Proposition 4: Teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience
![Picture](/uploads/6/7/6/3/6763469/7228580.jpg)
_
- NBCTs model what it means to be an educated person – they read, they question, they create and they are willing to try new things.
- They are familiar with learning theories and instructional strategies and stay abreast of current issues in American education.
- They critically examine their practice on a regular basis to deepen knowledge, expand their repertoire of skills, and incorporate new findings into their practice.
![](http://www.weebly.com/weebly/images/file_icons/rtf.png)
literature_review_part_final.docx | |
File Size: | 43 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Rationale
_
Proposition 4 of the NBPTS’s Core
Propositions states that effective teachers “model what it means to be an educated person – they read,
they question, they create and they are willing to try new things.” In
addition, “They are familiar with learning theories and instructional
strategies and stay abreast of current issues in American education.” Finally, “They
critically examine their practice on a regular basis to deepen knowledge,
expand their repertoire of skills, and incorporate new findings into their
practice”
The artifact I selected as evidence of this Proposition is a literature review of three articles that discuss the reasons why some middle and secondary school students are not motivated to read and what steps teachers can take to motivate students. Every teacher has students who, despite best teaching practices, have refused to engage in formal literacy practices, including high stakes, standardized testing. I feel that this topic is particularly pertinent because in the current climate of education reform, emphasis is placed on creating strict teacher evaluation practices, including tying teacher certification, tenure, and salary to student performance. This is under the erroneous assumption that poor teaching is the primary cause for poor student performance. I call this the “factory model” of evaluation; in an eighteenth-century factory, pay and employment was tied to your productivity. You were docked or fired for defective pieces, even if the imperfection was out of your control. Like the factory model, current teacher evaluation reform does not take into account that there are students who, despite best teaching practices, are refusing to engage in the traditional educational setting. It also does not take into account that traditional literacy assessments are failing to give an accurate measure of students’ literacies. There are students that do not perform well on the traditional measures, but demonstrate complex literacy practices on nontraditional literacies. There are also students who do test well, but choose not to engage in reading on their own.
How then can teachers restructure their teaching to reengage these amotivated, disconnected students? The three peer-reviewed journal articles in this literature study agree that middle school literacy instruction needs to be revised to reflect students' real-life literacies; to include new literacies, such as electronic text and media; and to make room for students’ voices, cultures, alternative literacies, and lived experiences in the formal school setting. These are strategies that I’ve begun to incorporate into my teaching practice to help reach my disengaged students, with incredibly positive results.
The artifact I selected as evidence of this Proposition is a literature review of three articles that discuss the reasons why some middle and secondary school students are not motivated to read and what steps teachers can take to motivate students. Every teacher has students who, despite best teaching practices, have refused to engage in formal literacy practices, including high stakes, standardized testing. I feel that this topic is particularly pertinent because in the current climate of education reform, emphasis is placed on creating strict teacher evaluation practices, including tying teacher certification, tenure, and salary to student performance. This is under the erroneous assumption that poor teaching is the primary cause for poor student performance. I call this the “factory model” of evaluation; in an eighteenth-century factory, pay and employment was tied to your productivity. You were docked or fired for defective pieces, even if the imperfection was out of your control. Like the factory model, current teacher evaluation reform does not take into account that there are students who, despite best teaching practices, are refusing to engage in the traditional educational setting. It also does not take into account that traditional literacy assessments are failing to give an accurate measure of students’ literacies. There are students that do not perform well on the traditional measures, but demonstrate complex literacy practices on nontraditional literacies. There are also students who do test well, but choose not to engage in reading on their own.
How then can teachers restructure their teaching to reengage these amotivated, disconnected students? The three peer-reviewed journal articles in this literature study agree that middle school literacy instruction needs to be revised to reflect students' real-life literacies; to include new literacies, such as electronic text and media; and to make room for students’ voices, cultures, alternative literacies, and lived experiences in the formal school setting. These are strategies that I’ve begun to incorporate into my teaching practice to help reach my disengaged students, with incredibly positive results.
Reflection
_
While I began
researching and writing this literature review in order to better understand
why some students would not engage in the curriculum, it quickly became an
endeavor close to my heart. Around the country, including in my district,
teachers are leaving the profession or becoming disillusioned by teaching, and
feel that they have become “burnt out” from the demands of high-stakes education
reform. However, Santoro (2012) argues that what teachers actually feel is “demoralization
at the hands of rigid education “reforms” is often misdiagnosed as burnout, a
condition that has more to do with how an individual responds to everyday
stress” (as cited in Rosales, 2012). Santoro
(2012) believes that teachers become demoralized by the complication of poor
education reforms:
The moral dimension of teaching is the aspect of teaching that suffuses instruction and curriculum, but also exceeds them. It is where teachers talk about what is good, what is right and what is just about their work. What is it about teaching that enables us to find and express moral value? How is what I am doing bettering the world or myself? How does my teaching improve the lives of others? The moral dimension of teaching goes beyond questions of student achievement (for example, “Will this raise my students test scores?”) and includes asking about how the teaching affects all involved as persons (for instance, “Is how I am teaching good for my students and for my wellbeing?”). I believe that we get into trouble when we divorce achievement-type questions from moral questions. They must be held together. (as cited in Rosales, 2012)
The teaching practices recommended by Ma’ayan (2010), Hall (2008), and Triplett (2004) in this literature review will help students engage in the formal literacy environment and improve their literacy skills so that they will test well on the formal high-stakes testing. However, the revisions and interventions suggested by these researchers are also good for the students’ wellbeing, so that they will begin to enjoy and engage in school, instead of “putting their time in” until they become old enough to drop out. This is a small, but important step towards renewing the moral dimension of teaching and supporting effective teachers so that they remain in the classroom. This can only benefit our future.
The moral dimension of teaching is the aspect of teaching that suffuses instruction and curriculum, but also exceeds them. It is where teachers talk about what is good, what is right and what is just about their work. What is it about teaching that enables us to find and express moral value? How is what I am doing bettering the world or myself? How does my teaching improve the lives of others? The moral dimension of teaching goes beyond questions of student achievement (for example, “Will this raise my students test scores?”) and includes asking about how the teaching affects all involved as persons (for instance, “Is how I am teaching good for my students and for my wellbeing?”). I believe that we get into trouble when we divorce achievement-type questions from moral questions. They must be held together. (as cited in Rosales, 2012)
The teaching practices recommended by Ma’ayan (2010), Hall (2008), and Triplett (2004) in this literature review will help students engage in the formal literacy environment and improve their literacy skills so that they will test well on the formal high-stakes testing. However, the revisions and interventions suggested by these researchers are also good for the students’ wellbeing, so that they will begin to enjoy and engage in school, instead of “putting their time in” until they become old enough to drop out. This is a small, but important step towards renewing the moral dimension of teaching and supporting effective teachers so that they remain in the classroom. This can only benefit our future.
Resources
_Ma’ayan, H.D. (2010). Erika’s stories: Literacy
solutions for a failing middle school student.Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (8),
646-654.
Hall, K. W. (2008). Reading in middle school: Bumps in the literacy crossroads. Voices from the Middle, 16 (2), 72-74.
Rosales, J. (2012). How bad education policies demoralize teachers. NEA Today. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2012/02/07/how-
bad-education-policies-demoralize-teachers/
Triplett, C. F. (2004). Looking for a struggle: Exploring the emotions of a middle school reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48 (3),
214-222.
646-654.
Hall, K. W. (2008). Reading in middle school: Bumps in the literacy crossroads. Voices from the Middle, 16 (2), 72-74.
Rosales, J. (2012). How bad education policies demoralize teachers. NEA Today. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2012/02/07/how-
bad-education-policies-demoralize-teachers/
Triplett, C. F. (2004). Looking for a struggle: Exploring the emotions of a middle school reader. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48 (3),
214-222.