Dispositions are reflections of character and must be nurtured rather than taught. Though nurturing implies some teaching, it has more to do with environment than teachers. Teaching is certainly part of the environment, but it is unclear what impact it has upon character. There is no guarantee that all my time at Sunday school is going to make me a generous person, even though that is the lesson being taught. What might have more impact is being around generous people or being given the opportunity to be generous myself. In this sense, we must be shown rather than told what a good disposition is to effectively incorporate it into our own characters. To best enhance dispositions we must lead by example and create an environment that values those dispositions and allows opportunity to exhibit them.
But can we teach ourselves dispositions? Can an individual change his or her own character? This is something we would all like to believe but in reality is very difficult to achieve. We are each of us affected by our circumstances more than anything. In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell demonstrates this with a study done on seminary students. The study was a reenactment of the Good Samaritan story. Students were told they would be giving a lecture at a specific location. Along the route to this location, the researchers arranged for an actor to play the injured individual at the side of the road. The students were then divided into groups along three variables: 1) whether they entered the ministry primarily to attain person fulfillment or to help others, 2) whether the lecture would be on the Good Samaritan or the affects of personal ministry on society, 3) whether they were late or not. Turns out the only variable that really mattered was time. Those who were late didn't stop; those who had time did.
Circumstances not only shape character but can also overwhelm it. The only way I can see for individuals to control character development is through frequent and critical self-reflection. It doesn't always work, but it is making a conscious effort to develop character. It is easy to recognize poor dispositions in others, but it is hardest to recognize it in ourselves. Yet we must try to route out these faults in our characters if we are to overcome them. And most of the time we don't succeed, but simply trying encourages humility and self-awareness, two qualities inherent in the best dispositions. So can dispositions be taught? Perhaps not... but we may as well try.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
How Do We Prepare Teachers for the Stresses of the Teaching Profession?
Greater awareness. Plain and simple. Students planning to become teachers must have a greater awareness of both what that job entails and their own motivations for teaching. What are the stresses of teaching? Do I really want to teach, considering all these pressures? Why do I want to do this in the first place. Too often teachers enter the teaching profession either unaware of what that means or without self-honesty, and those are the fifty percent who change professions in less than three years. Of that fifty percent, a good portion probably never should have been teacher, whereas others might simply have been shocked and overwhelmed by what they found. How do we prevent this shock? More classroom observation, more student teaching, and self-evaluations reflecting on motivations. How do we encourage resilience? Experience. Experience. Experience. Only through experience in the classroom, first in moderation and then with greater intensity, will students develop the capacity to deal with the pressures of teaching. Mere enthusiasm and intelligence are not enough to develop mental resiliency. Students must question their passion to make it stronger. And they must do so before they even enter the profession if they are to last as teachers.
Balancing Confidence and Humility: Teachers Asking Questions WITH Students
Nymphenburg Palace in Munich is beautiful. Unfortunately for me, the place will always remind me of my overconfident display counting the swans in front of it. I had never seen so many swans gathered in one place! There were sixty of them! I counted every last one in video my friend recorded on his camera, and what did I boisterously declare at the end? "Fifty-nine... sixty! Sixty swans! And you want to know how many of them are female? Two!" Yea, those two gray swans were signets, young swans, which any person familiar with the 'Ugly Duckling' fable should know, but I had frankly forgotten. Now this seems a silly but rather small mistake, except that I had declared myself so confidently that no one actually questioned me until a few hours later. Turns out that if you speak with a loud authoritative voice people believe you. But if you're wrong, you risk misinforming others. Luckily, my friends were too discerning to let that one slide for long, so I looked like an idiot, but no one was confused about signets.
In teaching, an air of overconfidence can risk misinforming students, stifling their input, or even encouraging arrogance by example. Yet no confidence loses classroom discipline and student trust as it makes a teacher look incompetent. A balance must therefore be struck: be confident but careful. Certainty is risky. The single greatest was to avoid this risk and encourage humility in students is to ask questions. Even if you know what you're talking about, allow students to question you. Ask questions yourself that will allow students to engage with the answers. Student participation is key to establishing a confident yet humble example as a teacher. By encouraging students to question and engage, teachers appear interested in what students have to say without surrendering their authority. Teachers are guides to student learning, not facilitators. A teacher who embraces this philosophy will appear humble while still placing his or herself as a valuable resource to students.
In teaching, an air of overconfidence can risk misinforming students, stifling their input, or even encouraging arrogance by example. Yet no confidence loses classroom discipline and student trust as it makes a teacher look incompetent. A balance must therefore be struck: be confident but careful. Certainty is risky. The single greatest was to avoid this risk and encourage humility in students is to ask questions. Even if you know what you're talking about, allow students to question you. Ask questions yourself that will allow students to engage with the answers. Student participation is key to establishing a confident yet humble example as a teacher. By encouraging students to question and engage, teachers appear interested in what students have to say without surrendering their authority. Teachers are guides to student learning, not facilitators. A teacher who embraces this philosophy will appear humble while still placing his or herself as a valuable resource to students.
Inventiveness in the 21st-Century Classroom
So once upon a time the industrial revolution thrust society's economic power into the hands a of a very few entrepreneurial men. These men in turn created thousands of strenuous factory jobs that required little to no creativity for their execution, thereby limiting the importance of creativity as skill for centuries to come. Now the forces of this century have amassed together to renew that importance. The outsourcing of factory jobs overseas and the emergence of electronic mediums such as the internet have shifted the US economy from industrial to service/information, where communication and creativity are the keys to success. Greater communicative abilities have allowed for the free flow of ideas and the recognition of societal complexities by a growing number of people. This awareness has in turn made businesses/governments realize that innovative ideas can come from anywhere, therefore making inventiveness an essential skill in business, service, and citizenship.
The problem is that educators are ill-equipped to teach creativity. It is, after all, impossible to teach creativity under any direct instructional approach. Creativity is an internally developed skill that cannot simply be relayed to students. Social constructivist approaches must be adopted as teachers realize they can only give students the tools and opportunities to create, not the skill itself. In English courses we can teach literature/media studies/grammar/writing techniques, but the students must be given the opportunity to do something with it. Literature exemplifies creativity; grammar provides the framework; writing/media allow for effective communication, but students must be able to use these tools to create.
In my reasoning, there are currently two ways in which English teachers can encouragement student creativity: written and oral communication. Writing can be analytical, creative, or practical, and students can communicate orally through presentations, debates, or performance. In all of these cases, since the student is responsible for the work, creativity can be encouraged. And right now, there seem to be only two main obstacles: 1) rubrics are too specific, and 2) information/resources are not readily available. So as teachers wishing to encourage creativity, we should not make rubrics unnecessarily specific. We give them guidance but allow for opportunities to explore and create. An academic example might be starting as essay question with 'what is the significance of...', knowing that what is significant will be different for each student and allow for many different approaches in answering the question. That being said, resources and information must be readily available to students to make the creative/exploratory process as painless as possible. Students should not feel forced to create. And teachers should reward every facet of creativity - originality, complexity, initiative, etc. Whether that reward should be a grade is a much trickier question. How do we assess creativity? Short answer: I don't know.
The problem is that educators are ill-equipped to teach creativity. It is, after all, impossible to teach creativity under any direct instructional approach. Creativity is an internally developed skill that cannot simply be relayed to students. Social constructivist approaches must be adopted as teachers realize they can only give students the tools and opportunities to create, not the skill itself. In English courses we can teach literature/media studies/grammar/writing techniques, but the students must be given the opportunity to do something with it. Literature exemplifies creativity; grammar provides the framework; writing/media allow for effective communication, but students must be able to use these tools to create.
In my reasoning, there are currently two ways in which English teachers can encouragement student creativity: written and oral communication. Writing can be analytical, creative, or practical, and students can communicate orally through presentations, debates, or performance. In all of these cases, since the student is responsible for the work, creativity can be encouraged. And right now, there seem to be only two main obstacles: 1) rubrics are too specific, and 2) information/resources are not readily available. So as teachers wishing to encourage creativity, we should not make rubrics unnecessarily specific. We give them guidance but allow for opportunities to explore and create. An academic example might be starting as essay question with 'what is the significance of...', knowing that what is significant will be different for each student and allow for many different approaches in answering the question. That being said, resources and information must be readily available to students to make the creative/exploratory process as painless as possible. Students should not feel forced to create. And teachers should reward every facet of creativity - originality, complexity, initiative, etc. Whether that reward should be a grade is a much trickier question. How do we assess creativity? Short answer: I don't know.
Three Elements to Effective Collaboration + Getting to the Guts of Imprecise Terms
Most years my high school basketball team was pretty crap. Senior year we flopped from one side of the court to the other, running our assignments without purpose or enthusiasm, hoping that one of our shooters might get the ball and do something with it. We won a few games that year, but not nearly as many as we could have. We had a lot of problems, but the one I remember most is trust - or in our case, lack thereof. We didn't respect each others' abilities on the court. We passed the ball but without confidence. There were those of us who already lacked confidence in our abilities, and distrusting teammates certainly didn't help the matter.
But suppose you're just crap at basketball... asking your teammates to trust you on the court would be a bit of a stretch (if the end goal is winning, that is). Next component: competency. Simply put, when a group member fails to meet his or her responsibilities, either because they are lazy or incapable, collaboration becomes one-sided. A resource group in a computer firm cannot effectively solve a customer's technical problem if even one member is struggling to turn on the monitor. But even if trust and competency are present, collaboration is not necessarily effective. Even if everyone in an architecture firm was competent and trusting, a failure in communication can destroy a project. Without a free flow of ideas, the firm loses efficiency and can fumble revolutionary ideas.
'Collaboration' is a useful term in the education world. Too often educators have used imprecise phrases such as 'group work' or 'cooperative learning' to describe the action implicit in 'collaboration.' True, there are varying definitions of what is means to collaborate, but at least it is only word word that describes an action rather than goal or abstraction. A phrase like 'group work' leaves room for interpretation because the verb 'work' is applied to the group rather than the individuals of that group. It stresses the importance of the final product rather than the interactions of the individuals. 'Group work' can be lopsided. Some members do more than others, but it is still 'group work', no matter the proportion. Similarly, 'cooperative learning' might be equated to 'collaboration', but it can be interpreted in many different ways. The juxtaposition of 'cooperative' and 'learning' is confusing since 'learning' is traditionally an individual experience, and individuals learn in ways that might not necessarily be cooperative. 'Collaboration' avoids this confusion by implying learning rather than explicitly stating it, allowing us to focus on the action rather than the idea. In short, 'collaboration' is just a more powerful, succinct way of describing the action that 'group work' and 'cooperative learning' imply. So instead of talking about 'group work' or 'cooperative learning' we should simply say 'collaborate' and allowing learning and group work to simply happen.
But suppose you're just crap at basketball... asking your teammates to trust you on the court would be a bit of a stretch (if the end goal is winning, that is). Next component: competency. Simply put, when a group member fails to meet his or her responsibilities, either because they are lazy or incapable, collaboration becomes one-sided. A resource group in a computer firm cannot effectively solve a customer's technical problem if even one member is struggling to turn on the monitor. But even if trust and competency are present, collaboration is not necessarily effective. Even if everyone in an architecture firm was competent and trusting, a failure in communication can destroy a project. Without a free flow of ideas, the firm loses efficiency and can fumble revolutionary ideas.
'Collaboration' is a useful term in the education world. Too often educators have used imprecise phrases such as 'group work' or 'cooperative learning' to describe the action implicit in 'collaboration.' True, there are varying definitions of what is means to collaborate, but at least it is only word word that describes an action rather than goal or abstraction. A phrase like 'group work' leaves room for interpretation because the verb 'work' is applied to the group rather than the individuals of that group. It stresses the importance of the final product rather than the interactions of the individuals. 'Group work' can be lopsided. Some members do more than others, but it is still 'group work', no matter the proportion. Similarly, 'cooperative learning' might be equated to 'collaboration', but it can be interpreted in many different ways. The juxtaposition of 'cooperative' and 'learning' is confusing since 'learning' is traditionally an individual experience, and individuals learn in ways that might not necessarily be cooperative. 'Collaboration' avoids this confusion by implying learning rather than explicitly stating it, allowing us to focus on the action rather than the idea. In short, 'collaboration' is just a more powerful, succinct way of describing the action that 'group work' and 'cooperative learning' imply. So instead of talking about 'group work' or 'cooperative learning' we should simply say 'collaborate' and allowing learning and group work to simply happen.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Efficacy in Teaching: A Necessary Balance of Confidence, Self-Awareness, and Persistence
When I first came to Luther freshman year, I had the unmitigated arrogance to say to a friend that I felt destined for 'greater' things than teaching. Ironic now, of course, since I feel teachers are the most undervalued workers on the planet, feeling the crushing pressure of expectations while receiving few tangible benefits. Everyday they are expected to inform and engage students, maintain discipline, satisfy district and national standards of assessment, create appropriate learning environments, submit lesson plans, attend meetings, satisfy parents, organize school events, coach, and remain relentlessly optimistic, despite obstacles, stress, and insufficient pay. This is a ridiculously long list of things to do, and those with the capacity to get the job done deserve the utmost respect.
I wonder how many people would take the challenge if they got the whole low-down on the job description. From the outskirts, teaching appears to be a pretty thankless job for the difficulties entailed. Altruistic motivation must outweigh tangible benefits if teachers are to be effective in this world. But a lot of teachers find themselves drained of that internal motivation by the end of their first year. The task proves too daunting, and altruism is no longer sufficient to motivate teachers. The teachers who dropped out after the first year lack self-awareness of their capacity for teaching. They might possess a strong work ethic and confidence in their abilities but are unable to reflect on their own limitations, and so grow frustrated at their failures.
An effective teacher must be able to maintain a balance of confidence, persistence, and self-awareness in order to be successful. If any one trait is lacking, we witness a breakdown in learning. A teacher without confidence becomes too oppressed by his or her limitations. A teacher without a persistent work ethic fails to push his or her students toward learning goals or maintain an effective learning environment. Without self-awareness, a teacher is trapped by his or her inability to identify and overcome ineffectiveness.
In the teaching world, efficacy is best developed through outside input. Communication with other teachers and critical feedback allow teachers to develop and experiment with alternative approaches to teaching that may prove more effective. This in turn stimulates a more collaborative learning environment. If teachers understand their individual responsibilities in the community of the school, individual work ethic is reinforced. If teachers support and encourage one another, confidence is built and restored. Working together and understanding how others deal with similar situations can make the daunting task of teaching seem more reasonable. With a collaborative support structure firmly in place, schools will enhance awareness, confidence, work ethic, and the effectiveness of teachers.
I wonder how many people would take the challenge if they got the whole low-down on the job description. From the outskirts, teaching appears to be a pretty thankless job for the difficulties entailed. Altruistic motivation must outweigh tangible benefits if teachers are to be effective in this world. But a lot of teachers find themselves drained of that internal motivation by the end of their first year. The task proves too daunting, and altruism is no longer sufficient to motivate teachers. The teachers who dropped out after the first year lack self-awareness of their capacity for teaching. They might possess a strong work ethic and confidence in their abilities but are unable to reflect on their own limitations, and so grow frustrated at their failures.
An effective teacher must be able to maintain a balance of confidence, persistence, and self-awareness in order to be successful. If any one trait is lacking, we witness a breakdown in learning. A teacher without confidence becomes too oppressed by his or her limitations. A teacher without a persistent work ethic fails to push his or her students toward learning goals or maintain an effective learning environment. Without self-awareness, a teacher is trapped by his or her inability to identify and overcome ineffectiveness.
In the teaching world, efficacy is best developed through outside input. Communication with other teachers and critical feedback allow teachers to develop and experiment with alternative approaches to teaching that may prove more effective. This in turn stimulates a more collaborative learning environment. If teachers understand their individual responsibilities in the community of the school, individual work ethic is reinforced. If teachers support and encourage one another, confidence is built and restored. Working together and understanding how others deal with similar situations can make the daunting task of teaching seem more reasonable. With a collaborative support structure firmly in place, schools will enhance awareness, confidence, work ethic, and the effectiveness of teachers.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reflection: Time to Think
Reflection is perhaps the most critical component to the thinking process, stimulating both curiosity and analytical ability. To reflect is to go beyond the limited rubric of the classroom and arrange new ideas within larger contexts. It is the ability to ask more questions, to discern what is useful, and apply that information to our growing knowledge of the world.
In education we do not often let our students ask questions. When a student asks, "How is this useful?" we usually snap off a reply and continue the lesson. But perhaps we should reply in the spirit of the question. How is it useful? Why are we learning this? We shouldn't just expect students to trust our judgment, we should make them curious about their own education. Too often we confine students to the material that will appear on the test, encouraging them to memorize and regurgitate rather than compose their own thoughts and reflections on the material. Perhaps students find it difficult to reflect because we do not allow them to. We discourage questions by driving the material forward to the exam. In some cases this seems unavoidable. The amount of information necessary to get across in mathematics and the sciences makes reflection seem near impossible. The courses are stream-lined to deliver such information, but they hardly ever allow students to reflect on why the material is important or what they like and dislike about the subject.
These are important questions in respect of student autonomy. If we do not allow them to reflect we risk turning out students who simply take part in the world rather than shape it. We lose curiosity and creativity because they are not stimulated by further reflection. We see the effects in the classroom where teachers can drive themselves into the ground with the same lessons year after year. There is no incentive to reflect on or deviate from established formulas that produce good test scores. Teachers are not given the time or authority to make such reflections or suggestions.
Reflection is ultimately triggered by curiosity but can be tremendously affected by pressures of time and expectations. The most effective reflections occur when people are curious about a subject, have time to think about it, and expect to achieve something valuable from it. In an environment where individual reflection is not encouraged or valued, there is little chance such reflects will be effective or even attempted. I reflect best when I am allowed to pace without the distractions of homework and people around me. But that reflection must be sparked by a question that is puzzling or interesting to me. These questions, however, are hardly ever stimulated by the classroom environment. The classroom gives me the tools to reflect more effectively, but only time and curiosity will allow me to actually do it. Can schools give students that time and curiosity? Are they expected to reflect on academic subjects outside of the classroom? How much time can we allow them in the school day to think about the questions that are really important to them?
In education we do not often let our students ask questions. When a student asks, "How is this useful?" we usually snap off a reply and continue the lesson. But perhaps we should reply in the spirit of the question. How is it useful? Why are we learning this? We shouldn't just expect students to trust our judgment, we should make them curious about their own education. Too often we confine students to the material that will appear on the test, encouraging them to memorize and regurgitate rather than compose their own thoughts and reflections on the material. Perhaps students find it difficult to reflect because we do not allow them to. We discourage questions by driving the material forward to the exam. In some cases this seems unavoidable. The amount of information necessary to get across in mathematics and the sciences makes reflection seem near impossible. The courses are stream-lined to deliver such information, but they hardly ever allow students to reflect on why the material is important or what they like and dislike about the subject.
These are important questions in respect of student autonomy. If we do not allow them to reflect we risk turning out students who simply take part in the world rather than shape it. We lose curiosity and creativity because they are not stimulated by further reflection. We see the effects in the classroom where teachers can drive themselves into the ground with the same lessons year after year. There is no incentive to reflect on or deviate from established formulas that produce good test scores. Teachers are not given the time or authority to make such reflections or suggestions.
Reflection is ultimately triggered by curiosity but can be tremendously affected by pressures of time and expectations. The most effective reflections occur when people are curious about a subject, have time to think about it, and expect to achieve something valuable from it. In an environment where individual reflection is not encouraged or valued, there is little chance such reflects will be effective or even attempted. I reflect best when I am allowed to pace without the distractions of homework and people around me. But that reflection must be sparked by a question that is puzzling or interesting to me. These questions, however, are hardly ever stimulated by the classroom environment. The classroom gives me the tools to reflect more effectively, but only time and curiosity will allow me to actually do it. Can schools give students that time and curiosity? Are they expected to reflect on academic subjects outside of the classroom? How much time can we allow them in the school day to think about the questions that are really important to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)