Mark just now asked us to discuss with our partner our work in terms of this question: “How do I make content accessible by fostering thinking?” In introducing this activity (all of it grouped under the general heading of Teaching for Understanding*),he used two terms that I couldn’t grasp: dichotomous and leveraging. What? I can’t grasp […]
We are having a kind of share out session right now among the middle school faculty with Mark as the moderator. I am noticing that the people who are currently sharing out right now, if I look deeply, don’t really care so much about what their points are as much as they want the eyes of
Mark is in his second session now and has referenced the vomit Spanish class again. I have to say something, a new insight into what we are really in fact up against: Traditional teachers who are good at it can really lay a very impressive layer of “this is good teaching” down. I cannot believe
A few Mark Church points of value this morning. In a story of “work for work” (not actual learning): …the goal of school is the completion of work done for someone else…. …the larger purpose behind activities isn’t always clear. Thus, assignments become ends in themselves…. …grades are the pay off/outcome for work done…. …doing
Mark Church is consulting here at the American Embassy School today. He is actually giving his first (full faculty) session right now. As part of his session, he showed a ten minute video of a Spanish teacher giving a traditional lesson and is now asking the faculty questions about the admittedly gifted teacher. I don’t expect Mark
I am of the concerted opinion that most if not all talk about education has no value. It’s just mental bullshit. It is about as valuable as merely talking about language acquisition. So for the next few months I am going to write less here, if that is possible for me, and videotape my classes more,
