I had the pleasure of attending the TIES 2013 conference this week in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It's an ed tech conference that drew over 3800 attendees to gather, share and exchange ideas about educational technology in the schools.
I have only experienced a handful of these types of conferences, but it's some of the most exciting days of my year. The energy and enthusiasm for teaching and students is palpable as you make your way from session to session fueled by massive amounts of caffeine and the desire to take in as much as physically possible.
Something was different this year though. I went in with a HEIGHTENED level of excitement and anticipation as I was going to be sharing instead of just taking in. I was prepared and ready to go -- knowing that I was finally playing a more significant role in the conversation as presenter (though only a couple of poster sessions). I felt as if I was playing with the "big kids" now, and actually had something to say that was worth listening to. Even though I had great conversations, met awesome people, shared my students' stories, had successful sessions and learned a ton, I left disheartened.
While sitting in a break out session, we were charged with the question "would you want to spend the whole day learning in your own classroom?" Immediately I thought to myself, "pfffttttftfttft, duh. Of course. I'm awesome." But, after giving it some significant thought, I decided that there definitely were days where I'd love the things we were doing. The thing that put me off is that I also answered the question with "no."
How is this possible, that after 13 years of teaching, I am doing things in my classroom that I wouldn't want to have to sit and do? What kind of message is that sending to my students? Obviously I don't sit at a desk in the corner and think "Ha, suckers! You have to do this thing I wouldn't want to!" I think I have developed more engaging lessons through those 13 years, but there are some things we still do that are just getting the job done. This year, the students did the same "Civil War Timeline" activity that all those who came before them did. I guess a timeline is a timeline is a timeline, but do they really need to know this information? If they can google the number of states in the Union prior to and after Lincoln's election, why do I have them write out this event in its own box on this activity? Is this really getting the job done?
Don't get me wrong, I've worked hard to change a LOT of the things I've done in my classroom over the years, but I can't seem to find the magic bullet. I psuedo-flipped for a while, I've used the LMS systems to put it all together in a nice package, I've allowed the students to choose projects to work on that have nothing to do with my class but more what they are interested in, I've built relationships with students to the point that I am the mother of hundreds of students despite never having given birth.
Despite my continuing efforts on all fronts, I'm currently facing the fact that 51% of my students are getting D's or F's.
So now, I am contemplating (and losing sleep over) two questions: Why am I teaching the way I teach? & What exactly am I charged with teaching students?
We had our weekly collaborative team meeting this afternoon, and I posed the same question to my colleagues, which was met with silence. We were in the middle of identifying the "real world significance" of each of our units. At a pre-observation meeting that day, my colleague was asked the question "what is the real world significance of your lesson and learning targets?" Which made me think, wait - why is the real world importance the LAST thing we identify? Why aren't we starting there and building from that as the base of the unit? Wouldn't that make sense if I could couch all the 'other stuff' (meaning standards and benchmarks and yadda yadda) in the pieces that we deemed important to connect to the real world?
In education, we have seen a push to connect the things we do in classes to the real world, but is that really possible under the current system we have? Quite honestly, being able to fill in a timeline on the events of the Civil War doesn't make you any more ready for the world in my opinion. Now, is there a skill to understanding chronology and cause and effect of events? Sure, but that's not necessarily what I taught them with this activity.
I know there is always ways to improve the lessons we are teaching. My conundrum at this point is that I don't necessarily want to teach them the lessons the state wants me to teach. I want to teach them to be creative thinkers, problem solvers and curious beings. And I hand them a Civil War timeline? I know that we have to get through all the material in the social studies curriculum, but as it stands (in my room) it's coming at the cost of them engaging in inquiry rich activities. BUT, I wasn't hired to be a curiosity teacher, I teach social studies (albeit poorly evidently).
We are nearing the tail end of a "20% or Genius Hour" project in my class. The students have been given about 20% of the time in my class to learn about something that is of interest and value to them. It's been an interesting journey with varied results. It's been met by judgement and criticism from colleagues, "How are you assessing them? What is your benchmark for measuring success? What does your administration think about this? How are you fitting in all the material when you just give away this time?"
I don't have good answers for any of these things. It DOESN'T fit into the curriculum - it's totally dependent on what the student wants to learn about. I have no rubrics at this point really. If they're participating and moving forward in whatever it is that they are doing, they get points. I have basically taken it upon myself to decide on curriculum I can get rid of to make room for this-- thinking that if they can google it, why would I "teach" it? Am I still following the standards and the units and such? Yes. I have only given a couple of quizzes though, and on small amounts of information. I haven't given a multiple choice unit test all year, we've done different forms of assessment. Will they leave knowing as much history as my students did 10 years ago? Better yet, does it matter? Won't they be better served showing that they have skill at presenting, research, inquiry and collaboration? Then why isn't my time spent teaching things like this all day? Is this my job? Am I currently NOT doing my job since I'm not doing as many of the typical assessments with each unit? Is this why 51% of my students have F's?
I guess it's back to the drawing board over the break, because I still have yet to find the answer to any of these questions. Will I rethink the activities I have my students do with a more discerning eye from here on out? Yes. Will it reduce the amount of D's and F's I have in my classes? Who knows.
I guess I've got to just keep trying...
Any ideas out there?
No comments:
Post a Comment