I love my lab

Why teach tech

I support integrating technology into your teaching, but I also think that not everything that is valuable for students to learn must be taught via technology and I argue that some things are learned best without the presence of technology. However, tech 2.0 is very powerful for many students, and I do plan to integrate it the best I can in my instruction. However, I also know that many lessons I teach will not have a technology element because it is not my favorite thing in the world and sometimes, I will not have the energy to find a way to incorporate the use of technology in a valuable manner.

The middle school experience

Well, my middle school dyad experience is almost over, and I have mixed feelings about leaving. On one hand, I spent more time grading than interacting with students, which I think is less helpful to my personal growth. I am glad I am moving on to a different MT whom I see more eye-to-eye with. On the other hand, I wish I could spend more time in a middle school science classroom of a different teacher at the school, since MS science is my planned destination.

Next year, when I look at my 6th, 7th, or 8th graders and try to figure out what the heck to do about their behavior, I will be practicing trial by fire. Maybe I'll get really lucky and whatever district I am working for will have lots of extra helpful middle school behavior management. I plan to have engaging lessons so as to avoid behavior problems, but between now and next September, I need to figure out how to act tough and confident, cause if you show adolescents any fear or nervousness, they will milk that and make your life miserable. Not all of them, but a high enough percentage of them to make your days extremely difficult.

I know I want to teach MS science, the content, and I am OK to deal with the negative aspects of adolescents in order to get the positive interactions as well.

Making Assessment Count

Routman says, in CH 10, that "unless teachers know how to teach writing well, student writing will not improve." Her point, I think, is that no matter what kinds of assessment teachers do, if the teacher does not teach writing well, there will never be any improvement.

Routman emphasizes assessment FOR learning and improved instruction rather than relying solely on assessment OF learning. She makes valuable points when she states that most (80%) of student writing needn't be graded. She also argues that just as students need to practice reading without pressure to improve reading skills, they also need to practice writing to become better writers. I do not think my education gave me enough practice in writing. I agree with the principle of not all writing being graded, but at the same time, some students, without the pressure of grades, won't do anything. They'll say, well if I'm not getting graded than why do it when I could be doing something else more fun. Some people have intrinsic motivation to do well at schoolwork, and they don't need the grades, but some people never developed that. How do you teach students the importance of delayed gratification? I hope I can teach it to my kids, but I do not know how I will teach it to my students. Probably, like many things, something one has to learn by making many mistakes along the way.

Routman argues that too many teachers focus on only what will be tested rather than teaching the underlying skills and strategies that result in writing competency. I agree with this statement, but I also appreciate her paragraph later in the chapter that states teachers still need to teach students how to write to prompts, because although it is unnatural, it is also very common. Students will have to write to many prompts in their life: on standardized tests, on college applications, on job applications.