Approximately in recent years, I have the habit of teaching demonstration lessons in schools with which I work to be clearer how to teach cash. One of the things that makes this useful is that I always teach students that I do not know and, instead of seeing a skill To work.
Recently, I taught a lesson to a class of the year 10 in which I was modeling how to use Bangra Point questions. (If you are interested in the details about how I do, this is a blog that you can read here). He had taught students the idea that William Blake’s London ‘London’ and Pum Dharker’s ‘fabric’ present the power of the structure structure of the structure in the oppressive manner. To verify that they had understood this quite nuanced point, I asked the students to answer the next question of Bisagra Point:
For those who are not familiar with these poems, the unequivocally correct response is B: London Shows power as permanent and immutable, while Tissue He suggests that it is fragile and can be remodel. However, he had exceeded the similarities between the two poems and many of the students were by A: Both poems present political power as an oppressive and omnipresent force that is immutable, without leaving space for resistance. In the exploration, it was clear that they had distracted the word ‘both’, since they had thought they were looking for a statement that was true for both ponds. This led me to recover the point I wanted to learn in response to the span of the lesson.
Later, when we were informing, the teacher whose class was suggested that the lesson had a failure because the students had understood the point they were trying to teach. I tried to explain that the teaching point is to know, the best of our capacity, what the students have and the port needed. The point is not that the student can do in the here and now, is that his understanding must be safe in another place and later. I am not sure how successful I transmitted this point and I had the impression that I was still convinced that the lesson would have better bone if the students had all the legs capable of answering the question.
In addition to modeling, I can also see many or lessons. All also, the lessons end without the teachers having done anything designed to give them a clear idea about what the students think. Although many schools profess to operate a policy that students call students to verify understanding, this often cannot impregnate in each classroom. Many teachers ask very few questions to very few students. I have lost the account of the times that I have seen the teachers ask a question, take the first answer given (often of a student with the hand) as evidence that the understanding of the class is safe and move on. I have the habit of asking the student by my side if A) Listen to the response of his classmate YB) If they understood what the leg said. They usually have little idea or what has happened.
In addition to working under the pressure of having to cover the content at the expense of students’ learning, what has been taught, I have reached the tentative conclusion that many teachers are nervous to carefully investigate the understanding of their class in case they discover that students do not know or understand what has been taught. After all, the lessons are a performance and if the children do not get ‘what happened the last hour teaching, it is easy to feel that it has failed.
The difference between my poetry lesson and many of the lessons I observe is that I knew The students had understood, while or Tacher Eider has no idea of the understanding of their class or, which is worse, they have convinced themselves through insufficient sampling that students know that they are actually still very confused. It should be clear that the more precise you understand what students are thinking, the better we can address the wrong concepts and consolidate difficult points.
It may seem expressed to teach in a way that the understanding of students reveals, it may seem like a risk of really researching how many students have understood what they have tried to teach but, whether they do it or not, It is always better to know.
