(Sigh) I realize that we live in an age whose byword is "In with the new and out with the old"; nevertheless there's something that must be said about this: While I'm confident we'll readily agree that we can disagree and still remain friends, I believe that many of our hard-working colleagues will rightfully object to a remark made in a recent posting that lauded an online HOTS course. It was implied there that before the advent of HOTS, English teachers were guilty of treating their students like "empty vessels" while flaunting their own supposed wisdom from their podiums as they "assaulted" their students with their literary expertise. If this is so, their survival in the Israeli classroom can be classified as the eighth wonder of the world! As mentioned previously, the primary advantage of teaching literature is precisely the great opportunity it provides to involve our students. Though the teacher may indeed be at the front of the classroom, her/his physical location is unimportant because a good discussion will often make students temporarily forget she's there! Long before HOTS entered our lives, it was accepted that a teacher's function during literature lessons is to motivate thinking and discussion (in both oral and written formats), not to dominate them. So the idea of a log is not really the innovation it's touted to be. Everyone realizes HOTS is here to stay; we're just trying to help the program work based on our experience rather than relying on a theory that many of us regard as TOO structured. Is there any real advantage in expecting our students to parrot terminology? It seems to be a rather artificial way to metamorphose them into better thinkers (which, BTW, is a problematic attitude in itself since it suggests that educational experts and theorists have been regarding them as non-thinkers). As has been asked many, many times, why must literature be the sacrificial lamb in the HOTS system? If the idea is to get literature back into the (tested) curriculum, why not do so in a less invasive way? It should not be difficult to realize that by trying to "kill two birds with one stone" we may be destroying both the literature and the HOTS for our students unless we proceed with extreme caution. And that requires time and great effort on everyone's part, in addition to a willingness to listen to each other as we air our concerns instead of assuming that those who do so are hopeless pessimists or naysayers, so we can disregard them. All of us want to succeed in our teaching, but just as handing down an edict is not the way to inspire love for a subject in our students, so is it not the best method for instilling acceptance among the teachers who are expected to deliver the goods! It appears that we are divided into two distinct groups regarding HOTS, as follows: Halt any Oppositional Talk and Say yes, I'll accept everything as is (even if you don't mean it) --- OR --- Hold over the Operation Till the Surgeon is ready to operate! Doesn't the second position offer more chance for success? Shabbat Shalom, Batya ----------------------------------------------- ** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org or - http://www.etni.org.il ** ** for help - ask@xxxxxxxx ** ** to post to this list - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ** -----------------------------------------------