[etni] HOTS/Literature
- From: "David R. Herz" <drh16@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:09:50 +0200
Well, I have had enough and find the need to put in my own two cents again.
The whole conversation about the literature module and the teaching of HOTS
is based on a host of presumptions that simply do not stand up under
scrutiny.
The ugliest of these are that teachers need to be told what to do and that
standardized testing is somehow necessary to make sure people are learning.
In addition, there are major practical and practice issues that will not be
easily resolved.
I return to an earlier point I made about teaching supposedly being a
profession. As professionals, we should be called upon to exercise our
judgment, and by this, I don?t mean soliciting our suggestions for
inclusions to some syllabus before it is set in stone. We should be
responsible for the what and how we teach. We should also be responsible
for our professional development.
The extent of the Ministry?s direction should be a set of goals painted in
broad brush strokes. It should also be responsible for providing the
support and training we need as we try to meet those goals. Penny Ur, G-d
bless her, did more for HOTS in a one hour presentation at Bet Yerach than I
have seen from the Ministry and its agents since the term has been bandied
about for the past few years.
She took some real exercises and showed us how to take them to the next
level. But she did not spend time on the endeavor of how to teach a student
to characterize the thinking skill he used. As professionals, we should
probably be aware of the skills used. When we deem it appropriate, we
should have the facility to delve into the nature of these skills with our
students if we think it would be of utility to them, but should there really
be a list of skills a student must be able to characterize? Is it not
better to make sure a student can compare and contrast than to teach him to
identify the activity as such, and then distinguish it from other HOTS?
The truth is I don?t know what?s best. But I do remember learning that
teachers are most effective when they are doing what they believe in. As a
professional, I would expect my Ministry to show me the research that would
establish the utility of teaching explicit recognition of HOTS and provide
me a forum to discuss it. If I am convinced of its rightness, I don?t need
it to be dictated to me. If I am not, I should continue to do what I
believe works. If I am additionally blessed with a committed inspector I
see more than once in two years, I might be able to put this new teaching to
practical use.
As to literature, I still see no need to vet it. I have bookshelves full of
all sorts of literature. One book I particularly like is World Poetry
(Washburn, Katharine, John S. Major, and Clifton Fadiman, eds. 1998, New
York: Quality Paperback Book Club) which covers four thousand years of
poetry, most in translation.
While I was teaching in schools, I saw an inspector exactly once in two
years. My literature was usually picked out a few days ahead of class at
best. Now I would need to seek out and explain to an inspector why I need
to teach the poetry of Samuel Ha-Nagid (993-1056) or Prince Ôtsu (663-686).
I am tiring, so I will cut this short. I will turn for a moment to some
points Ms. Raemer made. She bottom lined it for us as follows:
1. it will put literature back on the map
I. it is more interesting and motivating than
"another unseen"
II. we CAN all benefit from it.. If we open our
minds long enough to learn about it, and help improve and perfect it rather
than going in kicking and screaming.
When was literature ever off the map, and if it was, what put it there? I
would guess that it was a testing regime that emphasized certain things that
had nothing to do with whether a student was actually engaging HOTS. Why
should we be doing unseen texts at all as they are currently done, typically
no more than access to information? But then where is the freedom to spend
a whole semester on understanding one poem in the context of its time, of
looking at it from its many sides, of using it as a vehicle for discussing
the various schools of literary analysis?
The problem is that people think, teachers think, the inspectors and
Minister think that reducing all this to some standard test or format will
make a difference. The only difference it will make is to drive a few more
from the profession (I am on my way out, by the way).
I agree with Ms. Raemer that our open minds can help us to learn from all of
the effort that has been put in, but why not trust us to take the time to
learn something instead of cramming it down our throats? If the stuff is
good, it will show up in our classrooms quickly. If not, it won?t. But
instead of wasting all the time that is being wasted trying to jigger the
Bagrut to do something that in all likelihood it can not, the inspectorate
should be advocating for the elimination of all Bagrut as in creates a task
force to work with teachers who want to bring HOTS and literature into their
classrooms.
I know I haven?t addressed all my points, and I am certain I have not
addressed them as I would like. To sum it up, my points are (1) give
teachers the freedom to do what they think is right, (2) give them the
access to information to make sure their knowledge of what is right is
founded upon solid educational research, and (3) give them the ongoing
training and support to make sure they can put it all into practice.
Yours truly,
David R. Herz
drherz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.educatingisrael.com
Bet Rimon
052-579-1859
-----------------------------------------------
** 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:
- » [etni] HOTS/Literature - David R. Herz