[etni] More hot air on HOTs
- From: "David R. Herz" <drh16@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:00:21 +0300
I write again in response to a number of postings.
First the June 12 posting of Adelle Raemer:
It starts from a premise that is troubling, which is the necessity of a
national curriculum and a testing regime to back it up, especially when that
curriculum involves attempts to manage teaching at a micro level. I agree
that literature is important to language teaching. I also like group and
project work. But I object to being told when and how and then obligating
my students to obtain some arbitrary, or even a somewhat well thought out,
checklist of items to be able to proceed to the next level or to take some
test. If the curriculum were a set of core competencies that are
recommended to be mastered by a certain time, I would not object too
strongly, but this is not the case here.
Ms. Raemer makes some wonderful points as well though. I like "do the work,
get the grade." It's much closer to no grades and doesn't have kids feeling
stupid based on some irrelevant number. When I tried it for the work
portion (all in class, I gave almost no homework) of my teaching last year,
I ended up being called into the office, and because so many of my students
had not done the work, it was determined by the powers that be that my
grades would be erased and that a matkonet type test would be given instead.
I mention this because in some schools, with a reputation for passing the
bagrut, or where certain constituencies apply pressure, there might be
incentives for the work to get done with less oversight of who and how.
The obvious solution would be to encourage work and eliminate the incentive
to achieve some external marker of the result, such as a grade or Bagrut
certificate, in which case the incentive becomes to achieve the markers and
not to do the work.
I also agree that intensive in-service on an ongoing on-site basis makes a
huge difference in quality and also retention of teachers. We should
encourage teachers to create a stronger and more coherent framework for what
they are trying to achieve, but we should not dump one on them. We should
be "updating/refreshing /upgrading of methodological skills" these skills on
a regular basis. The fact that it took this program for this to happen is
troubling. Why could it not happen in its absence? And it is great that
Mrs. Steiner could use the HOTS initiative to get funding for training and
in-service work. But again, this would help in the absence of the HOTs
initiative. Without properly set op research, we won't know if any
improvement came from HOTs or from extra training or from the combination,
or if additional in-service might not have given us a better result without
the HOTs included.
As to Aviva Shapiro of June 12:
She is an inspired and committed teacher. I started taking the HOTs program
with her. While this new way may be better, almost anything is better than
the idiotic Bagrut system we have been working with. You "also did
enactments/ role plays/ group work/ graphic organizers in pairs, class
discussions etc . ." This is great, but how many teachers will be like deer
caught in the headlights just to get the logs done. And how many feel
comfortable doing the things you "also did?" Maybe it would be more useful
to teach teachers how to do the things you "also did." According to Mitzi
Geffen, our kids are inspired by drama, Ms. Lachshmi likes to sing. I like
children's books and dark poems. Would we not be better to help our teachers
connect with their inner muse and then use that as a springboard for
inspired teaching?
Esther Behar of June 13:
I just don't understand "the need to standardize the literature module so
that national bagrut tests can be written." How about getting our kids so
riled up that they would actually attempt to write a post like we do on
ETNI, or want to understand one. Some of my posts take me close to two
hours to write. I go back to the original post I am responding to, I
consult dictionary and usage guides, I sometimes use an antiquated spelling
or usage. We use irony, sarcasm, humor, metaphor and appeals to history.
If we really want our children to understand literature, we should have them
generate some. Maybe they could write a fable about an ideal school or
generate poetry or stories to help them deal with happenings in their own
lives. Maybe one day this would require reference to a Shakespearean
sonnet, the next to an Etgar Keret story (oh the irony of using it in
translation), and the next to a song by Pink Floyd, Metallica, or the Dead
Kennedys.
Students can focus, but to compel their focus can forever kill a subject,
while asking the right question at the right time could inspire a person for
life.
So I have come to my limit of time and patience. The notion of HOTs has
been around a long time, and teaching that does not encourage the use of
them is not so much teaching as attempting to cram information into a
student's head. Perhaps the term I am seeking is the Constructivist
Classroom. We can go back 250 years to Rousseau and Pestalozzi to get
support for the integration of HOTs into our teaching. And while we are
mare actively involving the student - as Dewey also suggested - we are still
trying to interest the student instead of fitting the students' interests
and encouraging them to go off on their own lines of inquiry.
Now that we are coming to the end of another school year, I relate to you
the question I like to ask our high school students: "After this full year
of studies, what burning question are you left with that you want to address
this summer?" You can imagine the dumb looks I usually get. So I follow up
with "What did you find interesting?" If they have an answer, I ask things
like "What was interesting about it?" or "What else would you like to know
about it?" Our students are left with facts not questions. If we want HOTs
to be present, it must be the other way around.
HOTs should be key to our educational system, but labeling the skills we use
is probably a waste of time, and it should be system-wide implementation of
a constructivist approach, not another crazy idea that comes into the
English curriculum, probably because the only people who can read the
international research on education are the English teachers.
Enough,
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] More hot air on HOTs - David R. Herz