The article I had read was called “Building a Better Teacher” by Elizabeth Green. This article tells us that we need to make sure that teachers are strengthen there ways of teacher to achieve the students goals. In school systems there is a saying that says “No Child Left Behide” which they use standardized testing as the solution. Doug Lemov would go from school to school and see each child’s weaknesses, and strengths. Some students are very well at taking tests and doing homework, but when it comes to listening in actual class many kids seem to wonder.
Within time people had believed that if you improve the quality of the teaching crops by firing the bad teachers and hiring better ones and they called this “Creating a New Teaching Profession”. Within this article there were many different methods that could improve children’s ability in learning. Traditionally many educational schools had divided there curriculums into three certain parts which were, regular academic subjects which was used to make sure that the teachers had known the basics of what they had been assigned to teach; The nest one is Foundations that had given them a sense of history and philosophy of education; and the last one is Methods course which are really supposed to offer ideas on how to teach particular subjects.
It had been showed in a study that a 2006 report had found that 12 percent of educational school faculty members never had taught in elementary schools or even secondary school themselves. It is also known that only nearly 80 percent of teachers earn there bachelor’s degree in education according to “U.S Department of Education”.
Another question that had been raised in the air was is a good classroom management enough ensures a good instruction? Well to find this out they had spoken to a women by the name of Heather Hill who had showed them a video of a certain teacher that was called by pseudonym Wilma. She was a great teacher and had great charisma but things had seemed to fall apart when it had come to math time. Hill had been a member of group educators who like “Lemov” are also studying great teachers. Rather than focusing on universal teachings techniques that can be applied across subjects and grade levels, Hill and her colleagues had asked what good teachers should know about the specific subjects that they teach.
Another researcher was by the name of Deborah Liebenberg Ball, she had been an assistant professor who also taught math part-time at an East Lansing elementary school and her classroom had been a model for teachers in training. In 1990 Ball had filmed her third-grade math class at the Spartan Village Elementary School, and those videos had become the foundation for a great deal of teaching training research.
These days Lemov had been single-mindedly focused on the mechanics of teaching and the secret steps behide getting and holding the floor weather you’re teaching fractions or the American Revolution. Lemov for his part finds hope in what he has already accomplished.
Hi Megahn,
ReplyDeleteI'm not really good at this reviewing other peoples work thing. But I believe that you got all the important parts into your summary and you put it into your own words which is good.
Megahn--
ReplyDeleteYou get down some of the ideas in the article, but this is a little disjointed, with some misunderstandings about what Green is saying.
Some suggestions: In para. 1 combine 1st and 2nd sentences: "Building a Better Teacher" by Barbara Green tells us that... "No Child Left Behind" is not just a saying but a piece of legislation. You don't connect Lemov to what you are saying. (His work should probably appear later in body of your summary. He was studying teacher behavior, not looking at individual students.)
In para. 3 what do these two facts have to do with one another? what is the main idea here?
The example of "Wilma" is not about classroom management but rather about importance of knowing subject content.
What was Ball's contribution to this discussion about teacher quality?
In terms of organization, I think it makes sense first to define the problem, then give the solutions proposed that haven't seemed too effective, then the work of Lemov and, in a separate paragraph, the work of Ball (how do their suggestions connect, compare, relate?)
This was a challenging exercise indeed--check out what others have written and look over my comments. The response section should be a lot easier!!
I think the structure of this summary could be done a bit better; it seems to me like you took points from the original article and organized them into paragraphs, but the points in each paragraph don't necessarily go together or aren't followed-up enough to explain the reason they do go together. Maybe the article didn't make sense to you, so it was difficult for you to summarize it in your own words?
ReplyDeleteBut with that said, you followed through with the assignment and did a decent job with presenting information without any biases. I think the key here would be for you to maybe do a little outside research, if the article didn't explain things well enough, so that you can makes sense of everything before trying to make it your own. You have to know what you're saying for someone else to understand it. Summaries are tricky like that!