Since I’m taking classroom management right now, I’m learning a lot about theorists and finding which theorists I associate with. While I’m not quite as humanist as Kohn, I’m pretty far on that side of the spectrum. However, I’ve noticed that many of the kids in my generation (90s-2000s) were raised by teachers who are an interesting mix. There are many older teachers who are strictly behaviorist for the most part, and then a mix of newer teachers who are all over the spectrum. I think as a child, I associated older teachers as being bad teachers because they couldn’t relate to the students as much, while some of the younger teachers were listening to our music and understood what the life of a student was like.
It might have been a little bit harder for some of the guys to hate this “bad teacher.”
However, after reading about Fred Jones and some of the other behaviorists, I’m realizing that I didn’t hate older teachers because of their age – I hated them because they were behaviorists. I don’t think that looking at a student and saying their name while they are talking addressing the underlying issue of the student talking in class – nor do I think moving their seat works. Yes, it stops the student from talking for that moment in time, but obviously if a student is talking to a friend, they probably aren’t paying attention to a thing that you, the teacher, is saying.
I realize that this is all personal preference, and there are many students who hate learning under humanists because there is less structure and emphasis on grades. I also realize that there can be some teachers who are behaviorists and are excellent and other teachers who are humanist and be terrible. What are some of the qualities of the teachers you hate?
In language arts, there’s a great deal of (but really not enough) discussion on media literacy and the types of skills we need to be teaching students. Kids need problem-solving skills, and this and that and the other thing. The problem is the people who are creating these lists of skills that kids need to have done the research, but they haven’t lived the life of the digital native. I think kids need only three things to be able to do anything:
Passion to build greatness!
And when I say passion, I really mean the insatiable desire to learn something. A burning, unquenchable thirst to be great at a certain thing. Almost every digital native has the skills to be great at anything they want, but they lack the drive to get there. If teachers are successful in instilling the idea of being lifelong learners for kids, I think they’ve won half the battle.
For lack of a better term. When a trained reader reads something online, he/she can easily tell whether the writer is reliable and trustworthy. Teachers don’t trust students to read articles on wikipedia and understand what is reliable and what isn’t. Unfortunately, instead of teaching students these skills, they tell them to search elsewhere for information.
In the right hands, Google is unstoppable.
At USF, I work in a computer lounge dedicated to helping education students to learning technology skills for use in the classroom. Most of the questions people ask me are questions that I don’t have the answers to. However, I know how and where to find those answers, and I know how to do it quickly. I’m not an expert with technology, but I’m an expert Googler. There aren’t many questions the internet doesn’t have the answers to.
If a child is passionate enough to learn about topic X, and we provide the means to do so, they are capable of learning anything. This may not be outlined in the language arts job description, but they are skills vital to student success, and it is our responsibility to teach them as such.