Muddy Waters

Whether or not we'd like to admit it, human beings require consistency in order to establish some kind of progress. When there is inconsistency, things are chaotic at best; which makes walking to the beat of the drum difficult when the drummer is a delusional/paranoid schizophrenic. One of the consistent concepts discussed in this program has been the importance of inquiry based teaching in schools. However, the way in which this concept is discussed causes the students to beg for some kind of music sheet to follow along with.

I say this because, as of right now, the only class that is close to following some kind of inquiry model is the SIPS class. Each week we are encouraged to see the application of various uses of technology, discover and use technology for ourselves, and ask how we can continue to use technology in our classrooms. The learning we engage in every week is important because each of us discovers a "how to" method that can be applied in our classrooms. I suppose the reason why I find this important is because the lessons we learn are pragmatic. They pertain to the job we have been training the last 18 months for. This makes preparing for SIPS class enjoyable because each week we can guarantee learning something new and relevant.

Lecture and Inclusive Practices, on the other hand, fall somewhere between counting cars and watching snow melt on the universal scale of time wasters. While that might appear harsh at first, let me go on to explain my conclusion:

Lecture, while important during my first undergrad (because it has assignments and tests based on the content), is almost unnecessary at this point in the BEd program. Week after week is spent sitting on an auditorium and listening to an expert on a certain subject blather on relentlessly until most of the audience is bored into a coma. I say this because the content of these lectures usually pertains to something we have, likely, already heard, or something we already know about. For example, last week's lecture involved making communication with parents. We were encouraged to use the personal meetings, phone calls, and email to establish contact. We were also given an explanation on: what an email subscriber listing is, why email is impersonal, and that contact between students, parents and teachers is vital for the student's benefit. One of my peers ended up writing on her "feedback" paper that "if we haven't made contact with parents, haven't been to parent teacher interviews, and haven't figured out how to use email, chances are we failed semester 3 practicum and aren't in lecture right now".

I understand that all students/staff might not know how to use email properly, but most of the content of that lecture was, plain old, common sense. Maybe this goes one step further in my affirmation that the "common" part of that term has to be removed. At any rate, if I were to pick on anything further from that lecture, it would be that sitting at the front of a room with 300 people in it and talking for 2 hours straight is not teaching me how to teach inquiry. Instead, it's teaching me how to not teach inquiry.

Which brings me to Inclusive Practices: last class was spent trying to figure out how to use the projector and sound system...during class...during 2 student lead presentations... I almost felt that sitting there and attempting to listen to my peers while advertisements for toilet cleaners and the Olympics ran in the background was some kind of test to see if we recognized the damage done by uncharacteristic interruptions. However, seeing how most IP classes seem to be thrown together haphazardly, it came off as a complete lack of respect shown by the professors to the students for not coming in early to make sure their equipment was working properly. If anything, it taught me how to NOT do something to/for my students.

I could go on to pick apart the assignments in that class...so I will. Being a class that does not have any kind of narrative assessment (or grade), I'm finding it increasingly difficult to recognize the importance of the assignments that are due in that class. I understand the importance of studying some diseases/disorders/disabilities for their own sake, but if we are going to do so (as part of our inquiry based learning), why are we doing so with no intended feedback on our findings? Why are we doing these papers if there won't be some kind of merit attached to it? Furthermore, why are we doing them without some kind of due date that is more solid than pureed H2O? I can do a research paper on Oppositional Defiance Disorder anytime I please, but the purpose of doing one (at this stage in my academic career) is to have a professional verify that I have made some kind of insight or progress in understanding a condition that my students are likely to have. Instead, I'm coerced into doing a 2 page paper only to get an arbitrary "good job" written on the second page. What's worse, we are being lead into the "drop off" inquiry method, where a teacher gives you free reign to study whatever you like and then leaves you alone with no guidance as to how we are to proceed. This is, precisely, the method of inquiry we've been told NOT to teach...yet this is what our superiors have committed to. It's as if this class has been compiled to give the students mindless busy work to give us the illusion of progress forthcoming and time passing.

I believe these papers might carry more intellectual weight if we scheduled some kind of volunteer hours (as part of the program) to interact with individuals who are afflicted with such conditions. I also believe that this class may have benefited the students more adequately if it ran during first year, when we were observing students in practicum, to see how recognizing these conditions is valuable to a teacher.

I guess what I'm getting out here is that following along this term has been a little bit difficult. In terms of self assessment, I feel that I have learned a lot about teaching this semester. Unfortunately, what I have learned most is how to NOT do certain things. I've also learned how rehashing and repeating subject matter redundantly can attribute to lost focus among students. However, it hasn't all been gloomily colored gun metal gray or top soil brown. I've learned unique ways in engaging my students through computer videos, using online organizers to give students direction on assignments, the importance of social networking sites and how students use them, and how to develop meaningful tasks that students will be eager to complete instead of dragging themselves through the motions of daily homework.

Beyond all of that, I've managed to learn the importance of peer review. During our time in reviewing the Great Task, I learned the importance of having my work reviewed by colleagues. In doing so, my peers are likely to give insight on aspects of my work that I would not likely have seen or noticed. I say each assignment is like a pet project: we pet it, stroke it, feed it, and do everything to take care of it, except criticize it where it lacks. Only an outside perspective is likely to achieve that, and in order for our assignments to work, peer review needs to occur.

During that stint, I also learned the importance of reviewing the work of others. Breaking out the critical lens once in a while is good for the brain, as it keeps you working. Through this, I was able to see examples of other assignments that I could use in my classes. Everyone did such a fantastic job; it felt like we were all pooling our work together for the benefit of the entire class. I was so thrilled with this body of work! It gave me a glimmer of hope that getting some "how to's" is possible during my last semester here. It also taught me the benefit of working together instead of working alone. I can imagine that a teacher that works alone has a much harder road than the one who pulls in all available resources. This is the kind of teacher I would like to be!

My apologies for the uncharacteristically long post. I felt the only way to explain my learning to this point was to describe my experience in the program thus far. In short, inquiry done right, with peer review/assistance, and consistency makes a program flow with ease...inquiry done wrong, with interruptions, poor understanding and no guidance is a big flop.