Compulsary McBlog: In Two Parts

Part the First

Romeo and Juliet.

So today marked the end of my experimental foray into teaching Romeo and Juliet to a bunch of ninth graders. It was slow going by any stretch of the imagination. The play took us close to two months. Pretty much everyday we would read aloud anywhere from 1-5 pages out of the textbook which we have with a full version of the play. At the end of every page, we would pause and I would ask the class what they thought happened and why. I didn't ever let people act it out; my sanity is worth too much to me, I suppose. We would choose parts for the day and then just dry read as far as we could. We started every day with a quiz on the previous day's reading; we ended every act with a journal entry. We're reading this novel, Monster, next. It looks like something the kids will like; at least, odds are they'll like it more than Romeo and Juliet. I don't mean to be glib, I think so of the kids really liked the play. many were more or less ambivalent; many hated it.

Part the Second

I was chatting with Mentor Moe on Saturday night while my compatriots were, apparently unsuccessfully, bar-hopping. He mentioned a point I've been thinking a lot about recently. Our program seems to prepare us to be good, competent teachers of people; however, it seems woefully inadequate at preparing us as teachers of subjects. I think I am luckier than many in that I feel like I was able to synthesize of use a decent amount of my methods course in this setting and, when I teach elsewhere, I think I'll be able to use even more of it.

I guess I expected more time and energy put into the program with respect to how and why we teach our subjects the way we do. That might mean fracturing the classes somewhat more, but I think its benefits would be manifold. I want to be a good Math teacher or a good English teacher, not just a good teacher. That is to say, I am thoroughly passionate about my subjects and I wish I had the opportunity to learn more in the program about how and why we might teach our subjects in certain ways.

What are the implications of certain teaching styles on how our students learn? What does it mean to create a good assessment? What processes go into solid curriculum building? How can I best link activities to assessment to student learning? I feel wholly unprepared to explore these questions and I'm not even sure where to start. I've got some ideas (backward design and such) from previous experiences, but I wish I had the opportunity to explore these topics with my peers.