Myrna

media type="custom" key="6530765"Type in the content of your page here.

Myrna, I'm not positive where to post my reflection for you, so I am trying it on here. If it messes things up, I guess we can fix I in class tomorrow... Okay, on to the reflection!

Your illustrations for the two sides of teaching are right on, and I agree that we need to find a balance between them. There are benefits to being both direct and constructive. We are all under that pressure of high stakes testing, and the constructive approach doesn't always help us raise those scores, but on the other hand we don't want to teach just so they know this meaningless information for a foolish test. It is a frustrating battle. In theory, it's our job to make them life long learners (so they can continue to learn on their own). But when those tests get in the way, what are we supposed to do? Jump back to direct approach? Again, I say we have to do both!

Lindsay

Comment from Dr. Theresa: It is a dilemma and you capture it well. I'm not sure the quick-fix happy ending of working together will really end the dilemma. It may get us by in this high-stakes testing frenzy but is that really our goal as teachers? You are working towards a master's of science in education but the focus of the UMF master's program is leadership. How can you as educational leaders effect the kind of change that will prove that high-stakes testing is not only ineffective, it's harmful? The issues don't all come down to objectivist vs. constructivist theories of teaching and learning. If we lump high stakes testing in with objectivist approaches to teaching and learning, then when we finally get appropriate assessments into the political system, we might dump objectivist theory with high stakes testing and that could be a problem. Though I find myself believing in the constructivist approach most of the time, I really believe in the objectivist approach when teaching swimming. And perhaps that's what you were aiming at in your last panel of your reflection.