[etni] Fw: It's getting HOT out there!
- From: "Ask Etni" <ask@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "Etni" <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:40:34 +0200
----- Original Message -----
Subject: It's getting HOT out there!
I would like to add my two cents even if I am sticking my neck out as I am
also participating in the Literature course.
First of all, I want to say that our lecturer is doing her best with the job
that she has been given. The fact that a lot of time is wasted and we could
do the course in far fewer hours (probably something like 12 or less) is
indisputable.
As to the new program and the log/exam options:
The focus seems to me about teaching HOTS rather than teaching literature.
In other words, rather than making our kids aware of the art within the
pieces of literature and thus appreciate literature for its own sake (making
them sensitive to irony, symbols etc. etc.), we are supposed to teach them
THINKING SKILLS. We have to teach them the labels for the thinking skills
and not allow them to think without a label. The idea is that they be able
to apply the thinking skills (to think!!!!) in other situations.
For example: Let's say I'm teaching "Mr. Know-All" and I want to discuss the
fact that the story is narrated in the first person. According to the new
idea I first I have to spend (waste??) time teaching "perspectives"
completely separately from the story - bring Rorschach drawings and show
them that each person sees something different in them etc. Why do I have to
do that? Because that has to be included in the log!!! part of the idea
behind the log is to check up on the teachers - are you doing your job????
For every piece of literature you have to go through 7 stages and EACH OF
THOSE STAGES HAS TO FIND ITS EXPRESSION IN THE LOG. Woe to the teacher who
is found to have gone through the piece in 5 stages!! You want to get out of
that? Go for the exam!!! I must say that from the beginning I felt that I
personally would like to opt for the exam. It seems much simpler in my
opinion - both for the teacher and for the pupils. However, then you're
stuck with the "golden oldies" as Ms. Anon put it (we only have one male in
our course so I assume Anon is Ms.!). We also haven't yet been enlightened
as to what sort of questions will be asked on the exam - questions on
literature or on HOTS.
There are so many irrational details: the question of teaching translated
literature has been raised. The next one is even crazier: what length of
poem will be approved for a 5 point Bagrut - 14 lines may be too short!!!!
I'm all for thinking, and even for thinking on a high level. I don't think
that we English teachers have to be responsible for teaching our 11th and
12th graders to think and to label their thinking just so that they can
apply it in other fields.
I have another idea: we were given a list of 19 HOTS.
I suggest that the MOE gives each Bagrut subject 2 HOTS that they have to be
responsible for. They can teach them how they want. For example I would take
sequencing and making connections and teach them through our unseens ad
nauseum and leave my literature lessons as they are - my pupils have a good
time without all the boiling hots pressure.
My unlabeled metacognition and reflection on my thinking process in the
above leads me to the conclusion that I should reorganize all this and make
it more coherent. However, I've been busy teaching literature this morning
so I'm just too tired!
Shabbat Shalom to one and all!
-----------------------------------------------
Call for Articles
The Etni Rag needs you
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
or - http://www.etni.org.il **
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts: