In our Math Methods course on Wednesday I was struck by a statement from our professor. To paraphrase: the curricular materials are a guide for the material that needs to be covered, but it isn't the bible; you can supplement and teach in many ways to meet the needs of your kids assuming you cover the same content. I'm sorry if that doesn't do the actual wording due diligence, but that is how I internalized it.
That led me to a Saturday morning conversation with my wife, a 2nd/3rd grade teacher. I told her what I learned, as state above, to which she said that it depends on where you are (good point). If you are in some districts, say Bellevue, you are expected to stay close to the script. Teachers essentially become actors in a play of content dispersal, and the art of teaching is reduced to the act of reading a set of cue cards.
What does that have to do with me? Well I am reading through the lesson for tomorrow, Attribute Rules in Everyday Math's 1st Grade Lesson Guide. Much of the lesson has the teacher directing students, instead of having the teacher set up an environment where they can explore and classify shapes. Why have the teacher tell the students with red shapes go to a place in the room? Why not instead have the students try to work out what is in common, and classify? Why not seek more student input, and get them engaged in the process? There are certainly some great parts of the lesson guide, but I wish there was a more concerted effort to have students share their ideas with their peers in small/whole group settings.
No comments:
Post a Comment