I must admit that the results of my TPI were a bit surprising. My dominant perspectives were apprenticeship and nurturing. The apprenticeship, I understood. I was surprised by the nurturing. I don’t know that most of my students would consider me nurturing. Firm and fair? Yes. Approachable and accessible? Hopefully. Touchy-feely? Not so much. Nevertheless, as I considered more of the breakdown of this category, I could understand that while it might not be the me-in-action, it very well could be the me-in-intent.
My principal maintains that if a student believes that her teacher cares about her, she can learn anything. Every year, I increasingly understand her frame of reference. Feel of failure can be pervasive, and I do believe it is incumbent upon a teacher to help deconstruct these feelings. I also believe that it is a teacher’s responsibility to provide the structure in which a student’s deep-rooted success comes from discovery and not just a parroting back of basic information. Understanding that a teacher’s “structure” can be effectively associated with nurturing, I come more easily to understand this category.
My recessive score is in the social reform perspective. I blame this (unfairly, I’m sure) on being a math teacher. After reading the summary on the five perspectives, I’m not sure I really understand all the ways in which a dominant perspective on social reform plays itself out, but it seems as though a humanities approach would lend itself much more easily to the interrogation of text and the critical stances engendering social action. It may seem strange that I’m actually the sponsor of the Model United Nations club at my high school. These club members are all about changing the world and seeking as much information as they can in order to interpret our world wisely, but in my beginning level math classrooms, this approach is less prevalent.
No comments:
Post a Comment