Second Half

I like the point the author made about asking a student "why?" in the text. Giving students the opportunity to explain what they believe or think allows them to grasp a better understanding of the subject at hand. The theme of this section seems to be more about precise communication that is not without purpose.  When I did my "student teaching"/senior project for my undergrad, I worked in a pre-school classroom. We were encouraged to speak in the positive rather than the negative. For example, when a student would answer a question incorrectly, we would praise them by saying "good try" or something else that was positive. Later in the book, the authors write about saying "no" to students when they answer a question wrong. I believe in some situations such as problem solving, it is important to speak in a constructive and positive manner. When I work with students who are acting out in class or doing something that against the rules, I sit down and talk with them about what they could do differently next time. It models positive reinforcement and it helps with the students and staffs morale. If we said "no" all the time, we would be bogged down with the negativity. This doesn't mean that I think that "no" is a bad word. I think that it has it's place in our vocabulary for a reason. As long as "yes" outweighs "no", then we have nothing to worry about. I wanted to briefly point out the situation between Greg and his teacher during another students presentation regarding the language of Esperanto. When Greg was having a hard time, the teacher offered help. I liked how instead of thrusting herself into the situation and risk aggravating Greg, she stepped in for brief moments to pose questions. It was more of an "asking" than a "telling.



What I took from this section of reading is that communication is important. We think that teaching is much like normal conversation, which it can be, but in order to get our point across to a classroom of students, we must be clear and kind.

First half

While reading In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms, I kept a few notes on what was interesting to me and what I could appreciate from the text. The authors touches on how our traditional education teaches students to be disinterested in the subjects that are taught. To describe traditional education, they use the word mimetic, referring to how learning can sometimes fall into a routine where students will regurgitate information for the sake of tests and quizzes. Brooks and Brooks note that it is not how the material is presented by the teacher, but that the material must come from connections made by students. This can help students feel enthusiastic about learning which will in turn  get students interested in the subjects that were formerly monotonous and boring. I agree with the authors about how creating connections will help students understand the content. I also appreciate Brooks and Brooks making a point to say it is important that, when given the chance, a teacher follow the connections segment of a lesson with the segment that goes over the actual content. As much fun as making milkshakes can be, photosynthesis is a little different. Teachers and future teachers need to know that. I liked the idea of sticking to the plan and creating an activity that is related to the lesson plan and helping the students make hypotheses about the activity. In a lesson regarding momentum, they use the swinging metal ball apparatus because it is a physical representation of momentum and it gives immediate feedback. This way, the students will remain interested long enough to get to the next step in the lesson. That what it seems to be about. Keep the kids interested long enough to get them to the next leg in the race, and hope they can continue.