In regards to key shift number one (as referenced on Key Shifts in English Language Arts), the MLK Jr lesson applies in multiple ways. For one, the common core seeks to expand student learning and comprehension through conversation as well as the familiarization of the nuances of words and their meanings. In the lesson referenced in the text, the students have an open discussions concerning the overall message, meaning, and purpose of the Time covers. By doing so, the students expand on their abilities to hold effective conversations in relaying information to their peers, while also learning of how vocabulary can signify different types of bias, emotion, and tone.
For shift number two, the common core aims to direct students with questions that require the students to draw from recently required information from selected texts and passages. In the MLK Jr lesson, the questions require students to analyze the required images and try to find the significance of them; while some significance could be derived from prior knowledge, the students likely would need information from relevant texts selected either prior to, during, or after the Time Magazine exercise. Creating a critical media analysis also requires a student to think laterally, examining several different viewpoints, opinions, and possibilities, as well as hearing and appreciating the opinions of one's peers.
As per shift key number three, "students must be immersed in information about the world around them." Creating a lesson that requires students to critically examine multiple angles and issues, such as with the Time magazine covers, forces students to examine an incredibly significant period of time in American culture that still has relevance in the present. Students can examine the racism, confusion, and determination that defined the civil rights movements, as represented by Martin Luther King Jr. In examining this culturally significant event, it gives students the knowledge needed to examine other text, messages, and media that we see in the world today.
Stance on the Common Core
What do I like about the common core?
I like the fact that the common core seems to be blending different types of instruction in order to allow a more holistic approach to learning. For example (not specific), instead of taking geometry for a full year, it might be implemented at a more logical sequence during a student's learning cycle. I think it takes away from the rigidity of our current system (you learn THIS, then you learn THAT), and instead promotes the adaption and collection of skills. I believe it also provides opportunity for more experiential learning opportunities, though, as always, it is at the discretion of the teacher to properly implement lessons.
What concerns do I have?
I've heard a lot of teachers and parents (facebook, visiting schools, etc) complaining about the common core and the changes. Typically, it sounds like it is just resistance to change, which I understand. I think that teachers are under a lot of pressure to meet certain standards, record certain information, and maintain a rigorous and purposeful schedule for their classroom. In the changing landscape of education, it wouldn't surprise me if there is a lot of burnout in reaction to the "improvement." I also believe that parents struggle to relate to some of the new common core standards and approaches to learn it. I've seen several parent posts on facebook trashing it simply because the lesson the child brought home doesn't share resemblance to something they learned in school. Or perhaps, with the math, for example, the parent struggles to understand the concept and feels inadequate, leading to negative emotions towards it? There is a math lesson circulating on facebook that encourages a greater understand of math through a variety of learning methods. I've seen many complaints from people that have no idea what the lesson is meant to do, but rather see no value it in it because it is not something they can understand. "My brother has a phd in Mathematics and he said this is stupid..." etc etc.
Another concern is the level of training that teachers will receive in regards to implementing the common core standards. If a local or state official in charge of implementation isn't entirely on board with the message and standards of the common core, will the end result in the classroom be hindered as well?
Who produced this document, and for what purpose?
"Patrick," the author of a blog titled "MySchoolRoom." His purpose is to express his present experience with the common core and his concerns over its implementation. He is attempting to show the negative attributes of the program through a teachers point of view.
When was it produced, and what is it's historical context?
This image was posted in January of 2014. This year, there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the common core and its implementation, and this blog author is lending his voice.
Who is the target audience?
The target audience for the image appears to be other teachers, as the image is referencing all of the things that teachers will be forced to adapt to with the common core.
What are the messages communicated?
The image signifies that the common core is something incredibly intimidating, and yet the overall message to the public has been "it is a good thing, do not worry." It also sends a warning to teachers that it will be increasing their workload in order to promote its new learning standards.
What techniques are used to attract and hold attention?
The image uses bold text and a interesting image to capture the viewers attention and to deliver its purpose quickly. It then uses text the create the "body" of the monster, as if to signify that the different pieces of the common core themselves create a monster.
How might different people interpret this message differently?
Teachers might view this message and think "wow, I don't need the extra responsibility." Other teachers, perhaps those already in the midst of using the common core, might think that it is exaggerating the issue. Non-teachers might view this and be uncertain as to what is required of the teachers for instruction, as I believe we have heard more of what the students will be learning than of what will be required of teachers in the media.
Who might benefit from (or be harmed by) this message?
Other teachers might be encouraged to explore what the additional requirements for them would be should they begin to implement the common core. This does harm the message for those that are supporting the common core, by point out its supposed flaws.
What information or perspective is left out of this message?
It doesn't really explain how the teachers are forced to interact with the topics, or if any of these duties are really new and outside of their current responsibilities. Rather, it just labels several topics and says "these are scary", rather then creating a factual message that has more power. It does, however, encourage one to explore what kind of standards will be added to teacher duties in the common core.
Is this an accurate and credible representation?
To an extent, yes. I can see how teachers are concerned about the common core and how it will affect their classroom and lessons. I think the problem is that many opponents of the common core spend a lot of time comparing it to "no child left behind," which was extremely unpopular. I think that it should be an argument of comparison, but rather a argument of adjustment. Instead of combating the package in its entirety, what needs to be changed, and what is it about the common core that makes it fail, specifically?
How does this reflect the perspective or the bias of the creator?
Obviously Patrick is not a fan of the common core or what it seems to be requiring of him. He apparently dislikes it enough to try and inform the world of its negativity.
Blog:
http://myschoolroom.net/common-core-learning-ineffective-way/
Image:
http://myschoolroom.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CommonCoreZilla-150x150.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment