Instead of a typical lecture on Monday night, our class was divided into sections to role play a school in which a "No Child Left Behind" plan was going to take action. I think that role playing is a very legitimate way to learn. Instead of listening to a teacher blab, students can be engaged in the thinking process about big issues. No Child Left Behind is a big issue in schools right now. Because of this activity, we learned how the plan really looked in schools and we could decide for ourselves if we liked it or not. It was a good measure of accountability because each person in each group had to know what they were talking about. Not everyone talked, but if you hadn't done some research on the issues being dealt with, you wouldn't have been able to follow the discussion.
The advantages of having a lecture instead of role play are few, but there are a couple worth mentioning. In a lecture, students can get a first hand glance at what their teacher agrees with and disagrees with. During a lecture, it is easier to take notes, so for students who learn better that way, a role play situation is harder to pause and jot down a few notes. Disadvantages of have a lecture would be that students aren't as engaged in lecture as they are in role play. Role play creates an opportunity for students to share their thoughts, which shapes individuals and knowledge about subjects. However, if role play is used consistently in a classroom, it could turn into just debate and not learning.
I feel that students do need to have a solid grasp of basic skills before they can be asked to do complex learning tasks. I however, do not think that standardized tests are the best way to measure these kinds of skills. Often, students have a very hard time taking tests, and I was one of them. That being said I think I will give tests to my students. I think a simple test in math, with clear expectations given, is a very practical way to measure what students have learned, but standardized testing is too broad for students, especially at the elementary level.
Emotional engagement is absolutely crucial to the learning process. I feel that schools not only have the job to teach kids the core subjects, but how to become a better person as well. Some students do not learn social or emotional skills at home. Where else will they learn how to become a better person if it's not at school? Putting your heart and soul into what you do is important to ANYTHING you do in life.
I feel that more attention is given to parents with higher achieving students, because those are the parents who are involved in their children's lives. Often, the lowest achieving students have parents who didn't achieve themselves, so the parents are not interested in how their children are doing. How can we change this though? It is important to give attention to both parties. It is a teacher's job to communicate well with ALL of their student's parents. More attention needs to be given to the parents with lower achieving students.
No Child Left Behind was an excellent thought, but it doesn't seem to work for a majority of the schools in the US today. Standardized testing as an idea is a great thought, but it doesn't work when you put it into play. A teacher's most critical job overall is to teach their students how to be better individuals. Well-rounded, interested, thoughtful students, not ones who try to get the best score on tests.
No comments:
Post a Comment