Lots of thoughts and reactions were swimming through my head as I finished up the first two chapters of the UbD text. Part of me says this is a revelation, part of me says wait this is just common sense. Part of me says it will be really interesting to try this, part of me says wait you have been doing this for years. And all of the above are at least partially true.
I also had this thought: The assertion the book makes, that kids can't really learn - can't "transfer" if you will, unless they see the big picture, seems to be self-evident. But what if the big picture does not interest them? Good teachers do work from the big picture, at least within the parameters of their subject area, but trigonometry teachers have to teach trig - even if kids find it boring and useless - because someone put in in the math curriculum. English teachers keep teaching Shakespeare - despite the evidence that only an elite few even try to understand it - because someone insisted it stay in the curriculum. I can give kids the big picture about phases of the moon (one of the book's examples) but what about if they don't give a damn about the moon or astronomy?
My point is this: A given school curriculum has a very broad base because somewhere along the way we decided that a broad, liberal education was the way to go, that we wouldn't just train people for specific jobs or tasks. Conversely, the average person's interest will be at its peak when the subject is most relevant (think college student in his/her major courses as opposed to general ed. requirements). So the really big picture question for students is why do I need to know this at all? It's a very difficult question to answer. It seems to me a huge overarching goal at which our culture has failed (and judging from the respect for education from some of my foreign students other cultures have been very successful) is in making people respect the education process and the value it has for their lives.
How much value does my class have for kids, whatever I decide the big picture is? A kid could tell me he never read a book in my English lit. class 15 years ago, plagiarized all his papers and now he make $300,000 dollars a year. I could tell that math teacher who tried to get me to see the big math picture in his calculus class that I have reached this point in my life having forgotten or never used any math skills beyond computation and some rudimentary algebra skills. UbD can provide a big picture, but learners still have to buy into the bigger picture, that education is sometimes for education's sake.
We educators spend so much of our time trying to devise ways to invite disaffected kids into the process. UbD seems like another way to say Hey, we know this is really boring and irrelelvant, so we'll try to find a way to convince you that it's not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's funny...we both talked about Shakespeare in response to this section of text. It's so difficult to create buy in when the greater purpose isn't clear. But there's always a "because," right? Everything taught may not be for every person--I never took pre-cal or physics, and ultimately, it never seemed to matter. But for some other student, those courses could have set them on their professional path.
Isn't every part of our lives the same way though. As parents, this is even true with our kids. I'll use Andy Reid (NFL - Head Coach - Philly Eagles), and the situation his kids are in. Even though he probably has been a great parent (He has three law abiding kids, two that are not), two of his kids were sentenced to 23 months in prison by a judge that called his house a drug factory. As his kids got older, Andy Reid must have taught his kids everything they need to know about being successful, not getting into drugs,the difference between right and wrong, and values, morals etc.. Even though he taught them everything, they still chose to do drugs. My point is that even though children sometimes will never use some of the things their parents teach them, does this mean we shouldn't teach it to them? Everyone has free will, but just because you don't use it everyday doesn't mean it hasn't impacted your life in some way. I believe everyone should be exposed to physics, engineering, or the arts because you never know when it will spark your curiosity, and make you delve into it head first as a hobby or a career. I wish a teacher would have taught me construction or architecture, because it would have sparked my interest, and maybe I would be an architect today. It is a teacher's job to present the information in the most efficient and effective way they know how, but it is also up to the teacher to research different ways and constantly see if their way is the most effective, and this is the problem with teachers sometimes. Most teachers don't think of teaching as a craft that constantly needs reworking. They think teaching the same way, or their way is the best until someone shows them otherwise.
Students also have a responsibility to do the work that is required for a given class. This is regardless if they enjoy it or not. I don't particularly like blogging, but I have to do it!(Sorry Rebecca)
Post a Comment