Direct instruction=Peanuts cartoon?

Direct instruction is systematic instruction for mastery of basic skills, facts, and information. In other words, it is a lecture method: teacher talks, students listen. When I think about direct instruction, the first image that comes to my mind is the teacher from the Peanuts cartoons, “Wah wah, wah wah wah wah…” But does this mean that direct instruction is completely useless?
When it comes to basic facts, direct instruction actually is useful, to a certain extent. Basic facts are information that does not change. The Declaration of Independence was presented to the public on July 4, 1776. That date will never change. It is something that students ought to know about our country. Dates are bits of information that direct instruction is useful for. However, there is so much more to an event than a date, and that is where direct instruction should end.
Once the students know the basic events and dates of history, it is time for a history teacher to move beyond direct instruction. The impacts of events in history are far more important than rote memorization of exact dates. Once they know the sequence of events, a teacher can move into exploration. Have the students explore the impact of the Declaration of Independence. Why was it significant? These things can be taught by direct instruction, but should they? No. Your students will miss it, anyways. Most students will tune you out before you get to this part. Allowing them to discover things for themselves keeps them involved. They will get more out of a lesson than direct instruction can ever impart.
So, direct instruction does have a place – for a few minutes. After that, everyone has tuned you out, just like the teacher in a Peanuts cartoon.

"Withitness"-are you with it?

Many teachers believe that in order to be “effective” you have to give your students the impression that you have “eyes in the back of your head” and see everything they do. Bogus. First of all, I hate to disillusion you, but no one actually has eyes in the back of their head. As a teacher, you will miss things. While it is important to try to be aware of the general going-ons, trying to “catch” every bad thing that your students are doing gives you little time for anything else. How can you effectively helping Susie if you’re spying on Johnny and Alex? And it is spying. Leave them alone, for pity’s sake. Try trusting your students. Constantly watching them gives them the impression that you don’t trust them, and you expect them to fail. What kind of first impression is that? It starts you off on the wrong foot. Would you like it if, the first day of class, your teacher said, “Since I know that you are untrustworthy, I will be working extra hard to catch you in all of your wrong-doings”? Probably not.
Besides, in the end you are just setting yourself up. I don’t generally consider myself a naughty student, but even I could not resist that challenge. Any time a teacher tells me that they WILL see every bad thing I do, I try to get away with more. It becomes a game to see how much students can get away with while the teacher’s back is turned. Even though you, as a teacher, think that you are in complete control of your classroom, really your students are running amok behind your back. They aren’t learning, they’re mocking you.
Some teachers argue that “withitness” is important so that you know who started conflicts. Most likely, you will miss who started it anyways. Have you ever tried asking your students what happened? I know, it takes time because then you actually have to listen to your students. What a concept. By trusting them to tell you what is happening, you have a much greater chance of figuring out what actually happened than you would if you just assumed that, since you are “withit”, you actually caught the beginning. Even if you caught the beginning of it in your classroom, who says that the conflict started in your classroom?
Teachers who need to resort to this tactic are the ones who cannot be bothered with gaining the respect of their students. They will claim that they have it, but intimidation doesn’t equal respect. Their students don’t really respect them. Teachers who gain respect are the ones who care about their students. They are firm without being dictatorial. They “control” classrooms through mutual respect, not fear. Respect must be earned, not forced. Am I “withit”? Heck no, and proud of it.

Effective?

“Effective teachers”. What does that mean? We are told, as teachers, to strive to be the “most effective.” But who gets to define effective? Someone on Capitol Hill, far removed from the classroom who has no idea what teachers do on a regular basis? Effective teachers is a bald-faced lie. There is no such thing.
There is no way to define effective. It is a word beyond definition in the world of education. What makes an “effective” teacher to me is someone who is able to communicate and reach their students. Someone who instills a love of learning within their students. Someone who never stops trying, no matter how resistant their children are to learning. Someone who approaches each day as a new day to motivate their students to love learning. Not to force their students to memorize facts and perform, but to love learning. That, to me, is an “effective” teacher.
But that definition of an “effective” teacher would most likely be fired under our current regime of education. “Effectiv”e, according to that system, is a teacher who produces “results” and “smart” children. But test performance is not the only way to measure education. Some of the “smartest” children are the ones who look at the world in a different way, and these are some of the children who perform worst on a test. But these are the innovators of the future, and their unique perspective ought to be treasured. Why should all children have to learn the same and think the same? When has that ever produced anything but sameness?
As educators, I think our job is not to be “effective.” It is to be unique. It is to make a difference in the lives of our students and give them a chance to realize their full potential, even if that potential does not perfectly fit the standards for a “smart” child. Since when are smart children the only ones worth our time and attention?

Headbanging to the Pumpkins

Headbanging to the Smashing Pumpkins on my way home for fall break, a thought came to me. I started thinking about the numerous teachers I have had throughout the years. There were those who pretended they were hip and young (using phrases like “I’m pretty fly” or “fo’ shizzle”). These were the teachers that got laughed at. Then there were the teachers that I could never picture being young. They were the kind of teachers who frequently shook their heads and said “teenagers” disparagingly. But the teachers who really stick out in my mind are the ones who remembered being young without trying to cling to youth.
One thing that every teacher should learn and remember well is that growing up is tough. There are so many challenges you face outside of the school room. Life goes on outside of class. Remembering this, a teacher can integrate the real world into their classroom. They are able to capture and hold attention because they understand their students. They remember sitting in a classroom staring out the window, falling asleep to the sonorous sounds of a boring teacher who cannot possibly understand them. So, they take steps to adjust their teaching and hold attention. They bring elements of students’ outside life into the classroom. They make an effort to understand their students.
I do not think, though, that teachers should pretend to “get” their students completely. My students will grow up in a completely different time period from my own. They most likely will never headbang to the Smashing Pumpkins, and, in all likelihood, most will not have a clue who the Pumpkins even are. It occurred to me a couple of weeks ago that most of my students will not remember 9/11 beyond what others tell them about it. But teachers can try to understand their students’ and their students’ backgrounds without pretending to “get” their students and be just like them. Students resent teachers who say things like “I know exactly what you’re going through.” Even people their own age do not know exactly what they’re going through because everyone is shaped by different experiences. However, teachers can make an attempt to learn what motivates their students and shape the learning environment to incorporate student interests.
Most students do not come from the same background, but they do share some things. All go through that source of all evil known as puberty. They struggle to make lasting relationships, relate to the world around them, and deal with the yawning chasm that denotes life after high school. So, when your students walk into class the first day of school, remember that you once sat in their seats. Once upon a time, you too headbanged to Smashing Pumpkins.

Tenure

Tenure. The word every teacher longs to hear. But is tenure ruining our educational system? I do not know about you, but I have had several teachers who suffer from that fatal disease known as Tenure-Induced Laziness Syndrome (TILS, for short). These are the teachers who no longer bother with a real lesson plan, assign grades seemingly at random, and never actually seem to work. They have “office hours” but are never actually seen in their offices. Admit it, you know exactly the teachers I am talking about. But are they the exception or the rule?
Reading articles by teachers like Herbert Kohl, I find that some teachers with tenure work harder than before. Now that they have tenure, they feel that they are free to explore options beyond the accepted norms. Teachers like Kohl are constantly pushing the boundaries of education and opening new pathways. Would we find new answers in education if teachers were not free to explore?
In the end, it is a hard question to answer. Really, I think it comes down to the character of the teachers. Some teachers use tenure to push boundaries and benefit their students with new ways of teaching. They see tenure as a license to use set curriculum as merely a guideline on the path to education – a chance to truly shape education and help their students learn. Other teachers see tenure as a permanent vacation. This is best seen in a quote by someone I know going into education. He told me, “I can’t wait to get tenure. Then I can cancel class occasionally during hunting and fishing season.” I would like to believe that he was just joking, but I have had some teachers who make me think that he was telling the truth.
So, what is the answer? Is tenure a fabulous institution that allows us to explore new ideas and innovative new styles of teaching, or is it the cause of the breakdown in our educational system? I tend towards the former opinion, but I also believe that I will be the kind of teacher who breaks boundaries and refuses to conform to set curriculums. There are those who would argue that I am the kind of tenured teacher who causes the most problems. Some people would prefer the TILS teachers because at least they follow the rules. But if everyone follows the rules, how are we to discover anything new?

Behavioralism vs. Sensational Hats

Our class has been discussing the merits of behavioralism for the past week, and I thought it was high time I do some personal reflection on the topic. As have most students, I grew up in a school that was highly dependent on behavioralism. One of my earliest memories from school is of a jar in my kindergarten classroom. Every time someone did something good, a marble went in the jar. When the jar was full, we got a treat as a class – extra recess, a snack, more playtime. I learned quickly that to get a treat, I had to behave well, but was this the correct behavior from my teacher?
One argument against behavioralism is that it is a manipulation of children without getting to the heart of what causes bad behavior. This is true, in some ways. If the only response a teacher has is to promise treats for good behavior, they are using behavioralism in completely the wrong way. It should not be used as a substitute for good teaching and as the only motivational tool. Teachers should be able to motivate their children to want to learn without resorting to promises of extra recess or extra credit on the next test. They should be able to grab and hold attention without rewards. For instance, a sensational hat always serves to grab attention. :)
In all seriousness, there are many much more long lasting ways to get children interested in learning. When children are involved in their learning, they are much more likely to remember what they are taught. So, try different things to get students involved! Relate it to their lives, current events, things they can understand, things they have an opinion on. Make them interested because the material is interesting, not because they get a reward for their actions.
On the other hand, I do believe that behavioralism is an effective tool when used in moderation. For instance, if your students want to talk about a current issue but you have your own agenda to teach and you are having a hard time controlling the room, compromise. Agree to discuss the issue after you get through the material for the day. I think it is utterly impossible to completely avoid behavioralism in the classroom, nor is it desirable. Part of behavioralism is the feedback you give your students. Positive reinforcement helps a child develop views. Teachers are unable to motivate students without some sort of feedback. If a child answers a question and is not given positive feedback, they are unlikely to put themselves on a limb and answer a question again. It is harder to gain participation if your students do not feel encouraged.
Thus, behavioralism is a tool that I think is important for the classroom. However, any classroom that is completely dependent (or even mostly dependent, for that matter) on behavoiralist tactics is a classroom with an ineffective teacher whose students will not learn to love learning.