Lindquist's Chapter 4 on making learning meaningful was very helpful in thinking about my integrated Social Studies lesson, as well as how I can make lessons more meaningful. Integration can help to make curriculum more meaningful, in that "teachers not only need to see the connections between content areas, they also have to be willing to push themselves intellectually, physically, and emtionally to find the connections that dispose children to certain knowledge, attitudes and beliefs (p. 105)." If teachers are making meaningful connections, the students will too.
I liked reading about the math connection of a human time line. The students have a great visual of the dates of explorers and are using kinesthetic intelligence as well as social studies and math. Language arts is an easy connection to history, as there is much opportunity for journals, diaries and letters from the past.
In chapter 5 Lindquist talks about the multiple points of view in social studies education. It is important for students to understand different perspectives from there own. The story ladder is a great way to show students how each person can interpret things differently in literature, as well as in history. "It is interesting to note the way one child will use mostly words and sketchy pictures, while another will choose pictures only. Each is effective. Both demonstrate unique yet shared interpretations of the story, record comprehension, and encourage personal connections (p. 133)."
Chapter 8 talks about different assessment methods. I liked Lindquist's theory on grading; it is not entirely necessary to grade every single assignment because this takes away from the learning process. Lindquist's covers the troubles with high stakes testing, and says "if integrated learning has an enemy; its high-stakes testing (p.192)." Lastly, I liked Lindquist's idea of using the multiple intelligences to assess students.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi,
I agree with you that Lindquist highlights a central quandary in assessment. As educators, we want to give our children many different opportunities and methods to demonstrate their knowledge. We understand that there is not one final ending place of learning that can be captured by the summative test.
Yet, high-stakes testing completely contradicts these ideas. Increasingly, schooling is reduced to these tests. In Massachusetts, one cannot graduate from high school if they don't pass the MCAS (SPED kids can do alternative assessments but this is indicated on their diploma). If you can't pass the MCAS, it doesn't matter how else you can demonstrate knowledge. Isn't it our jobs as teachers to ensure students can pass these increasingly important tests? If time is crunched, which type of assessment should we promote?
It is so true and I also liked the quote that you pulled from the text that "teachers...have to be willing to push themselves intellectually, physically, and emotionally to find the connections that dispose children to certain knowledge, attitudes and beliefs (p. 105).
I also liked the idea of human time line. It is such an imaginative way for students to see a great visual of the dates of explorers. It is up to us as teachers to making lessons imaginative, thought provoking and creative. Adding imagination and zest into our lessons, makes teaching more interesting for us and learning more exciting for our students.
I really think that the amount of effort and interest a teacher puts toward creating meaning in any lesson is directly reflected in the students engagment and discovery of meaning. In all the classes ive take so far that is a constant thread!
Post a Comment