Sustaining interest in an activity also required that the task make sense. A task had to be something that needed to get done. Otherwise, as Jake would sometimes later voice about school activities, it was just plain “stupid”.”
This quote speaks volumes! How many times have you been asked to do something that doesn’t seem to have any value? For example: Teachers were assigned a duty in the afternoon in which they had to stand and count children as they boarded the bus. This alone does not sound “stupid” we want to make sure that our buses are not overcrowded and our students are safe, but why couldn’t the bus driver count the students? He or she is sitting right there! The students may not board the bus if the driver is not present! This was not a productive and valued use of any teacher’s time! This practice went on for several years, until someone finally explained how the teacher’s time could be better spent planning, grading papers, or meeting with teammates to discuss education issues. In all honesty it was a “stupid” idea to begin with, but because no one chose to speak up and disagree it became common practice.
Now, I am not promoting the rights of all students to invoke the “stupid” clause, when faced with all topics of low interest, but sometimes educators need to take a closer look at what we are asking students to do and why. An example from my childhood that always invoked the “stupid” response was the before and after Christmas writing activities. My family was too poor to believe in Santa and we knew we would be lucky to have a tree and receive one gift. Year after year the assignment came and year after year I listened to the wonderful stories of the abundance of Santa and year after year teachers couldn’t understand why I did not value this ‘opportunity to share’. Finally, I refused to write! Except for state and local testing why can’t students have a choice in what they read and write? John T. Guthrie, Department of Human Development, College of Education, University of Maryland, has dedicated many hours of research and writing on the topic of choice. As I continued to read the published research an article in the Educational Psychology Review, about enhancing engagement in reading, proposes that book choice paired with other creative outlets motivates readers and affording students choices of texts, responses, or partners during instruction are motivation-supporting practices (1998). With this type of information available to educators, how can we continue to ignore the facts? I know that many teachers are bound to certain tasks by administrators: Do you have the strength and courage to ask for the opportunity to make research solid changes in your classroom? As parents do you have the ability to choose your child’s teacher based on your child’s needs? A teacher’s personality or philosophy can hinder or help any child’s education. Because Jake valued self-reliance and freedom of choice his needs were better met by his Kindergarten and second-grade teachers(page 133). Think about how many BAD years he will have before/if he finishes school. For Jake so far two out of three ain’t bad.
Raymond Williams, the beginning of chapter six states: “To write in different ways is to live in different ways.” This reminds me that we need a purpose for reading and writing. Children need to be able to express themselves through a variety of texts and writing activities. It is injudicious to believe that every student will feel the same about a story or writing activity, therefore, is it just to assign every student the same story or writing activity? There are better practices for teachers who want to make a difference. Hybrid by definition is something made up of a mixture of different aspects or components. Why not challenge the recipe that is public education? Why not look for a better mixture of teaching practices? Isn't that what GRAD school is all about?
Elizabeth Achor
Guthrie, J., Cox, K., Anderson, E., Harris, K., Mazzoni, S., & Rach, L. (1998, June). Principles of integrated instruction for engagement in... Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 177.