"Discussions ask more of students, challenging them to respond in complex ways to a literary work, as I'm sure the author would hope a reader would do" (Smagorinsky, 33). I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. While I was reading Chapter 3, I kept making notes next to the alternative ideas. I felt like a kid in a candy store! Some of these ideas are great, and I don't think I ever would have thought of them otherwise. I thought I would share some of my reactions (both good and bad) to some of the alternatives.
- Fishbowls: My first note was, "Not really a fan...I think it puts too much pressure on the students". I understand that it is essentially just like most class discussions; but at the same time they are so different. I completely understand why this is an effective method, but I think it's an uncomfortable one.When there's a regular class discussion, students are in their regular seats and speaking to the group. The fishbowl idea essentially puts several students in the hot seat, with the rest of their classmates observing. Of course, if one is prepared, their content shouldn't be an issue. I'm concerned with the nerves that come along with fishbowls. On top of that, the students are given feedback from their small discussion. While I think that criticism is essential for academic growth, I wouldn't want my students to be given it on the spot. There is some serious potential for students to become uncomfortable rather quickly. I would probably recommend this style of discussion for college students or advanced-level high school students.
- Put an Author on Trial: I LOVE this idea! It's so creative, and allows for a completely different form of expressing ideas via discussion. I remember doing something similar in a history class in middle school, and it was the most popular activity of the year. We begged and begged for our teacher to find a way for us to do another one. The trial allows all students to express their feelings, whether they be positive or negative responses to an author's text. The students are given an opportunity to fully defend a character, author, etc. I have a tendency to get super passionate (or nerdy, whichever word you prefer) about a text and will talk your ear off about it. I'm sure we will have some students like this as well, and we can give them this chance to really express it! Sure, there will be many that have the opposite reaction. The beautiful part of the trial is that there will ALWAYS be two sides. I will most definitely be trying this in the future.
I really don't feel like I fit in when I come across future teachers discussing the Common Core State Standards. I don't know if it's just the classes I've been taking, or it truly just hasn't been an in-depth part of my methods courses. Some of my classmates are Math Ed, and they have said that it has been engrained in their minds from the beginning of their college careers. I understand the basic gist of the CCSS, but I honestly couldn't elaborate on them. I feel like I am so far behind in this regard. I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this as well? I feel like the "NEED TO KNOW" aspects of this subject have only recently found their way into my education. Obviously I am beginning to educate myself on them. Even in my observations, I have not seen many teachers placing CCSS at the top of their priority lists. So I'm really not sure as to where I should stand on the matter. Any advice, guys?
-Sam
Sam, as you know, I have the same feelings about CCSS. I feel like I have no idea what I'm doing! I think that some of our peers had the opportunity to discuss Common Core in their methods/other classes, but I never really got to. From what I've seen and heard, not a lot of people put a huge emphasis on it (whether it be current or future teachers). However, I'm not sure I would be going into my future career with the right mind set if I didn't feel 100% about knowing how to properly handle CCSS.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I basically wrote the same thing about my response to the alternatives. I also don't feel comfortable with the Fishbowl Exercise and I absolutely adore the Putting an Author on Trial Activity.
It's nice and comforting to see someone else share my feelings on this stuff as well. :)
-Alex
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad that you enjoy reading about the various methods and strategies that Smangorinsky highlights. One thing that I find interesting is that he interprets them as "alternatives" to teacher-led discussions, which sort of highlights this idea that there are significant ways in which teachers use and adapt in order to "make" things work based on the frameworks that are important to them. In some ways, teachers still "lead" the discussions in that they have to do the sorts of planning that preps students in order to participate, especially so that students meet and achieve various learning goals and objectives. I'm excited to see how you might some of these ideas into action in your planning.
In terms of your concern about CCSS, I feel ya, as they say. There are so many perspectives about the value about learning through the standards, versus learning about and critiquing them. In this course, I've opted to focus on the latter so that we can then be concerned with determining what it means to integrate them. What perspective do you think that the Beach, et al crowd takes? Do you think your math colleagues perceive the standards to be dictates, or rather guidelines for understanding planning and learning? I would argue that you should be fluent in talking about the standards, and potentially what they mean for teaching and learning (especially in terms of how they work from grade to grade, and what this means for curriculum articulation). First, though, I would encourage you to think about your teaching framework and consider what it means for you to read and interpret the standards.
Thanks for the interesting read, and for providing insight that resonates with others (as Alex said!).
smr