In my brother's 9th grade year, his new English teacher was currently getting her PhD in English while teaching his class. She was so engrossed in her own education, that she forgot how difficult her assignments were for her students. Although many of the students were able to rise to the occasion, they did so at the point of nervous breakdowns (private school kids can't accept failure). She forgot to put herself in her students shoes and reflect on how the assignments were effecting them. This is not to say that I think this teacher had already learned everythign there was to learn and couldn't possibly remember what it was like to be a struggling 15 year old English student. However, I felt that she relied to much on the level she had attained and lacked the ability to look at the basic skills that got her to that point.
Quite possibly, this teacher skirted over the basics when she was younger, understanding them for the most part but perhaps never fully grasping them. It never hurts to go back to the basics and see how you make connections in your mind and try to relay them to students.
Teachers constantly need to go through self-reflexive re-evaluation processes of their teaching methods. It can't hurt to actually poll your students to find out what is effective and what isn't.
I think a good attitude also goes a long way. I find that negativity and undue criticism wear away at the teacher more than the student. Constantly focusing on a students lack of moral rectitude will probably eat away at the teacher with the soul rather than the student who doesn't have one.
So, to better yourself as a teacher requires a bit of humility and an attitude that's able to just let things go every once and a while. For those who are thrust into teaching for the purpose of achieving funding, this next part might not be so applicable. But I think that if teaching is your calling, you become a better teacher by reflecting on what you can positively contribute to the overall system of knowledge and to students' personal academic growth.
Monday, December 1, 2008
End of Composition
Unless you're born perfect, there will probably never be an end to composition. All writing can always be improved (if not, then editors would not exist).
I think when we talk about the "end of composition" we are thinking that at some point, students should just "get it" and be able to function in the adult...what..intellectual community, business word, political society? Honestly, definitions are as varied as the numerous students who take composition. How can there be an end to composition if we can't even agree on a definition.
Some people will always suck at writing...but their ideas and ability to critically think might improve. As unbelievable as this might seem to philologists, some people's brains just don't understand how to coherently put words down on paper. Of course, I could understand words in lengthy essays about microbiology without being able to put the concepts together and understand the actual material. So linguistic ability in terms of righting skill is not always directly proportionate to intellectual ability.
We demand, in a massive university effort to all incoming freshmen, a thorough indoctrination of the skills of composition that will, in some mysterious mystical ritual, ensure them a rite of passage into higher education.
So, we can stamp a passing grade on FYC students' papers or demand better curriculum in high school so that FYC becomes unecessary in college, but the likelihood of this happening is about the same as Heidi and Spencer becoming decent people who can positively contribute to society.
I think when we talk about the "end of composition" we are thinking that at some point, students should just "get it" and be able to function in the adult...what..intellectual community, business word, political society? Honestly, definitions are as varied as the numerous students who take composition. How can there be an end to composition if we can't even agree on a definition.
Some people will always suck at writing...but their ideas and ability to critically think might improve. As unbelievable as this might seem to philologists, some people's brains just don't understand how to coherently put words down on paper. Of course, I could understand words in lengthy essays about microbiology without being able to put the concepts together and understand the actual material. So linguistic ability in terms of righting skill is not always directly proportionate to intellectual ability.
We demand, in a massive university effort to all incoming freshmen, a thorough indoctrination of the skills of composition that will, in some mysterious mystical ritual, ensure them a rite of passage into higher education.
So, we can stamp a passing grade on FYC students' papers or demand better curriculum in high school so that FYC becomes unecessary in college, but the likelihood of this happening is about the same as Heidi and Spencer becoming decent people who can positively contribute to society.
Perfect Teacher
Surprisingly, this one is pretty easy to answer. Obviously there is no "perfect" teacher, but there are always "extraordinary" teachers.
The best teachers, first off, actually want to be teachers. Needless to say, people who fell into the profession because they wanted to coach, or needed a job, or wanted *cough* graduate student funding *cough* might not be the most invested purveyors of knowledge.
I think that as long as a teacher is genuinely interested in the subject AND interested in helping the student reach his or her potential (rather than using the classroom as their own personal "look how smart I am" fest), then that teacher is awesome.
Respect for students, interest in the text, and effective skill in communicating knowledge are all absolutely required. Nun-chuch skills, computer hacking skills and bow hunting skills are just an added bonus.
The best teachers, first off, actually want to be teachers. Needless to say, people who fell into the profession because they wanted to coach, or needed a job, or wanted *cough* graduate student funding *cough* might not be the most invested purveyors of knowledge.
I think that as long as a teacher is genuinely interested in the subject AND interested in helping the student reach his or her potential (rather than using the classroom as their own personal "look how smart I am" fest), then that teacher is awesome.
Respect for students, interest in the text, and effective skill in communicating knowledge are all absolutely required. Nun-chuch skills, computer hacking skills and bow hunting skills are just an added bonus.
Philosophy of Teaching
Obviously there are different philosophies of teaching. Even if teachers haven't actually ever sat down and read through composition or teaching theory, everyone approaches education in a different way.
If I think back through the teachers I've had from kindergarten until now, I find that some of my graduate professors share similar qualities with my grade school teachers. The worst teachers all seemed to be the worst for the same reasons, and the best for the best reasons. Part of teaching is an inherent gift to relate to students while still maintaining authority and accomplishing objectives. This can be accomplished in any number of ways be they formalistic, expressive, or any combination of teaching strategies. An effective teacher usually has an "effective" personality to go along with their philosophy. Now, if a teacher is focused on quality of the student's experience or the quality of the student's actual education can sometimes be mutually exclusive but not always.
I approach the classroom expecting to be frustrated with students but also with the mindset that everyone deserves a fair chance before I begin to make assumptions. I actually tend to have the softest spot in my heart for students who struggle (regardless of whether it's due to learning differences, personal problems, or just a general bad attitude). Call it the Dead Poets Society syndrome, but I wouldn't mind if a bunch of kids stood up on their desks proclaiming "O Captain! My Captain!"
My philosophy of teaching first of all includes the quality of the material that will be used in class. I like to combine formal with modern (wanting of course to do a course on Medieval literature and its contemporary themes in Anime and MMORPGs). The student's engagement in the text is then my next requirement. Finally, a standard of strict grading and rigidly adhered to assignments complete the rest of my philosophy. I've always found a structured learning environment to be comforting and motivating since I tend to lack the oh-so-important skill of self-motivation.
Never know how to conclude these things....
Um...
Yeah.
If I think back through the teachers I've had from kindergarten until now, I find that some of my graduate professors share similar qualities with my grade school teachers. The worst teachers all seemed to be the worst for the same reasons, and the best for the best reasons. Part of teaching is an inherent gift to relate to students while still maintaining authority and accomplishing objectives. This can be accomplished in any number of ways be they formalistic, expressive, or any combination of teaching strategies. An effective teacher usually has an "effective" personality to go along with their philosophy. Now, if a teacher is focused on quality of the student's experience or the quality of the student's actual education can sometimes be mutually exclusive but not always.
I approach the classroom expecting to be frustrated with students but also with the mindset that everyone deserves a fair chance before I begin to make assumptions. I actually tend to have the softest spot in my heart for students who struggle (regardless of whether it's due to learning differences, personal problems, or just a general bad attitude). Call it the Dead Poets Society syndrome, but I wouldn't mind if a bunch of kids stood up on their desks proclaiming "O Captain! My Captain!"
My philosophy of teaching first of all includes the quality of the material that will be used in class. I like to combine formal with modern (wanting of course to do a course on Medieval literature and its contemporary themes in Anime and MMORPGs). The student's engagement in the text is then my next requirement. Finally, a standard of strict grading and rigidly adhered to assignments complete the rest of my philosophy. I've always found a structured learning environment to be comforting and motivating since I tend to lack the oh-so-important skill of self-motivation.
Never know how to conclude these things....
Um...
Yeah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
