My student teaching experience has involved personal and professional growth, along with a new-found understanding of the importance of community as a teacher.
I have previous teaching experience, with summer programs and in an ESL context, and so I went into student teaching with some idea of how I like to do things and with how I would run my classroom. I soon discovered, however, that teaching Algebra is very different from teaching ESL. The class needs to be more structured, and there are numerous practical difficulties with specific mathematical topics -- the details of how to apply a mathematical idea are not always apparent to students from a basic overview, and it can become necessary to go through large numbers of special cases if the original material is not taught thoroughly.
I found my master teacher to be a valuable resource, particularly for specifics of how to teach individual topics. She was able to provide me with effective mental tricks for the students to use and approaches to explain difficult ideas. I was also able to show her some fresh ideas from my own experience, and so together we formed a small learning community. The value of this community for me at least came mostly from its focus on the mechanics of teaching. In this way, it was largely the opposite of Palmer's ideal community, but it was useful to me nonetheless. I think that with more extended work in the field, I would probably place greater value on personal connection with my peers, but as a teacher just starting out, I found that a focus on technique was just what I needed.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 7
In chapter 7, Palmer examines some of the practical aspects of a movement for change, and the stages a reform movement might typically go through. I found this account generally accurate, particularly in it's emphasis on the need to safe harbors or training grounds for people to come together and develop their position and skills. These can potentially be seen in teacher associations, or in professional development groups. Many teachers are also involved in peer groups at their churches, which are not related to teaching in particular but which could provide moral support for some of the issues that come up when teaching.
This outline for changing an institution gives hope for the possibility of reform -- our schools are clearly in need of help, and it is possible for things to improve if people who are serious about change work together in community to bring it about. I largely disagree with Palmer's educational model however, and I still find myself wondering exactly what reforms are needed and what an effective educational system would look like. I have some ideas based on the many classes I've taken and what I've tested out in the classroom, but they are mostly practical techniques rather than a comprehensive philosophy.
This outline for changing an institution gives hope for the possibility of reform -- our schools are clearly in need of help, and it is possible for things to improve if people who are serious about change work together in community to bring it about. I largely disagree with Palmer's educational model however, and I still find myself wondering exactly what reforms are needed and what an effective educational system would look like. I have some ideas based on the many classes I've taken and what I've tested out in the classroom, but they are mostly practical techniques rather than a comprehensive philosophy.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 6
The foundational idea of this chapter, that teachers should come together to collaborate and improve their teaching, is a sound one. I tend to agree that the most rapid progress in any field occurs when there is a healthy balance between the individual and community. I also agree that modern teachers, especially at public schools, tend to be somewhat isolated from their colleagues. This seems to be an inevitable consequence of how we practice teaching as a society. The teacher typically works alone, and so any community must be created intentionally -- it does not naturally arise in the same way as with other, more group oriented occupations. Fortunately, the need for a community of teachers has begun to be recognized by both teachers themselves and the state, hence recent credential requirements for continuing education, etc.
I am not as persuaded by Palmer's vision for the teaching community. This vision is naturally based on Palmer's own work, and the activities he proposes require both a high degree of trust as well as buy in to the ideas in the book. I think this kind of group-self-reflection would be impossible to implement on a large scale - many people would simply refuse to participate in a genuine way, and so the necessary safe environment is lost. Even apart from pragmatic considerations, I'm still not convinced of the inherent value of the activities themselves. E.g., trying to mine the subconscious through free association for unique metaphors for the self as teacher and then actually using those metaphors to inform teaching seems little better than voodoo to me. This sort of approach, all too common in the self-help genre, is based on Freudian ideas of an independently intelligent subconscious that have been entirely discredited by modern Psychology. A metaphor for the self-as-teacher based on the first word that pops into one's head is in reality as good as random.
I am not as persuaded by Palmer's vision for the teaching community. This vision is naturally based on Palmer's own work, and the activities he proposes require both a high degree of trust as well as buy in to the ideas in the book. I think this kind of group-self-reflection would be impossible to implement on a large scale - many people would simply refuse to participate in a genuine way, and so the necessary safe environment is lost. Even apart from pragmatic considerations, I'm still not convinced of the inherent value of the activities themselves. E.g., trying to mine the subconscious through free association for unique metaphors for the self as teacher and then actually using those metaphors to inform teaching seems little better than voodoo to me. This sort of approach, all too common in the self-help genre, is based on Freudian ideas of an independently intelligent subconscious that have been entirely discredited by modern Psychology. A metaphor for the self-as-teacher based on the first word that pops into one's head is in reality as good as random.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 5
I found this chapter much stronger than ch. 1-4. Palmer covers 2 key points which I think are essential to really teaching well: The classroom must be centered on the subject, and the teacher must treat the subject in a way that coveys a deep understanding of principles, rather than a superficial understanding of facts.
If both teacher and students are focused on the subject for it's own sake, this creates intrinsic motivation on both sides, a genuine passion for learning, and a collaborative relationship between teacher and student that allows class to flow smoothly. When our attention is focused on what we are learning, there is no room for ego. The real challenge to this teaching approach is, I think, getting students to the point where they desire to engage the material for it's own sake. This requires creative teaching that presents the material as vital and interesting, and unfortunately, for some students in some subjects, it may never happen - we are not all naturally suited to everything we must study in school.
Even more important is deep teaching and deep understanding of a subject. Every area of inquiry has a set of underlying principles that shape and guide its practice, and that serve as the foundation for the structure of facts which grow up out of that practice. Unfortunately, many teachers remain in the outer layers of factual information, never penetrating to the internal workings that make up the essence of their subject, when instead they should be using both the facts and practice of their discipline to build understanding. This requires creative selection of information, as well as giving students the space and guidance to work with that information in whatever way is typical of the discipline.
Unfortunately, Palmer continues his misguided crusade against Objectivism in this chapter as well. Objectivism is a necessary prerequisite for real progress in the sciences. It is a fundamental part of the practice of science -- one of science's deep underlying principles -- and it should be taught as such. What Palmer rallies against and describes in his examples is not Objectivism, but the overgrown ego of professors who have invested all their self-worth in their subjects. Rather, there is too little actual Objectivism in the classroom, not too much.
If both teacher and students are focused on the subject for it's own sake, this creates intrinsic motivation on both sides, a genuine passion for learning, and a collaborative relationship between teacher and student that allows class to flow smoothly. When our attention is focused on what we are learning, there is no room for ego. The real challenge to this teaching approach is, I think, getting students to the point where they desire to engage the material for it's own sake. This requires creative teaching that presents the material as vital and interesting, and unfortunately, for some students in some subjects, it may never happen - we are not all naturally suited to everything we must study in school.
Even more important is deep teaching and deep understanding of a subject. Every area of inquiry has a set of underlying principles that shape and guide its practice, and that serve as the foundation for the structure of facts which grow up out of that practice. Unfortunately, many teachers remain in the outer layers of factual information, never penetrating to the internal workings that make up the essence of their subject, when instead they should be using both the facts and practice of their discipline to build understanding. This requires creative selection of information, as well as giving students the space and guidance to work with that information in whatever way is typical of the discipline.
Unfortunately, Palmer continues his misguided crusade against Objectivism in this chapter as well. Objectivism is a necessary prerequisite for real progress in the sciences. It is a fundamental part of the practice of science -- one of science's deep underlying principles -- and it should be taught as such. What Palmer rallies against and describes in his examples is not Objectivism, but the overgrown ego of professors who have invested all their self-worth in their subjects. Rather, there is too little actual Objectivism in the classroom, not too much.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 4
I really liked Palmer's analysis of three types of community: the therapeutic, the civic, and the marketing. I had not considered these ways of viewing community as they relate to the classroom, and there are definitely some parallels. I found the civic community a particularly useful model for the classroom. It is impossible to establish deep, intimate relationships with all our students -- time and the boundaries of appropriate behavior do not permit it. Instead, we need a developed set of social rules that allows people to interact while treating each-other with dignity and respect. This closely matches the idea of a civil community, in which people who are strangers but also neighbors work together in a structured way. Unfortunately, the sort of interpersonal respect required for this sort of interaction seems to be going out of favor in our culture. It may be possible to teach our students some of these values in the classroom through the course of the year. This would be part of developing an effective classroom management plan.
Once again, I can't get behind Palmer's view of Objectivism, which for him seems to be the root of many evils. He creates a model for Objectivist learning where experts study an object then pass on knowledge, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't have anything to do with Objectivism at all. This particular way of structuring education happens to be common right now, at the same time that objectivist science is common, but they are not related. The expert centered paradigm of education has always been common in the classroom, from long before Objectivism took hold (students in the 1500's were not part of a community of knowledge, they were expected to memorize what their instructor told them). It is the result of practical considerations -- students are not yet familiar with the subject you are teaching them, and while it is valuable for them to form an interactive relationship with the subject of study, it is also valuable to pass on relevant information, which is much quicker with an expert centered model. The community of knowledge really comes into it's own in higher education, when the students have reached the limit of existing knowledge, and are trying to push the boundaries of what is known. I believe that in primary education, the best approach is a balance between the expert centered model and student centered investigations of the subject.
Once again, I can't get behind Palmer's view of Objectivism, which for him seems to be the root of many evils. He creates a model for Objectivist learning where experts study an object then pass on knowledge, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't have anything to do with Objectivism at all. This particular way of structuring education happens to be common right now, at the same time that objectivist science is common, but they are not related. The expert centered paradigm of education has always been common in the classroom, from long before Objectivism took hold (students in the 1500's were not part of a community of knowledge, they were expected to memorize what their instructor told them). It is the result of practical considerations -- students are not yet familiar with the subject you are teaching them, and while it is valuable for them to form an interactive relationship with the subject of study, it is also valuable to pass on relevant information, which is much quicker with an expert centered model. The community of knowledge really comes into it's own in higher education, when the students have reached the limit of existing knowledge, and are trying to push the boundaries of what is known. I believe that in primary education, the best approach is a balance between the expert centered model and student centered investigations of the subject.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 3
In chapter 3, Palmer sets up a dichotomy between analytical thinking and paradox, and posits that we far too often analytically dissect the world into a series of either-or choices, which leaves us lifeless and impoverished, when we should instead embrace the life-giving polarities of the paradox.
At the beginning of this chapter, Palmer acknowledges the contributions of analytical thinking, and the advances it has lead to in science, and states that it has it's proper place. In reality however, he is as quick to dismiss objective reason as in the rest of the book, though he in fact seems to not really understand either logic or paradox. Palmer lists a number of supposed paradoxes that he thinks must be embraced as life-giving: the human need for both rest and activity, the way we operate using both intellect and emotions, the dichotomy of theory and practice, etc. In reality, none of these are paradoxes. There is nothing seemingly impossible about needing both rest or activity (we need them in alternation), or about using the intellect and emotions (two different ways of experiencing the world - they are not inherently contradictory), or even about theory and practice (theory is simply generalizations made from practice). These dichotomies are not really dichotomies as such, in each case they are separate, interrelated parts of a whole. Palmer's real argument here seems to be that we need to take a holistic approach to knowing, where we strive for an integrated understanding of the components of self or system.
Palmer makes two assumptions about analytic thought in this chapter, neither of which I agree with: First, that there is a preponderance of logic and analysis in our society -- that it has become the predominant way of thinking. Second, that analytical thought precludes the sort of holistic understanding he is advocating. I do not accept either of these positions.
The thought patterns of Americans have been studied by the science Palmer is so quick to reject, and the reality is that most people make decisions almost entirely based on social norms, emotional impressions, and instinct. Analytical thought seems to be a unnatural way to approach the world, and is quite rare. We are far from an epidemic of analysis - in fact, we are suffering from the opposite.
The idea that analytical, objective thought somehow restricts itself to dissecting people and systems into unrelated parts also seems absurd to me. Certainly this is one potentially useful way of employing logic, but it is certainly not the only way. In fact, science is primarily concerned with the relationships between components, and in discovering rules to describe those relationships -- the opposite of the dissection Palmer is afraid of. To take his own examples, the relationships between resting and activity, the emotions and intellect, and theory and practice can all be better understood by examining them analytically, and this understanding can lead to a more complete, holistic understanding of what those dichotomies represent.
At the beginning of this chapter, Palmer acknowledges the contributions of analytical thinking, and the advances it has lead to in science, and states that it has it's proper place. In reality however, he is as quick to dismiss objective reason as in the rest of the book, though he in fact seems to not really understand either logic or paradox. Palmer lists a number of supposed paradoxes that he thinks must be embraced as life-giving: the human need for both rest and activity, the way we operate using both intellect and emotions, the dichotomy of theory and practice, etc. In reality, none of these are paradoxes. There is nothing seemingly impossible about needing both rest or activity (we need them in alternation), or about using the intellect and emotions (two different ways of experiencing the world - they are not inherently contradictory), or even about theory and practice (theory is simply generalizations made from practice). These dichotomies are not really dichotomies as such, in each case they are separate, interrelated parts of a whole. Palmer's real argument here seems to be that we need to take a holistic approach to knowing, where we strive for an integrated understanding of the components of self or system.
Palmer makes two assumptions about analytic thought in this chapter, neither of which I agree with: First, that there is a preponderance of logic and analysis in our society -- that it has become the predominant way of thinking. Second, that analytical thought precludes the sort of holistic understanding he is advocating. I do not accept either of these positions.
The thought patterns of Americans have been studied by the science Palmer is so quick to reject, and the reality is that most people make decisions almost entirely based on social norms, emotional impressions, and instinct. Analytical thought seems to be a unnatural way to approach the world, and is quite rare. We are far from an epidemic of analysis - in fact, we are suffering from the opposite.
The idea that analytical, objective thought somehow restricts itself to dissecting people and systems into unrelated parts also seems absurd to me. Certainly this is one potentially useful way of employing logic, but it is certainly not the only way. In fact, science is primarily concerned with the relationships between components, and in discovering rules to describe those relationships -- the opposite of the dissection Palmer is afraid of. To take his own examples, the relationships between resting and activity, the emotions and intellect, and theory and practice can all be better understood by examining them analytically, and this understanding can lead to a more complete, holistic understanding of what those dichotomies represent.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 2
The second Chapter focuses on fear, both confronting our own fear and
recognizing it in our students. I think this is a potentially useful
exercise. I know my own fear of failing has sometimes colored my
teaching and lead me to an excessively conservative approach. This seems
like one clear situation where self-reflection could be beneficial.
However, Palmer again goes astray. Later in the chapter, he takes his
past behavior of using Social Science as a personal crutch and
extrapolates, concluding that academic Objectivism is fundamentally flawed
-- essentially just a cover for our own fears. Apparently the tremendous
scientific progress of the last century, which relies on Objectivism as
a central tenant, is irrelevant, and he would prefer we return to the
dark ages?
We are all driven by fear to some extent as people, it is part of our nature. Part of spiritual maturity is learning to overcome our fears, and I think the best remedy to fear is faith. If we are people of faith, we have God behind us in every situation, so long as we are serving his will. If we are earnestly pursuing the well-being of our students, then I think we can be confident of God's care in the classroom, which should help allay fears of inadequacy or failure, or at the very least work through them.
We are all driven by fear to some extent as people, it is part of our nature. Part of spiritual maturity is learning to overcome our fears, and I think the best remedy to fear is faith. If we are people of faith, we have God behind us in every situation, so long as we are serving his will. If we are earnestly pursuing the well-being of our students, then I think we can be confident of God's care in the classroom, which should help allay fears of inadequacy or failure, or at the very least work through them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)