If you've ever taught a day in any classroom anywhere, you know the game. "This class has enough trouble behaving as-is, so how in the world can they manage themselves on their own?" "It's hard enough for them to solve problems with my help; how can they possibly do so without it?" "I have to go through the same exact type of problem over and over, and they still do not get it. I have presented the material as clearly as I know how, and they still act like they are lost." Such are the tricks we play with ourselves in an effort to convince ourselves that we alone understand the material. Therein lies the paradox: While we do indeed stand out as the unique bearers of particular information at the onset of a lesson, it is our role to get that knowledge across to the students. Placing the ball in their court may sound good in theory, but can we teachers convince ourselves that it can be done?
Consider the golfer who is on the green, lined up to make a long putt. His objective is straightforward: put the ball into the hole with as few additional strokes as possible, preferably no more than one putt. There are a number of ways to go wrong--he can hit it short or long, left or right, or break a rule that costs him strokes--but there is only one way to get it right: line up the shot exactly, and hit the ball with just the right touch. The great golfers, the Tiger Woodses and the Phil Mickelsons, do not concern themselves with the endless number of ways that they can do it wrong; they focus on the one way that they can do it right. If the green is hilly or the putt is long, do they give up and not attempt the putt? Absolutely not.
We can learn from pro golfers this way. In fact, we may have it better off, because unlike golfers, we teachers have a few more options of where we "putt." Once we properly "engineer" our lessons and work around obsticles instead of letting them get in the way, there isn't a whole lot that can stop us. We can show them via manipulatives, or via the whiteboard, or via technology. We can let them work under their own brainpower, or we can drop hints from time to time. We can be tough as nails, or we can loosen the reigns a little, or we can do both at the same time. We have options.
If we commit ourselves to getting it right, we won't have to worry about getting it wrong.
Just ask Tiger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nJfhUGM4Yc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi:
This is Toks. I absolutely agree with you. We have to give it all the efforts it deserve. We must be winners and be able to deliver.
I beleive that we must design new pedagory in education ie. instructional strategies. Our goals should be helping or rather focus students towards acquiring higher level of cognitive skills. We must be ready to accept reforms in the instructional strategies, interactions among teachers, students, parents and focus on knowledge reflection and actions as the basis for social change and promote democracy with the principle of social justice
Barrett, I think your observation on engineering and constraints was profound. I also believe that constraints should be viewed as obstacles that we as educators should "plan" around via our lesson plans. This action will prevent the constraints from being limits placed on our students. With consistant planning with these restrictions in mind, they will eventually become obsolete, and allow for student-centered learning to take place more smoothly and with less "limitations".
Post a Comment