Sunday, September 13, 2015

Understanding Teach Like a Champion

I'm currently in the process of reading Teach Like a Champion 2.0.  I'm reading it because it is one of the "go to" books shared via Relay Graduate School of  NYC, and unfortunately, their work is being spread far and wide here in Colorado in many of our districts, including mine. We are at a very precarious time in public education - our work as educators is being stripped from our schools and replaced by non-educator think tanks who pride themselves on high test scores.  Teach Like a Champion 2.0 is written by Doug Lemov. I'll let you read more about him here. Ultimately he is not an educator, but has great experience within the world of charter schools. He has two degrees in English and one in business. He is a corporate education reformer. Period.

To be honest, after reading over 100 pages of the book (there will be a follow-up blog when I finish reading the entire book), I have to say it's incredibly shallow and simplistic - yet the scary part is the dictatorial demand to keep everything shallow, uniform and simplistic. And as mentioned above, Lemov's beliefs about "teaching like a champion" are beginning to co-opt what true educators really understand about teaching, child development, and engaging learners.  This book is a great primer for reducing learning to uniform and robotic student behavior which is easy to "track" (Lemov's word - not mine) and manage, in order to get the results that you want. And the results that they want are high test scores. Lemov is clear in stating that this work is gauged via state test scores.

True learning is incredibly messy, but with an inherent structure in place to support the messiness. Those of us with vast experience in public education know this. And we also know that in order for true learning to occur, we must embrace the messiness, while all along keeping a structure in place to allow for the ebb and flow of learning.  We create routines and structures, with student input, to foster an environment which supports student engagement, student learning styles and interests, all the while making certain that our teaching is developmentally appropriate and meeting the needs of each learner.  If we have the necessary resources, the autonomy to teach, and a class size that allows for us to address each child's needs - amazing things can happen. If children have food, healthcare and books in their home we can move mountains. However, in this day and age - having everything necessary for all public school children to thrive mentally, physically, academically and emotionally - is rare, if not non-existent.

My experience includes teaching almost all grades Pre-K - 6 (never got to teach third!), serving as a district literacy coordinator, serving as a literacy coach, and working as an educational consultant.  I have supported the development of principals and teacher leaders across Colorado and I have worked with teachers nationwide to support their understandings of literacy instruction. I am currently a literacy interventionist in my 19th year of teaching.

In the 90's I had great autonomy to teach. The inquiries and projects my students completed would not even be possible under today's testing conditions.  Several of my classes opened restaurants - we literally opened a restaurant in our classroom and charged for meals. We designed the restaurant, shopped for the ingredients at the grocery store, and we made the pasta from scratch in our classroom. Students applied for jobs at the restaurant. We took reservations for parents and district staff to come and eat! Another example was with a sixth grade class in which we created a partnership with a nursing home. Each sixth grader had a friend at the nursing home where we visited weekly to plant flowers, read, sing, and develop relationships with these women and men at the home. The sixth graders interviewed their friends, researched the corresponding time period, and wrote biographies.  I had a fourth grade class who researched activists across the country who were making changes in their communities. These students really wanted to know how they could give back to the community.  We created our own service learning project and gathered food for food banks and worked at the food banks and served at a soup kitchen. We canvassed the neighborhoods gathering canned goods and other items to support families in need. I had other classes who raised money to end landmines that were harming children - we researched these countries and read about the impact on children and created a public campaign to end the landmines. What is interesting about all of these inquiries and projects is that we could connect them to every facet of our day - math, science, social studies, language arts, music, art, and on and on. Those are just a few of the learning opportunities my students had. 

I share my experiences because they are important in understanding what education can and should look like. Teaching and learning should not be uniform and defined within a box. Education begins with the students in the classroom, and we then build our curriculum around the students' strengths, needs and interests. Teachers each have their own talents, their own quirkiness and their own passions which influence their teaching. Students also have their own talents, learning styles and interests which influence how a class takes shape over the year - if indeed we wish for education to be truly intrinsically engaging and purposeful for students. Every classroom is unique - if indeed we are focused on equity for our students and their learning. Education that is standardized and is top down ultimately is dumbed-down.

Teach Like a Champion 2.0 is focused on uniformity. Lemov discusses the idea of standardized formatting for worksheets and note-taking. It is my experience that learners find that certain formats work for them and others don't.  I always share a variety of styles for note-taking with students and ultimately I let them pick what works for them as it's important that they are able to begin to discern how they learn best and what tools will best support their learning.  Classrooms must be equitable. In order to be equitable we must discern what is just and right for each student. We cannot demand all students use a tool if it does not meet their needs; this is why we have notebook paper with narrow lines, fat lines, no lines at all. This is why we have fat pencils, thin pencils, and pencil grips. This is why we want children to pick and choose their independent reading books. Uniformity ultimately destroys any chance of equity - again, considering what is fair and just for each individual student. At times do we all use a particular format - or process? Of course! But uniformity and standardization do not drive the learning - students do.

Lemov is very interested in teachers being able to quickly see the answers students are writing as they walk around the room - this is why he prefers standardization of note taking. Efficiency, mastery and getting it right is key.  On page 19 Lemov states that the purpose of order in the classroom is to promote academic learning.  I think the purpose of order in a classroom is to create a space which is safe and inviting for student's social, emotional, physical and academic learning.  Physically I want my students to be comfortable so that they can learn.  I want them to be able to move around the room as needed to meet their personal needs.  Of course, understand it's not a free for all, children aren't running willy nilly around the room - but they do stand if needed or cross their legs in their seats, and at times they spread their work out on the floor if that is the best space for their learning to occur.  Couches are a wonderful place for children to read and work. My students can have a very carefully articulated plan for the day as they maneuver around the classroom as needed to learn, as they get the necessary supplies, and or converse with the necessary people, to do their work at hand. We work as a community and develop spaces within the room to support our work as a whole group, small groups and as individuals. We trust one another. 

In contrast, Teach Like a Champion classrooms are typically rows of desks and the instruction videotaped is always whole group instruction, in which the teacher asks a question and a student answers.  So, if you were diagramming the conversation in the classroom on paper it would be straight lines from teacher to student - starting at focal point (the teacher) and spreading out like a fan.  Ultimately if you are wishing for a rich conversation that thrives on student talk you are looking for a diagram where the lines intersect. So, the teacher might talk, then a student, then another student responds, and another, and then back to the teacher...so forth and so on. A classroom in which the teacher asks a question and pops from student to student is very dictatorial and ultimately lacks richness and depth of learning - if the teacher is continually directing the discussion then how do we know what the students are thinking and wondering?  Of the 46 videos I have watched so far the questions the teachers ask are pretty basic - questions about defining a word, a sentence starter - there are some deeper questions asked at the high school level, but the arrangement of the lesson and the classroom makes it truly difficult to really have a deep, rich conversation which builds and ultimately engages the learners in a way that develops student strengths and empowers their individual voices. There is definitely not space for individuals to come together to share and build a greater and bigger idea or thought as a result of student sharing.

I have yet to see any classrooms with tables. Tables are wonderful for classrooms where we value community, conversation, and working together. Out of the 46 videos I have watched so far I have seen only two tables for two small groups of children. I have 29 videos left to watch. 

Out of the 46 videos I've watched I've seen 12 teachers smile and/or laugh and 6 students smile and/or laugh.  Out of the six students who smiled or laughed 3 out of the 6 were due to a child having difficulty answering a question and/or making a mistake when answering.  In the videos, when a student talks in the classroom, it is only a result of the teacher allowing the student to talk.  In terms of what "talk" looks like, it takes form as a direct answer to a question from the teacher, popcorn reading (where the teacher calls on students to read a portion of a text - always a fun and relaxing strategy for readers who struggle), and 4 videos which showed a brief moment where children were allowed to partner talk (simply turning to the person next to you to converse). Another form of talk that takes place occurs when the teacher requires the entire class to repeat something in unison - there is a lot of parroting back what the teacher says.

There was one video - out of 46 that I have watched -  in which a child showed some emotion and said "Oh!" as he raised his hand in excitement to answer a question. There is very little, if any emotion displayed, within any of these videos.  When children are forced to comply with such great constraints and boundaries I can imagine that after awhile the emotion is beaten out of them. There are some teachers who exhibit some emotion and kindness, but the children are only allowed to exhibit any kindness to their peers in the form of hand signals or a statement of encouragement shouted in unison as a whole class. On page 11, Lemov points out that a child smiles in a video in which the teacher asks them to pass out papers faster. As Lemov explains how the students are passing out papers quickly in order to increase time for learning in the classroom he states, "The students, by the way, are happy as can be.  They love to be challenged and love to see themselves improving. They are smiling."

Students love to see themselves improving at passing out and collecting papers? *sigh* Such an insult to the children. But I'll move pass that and talk about papers for a minute.

The videos are full of papers. I get that there is a lot of paper in classrooms, but these papers in the videos typically come in the form of worksheets and packets - seat work. I found it interesting that when they read passages from a text they didn't have actual books in front of them (based on what I've seen so far) -they typically had a worksheet. 

On page 12 Lemov states, "Few schools of education stoop to teach aspiring teachers how to train their students to pass out papers, even though it is one of the most valuable things they could possibly do."

Wow.  I don't even know what to say to that. Perhaps the best thing to say is that that statement pretty much exemplifies the depth of the entire book. Honestly, reading the book and watching the videos is terribly depressing.

The sections I have read in the book so far deal with getting students to answer questions and making sure that the answer is (god I hate this word) "rigorous." Students must answer questions and if they can't answer the question they must repeat the answer after another student or the teacher gives the answer.  At one point in the book (p.92) he shares an example of a student who doesn't parrot back the answer and he states that the child will have to come in at recess because this is a "case of defiance."  So - not "parroting" back an answer is defiant?  Defiance is defined as a daring or bold resistance to authority or to any opposing force. I personally wouldn't parrot it back because I'd find it insulting. I'm not a dog who needs to repeat a trick in order to be "trained." If this is considered defiant I fear for the child who feels the need to scream and throw these worksheets in the trash.  

In regard to rigorous - there is much discussion about "rigorous" content. On page 84 Lemov discusses how it saddens him that Diary of a Wimpy Kid is one of the most read titles in sixth grade.  It is not considered rigorous enough. He obviously has not read the research on pleasure reading.  But again, he is not a true teacher, so that is to be expected.

There is lots of discussion around errors. I always find this to be a fascinating pattern within books by non-educators. They focus on the negative. I have always used students' strengths to build on their attempts and next steps. However, in this book the focus is on creating a culture of error where students feel comfortable making errors and teachers scan for evidence of "incomplete mastery."  I agree that students should feel comfortable taking risks in a classroom, but his concept of error and getting it "right" are so different than mine.  In a democratic classroom we take risks continually, and when we  problem solve and figure it - often together - it's a process of learning versus this idea of searching for the errors and getting it right. I believe that the process of learning is full of risks and ultimately, NOT necessarily the right answer, but perhaps......another question?

Lemov uses the word "tracking" a lot. Teachers track students, rather than "watch" students and students must track the speaker. It really feels a bit like hunting when watching the teachers "track." They are looking for specific answers and they will hunt the answer down until they get it. There isn't a sense of students really ever working together to problem solve and/or determine some finite answer (this is very much about finite answers) - it's more that the teacher directs the hunt until he or she hears or sees the answer. It's very much whole group instruction with individual seatwork to determine "mastery" of the direct instruction. The definition of "tracking" is different for students. When the students track, they literally must shift their whole body to face the speaker - it's a rather robotic movement to observe. I think about sitting in meetings and how teachers respond when someone speaks - I don't believe I've ever seen an entire group of adults literally shift all their bodies to turn and listen to someone speak - and I definitely haven't seen it happen in unison.

There is a lot of unison in body movement and speech.  Some of the teachers snap their fingers to demand all students say a word at the same time. Teachers will ask all students to repeat something like, "adverbs end in -ly."  There were some moments where children were reprimanded and you could hear the teacher saying quietly "Laughing is ten dollars." or "I'll call your mother." If I were a child in one of those classrooms I would positively have exploded under the pressure of keeping my body still and my voice still. All students must be sitting up very straight. Many classrooms have the students folding their hands on the desk at all times - and if they raise their hand, they very quickly rush the hands back to folded position when they are done answering the question. When students raise their hand they are praised for how high and straight the arm is.  If they praise a student they will often ask the whole class to repeat a phrase like, "Way to go, you!"

I can't sit still for more than ten minutes in a meeting before I must shift my body. If I am required to sit still for too long I ultimately feel very agitated. I wonder how the children feel? And how does this impact how they act when they are finally able to leave school?

All the classes are mainly children of color in the 46 videos I have observed so far. Out of the 46 videos there was only one video in which the children did not wear uniforms. I wonder, where are the wealthy districts in suburbia in these videos? Has this been tried out at Sidwell? 

There are all sorts of whole group movements like banging on the desk or doing rock paper scissors all at once to determine an answer to a multiple choice question. Hand gestures are used continually to replace actual speech.

I have grave concerns about this book being used in any school as a model of techniques which support student learning. The fact that I have to explain this in a blog clearly signals a very sad period of time in the history of public education in our country. There is no room for student learning styles in terms of how students sit, talk, or process their learning using these techniques. There is no respect for culture  - some children come from cultures in which eye contact is actually disrespectful. There is no respect for specific learning needs of children - what about the child who does not process quickly, yet is required daily to participate in the gut wrenching practice of cold calling (in which a teacher rapid fires questions at random children with no think time for the child). These strategies are absolutely detrimental to the second language learner or the child with learning disabilities as there is no scaffolding or additional supports to meet their needs.  Children will simply become compliant or..... they will revolt, and then, they will be asked to leave the school. We must remember, few charter schools accept all children and these techniques come straight from charter schools. Charters are also excellent at counseling children out of the school. There is not a single video I have observed yet that shows children independently moving around the room. The children move like robots and the teachers dictate their every move. 

Lemov believes that all these techniques create efficiency and therefore better use of time for students to reach "mastery." What I observe is a large amount of time wasted parroting motions and words that require minimal thinking but 100% compliance. I do not observe any authentic learning. The children are expressionless. In a classroom of vibrant learning you can feel the buzz and hear the buzz of learning. These classrooms feel more like boot camp.

As an educator I have a vast array of approaches I use to support children.  My bachelor's is in Elementary Education and my master's is in English as a Second Language, so I understand clearly the many scaffolds and teaching methods that can be used to meet the needs of a diverse group of students. Yet, in these videos of diverse classrooms, the only approach I have observed is whole group direct instruction.

Where are the chatty children who are engaged in learning as they lean over a project or book? Where are the smiling children?  Where are the excited children who are bubbling over with information about their learning, their friends, their family and their school?  And where are the sad children who need the extra moment to talk quietly with the teacher about how they were up all night due to a parental fight?  The children have no emotion. After watching 46 videos of children with absolutely no expression on their faces - minus only six children who let out a brief smile or laugh - I literally wanted to cry.

There is a reason I am absolutely livid over this book. There is a reason I am angry that Colorado - and the rest of the country - is allowing this book and the Relay Graduate School to infiltrate their schools.  When I read the book and watch the videos, all I can think of is fascist, racist times in history in which children were harmed. Corporate education is devouring our children - specifically - our neediest children.  It is gut wrenching to watch the students in these videos.  I know what is possible in a school community - a school where vibrant learning occurs and students and teachers are engaged - with purpose, passion and humanity. Sadly, the strategies in this book adhere to very direct instruction and dictatorial behavior models which strip children of their identity and culture - all in the name of high stakes tests scores. There is no equity here. There is no justice for children. 





28 comments:

  1. Thank you for writing so clearly and completely about this disturbing book. I've read it and you will find the next 100 pages to be like the first.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for speaking about this so eloquently. This is precisely the reason I quit teaching four years ago to make my film, "Heal Our Schools." I am in complete dismay over the trend toward eliminating all joy from the classrooms. And yes, you can bet these are not the "best practices" they are implementing at Sidwell, et al.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow this is terrifying. I taught high school for 15 years and teaching and learning is messy. Those who want to standardize learning forget that people are not standardized. Learning is not linear it is cyclical, we all learn different skills and content at different depths at different times. Teaching a variety of note taking skills, helps kids see that there is more than one way and they can explore all the different ways then choose what works for them. What happened to research based best practices and brain based learning and individualized learning plans? What happened to teachers being assigned reading by leading researchers and child development experts? It bothers me that a district would ask all of its instructors to read anything not written by and expert in pedagogy. Maybe a little lesson in Blooms taxonomy would be a good starter for Boasberg,

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love when you reminisce about teaching in the 90s. I remember those days fondly myself. Not much else to like here. TY for all you do. ^^0^^

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you for your insightful comments about what is considered by some to be a movement. I would like to share that rigor does not have to be a negative. I'll be happy to send you one of my six books on rigor because I would like your perspective. Please feel free to contact me through my website www.barbarablackburnonline.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. In reading your post I realized how I read and used Teach Like A Champion as an instructional coach. I never read it as a novel - cover to cover. And, I never recommended any of my novice teachers do that (all of the new teachers in our district were given copies). However, as a cookbook, I did take certain pages and strategies that worked well with issues my teachers were having in their classrooms. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking that a teacher should incorporate the entire book as a way of teaching. As a teacher we need to bring our own personality to the table. And, as you mentioned, we need to take our students' personalities into consideration. If you look at my classroom today (I went back into the classroom this year) you will see certain things that I have taken from the book and have molded to how I operate and how my students function. I even have a copy of the book on a shelf next to my books by Knight and Marzano. It is a reference book. Nothing more and nothing less. It gives me strategies that I can use or decide I will never use with my students. Finally, I also now know why I don't have the videos any more. I watched, maybe two videos(?), and then I misplaced the disc - or maybe I just threw it away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed- I am a learner-centered teacher who needed to "tighten up" some things, and this book had some good strategies for precisely that. I would never dream of using all of them, particularly on a regular basis, but even in a learner-centered group, we still sometimes need to say, "sit down and listen because I have some instructions for the next activity/learning experience/reader's journal/etc."

      I used it in conjunction with very different books like "How to Talk so Kids Will LIsten and Listen so Kids Will Talk" to get a kind of all-round strategy.

      If there are teachers who are forced to do everything listed, and kids who are expected to sit in silent rows all day, then I do feel very sad for them.

      Delete
  7. I am a retired educator who has read Mr. Lemov's book. It saddens me because it is NOT the kind of education he would want for his OWN children. Charter schools are preparing some demographics to be submissive, docile keyboard-pushing wage slaves- smart enough to work FOR the corporate masters but NOT equipped with the invisible curriculum (collaboration, communication, cooperation) to become one. With an emphasis on silence, obedience, and stillness their approach is one of cultural reproduction - reinforcing the inequities that exist in the larger society. It is the next generation of Jim Crowism .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greatly appreciate your comments here. You are absolutely right! He wouldn't want it for his children, we wouldn't want it for our children, personally and those who are our children for 8 hours ea sch day. Day after day, I see children being told to "hold their bubbles", SLANT the teacher, move their clips because they aren't complying with the teacher, and overall, being treated as if they are robots and do not matter. Low and behold, the teachers are treated in similar ways as they are expected to be silent, comply with whatever is next on the " do this" list because it's tied to their performance on teacher evaluations. Sadly, teachers too are not trusted to be learners, thinkers, decision makers, and professionals. Schools are fueling the inequities, school systems are doing exactly the same. Mine is and it's vision/mission is in direct opposition.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for you continual advocacy, Peg!

      Delete
    3. Joy, this is exactly what is happening in my school and I just hate it. I'm in my 25th year as an educator and am insulted by how my 3yr TFA asst. Principal is treating the teachers in our school. She has micro managed every teacher's schedule and lesson plans expected to be scripted and followed to the letter. I'm out of this school next year if this is what education has come to be. I'm so depressed about it.

      Delete
  8. This is an excellent post Peggy (Alfie Kohn tweeted it out today). Thank you for sharing your thinking on this resource. I have heard mixed reviews on Lemov's work, so this really helps me better understand what he is promoting. Surprised at how many positive reviews there are for this book on Amazon, considering your perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Beautifully said. I would want my child in your class any time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The student who doesn't 'want to' join others in parroting back an answer is sanctioned as defiant...

    I teach foreign language to very young learners. Repetition-- in the context of everyday Q&A exchange-- is integral to learning foreign language. One must practice such phrases (like 'fine, thanks') until they are automatic.

    When a novice, I too saw lack of joining choral response as 'refusal to participate.' But being the mom of 'different' learners spurred me to investigate further. I learned that those who listen but do not speak are learning too. Research taught me that for beginning language-learners, spoken language is latent. More teaching experience taught me that latent speakers catch up to early-repeaters within a year, often outpacing them. Many early-repeaters are exercising skills of mimicry: if not challenged in other ways they will fall behind the listen-&-learn types.

    The challenge for me was twofold: (1)devise a variety of activities that embed repetition of targeted phrases. Rote repetition of Q&A (a)doesn't ensure understanding and (b)gets boring fast, slowing the pace of learning. And (2)provide opportunities for learners to demonstrate their understanding variously (through nod, gesture, 1- or 2-word phrase, full sentence, performance of a direction given in the target language.)

    I speculate that what I learned as an FL teacher holds true for any learning discipline, and applies to older learners too. And I include in my critique any 'pedagical method' which favors uniform group response over eliciting individual response.

    The Q-&-choral-response-A method -- & other punitive group-vs-individual method detailed here-- this is late 19th-early 20thc. stuff. It was good enough to give exceptional learners a basis for pursuing their own educations past age 12 through independent reading, while the majority left for farm & rote assembly-line work. 20thc neurology & psych spurred the devpt of a host of better pedagogical methods as advanced economies sought an educated labor-base through universal education. Tho you still saw this antiquated method used until the mid-20thc. in European primary schools, it did not do the job for universal public school, & disappeared as those societies developed a sophisticated industrial base.

    One has to ask why we're seeing a return to this & similar ancient, long-discarded methods in charter-school chains targeting the inner-city poor.

    Is it because our economy offers many jobs for minmally-educated rote-rule-followers? I don't think so. In the agricultural discipline such opportunities have been severely limited by 20thc automation. The only example I hear repeatedly is peach-pickers & the like, who will no doubt soon be replaced by automation. In factories, our low-level assembly-line jobs have been almost entirely automated or outsourced to developing economies. Tho the fast-food industry has room for such folks, those establishments are small franchises which encompass a modest career path rewarding better-educated workers with team- & customer-oriented skills not taught at KIPP.

    Or could it be that such methods are simply employed as a band-aid to tame kids raised in the home-shifting, parent-shifting chaos created by endemic poverty-- exacerbated by an economy which offers no path out? If so, it will operate as it did in the 19thc: some exceptional learners will acquire a basis on which to scrabble a self-initiated future through reading. The rest-- absent the late-19th/early-20thc. opportunities offered by farm & low-level assembly-line-- may find work sweeping up for the rich folk, or will be pressed to find criminal pursuits & jail.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peg: This books flies in the face of the most basic tenet of developmental psychology that every parent understands: children learn in different ways at different rates.

    ReplyDelete
  12. We need to do this in all the States. http://progressive.org/news/2015/10/188371/what-washington-state-supreme-court-decision-charter-schools-achieved

    ReplyDelete
  13. Every example I read makes me think that it states the blindingly obvious. Yes, classrooms need order and organisation, of teaching plans, space, resources and adult deployment. Adults need to be highly aware at all times, of the nuances in response from learners.
    This has been the case since my training in the early 1970s. Much described as "good practice" was seen as classroom basics. Your description of how learning can be could have been drawn from my own classrooms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peg -- I'm a former teacher and co-founder at Kiddom. I wanted to thank you for this post -- we took our own stab at dissecting TLAC on Kiddom's blog and used this piece one of our sources. Many thanks again. Here's the link: https://t.co/nJkxMHzqWT

    ReplyDelete
  15. Replies
    1. Not yet. I seriously haven't had the stomach to finish it. I will eventually I promise :)

      Delete
    2. Not yet. I seriously haven't had the stomach to finish it. I will eventually I promise :)

      Delete
  16. My school district in Dallas is into this book, former superintendent brought it from Colorado. My teaching carreer is coming to a halt after 31 years of teaching because I don't fit the mold. I hate this book and having to be observed so many times applying this techniques that I have to know by name and can hardly replicate myself.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for posting this on Amazon. I was thinking of buying the book, and now I think I'll pass. The detail and precision of your response indicate that you know what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, I've read bits and pieces and didn't take away what the book's points must be. I loved the concept of SLANT as I understood it, and find it to be a great motivator for students to be alert and engaged. I love the answering together for some questions. Perhaps what is needed is the ability to take some tools that are good and discard the rest. I love the crazy learning that brings spontaneous joy. I also like having students who can be in control of themselves and pay attention... Maybe I should check out the book instead of purchase it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello,

    Thank you very much for your insight. I was looking to purchase the book and then read your review on Amazon. I am now reluctant to buy the book. I will be teaching this year and would like to read a good book. Is there one you would recommend please? By the way, I love what you did with your students in cooking and creating a restaurant! That was a great idea, and I'm sure students and parents enjoyed it!

    ReplyDelete