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.
Monday, May 28, 2012
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.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Reflections on Palmer Ch. 1
After reading the first two chapters of Palmer's The Courage to Teach, I am left with mixed feelings. I think the basic premise of the book has some truth to it. A teacher without personal integrity is going to be less effective, for several reasons - they will have no real devotion to their work, they will lack motivation to perfect their teaching technique, and they will have a correspondingly difficult time connecting to and motivating students. However, In my experience a passionate teacher without effective technique is even worse - I think both qualities are central to really great teaching.
Once I started reading however, the contents of the book left me cold. Palmer defines integrity as the process of coming to understand and honor the "forces that converge within us", be they good or bad. This conception of integrity has more in common with the self-seeking narcissism of the self-help movement than with the solid foundation of Christian thought. As the chapter progresses, however, it becomes clear that his real working definition of integrity is the process of confronting and overcoming our personal failings, which then allows us to teach in an authentic way. This is better, but still lacking. Improving ourselves morally is certainly admirable, but Palmer offers no real support for the idea that it is the most fundamental element of teaching. He presents evidence in the form of stories, but I did not find these convincing - it seemed to me that he was forcing his theory over ambiguous situations after the fact.
Once I started reading however, the contents of the book left me cold. Palmer defines integrity as the process of coming to understand and honor the "forces that converge within us", be they good or bad. This conception of integrity has more in common with the self-seeking narcissism of the self-help movement than with the solid foundation of Christian thought. As the chapter progresses, however, it becomes clear that his real working definition of integrity is the process of confronting and overcoming our personal failings, which then allows us to teach in an authentic way. This is better, but still lacking. Improving ourselves morally is certainly admirable, but Palmer offers no real support for the idea that it is the most fundamental element of teaching. He presents evidence in the form of stories, but I did not find these convincing - it seemed to me that he was forcing his theory over ambiguous situations after the fact.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Journal 5/7 - 5/11
This week we've been focusing on rational expressions - simplifying, multiplying, and dividing them, along with word problems involving side lengths, etc. All these techniques make heavy use of factoring, which is difficult for many students, so teaching the material has been frustrating. I've gone over several mnemonic aids which can be employed to simplify factoring, and this has helped somewhat.
The other challenging aspect of these lessons is that the process of simplifying requires a solid grasp of order of operations and the way that numbers act when they are multiplied vs. added or subtracted. Many students don't seem to have a solid foundation in this, and as a result they split up factors, factor improperly, etc. This is something I would really want to address much earlier in the year, but I may have to conduct a review as things now stand.
The other challenging aspect of these lessons is that the process of simplifying requires a solid grasp of order of operations and the way that numbers act when they are multiplied vs. added or subtracted. Many students don't seem to have a solid foundation in this, and as a result they split up factors, factor improperly, etc. This is something I would really want to address much earlier in the year, but I may have to conduct a review as things now stand.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Journal 4/30 - 5/4
This past week has been relatively uneventful in the classroom. The disruption of state testing is over, and it has been good to get back to covering new material. I think the students are relieved to be finished with testing as well, and they have been well behaved all week.
I have been experimenting with incorporating group work into my lessons this week, and I have noticed that it can be challenging logistically if it is not a regular thing. I feel like it would take too much time to have students change their seating arrangement if it is not something they are used to doing on an everyday basis - this would involve showing them their new locations, how to arrange the desks, etc. Instead, I am forming them into groups based around their current seating positions - they simply turn to their neighbors and work in groups of 3 or 4. This is not ideal, in that the group assignments are essentially random, and if I start using group work on a regular basis I feel like I would need to develop a system for assigning groups that took into account things like math ability and language proficiency for my EL students.
I have been experimenting with incorporating group work into my lessons this week, and I have noticed that it can be challenging logistically if it is not a regular thing. I feel like it would take too much time to have students change their seating arrangement if it is not something they are used to doing on an everyday basis - this would involve showing them their new locations, how to arrange the desks, etc. Instead, I am forming them into groups based around their current seating positions - they simply turn to their neighbors and work in groups of 3 or 4. This is not ideal, in that the group assignments are essentially random, and if I start using group work on a regular basis I feel like I would need to develop a system for assigning groups that took into account things like math ability and language proficiency for my EL students.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)