I had an interesting conversation with my intern, that I am sharing with Jim. He is teaching a social science and it has been an eye opening experience for him. It's like a tale of two worlds from the hard core sciences (Chem & Bio) and the students that are found there, compared with the diachotomy of an open social science class that is an elective. With getting ready for upcoming report cards he found it hard to believe that students fail.
But I digress and am getting away from the conversation. The conversation stemmed around his "surviving" his workload. He has found the curriculum guide essential in helping him plan for the course in question, relying on it as a crutch to support him in as he transitions from teaching three courses to four.
The insight that I found incredibly insightful was his take on the person that wrote the curriculum. He stated that he felt that the person who wrote the curriculum just simply picked ideas that they seemed to enjoy with very little experience in the actual field. "It's like he sat down and picked what he/she wanted to learn and wrote the curriculum for themselves."
Is this the trap for any curriculum writer? For a beginning teacher to realize this and make this statement I think is very profound (in my belief).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Just as food for thought, for the little BRAINY-AC intern, isn't that what Steve was saying about how him and his wife wrote the Psych 30 curriculum?? darcy
I think he did. This does not insinuate that the intern is teaching Steve's psychology curriculum at all. I just thought as a new teacher it is interesting that he is already picking up the vibe off of the curriculum writers.
I would agree that your intern is already very intuitive in reading curriculum - I still miss the boat when reading "into" curriculum!
Post a Comment