[etni] Re: Fwd: Re: Teaching HOTS
- From: "sbshai" <sbshai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:36:35 +0200
The G log is a great idea -- for those who really want to do it!
Mitzi has made an important point about a teacher's enthusiasm affecting her
class -- and that's precisely why successful teachers of literature who do
not like the program for any valid reason should not be forced to teach
according to its strictures, especially if they do everything Mitzi
mentioned (and then some).
When doubters and dissenters spoke up at the beginning of "the heat wave",
they were told to be open-minded enough to wait for the program's
implementation before deciding about its worth. Isn't it equitable for
these doubters to expect the same largesse now that they've taken the course
and made great efforts to overcome whatever displeases them? After all, we
can assume that no teacher would "cut her nose to spite her face" by
shortchanging her students. Good teachers teach students, not programs!
And that brings us right back to the initial point in this message: We've
progressed enough in our methodology to realize that learning is a
multi-laned highway, meaning that students will not or cannot all take the
same path to reach success -- i.e., enjoyable learning ; therefore, why
can't we apply the same wisdom to teachers and recognize that there are
various ways to reach the same goal?
I hope I have provided something to think about, but since I do not want to
get involved in this debate again, I'll stop here and invite anyone who
wants to continue the discussion to contact me off-list.
All the best,
Batya
----- Original Message -----
From: "ETNI list" <etni.list@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Etni" <etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 February, 2012 8:06 PM
Subject: [etni] Fwd: Re: Teaching HOTS
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Mitzi Geffen <mitzi100@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Teaching HOTS
>
> And on the other hand, my students have so enjoyed working on the log
> that they asked if we couldn't do a G log! I don't see that anything
> is contrived or anything close to beating a dead horse. Naming the
> thinking skill and talking for a few minutes about how that skill can
> be used to advantage in other situations does not kill any literature
> program.
> I don't get it. Don't you always have some sort of pre-reading
> activity or discussion - or at the very least, "look and the picture,
> or quote, or listen to the song...and tell me what you think the story
> is going to be about? Don't you always teach vocabulary and ask who?
> what? where? when? type questions to make sure the kids understood the
> piece on a basic level? Don't you always go on, then, to look a bit
> more deeply into the story to understand the message, the
> relationships between characters, etc..? Don't you often supply some
> sort of background information about the author or the period?
> Finally, don't you usually have some sort of wrap-up activity? ( act
> it out, write a letter, write a continuation, make up a conversation
> you might have with one of the characters, etc.)?
> I truly do not understand what all the noise is about or how this
> program is all that different from how most of us have been teaching
> literature in the first place. One thing for sure, a teacher who feels
> grumpy about doing the log, will pass that grumpiness on to his/her
> students, and no one will end up having the good time so many English
> classes are now having with this program.
> As for the books, since I wanted to choose my own stories, I did not
> take advantage of the option books which were published, though I am
> using the book for the play Twelve Angry Men, and now see how handy it
> is to have a book. When something in a book isn't to your taste, you
> can adjust, skip, or give your students a choice of questions, instead
> of having them answer every single question or do every single
> exercise. Isn't that what you do with all of the course books?
>
> So, have a look at the program from a different perspective and I
> think you'll see that our cheese hasn't really been moved all that
> far.
> Mitzi
>
>
> Iris wrote:
>> Evelyn,
>> I can't agree with you more! I told my 11th graders we have finished
>> the last piece for the log and their reaction shocked me. They
>> cheered. I almost cried. I have always loved teaching the literature.
>> My students have always loved learning it. But I feel the log is
>> making my lessons contrived. You took the words right out of my
>> mouth,"beating a dead horse"!
>> What's the solution??
>
>
> Evelyn wrote:
>> Those of you who have commented on the positive aspects of the HOTS have
>> written that it is much more interesting for your students than last year
>> (or previous years) when the focus was on the textbook, unseens, writing,
>> grammar, and a little literature. None of us probably disagrees with you.
>> Obviously, literature study is more interesting that repetitive exercises
>> in
>> unseens, etc. However, as a teacher who has spent much time teaching
>> literature, discussing it, writing about it, going wild with it, the HOTS
>> still leave me cold! I am tired of beating a dead horse with exercise
>> upon
>> exercise. Let me teach literature- background and all- let me find pieces
>> my students can both relate to and learn from (classics and modern), let
>> me
>> find pieces and teach them without teaching down to them, and let me
>> teach
>> them how to analyze as well as (with luck) appreciate literature without
>> thinking about thinking.
>> None of us who loves literature has asked the ministry to throw out lit.
>> In
>> fact, we have always been happy to have literature included and we have
>> made
>> it an important part of our curriculum- whether with our 4 pointers, our
>> 5
>> pointers, and even some of our 3 pointers- but the HOTS program is not
>> literature...it is forcing higher order thinking skills on students using
>> English literature as a tool, rather than as a vibrant life force!
>
Other related posts:
