[etni] Re: four point literature Bagrut exam
- From: "sbshai" <sbshai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Adele P. Raemer " <raemer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:29:25 +0300
I realize that the program was in part created for these teachers, but this
seems to
be putting the cart before the horse! Indeed, the question is why WEREN'T
they properly trained to teach literature; moreover, what can be done to
correct this lamentable situation WITHOUT forcing successful teachers of lit
to squeeze themselves into the constrictions of the new program?
When all is said and done, and despite the testimonials from those who enjoy
teaching literature through HOTS, the program's benefits for our students
are essentially conjectural. (Why should students who have demonstrated
'higher order' thinking skills, for example, be made to parrot terminology ;
isn't THAT "rote learning"?
There seem to be at least as many HOTS course graduates who dislike the
program intensely enough not to want to implement it as there are those in
favor of it, even if these graduates had a positive course experience. So
it is not accurate to say, as HOTS enthusiasts claim, that all the
opposition comes from teachers who haven't taken the course.
Furthermore, there are good teachers, neutral to HOTS (i.e., they were
neither course instructors who had been involved in the pilot program, nor
members of the so-called anti-HOTS faction), who have tried out parts of the
program -- particularly the explicit teaching of thinking skills -- and were
left feeling rather lukewarm (if not downright cold!) from the experience.
If we consider the many serious snags in the program to date, it is no
wonder that so many schools across the country have sent letters to the
Inspectorate requesting further amendments to the program and/or petitioning
for a further delay in implementation.
Those of us who believe it's preferable not to introduce the program until
we know exactly what's expected of us (not everyone left the course with
this knowledge!) feel that it can be counter-productive to start before we
are ready AND can be reasonably certain that, in fact, the program improves
our students' thinking ability, appreciation of literature and -- above
all -- increases their language proficiency.
That's a tall order, but one that we cannot afford to bypass!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adele P. Raemer " <raemer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'sbshai'" <sbshai@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 30 June, 2010 2:37 PM
Subject: RE: [etni] Re: four point literature Bagrut exam
> And you write this from experience of working with the program? Because in
> MY experience, it opens them up to making new connections, seeing things
> from perspectives different than what they had previously, and DOES get
> them
> OUT of the box of rote learning and memorization. I have also been told
> that the program, itself, have freed TEACHERS up to be less wary and
> hesitant and anxious about teaching literature - something that MANY
> teachers in the past have complained that they felt they were never
> sufficiently trained to do in their training frameworks.
>
>
> Adele
>
> In response to what Batya wrote:
>
> That would indeed be an accomplishment, but IMHO (and that of many others)
> it's unlikely to happen within the current strictures of the HOTS program
> because, at best, most students will merely have learned to think within
> the
> 7 step box; they will not necessarily be able to handle autonomy and real
> out-of-the-box thinking! (That is best left to successful literature
> teachers who motivate discussions that necessitate profound thought, but
> do
> not lecture or impose their own literary analysis on their classes.)
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx **
** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **
-----------------------------------------------
Other related posts: