This site is a class blog space for new Career and Technical Specializations and Heathcare Science teachers enrolled in the New Teacher Institute (NTI) at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
Elasticity and Fluidity
When I read Prosser's Theorem 15, I almost laughed. I totally agree that in CTE a certain level of flexibility and flow are necessary to achieve success in and out of the classroom. I chuckled because of the lack of flexibility and flow I feel on most days. Let me explain. We are forced to include differentiation in our lesson plans so that the needs of ALL students can be met. Differentiation mirrors Prosser's Theorem 15. We are flexible in that we understand students learn differently. We do not expect them to "fit" into one particular style of teaching strategy so we plan using several teaching strategies. The hope is that every students' strength is acknowledged in the course of the lesson by this type of flexibility. I chuckled because although I have to differentiate for my students, nothing is differentiated for me. I am forced to "fit" into a specific style of planning that is not conducive to my learning style. I feel as though flexibility and fluidity are thrown out the window and the cookie cutter expectation is the only acceptable method of planning. I truly believe that if teachers could experience the flexibility and fluidity that Prosser dreamed of for students test scores would rise, classrooms would run more efficiently, and teachers would be less frustrated at the end of the day!
I agree with you that most of the flexibility is for the students, not the teachers. I do however see Prosser's point that we, as teachers, have to adapt as well as adapt the curriculum to meet the demands of today's workforce. However, this is not easy considering the demands put on us daily in the classroom. If we could just show up and teach and expect students to leave our classrooms better prepared than when they came in the door, I think we would be much better off.
ReplyDeleteYour statements can be very true. We, as humans, all perceive things in so many different manners. So many things come into account when learning, especially in a CTE class, that which a student is exposed to a different style of learning. I have recently attempted to instruct on gear ratios, a concept I am familiar with and understand, but conveying it became a challenge. I used three different styles of instruction, and still some students were tying, but didn't quite grasp it. Finally I had another students offer their technique and I allowed them to put it on the board, and it seemed to aid a few students stuck in neutral. So many things in education can't be planned, we have to adapt.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with both of your statements. I can plan for one thing and possibly have to go on the fly to fix my plans... I like having the capability of doing so. I think it is just part of my nature. What I am most frustrated by is the rigidity of the planning format.
ReplyDeleteHomerun Statement! I totally agree with you about teachers having little flexibility in how they lesson plan. I am totally not a structure person. I feel I do my best work when thinking quickly and reacting to the flow of a situation. I guess I do conform somewhat by using a lesson plan template for my planning purposes, but, many times once my class is underway I realize there is a better way to teach that lesson. There really isn’t a way to build that flexibility into a structured lesson plan.
ReplyDeleteThat's fantastic Terry that you can go on the fly even if it doesn't match what is on your plan. We have so many people coming in and out of our classroom looking at our plans and what we are doing that there is really no room for change. The one time I did, I was "busted" by one of those evaluations and questioned about why my plans didn't match.....UGGGGHHHHH!!!!
ReplyDelete