Garnering Knowledge for Teaching

To no surprise my thoughts are inspired by the NYT Education Desk.  I am a big supporter of the news they get out about education.

I was busy last week and missed this in the Times.  Some days I just can’t get around to reading the online paper.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/health/24well.html

Essentially, in last month’s Pediatrics journal, a study demonstrated that young students studied (ages 8 and 9) who had 15 minutes of recess during the school day, showed better behavioral control than those who did not.

I don’t want to be rude here, but duh.

I’ve been touting the wonders of recess for years to my teacher education students.  They hear my mantra of “kids need a little bit of unstructured time to their day.”  PE does NOT substitute for recess because it is still a structured activity that requires students to follow an instructor.  Recess, on the other hand, is a free form activity that allows all students to act as they wish (in accordance to the general rules of the playground of course.)  It is the one moment of the day when kids can truly choose their own actions without the guidance of an adult.  It is their moment to be themselves, and breathe, and exist as free boys and girls.  They can talk as much and to whomever they choose, they can run, or walk, or just stand if they like.

I found that my public school students (who were always students with IEPs) had a sense of renewal after we took a little time outside.  It was a chance to run and sometimes scream when the inside voice was just not expressive enough.  After a few moments of swinging and sliding and simply being themselves, they were more open to returning to the work at hand.  Honestly, we don’t ask many adults to work under the pressure or circumstances in which we ask children.  Although they need the stimulation, they also need some processing time.  I’ve always believed recess provided that.

The study in Pediatrics finally gives me evidence that my belief is a valid educational concern.  Although I don’t feel that everything we do must be backed by a scientific study, it always helps to have one available in case one is required to support a position.

I feel sad when my students come to me and say their students do not get recess time or much of any undirected time.  How do children learn to manage their own time and create their own meanings when they do not get opportunities to do so?  We have been pushed into the belief that accountability only means test scores and intensive core subjects time.  However, how are we accountable to the student who can do well when fed this information, but has no concept of how to engage with it on his own?  Kids need time! They need time to process, file away information, create new schemas for new information, and then organize all of that information in time for the next batch to be served up.  It is a lot for a growing brain and although we are built for such activities, we also need to give that growing brain a fighting chance to hang on to the information recently stored.  Sleep does most of this work but It seems little breaks through the day help.  I know they help me.

Time needed to absorb and time to comprehend are not things that come easily in a classroom focused on the big test coming up. I am hoping the new administration is able to make the NCLB laws more sensible and meaningful, so that practice can reflect that.  But in the meanwhile, just give the kids some recess will ya?

This conversation comes from yesterday’s New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/books/10scho.html?_r=1

Essentially Scholastic is being taken to task for selling trinkets and non-educational items alonside its offerings of books at fantastic prices.  I am divided as to how I feel about this issue.

First, as my teacher education students know, I am a HUGE fan of Scholastic.  I have so many of those red and white boxes scattered in my basement holding books, letters and so forth (reuse!)  I love Scholastic because they make books financially accessible for both students and teachers.  Without this company I would never have been able to build my initial personal teaching library of over 2000 books (some of which I gave to a dear friend entering teaching when I moved for grad school.)  Using both bonus points and my own money I was able to create a diverse library that was able to morph with whatever grade/age level I was teaching in a particular year.  I had beautiful books, thoughtful books, challenging books, and sometimes a few frivolous books (such as the Simpson’s Christmas Book).  My world of books was due to the opportunities a Scholastic order form could provide.

Additionally, Scholastic has played a key role in the publication of childrens’ and adolescent literature.  Without them we would have no Harry Potter, or Series of Unfortunate Events.  There are creative avenues being explored for multicultural literature and also literature aimed at boys.  Scholastic sponsors these efforts and brings them into our classrooms.  Think about it, Goosebumps were not brilliant pieces of literature, but they got kids reading (especially boys) and frankly, one of our issues is getting books into the hands of children voluntarily. Scholastic deserves much praise for making the American classroom a literate place full of words.

That being said, I do understand the trepidation being felt by those examining just what it is that Scholastic offers every month.  I have found that the more recent book order forms (from the last couple of years) have been heavy with the toys and trinkets.  I often question the appropriateness of a child taking her book money and buying a little charm bracelet with a notebook too small to write in with it.  I know Scholastic is meeting some demand, kids love little trinkets, but is it also trying to make up a profit margin with these toys?  There seem to be more and more of them with each month’s offerings.

It is not that I am opposed to kids having the opportunity to spend money on the trinkets, but really Scholastic, don’t we want them buying books?  They can get a trinket at Walgreens or KMart, but have you seen the book selections (not to mention the prices) there?  It’s horrible.  I am also concerned that as the trinket selection grows, the opportunity to discover a really fine book or get lost in a story diminishes.  When you get down to it, a good portion of the books available through Scholastic are children’s pulp (good for practicing skills but not good literature.)  I fear that the pulp and trinkets will soon outnumber the beautiful pieces that I have always relied on Scholastic to obtain.

However, since Scholastic is a corporation with the intent to make a profit, I think the trinkets are here to stay.  It seems to me that the way to tackle this problem is in the classroom.  Encourage parents to look at the order form and approve the books their children are ordering instead of simply giving out cash for whatever because it’s an “educational vendor.”  Also teachers in classrooms can encourage students who buy books to be savvy readers and consumers of literature.  Can the classroom culture be one that rewards students for their intellectual choices?  I would say so.  But it is not easy and takes the dedication of a teacher who is also committed to literature.

What do you think?

Often teacher education students are asked to explain their philosophy of teaching. It’s a worthy exploration that allows candidates opportunities to explore the whys of their own teaching desires.

However, I would pose that my philosophy of teaching is fluid and responsive to my audience of students.

This was clear to me recently when I moved from teaching a 301 course (for years) to an 802 course. There is perhaps a year’s difference in experience and training between the two courses, but my entire approach was different for each audience. I noticed that junior level teacher education candidates need a balance of knowledge (content) and experience (application). However my intern level candidates were focused highly on application within their experience, with knowledge (or more often a way to access knowledge) scattered in.

These approaches require a shifting of how one teaches and essentially a shift in the philosophy of that moment of teaching. You will have many philosophies that apply in contexts and to contents and, if you are a thoughtful teacher, these will be fluid and capable of adaptation and growth.

Does the same apply to a philosophy of learning? What IS learning anyway? We talked about two types of teaching applications last week (banking or situational)…but what does that say about learning?

Do you believe ALL students can truly learn? Everything?

Do you believe kids can learn while talking? walking? sitting still?

What is the BEST way to set up a learning environment? A learning situation? Are these different? IF we pondered these questions, would we have a better handle on the learning needs of our students? Would we be better prepared to differentiate a lesson or a learning moment?

What is your philosophy of learning? I’ll think about that and post mine by next week.