Q: Throughout this reading, I found the one major stumbling block to really supporting teachers being that there are so very many ways to do it, but few programs that do enough to truly support teachers, according to the article. Knowing that all teachers learn differently, how do we possibly select the most effective (including time-effective and cost-effective) manners to support teachers without overwhelming them?
Q: "Action research is an approach to professional development in which,typically, teachers spend 1 or more year working on classroom-based research projects. While action research has has multiple forms and purposes, it is an important way for teachers to improve their teaching and curricula, and there is also an assumpting that what teachers learn through this process can be shared with others." (199/200?). I found this quote interesting because, having just come from college where I was accustomed to doing research and getting credit for it, my brain is somewhat still in that 'mode.'Being in that mode, and knowing that I benefit from this type of collaboration, I think pushing myself to do this in the future, could really benefit me as a teacher, and also make me feel significantly more productive just personally.
C:One thing that really struck me was when the article discussed how the percentage of money invested by schools in educating their teachers is minimal-- 1 to 3 percent of the operating budget. When you consider that, it seems to be no wonder that teachers can feel so isolated and unsupported in the typical classroom setting. I do not feel this so much at Rocketship, but this feeling was a huge possibility we were warned about this summer at Institute. I can only imagine how much more success schools might see in teacher retention if they truly invested in making their teachers have important resources. The Guided Reading in-services are something I really appreciate about Rocketship, and seeing that statistic only made me appreciate them more.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
105: How People Learn, Assignment #1
Learning from Speculation to Science
Q: "The new science of learning does not deny that facts are important for thinking and problem solving. Research on expertise in areas such as chess, history, science an dmathematics demonstrate that experts' abilities to think and solve problems depend on a rich body of knowledge about subject matter. However, the research also shows clearly that "usable knowledge" is not the same as a mere list of disconnected facts. Experts' knowledge is connected and organized around important concepts." (p 10).
This quote really struck me as I, all too often, find myself falling into the category of giving them random knowledge, but not making it entirely applicable category. Our incredibly randomized spelling lists from the beginning of the year stood out to me especially--- without a true reason, why would my students remember the words? It is little surprise that they did as poorly on the first spelling tests as I did.
Q: The article spoke of the idea of how we must incorporate pre-existing knowledge in order to be successful. However, this is something I really struggle with when, sometimes, at the first grade level, very little pre-existing knowledge may exist. How do we tailor this to a lower-elementary level? What are some strategies to make a year a cummulative buildup of pre-existing knowledge?
C: I found it interesting to even frame learning in the context of a 'science'. It takes it to the metacognitive level, but also forces thoughts on methodology and process, and fact as opposed to 'theory'. This article kind of stood in the face of what we have all heard so often-- 'this' or 'that' theory of education. When we are forced to think of education beyond the context of theory, and take it to the level of research-compiled fact, with both the behavioral and academic contexts considered, I think we have the opportunity to reach new depths as educators.
Q: "The new science of learning does not deny that facts are important for thinking and problem solving. Research on expertise in areas such as chess, history, science an dmathematics demonstrate that experts' abilities to think and solve problems depend on a rich body of knowledge about subject matter. However, the research also shows clearly that "usable knowledge" is not the same as a mere list of disconnected facts. Experts' knowledge is connected and organized around important concepts." (p 10).
This quote really struck me as I, all too often, find myself falling into the category of giving them random knowledge, but not making it entirely applicable category. Our incredibly randomized spelling lists from the beginning of the year stood out to me especially--- without a true reason, why would my students remember the words? It is little surprise that they did as poorly on the first spelling tests as I did.
Q: The article spoke of the idea of how we must incorporate pre-existing knowledge in order to be successful. However, this is something I really struggle with when, sometimes, at the first grade level, very little pre-existing knowledge may exist. How do we tailor this to a lower-elementary level? What are some strategies to make a year a cummulative buildup of pre-existing knowledge?
C: I found it interesting to even frame learning in the context of a 'science'. It takes it to the metacognitive level, but also forces thoughts on methodology and process, and fact as opposed to 'theory'. This article kind of stood in the face of what we have all heard so often-- 'this' or 'that' theory of education. When we are forced to think of education beyond the context of theory, and take it to the level of research-compiled fact, with both the behavioral and academic contexts considered, I think we have the opportunity to reach new depths as educators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)