[etni] Reflections on the Literature Course #2
- From: "Ask_Etni" <ask@xxxxxxxx>
- To: "ETNI" <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:28:46 +0200
OK, let me start off by saying that I am the "original Anonymous" poster, to
distinguish myself from later posters who also preferred to remain
anonymous. I'm glad that so many people responded - both agreeing and
disagreeing with the points I made - because despite what some may think, my
intention was not just to stoke fires but to get into some sort of dialog
with those higher up, which does seem to be happening (although it remains
to be seen what the result of this dialog will be). And although the letter
was my own initiative, it was the result of discussions with many others
participating in my course, so I knew that I was not only voicing my own
opinion. I would like to respond to some of the points brought up by others,
and hopefully continue to generate dialog in this way:
1) Since most of the English teachers in this country are female, you could
assume that I am one as well, but not because there is only one man in your
course... I was very careful not to give any information in my original
posting which would identify the course or instructor, because this was not
intended as a personal attack against the instructor. I've heard that one
instructor recognized herself from one of the responses, but that has
nothing to do with my original post, and in any case, I don't believe that
any of the posts were meant personally. Rather, those of us who do have
concerns about the program aired our concerns in what we felt was the most
suitable forum. Dr. Lifschitz pointed out that my anonymity precludes the
Ministry's stepping in, but I can assure you that the participants in our
specific course have already aired our concerns regarding the length of the
course and the way it is structured to those higher up. And although one
person commented that she saw no need for posting anonymously, I
unfortunately have personally witnessed a case of a teacher who was highly
disparaged - and more - by someone higher up because she aired her concerns
about the pilot (obviously, will not give any further details on that), so
yes, I do think that I have the right to be concerned.
2) Some of you mentioned that the test is a much more objective method of
assessment than a log. While that's true, I SINCERELY hope that we are never
forced to do the test, because I may very well quit teaching at that point.
I love teaching literature that is meaningful to me - and being forced to
teach certain pieces would be torture. Yes, I know that we did that in the
past, but I just can't imagine going back to that point, especially
considering the core pieces that have been chosen. Like the project, the log
is something that the teacher must be on top of to prevent cheating, and it
can be done. It's just a lot of work :-)
3) Which brings me to my next point - I'm sorry if I got certain details
wrong, but I did try to ask for clarification for every point that I
mentioned. The last thing I want to do is sensationalize things - on the
contrary, the idea was to bring up valid points that could hopefully still
be addressed by the Ministry. Basically, I was just quoting things that we
were told in the course. Yes, the instructor mentioned 7 lessons per piece
of literature - he/she may have backtracked on that afterwards, but we never
got final clarification and that's what stuck with me. When speaking about
pieces that were originally written in English, the instructor specifically
told us that Night would not be allowed. Yes, we were told that even if some
of the activities / exercises are not in writing, the student would have to
include at least a short description of what was done in his / her log. I am
happy to hear that not all of this is correct, and suggest that the Ministry
issue a booklet similar to the NBA booklet (which is of course totally out
of date at this point) with the EXACT criteria for the program. This way, we
will not have to rely on our instructor / memories / letters on ETNI, etc.
Of course, it's hard to do that when the criteria for Module D are not quite
ready...
4) Regarding the extra amount of work: Even without needing a piece of
writing at every stage, it is clear to me that it will be just additional
work on top of all the other work that we already have to do. Aviva, from
your posts on the list it is clear that you are a very ethusiastic, devoted
teacher, and my feeling is that you put more time into preparation etc. than
most (and that is not disparaging any other teacher, just praising you!).
You yourself said that it was difficult to implement since you had to cram
it all into 6 months. OK, it's easier over 3 years, but we're talking about
all your high school classes doing that, so it's still a lot of work. I'm
having a hard time envisioning myself doing a log with all my classes (which
includes lots of preparation since this is all new) AND a project with at
least one class AND regular teaching AND Bagrut preparation. For me,
checking my students' work is torturous and my least favorite part of
teaching. I do what I have to do, of course, which includes the project,
weekly quizzes, regular tests, literature tasks, book reports, compositions,
etc., and I really don't relish the idea of marking even more papers, even
if they are relatively short... And considering the fact that so much money
will be saved on checking Modules D and F, I really don't think it is
unreasonable to ask the Ministry for some amount of renumeration, especially
since the project and so forth are already very demanding. (And yes, I enjoy
doing projects, but they do take up a lot of my time, and I'd love to speak
to anyone who says otherwise.) Personally, I think that the only way to get
the Ministry to do anything is to have all the teachers refuse en masse to
implement the program until they get some extra pay for it, but somehow I
just don't see that happening...
5) Back to Dr. Lifschitz's letter: You wrote, "The F module, which was
piloted last year, does not seek to merely 'give names to what you have been
doing all along.' Sorry, but that is what we have been told over and over
again in our course, which it makes it all the more frustrating that it is
dragged out so long. Yes, there are teachers on different levels of
experience. Perhaps design two different courses, one shorter and one
longer, so that more experienced teachers don't die of boredom until they
get to "tachles"? From what I've understood, the pilot course was not full
of theory because they had to start using what they learned immediately. I'm
not saying to skip all the background, but we've had enough of Professor
Anat Zohar for now...
6) Finally, what the Ministry has not addressed is the question of why HOTS
and literature. As I wrote in my first post, I have nothing against teaching
my students to think - that's something I try to do every day, and welcome
the opportunity to learn how to do it in a more concrete way. But I have yet
to hear of a good reason of why literature and HOTS were bundled together.
It seems to me (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the Inspectorate
decided to make literature more of a priority (great goal in my opinion) and
at the same time, the Ministry decided to add HOTS to all subjects (also a
great goal) - and someone saw this as a great opportunity of killing two
birds with one stone. Yes, I know that there are people in the pilot program
who say it works well, but they were working with five pointers, and in any
case, why shouldn't it work equally well when teaching reading
comprehension, as Dr. Segev-Miller suggested? The feeling among us course
participants is still a feeling that literature is being killed. I will be
the first to announce if I find that that is not the case in the classroom,
but in the meantime, I don't see that happening. I choose literature based
on my personal preferences because I don't believe you can teach something
that you don't like, and now I am being stifled in that regard. I choose
literature and simplify it based on the level of the students but now I am
being stifled in that regard as well. I know that I will not be able to use
some of my most successful stories with my weaker classes, because they are
simplified, and instead may end up with pieces which they are just unable to
appreciate. I choose how deeply to delve into a piece of literature based on
the language skills of my students (if they are very weak, yes, it will be
mostly LOTS and not HOTS - my main goal is to have them enjoy the language
and enjoy literature), but now I will have to delve into each piece whether
that suits my class or not. If the Inspectorate has reassurances for me on
any of these points (again, I am waiting for the final criteria for the four
pointers), then I would love to get it.
Once again, hoping for constructive, helpful responses!
Anonymous the First
-----------------------------------------------
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:
- » [etni] Reflections on the Literature Course #2 - Ask_Etni