Unfortunately for my students, I love expressing my ideas. In some ways, increasing my productivity on the blog was supposed to help reduce this experience in the classroom. If I had a cool idea, I could write about it in the evenings and then let them explore ideas on their own.
So far, it hasn't worked out that way.
Part of it comes from context. In order to trace interesting thoughts, I feel like I need to give some context to what's going on. By the time I've outlined everything so that I'm ready to talk about the new ideas, I'm kind of already done with the idea. I don't always feel the need to press into the same territory for the third time in the day.
Result: Students get a gush of my thoughts that I can't seem to stop. Part of what's so exciting about it is that I feel pressure to provide something new to the text we're reading. Right now, we're in the beginning of Twelfth Night in my Shakespeare class. I'm trying to illuminate the text as best I can, which means moving really slowly and deliberately. For some, we may be going too slowly, but that's part of what I'm trying to teach them: Worthwhile texts need to be gone through thoughtfully. There's no rush.
I like teaching this way because it squeezes out bits of inspiration as I read. I always read the text before presenting, but when the book is open in front of me and I'm digging for value, the experience becomes improvisational. I think this may happen when writing, too, but I type slower than I talk, so I lose that inspirational squirt that can be so enjoyable when vocally elucidating.
Again, I think this may be a bit of a bother to my students: Because I'm so interested in these new connections that I haven't necessarily seen before, I want to keep talking about the text. As my own understanding grows, my desire to add to the scholarly tradition and analysis grows, too. I now see why college professors favor a lecture-based format: They get to talk about all the things that they know so well, and they are likely processing what they love on a deeper level, using the class as the catalyst for their own understanding. I believe learning is an addicting behavior, and the idea that professors are (in some cases) getting another hit makes a lot of sense to me. I get it, too, from my classes, but sophomores in high school aren't processing at the same level as sophomores in college, so it's less reciprocal. Nevertheless, I think that's part of the reason I teach the way I do: I want another hit of inspiration.
So far, it hasn't worked out that way.
Part of it comes from context. In order to trace interesting thoughts, I feel like I need to give some context to what's going on. By the time I've outlined everything so that I'm ready to talk about the new ideas, I'm kind of already done with the idea. I don't always feel the need to press into the same territory for the third time in the day.
Result: Students get a gush of my thoughts that I can't seem to stop. Part of what's so exciting about it is that I feel pressure to provide something new to the text we're reading. Right now, we're in the beginning of Twelfth Night in my Shakespeare class. I'm trying to illuminate the text as best I can, which means moving really slowly and deliberately. For some, we may be going too slowly, but that's part of what I'm trying to teach them: Worthwhile texts need to be gone through thoughtfully. There's no rush.
I like teaching this way because it squeezes out bits of inspiration as I read. I always read the text before presenting, but when the book is open in front of me and I'm digging for value, the experience becomes improvisational. I think this may happen when writing, too, but I type slower than I talk, so I lose that inspirational squirt that can be so enjoyable when vocally elucidating.
Again, I think this may be a bit of a bother to my students: Because I'm so interested in these new connections that I haven't necessarily seen before, I want to keep talking about the text. As my own understanding grows, my desire to add to the scholarly tradition and analysis grows, too. I now see why college professors favor a lecture-based format: They get to talk about all the things that they know so well, and they are likely processing what they love on a deeper level, using the class as the catalyst for their own understanding. I believe learning is an addicting behavior, and the idea that professors are (in some cases) getting another hit makes a lot of sense to me. I get it, too, from my classes, but sophomores in high school aren't processing at the same level as sophomores in college, so it's less reciprocal. Nevertheless, I think that's part of the reason I teach the way I do: I want another hit of inspiration.
Comments