Everything is Coming Together!

Everything is Coming Together!

So much of what I’ve learned in our program thus far has come together in Smagorinsky’s text. He reminds me of the hows and whys I latched on to constructivism in  our ED210 class as one of the best teaching practices in order to fully engage students and to produce critical thinkers, much beyond what Smagorinsky refers to as the “superficial” transmission view of knowledge. I don’t want to merely transmit knowledge, or trivia, as Kate Manski calls it. I want my students to learn our lessons so fully and so well because they were able to dive into the material with a passion. I want them to want to learn, and to construct their own knowledge as we approach our various tasks and units. 

            Smagorinsky writes, “I would rather have students really learn how to do a few things in school than cover many things superficially and with little lasting effect. The [teacher’s] task is to balance what the school absolutely requires that they do with what they can create time for and accomplish-taking more time, certainly, but making that time well spent” (31). In other words, I as a teaching professional need to take my goal of wanting my students to constructively learn so fully and passionately about our material, balance it with my school’s requirements for curriculum, and ensure we have utilized our time in such a manner so that my students have the opportunity to fully engage and learn our lessons. This is a tough task, indeed, particularly in light of Ken Kumashiro’s book, “Against Common Sense.” I am getting the sense from Smagorinsky’s book that the all too common methods of top-down instruction and the transmission view of communication (as opposed to constructivism views of communication and educational delivery) in education, will potentially impede my goals to teach my students as constructively as possible; furthermore, I am getting the sense that top-down instruction and transmission views of communication are fomenting an oppressive educational system for our students.

I want my students to have the freedom to explore and to think about our subjects. I don’t want my students to merely be able to regurgitate facts for a test and then to quickly forget them. Smagorinsky’s description of prevailing practices sounds as though many teachers have manacles on (possibly from administrators or curricula) and are not always able to teach in a constructivist manner.  As a pre-service teacher who is dedicated to creating an inclusive, constructivist, anti-oppressive classroom environment, I am taking note of Smagorinsky’s description of purveying attitudes and practices in schools. I am nervous about them. I am also taking note of Smagorinsky’s suggestions on how to teach constructively, how to transmit knowledge fully and completely, and how to scaffold lessons which help students develop complex thinking skills.

Smagorinsky’s first two chapters have humbled me even more about the teaching profession, yet they have also allowed me to think about possibilities for the future, for my classroom, and for my students. I don’t have to and I won’t teach in the oppressive, top-down, superficial manner of my forebears. I very well may clash with future administrators who are concerned about their curriculum, yet I feel it’s time to strap on my seat belt because the ride is about to begin!