“Classroom Observations”
In the freshman world history class that I observed on October 1st, the teacher presented a lesson about the Paleolithic age, the Neolithic age, and the development of civilizations. At the beginning of class, the teacher instructed the students to “go back to the unit notes for part I” because the teacher “want[ed] to make sure there’s something we're clear about." Thus, it appeared that the class had previously discussed the meanings of Paleolithic and Neolithic and that this current lesson was reinforcing the previous days lesson as well as transitioning into new material. The teacher opened the class with a short Powerpoint presentation and direct instruction lesson on Neolithic buildings and structures. The teacher smoothly transitioned from the discussion of structures to a discussion on the key characteristic that distinguishes the Paleolithic age from the Neolithic age: agriculture. The teacher related the lesson to students lives and elicited student engagement by asking: “what are YOU today? farmer? or hunter-gatherer? By a show of hands, who is a farmer? hunter-gatherer?" The teacher received many responses from the students (almost all students engaged by hand raising, some verbalized their answers and reasoning). The teacher also prompted relational learning by comparing the breeding of animals in captivity (necessary for the development and maintenance of agriculture in the Neolithic Age) with the student experience of reality television and pop culture, where people today “do nasty stuff on camera!" Perhaps this example is somewhat of a stretch, but I think the occasional implementation of humor in the classroom to make students giggle can help students remember important concepts, not matter what the subject of study.
The teacher concluded class by allowing students to play a card game. The students divided themselves into 5 groups. The card dealer in each group received a folder containing instructions for the card games. The teacher instructed the dealers to provide one paper to each group member. The students had 5 minutes to read the directions, then the card dealer collected the rules and gave the teacher back the folder. The students had 5 minutes to play the game. The catch: the students had to play the game without talking! At the end of 5 minutes, the winner from each group moved clockwise around the room to the next group. I noticed that, during this second round of play, the group dynamics changed dramatically. It turned out that each initial group of students had been provided a different set of rules for a different game! Although I did not have time to sit in on the following days class period, I think the teacher was trying to get the students to see the importance of the development of verbal communication and its relationship to the development of civilization. Before the students began to play the card game, however, the teacher did not preface the game with any explanation of how the game related to the lesson that day or to the next days lesson; therefore, I felt somewhat confused about why the students were being allowed to spend the last 15 minutes of class playing cards.
During my time in the classroom, I realized just how much I had forgotten from my own high school classroom experiences of world history! I had some trouble following along in the lesson. I could think of many reasons for this, including: I have not studied world history since high school, I had not observed the previous class so I did not know the topics for class beforehand, the teacher moved and spoke too quickly (observation notes), or perhaps the subject matter just did not inherently interest me. I also noticed that certain students appeared more engaged in the class period than others. These observations about my own trouble and the trouble some students appeared to have staying focused reminded me that students vary widely in their preferences for class subjects, for teacher styles, and for how they take in and demonstrate knowledge (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 17). Since adolescence is a prime time for identity development by youth (Nakkula, 2010), we, as teachers, should acknowledge and assist with student development of interests and abilities, in whatever ways possible. I believe this should include acceptance of their interest or disinterest in the subjects which we teach. We should allow and encourage students to formulate opinions and to discuss with us aspects they like or dislike about certain subjects or classes.
This does not mean, however, that we should hold certain students more accountable for class materials than others. We should not grade on a curve or make material easier or harder based on the expression of varying levels of interest by students. Students should understand that they need to develop a certain level of literacy in each subject matter which they are required to study in high school. They need this literacy to be contributing members of a democratic society. We have discussed this idea at great length in our science methods class this fall (Osborne, 2007). While some students see science classes as difficult and uninteresting, it is our job as science teachers to ensure that all students gain a certain level of scientific literacy in our classes. We want our adolescents to develop into conscious consumers and practical producers in our global society, no matter what their future careers may be.
During my time in the classroom, I realized just how much I had forgotten from my own high school classroom experiences of world history! I had some trouble following along in the lesson. I could think of many reasons for this, including: I have not studied world history since high school, I had not observed the previous class so I did not know the topics for class beforehand, the teacher moved and spoke too quickly (observation notes), or perhaps the subject matter just did not inherently interest me. I also noticed that certain students appeared more engaged in the class period than others. These observations about my own trouble and the trouble some students appeared to have staying focused reminded me that students vary widely in their preferences for class subjects, for teacher styles, and for how they take in and demonstrate knowledge (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006, p. 17). Since adolescence is a prime time for identity development by youth (Nakkula, 2010), we, as teachers, should acknowledge and assist with student development of interests and abilities, in whatever ways possible. I believe this should include acceptance of their interest or disinterest in the subjects which we teach. We should allow and encourage students to formulate opinions and to discuss with us aspects they like or dislike about certain subjects or classes.
This does not mean, however, that we should hold certain students more accountable for class materials than others. We should not grade on a curve or make material easier or harder based on the expression of varying levels of interest by students. Students should understand that they need to develop a certain level of literacy in each subject matter which they are required to study in high school. They need this literacy to be contributing members of a democratic society. We have discussed this idea at great length in our science methods class this fall (Osborne, 2007). While some students see science classes as difficult and uninteresting, it is our job as science teachers to ensure that all students gain a certain level of scientific literacy in our classes. We want our adolescents to develop into conscious consumers and practical producers in our global society, no matter what their future careers may be.
References
Nakkula, M.J. & Toshalis, E. (2010). Understanding Youth: Adolescent Development for Educators. Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science Education for the Twenty First Century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184
Tomlinson, C.A., and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nakkula, M.J. & Toshalis, E. (2010). Understanding Youth: Adolescent Development for Educators. Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
Osborne, J. (2007). Science Education for the Twenty First Century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184
Tomlinson, C.A., and McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction & Understanding by Design: Connecting Content and Kids. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.