[etni] Let's get it together
- From: "sbshai" <sbshai@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:36:11 +0200
Good morning Sandra and all the good people who read the ETNI list,
Please bear with me for addressing the HOTS issue again, but I can't really see
what all the controversy is about as I don't think there's a single teacher
(except among those who haven't been teaching literature, perhaps) who will
argue against trying to motivate our students to think!
That's precisely why most of us enjoy involving our classes in as much good
literature as possible, and even those students who aren't naturally lovers of
literature find something to say or think about when we apply a story's theme
to our daily lives.
However, many of us who have taken the HOTS course are concerned about putting
a damper on the enthusiasm we work hard to create if we must start 'infusing /
integrating' (or whatever) the terminology that our students will be required
to use to name their thought processes.
For the majority of them, it's enough challenge to get through a piece of
literature in L2 (even with a dedicated teacher's assistance) and answer the
thought-provoking questions in English. Why must we burden them to attach a
name to their thought process? Yes, I know what the experts think, but I'd
like to see one of them apply this ideology in a typical Israeli classroom!
Ironically, what we'd actually be doing with this part of the program is to
force our students to think INSIDE the box! Moreover, merely naming a thinking
skill and/or imagining how they can apply it outside of literature doesn't make
it an integral part of themselves. In order for them to truly use the concept
of 'different perspectives', for example, they've got to have considerable
emotional (as well as intellectual) maturity, and that's a tall order! (How
many teachers can apply this principle when their principal gives an order they
don't like?)
That's not to say that we shouldn't teach the concepts, of course, but -- no
matter what the theory says -- our experience suggests that this part of the
HOTS program (i.e., naming the thinking process) will be counterproductive and
only serve to further alienate peripheral students from both the literature and
the language, not to mention the willingness to think.
To summarize, it's just about universally agreed that literature should take
its rightful place in our ESL (and Bagrut) curriculum. Many of us are just
expressing our concern about the high-sounding but rather impractical
methodology we're being forced to accept, and I think it's unfair to label
teachers as unprofessional or unwilling to accept change just because we
haven't had our legimate concerns addressed.
My experience has rather been that (discounting those who enjoy complaining!)
it's the hardest-working teachers who raise the best questions about a theory
that's touted as being the answer to our hopes and prayers.
Why not let those who are decidedly in favor of the program [continue to]
implement it on an experimental basis and then report back to the designers
about how to perfect it?
Of course, it's doubtful that it will ever be honed to everyone's satisfaction,
but it least this way we can get closer to achieving its aim.
There was a reasonable suggestion previously made on this list to delay the
implementation of HOTS until the creases in the program (more than mentioned
here) have been somewhat ironed out so that every teacher can understand where
she/he's supposed to be headed. Now THAT's what I'd call sound thinking --
from any perspective!
Have a well-deserved summer break, but consider including the roundtable
discussion on HOTS at ETAi's conference in your itinerary (before it starts
getting HOTter)!
All the best,
Batya
-----------------------------------------------
** 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] Let's get it together - sbshai