The most interesting part of the article for me was "Teaching Differently". I realize that as a current education student, I have high hopes for myself as a teacher and how I will teach, without yet having real world constraints. One of my favorite quotes was, "It seemed to me that although there are a great many very fine stories that we can read and have interesting discussions about, I couldn't see in what way it was serving students. I didn't feel that it had a purpose the way I have one when I teach literature and cultural studies classes.." - This teacher is speaking about context. I love this because reading has so many purposes that all need to be addressed. I hope that the reason for higher education, or education at all, is for more than just academia.
Towards the end of the article, we heard a lot from the teacher of the Shakespeare class. The authors state that "the teacher is not at all interested in rejecting formalism, or close reading, or new critical approaches. But she is interested in using these to teach something larger- the skill of understanding Shakespeare's plays- and she feels that she cannot do this if students are burdened with some of the "baggage" that formalism itself has helped to create". This is something we talk about again and again in art education classes. Of course, we have to teach the basics, but on the other hand, we have to teach them how to almost reject the basics and think for themselves, and be creative. My philosophy is similar to the teacher of Shakespeare; Our students need a foundation of knowledge and skills, but then we must teach them how to build upon that, use it when it's appropriate, but also to know when it's ok to stray and to do their own thing.
Bringing the article full circle- back to "Must teachers teach as they were taught?"- I believe yes. Through my many, many years of education I have had, what I would consider to be terrible teachers, and a whole lot of great teachers. All with different methods, content, goals, motivation, etc. - but they all taught me something. They taught me how I want to teach, and I try to recall that as often as possible- would I want to be a student in my own class? I think it's important to not simply fall back to formalism, or the "formula of reading, discussing, writing"- it's always necessary to keep things relevant, meaningful, and interesting.
Lesley, this is an interesting take on the reading, thinking about yourself as a student and whether you would want to be a student in your own class. I think, too, that clearly there are some great teachers that you might want to emulate, and others that you do not. Of course, the whole point of the article is to think critically about what teaching practices you have learned by the simple act of observation-sitting in someone's class, and whether or not those practices are effective. Then, taking it a step further, how do you use the most effective teaching practices for your own students, which you've already considered in the teaching of art :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI so agree that every teacher teaches us something! I've had my fair share of teachers who show me how I DON'T want to teach, that's for sure. It's just important to try to remember that every experience with an instructor is valuable, whether it's enjoyable or not. I know that's something with which I often struggle.
ReplyDeleteIt's also interesting that you bring up the topic of rejecting the basics and gaining almost creative insight. We have to teach the basics, and then we revert. How do we keep a balance?! That's definitely one of the many challenges of teaching.