As I began our readings for the week, I was again drawn into Durka's stance on the benefits of generative and transformative learning and learning spaces. While I agree wholeheartedly that this type of learning is an incredible tool for creating honest and open learning environments I'm left with some questions.
I would like to ask Durka how it's possible to ready our students for the environment they'll be facing as undergrads at various universities around the world without the large amount of transmissive teaching that is currently necessary to "cover the material". Should we not cover the material fully? Is it not ironic how very little generative and transformative instruction they'll receive at the undergraduate college level? She does a great job of showing the true benefits of transformative and generative environments, but I'd like a little more concrete advice on exactly how to implement the practices while still giving the students the material, tools, and knowledge they'll need to compete and succeed when they become freshmen at very competitive universities.
Gloria's discussion of "style" and later in the readings of being "moral counsel" and caring for our students also threw me into a reflective state. When she quoted Kierkegaard (1941) as saying "teaching is not a question of making true utterance but of uttering the truth in such a way that students want to embrace it" I immediately thought of the great teachers I've had in the past that pulled me in with their caring and honest style.
When Durka said "the extensiveness of our caring for the well being of our students is a measure of the richness of our own spirituality" (p. 51) I thought she summarized much of the moral, caring, and spiritual knowledge we've had in our course to date. I hope to use that mantra to reach out to my students who need it the most the same way the rabbi "ascended to Heaven" when helping the old woman and her sick son (pgs.53-54).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your words about undergraduate instruction reminded me of an idea I once heard:
ReplyDeleteIn general.... The quality of teaching is best at kindergarten and slowly decreases through the elementary, secondary, undergraduate, and graduate levels.
The point being: college instructors are the last to change their pedagogy to reflect research and best practices.
What do you think?
Take any scenario: 30 students in a class. 16 are inspired, motivated, and push themselves to achieve beyond their station. 14 do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOr 29 have preoccupations and cannot move forward, while 1 excels.
Let's assume a capable, caring group of teachers.
At what point do instructional methods and content leave off and circumstances take over?
Your response really spoke to many questions that I've been churning in my mind for the past couple of weeks. For example, there are two teachers at my school who teach the same class. The veteran teacher, who created all the lesson plans, quizzes, and tests, is loved and respected by her students. She gave the same lesson plans, etc to the other teacher to use, and she is despised her students. Same curriculum, different results. In fact, some students in the class of the "hated" teacher would say that she is a terrible teacher, and she doesn't know what she is doing. Even though the teacher is using the same materials as the veteran teacher, the students do connect caring and concern with the learning process; it's not just curriculum. At what point do students' minds turn off to the learning process when they perceive that the teacher doesn't care? What if the teacher's way of caring is providing solid and clear lesson plans and tests/quizzes that truly assess what has been learned?
ReplyDelete