reading for 9-14-09

Seeing that I have zero English teaching experience and little or no knowledge of composition theory, I see little to critique in the Hillocks reading. The idea of reflective practice seems to be founded in common sense notions of being a fully engaged instructor who is always conscious of what may or may not be working and how teaching methods might reach students more effectively. I guess I hadn’t really given the experimental nature of teaching much thought, as I probably assumed that most teachers have a set curriculum that never changes from year to year and that they have rigidly mapped out the content to be explored during each individual class meeting. (This could have something to do with my background in history and psychology, though, as those classes were primarily lecture-based and not interactive or participatory in any real sense.) The idea of frame experiments makes perfect sense as Hillocks has described it, though I think I would need to teach for some time before I would be able to articulate exactly what is going wrong in a classroom and know which problems were specific to certain contexts and which ones were applicable to a wider range of teaching situations.

As such, I don’t think Hillocks is necessarily arguing for teachers to tear up their syllabus every time an innovative approach cross their minds, only suggesting that they should be open-minded and flexible with how they approach conceptualizing the relative effectiveness of their teaching methods. As my only comparable experience to teaching is in facilitating psychoeducational therapy groups in a drug rehab setting, I know the danger in using too loose of a teaching structure, as I was often too open to going with the flow of the group process and struggled to retain a focus that was suitable for all of the group’s participants. As Hillocks explains that the nature of these assessments are often based on a teacher’s past experiences, I assume that a beginning teacher will need to test his or her theoretical frameworks before trying out experimental methods.

Though I hadn’t considered it, I take seriously Garth’s point about there being possible ramifications for changing a course syllabus – your contract with the students – on the fly. Having seen this happen a few times while I was in high school, usually in an attempt to water down the expectations in order to bring along struggling students who were in danger of losing their sports eligibility, I know that I resented the idea that the class agenda was being changed. No doubt, a well meaning and well considered change to a curriculum could pay dividends for struggling students or a listless class, I’m just not sure that it’s entirely fair in all cases. Of course, if a class is dysfunctional and clearly not reaching the academic goals outlined in a syllabus, is anything lost if those methods are abandoned in order to accompany changes that might be more successful in reaching the original objectives? This is something I need to give more thought.