I would agree with most of what you said as well. I do think that scattered teaching won't get us anywhere in depth and that we need to draw out the depth of thinking in a concentrated manner. And an analogy appears to me for what you're talking about. I know so little about cameras that I'm not sure how to word this, however, but I hope I'm understandable even so.
It appears to me that there would be a distinct advantage first in a photographic study of something, let's say disease among certain trees, to shooting something with a wide-angle lens at first. Perhaps in this case it would be a forest with some trees dying and other healthy. Then we could picture two trees side by side that look very different. But, in order to really concentrate on this problem, we'd need to use a close-up lens which would show leaves from both trees, but where you could show small insects on the diseased one. And that is where you would need to focus in order to truly understand the problem. I, being me, would probably "finish up" a presentation with a wide-angle lens again in order to generalize what we have focused on. (But that's probably a learner trait of mine more than anything else.) Somewhat counterintuitively, in order to generalize we often need to focus deeply on one issue and I believe that's why Ellin writes so powerfully about the necessity of deciding what's essential. One of my favorite parts is "What outcomes are common when children and adults comprehend what they read and are able to RETAIN AND REAPPLY what they have understood?" (capitals mine) I love it! We spend so much instructional time "reteaching" when there's no RE about it; they never dwelled in it long enough to have ever gotten it. And then we spend even more instructional time teaching content as discrete pieces without ever finishing up with a wide-angle lens, so it's only a few of the fortunate ones that make the leap into deeper understanding that is necessary for reapplying--or actually applying, I'd say. So my current understanding about what Ellin is saying in To Understand is that we must get into something deeply in order to truly understand (and comprehension strategies are some of the key vehicles), so that we can then help learners to generalize for reapplication. I think the point of departure for me yesterday was not in knowing what we were going to teach and why, not in telling the learners that so they'd have the wide-angle lens view first and then dwelling deeply in that, it was the implication (and, to me, arrogance) of thinking that we human could learn only one thing at a time. (Of course, I may have been oversensitive to the message given.) When you look at brain-research you see that it is the findings of patterns and the having of more things to connect in more ways that is the essence of learning. So, Jennifer, I strongly agree with you that you have to focus and concentrate on what you hope the learners learn deeply, and I need to also remember that it takes the connections to be able to retain and reapply, as I think Ellin says. I think I need to better blend my background in integrated learning with what I know about lesson study, etcetera, and I don't mean to imply that they are at all mutually exclusive. Many in-depth lessons will integrate into a far-greater understanding than will dibbles and dabbles of discrete information. So I do essentially agree, Jennifer, with all you wrote. What I disagreed with yesterday is the presumption that learners can learn only one thing at a time and that we as teachers absolutely control what they learn. If we're doing our job as well as we can, they're taking their particular schema and going in directions we could never predict. And maybe we'll end up in places we'd never thought to put on the board. That doesn't mean that we haven't planned carefully and well (and multiple times, as in lesson study); it just means that while we focus carefully, we'll probably end up in wonderful and sometimes unexpected places when we dive in! I'm so glad we don't have to think in either/ors here. I learn a whole lot more that way. Bev On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, Bev... > I am going to be a devil's advocate here....I find that I rarely disagree > with you, but I think this might be one of those rare instances. :-) > > One of the biggest ah-hahs that came through my five rounds of lesson study > last year was that I tried to do too much in my lessons. I learned that > when I > kept a tighter focus throughout my lesson (ie...what did I want the > children > to learn about visualizing today...)my lessons were better. Children > actually internalized the strategies better and applied the comprehension > strategies independently AND the thinking was deeper when I tried not to do > too much > at once. > > I do agree that sometimes we need to be able to jump off on that teachable > moment. I also know that we need to plan our lessons based on what our kids > need...not by checking off items on the state curriculum list. I also know > that > reading strategies are interdependent...but I do think we need to focus > tightly for a while to build a depth of understanding. > > I also think we need to tell kids why they are learning what they are > learning. Think about how Ellin Keene suggests that we ask children (after > they > have applied a strategy) what they know now that they didn't know before. > Isn't > that what we are doing...showing them the purpose behind the strategy? We > have had to have our objectives up on the board in my district since the > beginning of time I think...for at least the past 20 years. When I student > taught > in Baltimore county, it was the same. I am not sure that it is strictly > needed > to have the objective on the board, but I do tend to agree that lessons > are > meaningless unless the child has a purpose for learning and we do have a > responsibility to make things clear. > Jennifer > > > In a message dated 9/27/2008 12:01:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Our school is just starting 4-minute walkthroughs (amusingly dubbed > drive-bys by many on this list) and here is one of the things we heard > yesterday at our "debriefing." > > Yes, you must have your objective up on the board or somewhere and your > children should know why they're learning such-and-such. It will increase > their learning 29-44% if you do that. And you should be teaching that > objective only!! Research tells us that children learn only one thing at > a > time. > > I'm not sure where she's reading that research (which she liberally > sprinkles in comes from "Bob Marzano" (I don't think so), but what the > whole > meeting made me want to do was to research retirement. I never, ever in > my > wildest dreams imagined I would retire to get away from education. I > thought there would come a time when I was ready to do something else, but > that it would always be so hard to leave classrooms. Now I just don't > know. > > > > > > > > > **************Looking for simple solutions to your real-life financial > challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips > and > calculators. (http://www.walletpop.com/?NCID=emlcntuswall00000001) > _______________________________________________ > Mosaic mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to > http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. > > Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive. > > _______________________________________________ Mosaic mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org. Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
