Some final thoughts

When We Stop Listening

At what point, do we, as teachers, start to muffle the voices of our own teachers when we enter the classroom? For the past few weeks, I have been completing a teacher-research case study in two high-risk academic communities. After observing the English classes and performing student and teacher interviews, I have found that many of the strategies that are being used in those classrooms are not effectively engaging the students. The teachers assigned worksheets that were generic and performed teacher-centered lectures in front of the class. The students took class notes in a format that was explicitly instructed by the teachers. The students seemed inattentive and the teachers failed to notice that their students were completely disconnected from the class curriculum. After completing this case study, I began to wonder when teachers, such as the ones who I observed, begin to change their philosophies.

Although our school communities have refocused their concerns on standards and curriculum requirements, I have to wonder if there is a concern for student engagement. Time is an important aspect of a teacher’s job; there never seems to be enough of time to plan well. However, by cutting corners in our planning time, we are sacrificing our students desire to learn. As I observed students’ reactions to the generic worksheets that went along with their reading, I wondered whether their reactions would have been different if the format of the assignment had been changed. Perhaps their reactions would have been different if the worksheets seemed as though they were created for that specific group of students. Similarly, the students emphasized that they were tested solely on factual information concerning the books, authors, and time periods. I rarely observed any classroom discussions that promoted higher-level thinking strategies. Although the national and state standards are an important part of the classroom, the standards become completely irrelevant when the students are disconnected from the curriculum of the course.

Time runs short. The innovative teaching methods seem to leave our lesson plans; thus, we disconnect ourselves from the education that we have received. I think that there needs to be an equal relationship between student engagement, instructional methods and standards. As teachers, we should make an effort to find a working balance between the three. In my educational licensure classes, we are taught by our professors to make an effort to engage the students in a variety of ways. Sometimes teachers rely on the methods and strategies that they have used in previous years. However, every group of students is different and every classroom of students is different. The learning styles of the students change year after year. Although it is easy to place the responsibility onto the student, it is necessary that we continually reevaluate our methods. I think that it is important for teachers to keep learning. Although many teachers cannot afford to participate in continuing education programs, collegial collaboration may be a possible solution. When ideas run short and instruction becomes repetitive or tedious, I think that there is a lot of hope in the collaboration between teachers. By sharing ideas, lesson plans, successful assignments and instructional methods, teaching can refrain from becoming a solitary activity. After all, the entire educational career of our students connects their past, present and future classrooms. We need to use all of our resources. In order for us, as teachers, to be successful, we need to be aware of what is going on in other classrooms and be open to suggestions and ideas from other teachers.

A Summary of my case study thus far

After observing students and teachers in a high-risk community, I became interested in the correlation between instructional methods, a curriculum based on the state standards and the academic success of at-risk students in the classroom. Specifically, I wanted to focus on the participation and success of optionally defiant students. For this case study, I observed two high-risk classrooms of eighth grade students. I related the teachers’ instructional methods with the students’ interest and academic success. I used several primary sources in effort to answer my question. The primary resources that I used to collect my data were;
· Field notes from my classroom observations
· Classroom syllabi
· A sample assignment
· A sample of one student’s classroom notes
· Teacher interviews
· Student interviews
· The schools’ previous results from the state mandated standardized test
My data revealed that both of these teachers utilize traditional instructional methods in their classrooms. Their instruction and their assignments were teacher-centered and the students did not seem to connect with the material. The students were not engaged in the lectures and were displeased with their discussions on the works of literature that were incorporated into the curriculum. Both teachers addressed the state’s standards in their classrooms; however, few effective instructional methods were used in the classrooms that successfully engaged the students in discussions or learning.
The case study revealed a conflict between the teacher’s instructional methods and the interest of the high-risk students. Because I was unable to look at the present school year’s standardized test scores, I was unable to evaluate the long-term and individual effects of the teachers’ methods. For the future, this case study would need to be completed over many years. This case study has confirmed that many high-risk, OD, students do not respond to traditional teacher centered teaching methods and they are failing to see the relevancy for literature in their lives.
The secondary sources that I used in my case study are:
Easton, Lois Brown. “Democracy in Schools: Truly a Matter of Voice.” English Journal. 94.5 (May 2005): 52-56
Frazier, Chapman Hood. “The Development of an Authentic Assessment Instrument: The Scored Discussion.” English Journal. 86.1 (Jan. 1997): 37-40.
Hodges, V. Pauline. “Using a Sense of Place to Teach At-Risk Students.” English Journal. 93.6 (July 2000): 27-30.
Ogle, Donna M. Critical Issue: Rethinking Learning for Students At-Risk. 1997. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 13 November 2006. .
Peckman, Sherri. “Developing Student Ownership in the ‘Real World.’” English Journal. 85.2 (Feb. 1996): 60-63.
Young, Carl A. “Conversation as Curriculum: Learning to Teach English in Rural America.” English Journal. 93.6 (July 2004): 82-88.