Story two seems familiar in many ways. I remember watching a movie called Urban Legends while I was in high school, and although the horror element was missing in Comp Tales, the story was used much like an urban legend: to scare and deter. Did the unnamed teacher exist? Perhaps. If so, was her story the same as the one circulated? Probably not. Hopefully teachers worry about how to positively affect their students, and if so that would mean they should think about how to change their curriculum and teaching styles to benefit those students, but change is scary. Change often requires approval from department heads or other teachers, who might not approve of the methods. Also, change is often experimental and may result in a disproportionate amount of students passing or failing. I have been told frequently that all my students shouldn't get all A's and all of them should fail either, but what if they do? Have I failed? Will I be fired? The comp tale reflects on this fear, but it should also acknowledge that with these changes sometimes better practices are discovered, and more students may acquire the knowledge professors are paid to bestow on them. Therefore, change should be encouraged, not talked about as a myth worthy of being fired for.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Response: Comp Tales, Ch.1
I found the first story to be fairly accurate concerning the differences in community college students. While the same connection might not occur that often in a classroom, the variation from Jailer to the Jailed is standard. However, the author focuses on his failure as a teacher at the end, but he does not go into what he would have done differently if he had J. Johnson again. I didn't want the story to end. I wanted to read more about how to incorporate narrative into the classroom. If the author had J. Johnson again, would the result be the same, would Johnson pass? How much of passing/failing is determined by the student, regardless of teaching methods?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The second story really struck me, too, because it implies that grades should be, more or less, evenly distributed between students. The assumption there is that every class you teach will essentially be the same. A certain percentage get As, another percentage get Bs, Cs, etc. To me, that kind of implies a limit to my instructional potential -- that I, as an instructor, am not capable of teaching in such a way that inspires or all or most my students to actually the learn the material and earn high marks.
ReplyDeleteI mean, is it likely that EVERYONE will earn an A? Probably not. But if you have an exceptional class that does happen to do so, are you supposed to follow these unspoken rules and divide the grades up more?
I also think that what you say about experimenting with new teaching methods is important. Each class is different and we have to adapt our teaching styles to suit the needs of the class -- sometimes there are minor tweaks we have to make, sometimes they're more drastic. But a cookie-cutter approach to teaching probably isn't going to do anyone any favors. What if you find a perfect method that works really well for a particular class and everyone just seems to "get" it? Do you punish students with lower grades simply because you're too good at your job? Seems a little ridiculous to me. But I'm sure there are conversations in the upper echelons of university administrations about which instructors are "too easy" or just "hand out" grades to be nice or something. It's an interesting place to be in when you have to decide between a grade that a student earned and maintaining the status quo in academic politics.