The first thing the author talks about is to not simply teach definitions. When I was in high school, we had something called vocab workshop in which we learned 20 new words a week. However, all we did was learn the definitions and then basically match the definition to the word. I agree with the author that this is utterly useless. First of all, the knowledge does not stay long when you are simply memorizing and simply knowing the definition of a word does not mean you are able to use it. I think vocabulary should be taught through the reading of stories and texts in which a word is used in a sentence and not by teaching definitions. The author goes on to talk about how words can be classified into labels and concepts, the need to find different words to describe things such as said, and how to teach words with multiple meanings. I really think that no matter how much we stand up on a whiteboard and talk about words the only way kids are going to use words is if they are exposed to it in a natural environment such as a book or conversation. The section in mathematics was particularly interesting to me. It talks about teaching the vocabulary in context which I think is the only way to do it. In my first student teaching, I taught a class on scatter plots. I first gave them the definition of a scatter plot and then asked the class "so who knows what a scatter plot is now?" They all looked at me with a blank stare. Definitions are useless in mathematics without a visual or mathematical understanding of what the term means. For example, I could tell you the definition of a hyperbola but it does you no good unless you know how to apply it. An example of a hyperbola and how to arrive at a hyperbola should be shown first and then say to the class "okay now this is called a hyperbola" not the other way around.
In readicide they talk about the decline of reading amongst teens. I'm sorry but there is nothing we can do about this. Technology unfortunately has nearly killed reading for pleasure when there is TV, video games, etc. at kids disposal. 40 years ago when none of that existed, of course kids read more. This is just a fact of our times and there is little we can do about it. We just need to focus on keeping the reading levels where they are or increase them but I do not think we can achieve the reading for pleasure numbers of 30 years ago. Again Gallagher touches on what we make the students read as a problem and it was certainly a problem for me. I hated Shakespeare because I couldn't understand it. I used to say "We don't talk like that anymore, what is the point!" Like anything else if it doesn't have some enjoyment value, kids aren't going to do it. I think Gallagher makes an excellent point about bringing the library to the students. I think that students have been forced to read so many unenjoyable books that they assume whatever is assigned will not be enjoyable. I'll be honest, I still feel that way today. I was not excited at all about reading The Giver because due to my past experiences I figured it would be boring and awful. I was surprised. I think by getting the kids excited about the book by telling them a little about what it is about encourages the students to have an open mind. Thats all I've got.
I agree with everything you said. However, the technology that kids are using now require reading and writing---FaceBook, texting, videos (some). It is not the conventional format, but it is literacy nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the Shakespeare. Hate it myself but I do feel that students should have exposure to some classical literature....just not Shakespeare. UGH@!@
My problem with Shakespeare and other outdated texts is that it IS very hard to read, but they are examples of genres of literature. How can you teach about the Renaissance and not require the students to read a sample novel? It's like teaching a kid about measures of central tendancies(mean, median and mode) and not requiring them to find averages. Also, no matter how boring and hard to read it is, it is part of our culture and references are made to it all the time. If they don't read it, they will not understand the references to it that they WILL be expected to know.
ReplyDeleteI do completely agree with the vocabulary arguement. I would purge all vocabulary Friday at 3. Pass the test, move on. Pass the test, move on!
Also I am doing my Inquiry Project on the same thing you are commenting on (how do you get a student to CHOOSE to read over Facebook, iPod, etc.) Fun stuff!
to start i envy your highschool vocab workshops. by the time i got to highschool they had mostly given up on teaching vocabulary, mostly we just got our vocabulary from your assignments. in terms of if we should give an example of a word before we define the word i emphatically agree. when you look at, mostly all of, the new learning theories that we have to learn the authors straight out say that students need that concrete experience before they can learn new things.also i have to agree on the fact that the times are changing, meaning that most children will opt to watch tv instead of reading. i personally think this move away from reading is a bad thing, but then again in 70 years my notions about reading may be seen as silly and old.
ReplyDelete