I’d be willing to bet most teachers’ favorite part of planning is brainstorming creative ways to evaluate students. As Wiggins and McTighe noted earlier in Understanding by Design, we are often eager to skip all the way to Stage 3 — planning activities, assessments, and projects. I like that the authors do not necessarily argue against direct instruction, nor do they debate about particular teaching methods (such as lecture versus Socratic seminar or other myriad variations). They argue instead that any type of instruction, like any other facet of the learning experience, needs to have a purpose leading to desired understandings:
Regardless of our teaching strengths, preferred style, or comfortable habits, the logic of backward design requires that we put to the test any proposed learning activity, including “teaching,” against the particulars of Stages 1 and 2. (192)
I think sometimes I like to stand in front of the class to hear myself talk. Well, not really, but I remember how freeing it felt this year to introduce alternative ways of structuring my class that kept me out of the front of the classroom so much. I typically fall back into that pattern of standing in front of the room and telling students what I know. And perhaps some of them learn some things, but I would definitely like my classes to be more engaging on a regular basis.
Regarding the authors’ acronym WHERETO, I really think this mnemonic device would work better if the elements were simplified and began with the letter they represent. For example, “W — Ensure that students understand WHERE the unit is headed, and WHY” (197). Why not simply phrase it “W — WHERE are you going and WHY?”
I agree with Wiggins in McTighe that “[a]ll too rarely do students know where a lesson or unit is headed in terms of their own ultimate performance obligations” (198). I do think it will be helpful to tell students from day one what the ultimate goals are so they have them in mind as they work.
Your first paragraph is very interesting. It's true that we always hear from people within our field "direct instruction is such a bad teaching style." As we've learned through our studies, you cannot totally eliminate that style, as it actually can be the best in some cases.
ReplyDeleteI think that we cannot think about one single method to teach a foreign language. As we have said before, we have many different students with learning styles, so using one method or another will help all of them instead of choosing just one and forget that not everyone learns at the same pace or in the same manner.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, students should know the Where and thw Why of our lesson, otherwise what´s the point of teaching? Just talk and talk about grammatical structures? They must know what´s the aim of the lesson and take advantage of it.
ReplyDeleteActually, I think we are very lucky to be English teachers and no teachers of other subjects. Since it is a global language it gives you the possibility to try numerous kinds of activities and projects in a variety of different ways. As we have seen, grammar is just a small part of all the spectrum,and our goal is not to have grammarians in our classes but proficient users of the language. The more varied our lessons are, the more chances we have to facilitate the students' leaerning.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing to achieve our teaching goals is set up the contents we are going to teachj. For that an important desing is needed, which must be adecuated to every need. A practice that may seems so far to reach knowing the reality of our system.
ReplyDelete