Thanks so much for taking time to answer my questions. Your comments
will be very helpful to me! :)

Miriam

On 10/16/09, L. Swilley wrote:
>
>>
>> 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