>
> Here are the questions:
> 1. How would you describe the instructional models you use in
> your classroom?

[My method, but for very brief lecture-explanations, is
entirely socratic discussion, asking questions of individual
students, referring the answers to another student, and so on,
bringing the class to see what I want them to see about the matter
at hand. As an illustration of this method, see:

http://teachers.net/gazette/FEB03/swilley.html

> 2. What is your rationale' for using the instructional models
> you use?

[ It is the best method for engaging the students, because it
makes the matter I want the students to learn the object of a
cooperative quest. Each student *thinks* along with the teacher and
the other students. (And *every* student wants to give his
opinion.)]

> 3. Describe the training you received in the use of the
> instructional models you use?

[I was trained in this in the classes of a professor of
English, one who was subsequently by colleague in teaching. ]

> 4. HOw effective are the instructional models you currently use?

[Very effective, indeed. Former students whom I encounter
comment on their having retained the "method" (the rules and
application of Formal principles) long after they were in the
course. The course teaches *how* to think about literary works, the
advantages and limits of that *how*.]

> 5. What new intstructional models would you like to use in the
> future?

[I have no intention of abandoning the good until I find the
better. And nothing better has yet turned up.]

> 6. Would you recommend these instructional models to student
> teachers?

[Yes. With great enthusiasm.]

Why/why not?

[Because it has proven itself so successful.]

> 7. Are there any instructional models with which you stronly
> disagree?

[I particularly question team teaching and literary circles.
The first, because proper teaching is the recreation of a *single*
teacher's mind into the minds of his students; this is done in the
repeated socratic act(described above) of judging works of
literature; two or more teachers, even following such a procedure,
cannot but create confusion in the minds of their students - unless
there is a remarkable exact likeness of conviction between the
teachers on what is to be accomplished with the students on a
particular piece of literature. The nearly inevitable difference
between two (or more) teacher's views and aims makes team teaching
out of the question.

[Literary circles presume that the students can teach
themselves. If that were really possible, we might just as well
fire all the teachers. (On this matter, see John Henry Newman's
discussion of the difference between the *university* and the
*academy*.) If teaching is what I describe in the remarks above,
students cannot benefit from literary circles, and without the
constant direction of a teacher, wander off into God-knows-where.
Even if the teacher is there to help, he/she must move from circle
to circle, having no control after he moves to another circle.
Another objection: although this may successfully used by the most
competent teachers, it is likely abused by teachers less competent,
who undoubtedly use literary circles as a means of avoiding the
difficult work of training students to think. Like so many other
fads in education today, literary circles are dodges.

[Then there are those silly "icebreakers"...}

[L. Swilley]
>
> Thanks to anyone who wants to answer these questions for me. I
> appreciate any feedback anyone can give me.
>
> Miriam

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one