Last EDCI 353B Post!

As I wind up the EDCI 353B course, and the education Summer Institute, I have been asked to reflect on what I have learned. In particular, I have been asked to discuss how the material we have looked at will shape aspects of my teaching philosophy; to define for myself how I will approach the role of teacher in this late age of print.

One of the concepts that I have really internalized over the course of this institute and which I will try to implement in my classrooms, is the idea that authority within the classroom can, and should be shared. I am not the sole fount of information and knowledge. In fact when we discuss certain topics, I may not even be the best source of knowledge in my class. As Will Richardson points out in the article we looked at (Richardson, 132) the internet is developing into a tool that allows us to connect to experts of all kinds. By giving up the need to be the embodiment of authority, I will be allowing my students to access these experts and even to become experts themselves.

Another concept that I have come to value is the idea that students are entering classrooms with a wide range of assets. Students who I may have thought of as  lacking in literacy skills may be incredibly good at “interpret(ing) … recorded symbolic representation”(Mackey, 199) of a different kind. These students may be literate at decoding video, html or java script, video games or text messaging programs, but whatever literacies they enter the class with can be used as assets. These students can share their knowledge and develop the understanding of other students using these skills.  I think too that as a teacher this course has taught me to develop new and “alternative” literacy skills in my students so that they can express themselves in the multiplicity of ways that are now open to them.

The alternative and core text types we have discussed in this class have really become unimportant to me. No longer am I worried about what kind of text I am bringing into the class, but rather what I think that particular text can achieve.  IN the same vein I am learning to place less importance on what form a student’s response takes, and more on how meaningful that response is. Richardson (132), talks about how students can collaborate to create meaningful constructions of knowledge. Callahan (221) talks about how using video as a form helped her students create text that “brought out their personality” and showed how they were connecting to their creations in a meaningful way. My goal as a teacher will be to get me students to connect with their texts in the same way.

More then any other thing however, my goal will be to teach students to value the process by which understanding is created and not value the goal. As Carr points out in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” Google places value on finding the “right” answer to any search query. This has been a dominant practice in our education system as well: teaching students to value the “right” answer, to reproduce the correct fact. Instead, we should be helping our students value the process of learning. We should be asking our students to think critically about the answers they come up with, and to ask why they choose to believe that one answer is more correct then another.

I think too that I have developed an understanding that I can make this happen. Although my philosophy of teaching may not influence an entire system, I can bring to my classroom some ideas which might just change the educational experience of a few students for the better. As Mohandas Gandhi said “we must be the change we wish to see in the world.”