Thinking toward the possibility of teaching next semester, I am very interested in the Taxonomy of Instructional Emphasis that was presented in class on Thursday. I came to college with the idea of being a teacher, so along the way I have critiqued every instructor I have had regarding their effectiveness, and what I could glean from them in the way of "to do" and "not to do" when I am a teacher. Most were forgettable, a few very memorable, and a few others incredibly bad. So, I have spent a lot of time thinking about what kind of teacher I want to be, and I use the word teacher rather than instructor because I have had many instructors who didn't know the first thing about teaching.
Looking at the Taxonomy of Instructional Emphasis, it would be easy to just toss aside the traditionalist or formal approach as antiquated and designed primarily for lazy teachers. As well, it would be easy to embrace the expressive or romantic instructional method as validation for the students’ thoughts and feelings and as a kind of slap in the face for the traditionalists. I would probably have leaned toward the romantic emphasis when I first started college. I viewed the prospect of reading students’ papers, and being privy to their thoughts and feelings, as a privilege and I felt quite romantic about it. Though I still anticipate this experience as a privileged one, time and knowledge have dimmed the romantic glow a bit.
As Dr. Kemp stated, most effective writers and writing teachers employ aspects of all four emphases, and I think this is a very reasonable approach to teaching. This combination approach seems especially desirable when considering ways to keep students’ interest, presenting materials in a stimulating and effective way, and providing for assessment methods that actually do assess the students’ individual progress and not just to determine a grade. A balanced approach that applies each instructional emphasis as appropriate for the particular class, the individual student, and the specific situation seems to be the wisest, and a little romance couldn't hurt.
I couldn't agree more with your balance approach to the "taxonomy." You balance awareness of your theoretical options with the honoring of your own proclivities, and that is bound to be a successful combination. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the balance approach. In forming your teaching this way, you will be able to reach the greatest number of students possible. They all, of course, come to the classroom with such varying learning styles -- this is the best way to cater to them all. I do wonder, more specifically, what this approach "looks" like? What are its main characteristics, as Dr. Kemp presented the others in class? Would it simply be employing all the strategies listed for the four approaches given, or would it be a more synthesized type of approach?
ReplyDelete