Although enlightening and inspiring, the articles by Bro and Brimijoin et al. raised some questions for me. I see fully the necessity and benefits of diversifying instruction. What I am not clear on is how to avoid pigeonholing students into thinking of themselves as particular types of learners. As Bro notes on page 85 (quoting Freeman and Freeman), “students who are labeled “begin to see themselves as labeled.”” As teachers, how do we support the needs of all of our students without giving them the sense that they cannot master certain skills? For example, how do we allow students who are shy and prefer to demonstrate their understanding in writing the right to listen during class discussions, yet encourage them to take greater “risks” in this area as the semester/year progresses? Furthermore, what can we do to help our less vocal students meet the required “speaking” standards?
I was impressed by how smoothly student self-assessment, teacher formative assessment and instruction are combined in Ms. Martez’s classroom. As a sophomore teacher, I wonder how open 15-year-olds would be to being divided into three groups according to their learning style or level of mastery. Perhaps I am being cynical, but wouldn’t many of them they choose what they perceived as the most fun activity, or choose to be grouped with their friends? It seems like a very effective system; I just do not how I would make it work in my classroom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you and your concerns and don't know what to tell you! It sounds great to diversify instruction in that way but seems unrealistic to me for the reasons you said.
I think it is dangerous to label students. Once a student is labeled, future teachers may limit their expectations for the student. The student may hide behind the label and become complacent in the box created. The student may not have the confidence to go beyond the confines of that box and may never realize his full potential.
Post a Comment