trying anything to get them to work for just a couple hours. While I went into the day with tempered expectations, I soon learned that just when you don’t expect the best – students surprise you.

The group of juniors I supervised and worked with on Earth Day provided great energy and worked extremely hard.

We cleared a nice section of ivy and blackberry to return the land to its natural state alongside workers from EarthCorps, a local non-profit that works in restoring natural habitats. The second part of our day involved moving piles of mulch to cover the area. When we completed the work, all of us could stare and be amazed at the work we accomplished. The students worked well together and really enjoyed their day. Yet the best part was that we were one group (about 12 students and myself) among 50 or so groups total doing this same work! We literally and physically changed the landscape of our area for the better! I felt overwhelmed and proud to be working at a school involved in this activity and to be with students who truly respected the world around them enough to not complain and get the work done.

The following day I traveled to the Cultural Competency training where I gained some great professional development to use in my classroom. The training centered around being able to understand the different perspectives and cultures of the students in our classroom. While I didn’t gain anything new or groundbreaking in terms of the material, the training did provide some great activities to use in helping students understand each others’ various perspectives and cultures. I also thought of my Diversity in Education course and James Banks’ views of Multicultural Education. This training and the work I did in that class made me reflect on my own teaching. Banks describes three different approaches to multicultural education in order of significance and importance: contributions approach, additive approach, and transformative approach. Do I simply speak about various cultural groups contributions or do I include all perspectives throughout units I teach? This is a perfect time to reflect on this dilemma as I begin a new unit for freshmen year. The unit involves the reading of Bless Me, Ultima and the Age of Exploration. I want to work toward a unit that doesn’t celebrate Christopher Columbus and other explorers, but examines the perspectives of all involved including the indigenous people who lived in the New World before Columbus arrived. If I can get students to understand all points of view in this era, I am working toward a transformative experience.

Parents and Student Voice (April 12-17)

The Seattle Pacific Alternative Route to Certification program provides me with a number of ideas and a whole lot of paperwork in order to be a certifiable teacher. Not to mention getting a Master’s Degree! Yet in the process of sorting through documents, taking suggestions from observers, and classes upon classes, some of the ideas came to life in my teaching. This week I used two very different examples of ideas that came from this program that improved my teaching.

The first idea came from the Education Technology course I took back in the fall. In that class, we needed to create a Digital Narrative documenting our belief in the use of technology in education. While I believed all my statements in that particular assignment (I linked to it here in this post), I didn’t necessarily think they would be put into action this year.

http://voicethread.com/share/802748/

I used Moodle for a discussion with my class earlier during a Civil War unit and now I wanted to put the Digital Narrative into action. I assigned my class to complete a Digital Narrative using VoiceThread. They need to choose a topic or person from any of the last three units in American History (Cold War, Vietnam and Civil Rights). My site coordinator liked the idea in that it will allow students to really synthesize their learning. I believe that anytime students can learn in a format unusual or unique to what they are used to, a little more learning takes place. This is my hope for this assignment. (See my example in this post as well).

http://voicethread.com/share/1083480/

While the Digital Narrative will hopefully be a great success, another idea from SPU already proved to be a hit with parents. I recently wrote a short newsletter on the Cold War unit as we began in class and sent it via email to all my parents of juniors. I not only received responses from four parents, but the principal received an email from a parent as well on how appreciative they were of the effort I put in. I realize that with just a little extra work I can really get parents engaged in the classroom, even if they can’t come in physically!

Slang in the Classroom? Nah dawg – formal style is where it’s at

In Judith Meece and Denise Daniels’ book entitled Child and Adolescent Development for Educators, chapter five outlines the development of language in children and as they head into adolescence. While much of this chapter provides nice context for my future child – my wife is six months pregnant – as a high school teacher, it fails to grasp apply for most of the chapter. Yet Meece and Daniels address a small part on adolescence language that grabbed my attention. They state: “By adolescence, students are extremely skilled at adapting their language to different situations” (Meece 274). While this is the hope of many educators, I find that it is becoming less and less true.

It is essential for students to be able to change their use of language and formal style in different environments. Not everyone agrees with this, but as long as society holds certain expectations for job interviews and work environments, it is essential. While students at Seattle Prep understand this to a degree, there are those who feel that they should be able to express themselves however they wish in school. Especially since their parents pay so much money to attend our school. I am not bothered personally by this style or language use (more informal), but I do feel that students need to learn how to switch their formality on and off at appropriate times.

So how do we help them practice this? I believe there are a couple ways in the classroom to accomplish this. One way is through group presentations. Currently in my junior Collegio, the students are working together on 1920s presentations, as that is our current unit of study. The students present on one of the following: Harlem Renaissance art, Harlem Renaissance music, prohibition, Scopes Trial, rise of the KKK, changing role of women, women’s suffrage, the rise of the automobile, consumerism, popular culture, or the Palmer Raids. While each group uses technology to enhance their lesson and must practice group skills, the true evaluation is on their presentation. Students must learn to adapt their language and style to become more formal. Through this process, students practice essentially for their future encounters in the workplace and in interviews. And in the end, they are agreeing with Meece and Daniels without even knowing it!

Student Group Presentation: Consumerism and Rise of Technology

History: Just Memorization?

While reading John Medina’s fifth and sixth chapters from Brain Rules, I found myself reflecting on classroom experiences and the significance of memorization. Since I teach world and American history, I inevitably face the memorization challenge on a weekly, if not daily, basis. I try to steer away from heavy memorization of facts, dates, and names as that usually makes people hate history in my experience. If you ask the average person how they liked history, most will say, “it was a bunch of dead people and dates I had to memorize!” Not effective teaching, right?

Yet I realize that much of knowing what happened in the past must involve some memorization. How do I balance memorization with significant learning experiences? Medina gives me some insight to how I can make this possible.

Memorize here or at home?

In terms of short term memory, Medina points out that, “retrieval may best be improved by replicating the conditions surrounding the initial encoding” (Medina 113). This can be pretty difficult at school. Our system is set up in many ways for students to study and read material at home and thus memorize material. They then are tested on that material in school! This does not replicate the conditions! We have a base level challenge that will be difficult for students to overcome. Although this challenge in not impossible. By having students study names or a list of terms in the classroom on their own during my teaching time, I may be setting them up for future success. They can continue to study outside the classroom, but the initial encoding happens right there where they will take the quiz or test. This happened recently with a terms of Islam exam I gave to my freshman. They worked on learning the terms in partners in class and almost all of them did very well on the quiz.

While the initial encoding environment is important to memorization, the significance of the material proves to be the most important aspect of the process. As Medina states: “We know the information is remembered best when it is elaborate, meaningful, and contextual” (Medina 114). This is how I strive to teach history. My philosophy never revolves around memorization. I try to use memorization to aid in the process of making meaning out of events in history. The more meaning students can attach to the history, the more they will remember.