#smagorinsky

[iron-carnage]

In general terms I'm all in favour of giving scientific theories descriptive names rather than the names of the person who proposed them. However, call me back when Large Eddy Simulations sounds better than

Smagorinsky model

[whatshouldwecallstudent-teaching]

Planning Unit Three

The critical inquiry unit is honestly the one I've been dreading this entire semester. It's not literature. It's not a book or a poem that I can analyze and help kids analyze and try to make sense of. It's real life making sense of, which is something I'm not that great at already, and teaching other people how to do it sounds hard. I think that's the hardest part, is telling kids to find an issue that they're passionate about and try to change it, because I've never done that.

And then I realized that I had. Almost a year ago, I applied to this program because I was tired of how education was working and I wanted to do something different, and that's what we're learning and I am doing my best to change something in my community. I read a lot about it and I write a lot about it, and I make this blog with pictures that are funny sometimes because I want to change things. This blog is my community action. I do have something to share after all.

As far as reading Smagorinsky, the thought of planning a year just went from woah to WOAH.

It was already scary. It's still scary. It's more and less scary at the same time. The daily grind of planning sounds bad and repetitive and hard, but when I think about my students and my class as individuals and planning for them (especially with the Katie Wood Ray I've been reading in mind) sounds better. It sounds fun. I'm not planning a year to get robots to work. I'm planning a year for people that I need to grow a little bit.

It'll be fun.

[whatshouldwecallstudent-teaching]

Critical Inquiry

So, we're reading all of this stuff about how to make a critical inquiry unit, and to be honest, I wasn't really sure where to start because I didn't really know what a critical inquiry unit entailed. Smagorinsky's description of that model unit on discrimination sounded good up until the final assignment, which sounded hard and lame and I think that, just like every final assignment he sets out there, I'm just like nonononononoo. I cannot in good conscience give my students an assignment that makes me cringe.

But, it's a good approach. Music, poetry, short stories, and a novel, all discussing the same thing, discrimination, but allowing them to come at it from different angles. I liked that idea a lot.

And then we read that article. It was 24 pages of WHAT. The idea of introducing 6-year-olds to themes of segregation and racism within the education system kind of blew my mind, and not really in a good way at first. I've met enough 6-year-olds to know that they don't talk like that. I'm not saying the conversations she recorded weren't real, but when you read it in an adult voice, it sounds a lot different than when you read it in a 6-year-old voice. I'm sure they happened, but not in the way that I first read them.

Anyway, this annoyance changed when she talked about what actually went down in that classroom. That is, staying with them for another year, letting the ESL, special ed, and gifted teachers come into the classroom and teach all of the kids. If it's good enough for one, it should be good enough for all, right?

I'm not sure how I feel about that idea though. I think of it this way. I am really bad at sports. I have always been pretty bad at sports. I can do sports, if I try really hard and actually put effort into it, I can be tolerable at a sport. Boxing, right now, is what I do. I used to do roller derby, and I was just okay at it, and that was fine with me because I'm not a natural athlete.I think that every kid can learn the same way everyone can be tolerable at sports, but some people are just naturals, and why shouldn't they have a varsity team? Am I wrong or terrible for thinking this?

[whatshouldwecallstudent-teaching]

Christenbury and Smagorinsky or Good Timing

These chapters fall right in line with what we've been talking about in Katherine Bomer's class, which is cool. I love this more open approach to student learning. I'm excited to try some of these strats in my own class.

I almost had a heart attack reading Smagorisky's chapter on traditional stuff though. I mean, I know he prefers the "alternative" approach and would only do an assignment like this in the direst (I hope) of circumstances, but omg can you imagine a teacher assigning that model one from the discrimination unit? I had an anxiety attack just reading about it.

But yeah, that aside, I enjoyed reading these chapters about writing as I'm writing myself and my students are writing.

I was a little annoyed with Smagorinsky's insistence on Shakespeare. I get that he didn't say that everyone needs to teach Shakespeare or they're lamey-lamepants, but I just...I don't like Shakespeare. I don't like reading it. I don't like teaching it. I didn't like it in high school. I will absolutely make Shakespeare available as a mentor text, as choice reading, and I might include a short performance as some scaffolding for something somewhere, but I do not like Shakespeare and I don't like that he's just like "you have to teach it, lamey-lamepants." 

I also love poetry. I think that an entire poetry unit is absolutely feasible. I get that he's this huge respected figure and he says these things that everyone is like 'omg you're so right.' but I think that an entire poetry unit could be done well and it hurt my feelings that he said "Never, never, do an entire unit on poetry." because it can be done well and it can be beautiful and touching. Keesha's House. Deal with it.

Smagorinsky put a lot of emphasis on drafts and grading the process and the journey rather than the final product, which I think is really important. The drafts that I'm turning in for Professor Bomer's class really say a lot about my thinking and my process, and asking me to think about that was amazingly, beautifully, perfectly helpful and revealing. I think that this process was more valuable than the final draft, which I am very proud of, but I am even more proud of the steps I made and the thinking that I did in the process. Smagorinsky talking about grading this process combined with my own work right now all resonated as I read this. It is important to look at the process. More important than the result.

Christenbury wrote a lot. Reading 100 pages of admittedly cool ideas amounted to kind of an information overload. I can see myself using it as a handbook, but my brain is broken when I think about all of those things together and try to come up with something to say about them. There were some good ideas that I'd use in my classroom. There were some things that I knew my students would be annoyed with. But that's an important thing that she talks about too, knowing your students for who they are. I appreciate these chapters as more of a handbook that I will absolutely come back to a million times over the course of my life than something I can sit and read and absorb. There's a lot to memorize, but it's all good.

[whatshouldwecallstudent-teaching]

Thoughts on Planning

I actually spread my readings out over several days this time instead of trying to read them all at once and hating myself by the end. That said, although I'm much saner, my thoughts are a little more scattered and I'm trying to read through notes to come up with a nice little line of thought.

Okay, so Randy Bomer, as always, was inspiring. I like the thoughts on the importance of planning a year that makes sense for students. His chapter was engaging while staying encouraging. I really liked that both Bomer and Christenbury included actual, marked out plans (Genre study, 4 weeks! etc.) with suggestions on why that made sense.

The idea of flowing from one topic into the next makes sense and is totally easy to grasp, but actually thinking about putting it into practice is a little bit daunting. Both Bomer and Christenbury again are very good at "stop, breathe." moments, I think. I felt like they were trying to tell me that it would be okay.

And then there is Smagorinsky, who is wonderful and all over the place and amazing. It's such a small thing, but the way he keeps going back to Dan'l Webster (the frog) and Bucephalus (zomg horse) kept me laughing and piqued my interest any time I felt like I was getting bogged down by the, albeit necessary, continuum after continuum of teaching styles. And, maybe he wasn't going for this, but I feel like that is totally a metaphor for a teaching style in itself. Having one awesome little gem that you can just keep coming back to, like a quilting point, just holding your students' attention as you draw on all of your (and their) available resources to build some knowledge for that year.Applause, Dr. Smagorinsky.