Have we forgotten the depth vs. coverage arguments? I
thought this was settled: Depth of understanding is better for students than
racing across the curriculum. That is, teachers need to allow students the
opportunity to build in-depth knowledge, not settle for bits and pieces of
unconnected facts. And yet, once again, this issue is upon us.
Here is what is becoming ever more apparent to me. When
covering standards is our focus, it becomes a race to the finish line. Content
flies out the window. It becomes secondary to process. Our students become secondary,
too. And that is what is being reflected in educational journals. Here’s an
example. In the March 2014 issue of Language
Arts, the editors wrote about first grade teachers who were teaching
folktales and tall tales about Paul Bunyan, John Henry, Johnny Appleseed, Annie
Oakley, and Davy Crockett. This is part of the first grade social studies
curriculum, and the teachers were also connecting this curriculum to the ELA
standards for reading and writing. However, they also wanted to include tales
that represented the students’ cultural and ethnic backgrounds, but there wasn’t enough time to build this more
relevant curriculum.
Think about this. Think deeply. There wasn’t enough time in
first grade to stop and make the curriculum relevant to the students. There
was, instead, a pacing calendar that provided the teachers with their marching
orders—“Move on!” As I continued to read articles in Language Arts, I continued to see authors voicing this same concern
again and again. When covering standards is our goal, we neglect the reason we
are in school in the first place—to teach our students, to nurture their
curiosity, to help them appreciate, question, and investigate the world.
Trust me, this is leading someplace. When thoughtful
engagement with content is our focus, we can embed the standards in our
teaching. We can have it all—content and process. One place to begin thoughtful
engagement with curriculum is with nonfiction literature that itself reflects
meaningful learning. So today, I want to focus on one book that does this as an
example. That book is The Griffin and the
Dinosaur: How Adrienne Mayor Discovered a Fascinating Link Between Myth and
Science by Marc Aronson. (Yes, Marc is one of the bloggers on this website,
but that’s not the point. The point is that this is the type of book we need.)
Why do we need this type of book? We need this type of book
because it shows someone engaged in thinking. In this case, Adrienne Mayor was
thinking about the links between myths and fossils. She was thinking that our
ancestors’ stories were based on observations in the natural world. And, over
the course of years, she showed that this was so. This was not simply an
overnight “aha!” moment. Adrienne Mayor’s discoveries involved years of
reading, speaking to scientists, traveling to archaeological sites, and
sometimes making mistakes. And, importantly, this work continues. As our students read about Adrienne Mayor and discuss her
work, it’s easy to embed CCSS standards into what we are doing. This is important too. But let’s think
about why we are doing what we are doing. Are we sharing exciting stories about
thinking? Are we inviting students to think too? In my opinion, this comes
first.
Myra, you're soooo right. If we want to teach thinking, we need to give kids something to think about. Content becomes the substrate on which to practice thinking. That's why specific content is not as important as content that is meaningful for kids. While it's very nice to study traditional American folktales, maybe some children need something closer to home.
ReplyDeleteWe also need to give the brain time to make connections. How many of us know this from our own personal experience of discovering a problem is solved upon waking up in the morning?