[etni] the 'new' and the old

(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 **
-----------------------------------------------

Other related posts: