Week 2

This week our discussion has been centered around two different schools of thought interpretivism and objectivism.  The article we read for our discussions were helpful in pulling out some key pieces to each theory.  I found a chart located in the Willis article to really help me to see the difference between the two.

Interpretivist                                                                Objectivists

ID process is non-linear/chaotic                                  Process is sequential and linear

Top down/systematic planning                                    Reflective/Collaborative planning

Objectives emerge as you go                                       Objectives are stated at the start

Experts are crucial                                                       Experts are a myth

Personal understanding/meaningful                            Teaching of sub-skills/Sequencing

Formative Eval most important                                   Summative Eval is most important

Subjective data is most valuable                                 Objective data is most important- the more data the better.

                                                                                    Delivery of preselected knowledge

                                                                                    I could see myself relating to parts of each of these theories.  I think if I really look deeply I am probably more of an interpretivist, but I can see some piece of the objectivist point of view as essential as well.  A large part of our group's discussion was about the need/want for linear and sequential steps in the learning process.  Some of the teaching in learning in the classroom is achieved more successfully when we follow steps and a process.  Math comes to mind when I'm thinking of this.  There are certain concepts of skills that are necessary to learn in a sequencial order.  My question to myself and other teachers is how many skills need to be taught this way?  AND do all students need to be taught this way?  Can we step away from that order for some students and some skills?  Are we doing some students a disservice by making them sit through the teaching of all parts of a skill?  Some students come to me in 3rd grade already knowing how to do something and yet I have made them sit through the instruction for another time.  Why?

                                                                                    I am also a lover of data, BUT we are very good at my school at using the data we collect.  Especially in recent years.  I think data takes on a whole new meaning when you know you are going to dig into it and make changes to your teaching and programs based on what our students know.  I do think that I need to work a lot more on using formative data as I go along to inform my teaching.  How do I create and use assessments that are quick and informal that will help my students on  daily basis?  This is something I need to work on as I move forward.

                                                                                    I wonder too about the objective piece.  Do they need to be known from the start or can we develop them as we go along? We have discussed in our PD this year of starting with the end in mind- so clearly stated objectives, and then build your lesson around that.  I think there is something to be said about the flexibility to change and develop those objective along the way though.  Flexibility is key in the classroom.  We have to be able to change along the way based on what our students need from us.  I keep thinking in my head that I can combine the two theories for my own hybrid??  Not sure if that is an option or not..... but I feel like it's what I do on a daily basis :)

I can't seem to fix the format on this blog post..... I'll work on it.....

Week 1 Reflection

Week 1 has really gotten me thinking about the different schools that I have been a part of over the course of my educational experiences.  Both as a teacher and as a student.  I have mostly had experience with smaller more rural school districts so I'm sure that has shaped my experiences differently than others who have had more experience with larger districts.  I feel like for the most part the systems I have known have been there for the purpose of preparing students for their future- be it a job or college education.  When I was in high school it was just assumed that you would be attending a college.  The question was never "are you going to college?"  but rather "where". 

My current district however has felt a shift in our focus to more student centered learning.  The push has been to give students more voice and some control in their learning environments.  We have been studying the Structure for Instruction model this year during PD and working on when it is appropriate to be in a whole group setting and when our students should be working in small groups or individually.  There has also been a lot of discussion about how to analyze when students are ready for the different steps in this structure.  To me we are moving away from some of the "traditional" methods of teaching that many of us grew up with.  The lessons are more individualized and we are really creating an individual learning package for each student.  We are not all the way there yet, but we are making progress.

Another thing I have found really interesting this week in discussions is different individual's reactions to the Core.  The way it has been presented and discussed in our district it has truly not felt threatening in any way to me.  Has it been overwhelming at times?  YES!  But it has produced a lot of great discussions between team members and also across different grade levels.  I think it's going to be a great tool for helping us to align our curriculum across grade levels and throughout our school district.  We all know what it is that we need to cover and how we get there is more up to us in the classroom. 

It is thought provoking to think about different experiences that I have had in a classroom or in a school district and reflect on who's philosophy it really was in place.  Is it possible to have an entire district under the same philosophy?  Can we all really be on the same page?  And if so how do we get there?  There are so many factors that go into a philosophy both individual and district wide and I wonder how exactly we align all of those while still giving teacher's some individuality. 

This first week has given me a lot to think about in regards to the foundations of our systems and how we are changing or not changing as we go along.  Do we need to change?  If so what and where and when??