I don't think your "confusion" here has to do with differences of
centers/literacy stations, but with definitions. Please don't be offended
(because none is thought or meant) when I say that I think your thinking seems
clearer to me (your reader) than you are actually articulating. By inference,
I suspect that you--and perhaps the leadership you work with--really envision
centers as something that are teacher-directed, even though the teacher isn't
there. Kind of an "activity" that is assigned and expected. Planned by the
teacher. Made by the teacher. Monitored by the teacher. Assessed by the
teacher. Invested in by the teacher. If I'm correct, you would see the
centers as a pale reproduction of actual teacher-led instruction.
I'm also inferring that when you went to 4-blocks, and especially workshops,
you saw that the students were engaged in real learning: reading, writing,
maybe talking and listening.... Also, I think you may have seen a shift from
teacher-directedness to student-initiated choice, with the teacher providing
the framework, etc. but with there being very little "contrived"
teacher-assigned "activities."
So far, so good?
Now come with me to traditional early childhood "centers." In those centers,
the teacher does "teach" by providing the materials, the opportunities, the
peers, the routine, the background-whatever-needed-for-success, but what goes
on there is child-initiated and child-directed. The
"centers/stations/whatever" were not just portable worksheets or tasks in a
different configuration, which is a version I suspect you're worried about.
In my opinion, therein lies the difference.
If centers are teacher-directed, but without the teacher there, what a child
does there is for the teacher. If centers are learner-directed, what goes on
there can absolutely be as authentic and engaging as you would hope. The key
here, imo, is not what you call centers/stations, it's what goes on there.
So we're to language here, which we in education are certainly used to. Some
of our best language through the years has been distorted and destroyed by
others, and sometimes even by those in our own profession.
My personal opinion: if centers are nothing better than inauthentic
time-fillers, and take up all the teacher's time preparing "tasks," then of
course they are of extremely limited value. The key to exposing the
language/concepts here is the taking-of-teacher-time. If what the teacher does
is prepare lesson plans for tasks and there is no
inquiry/literacy/problem-solving/self-direction/initiative/intentionality,
there's the hint that "something's afoot in Denmark." Of course, what goes on
there pales in comparison to what goes on in workshop.
However, I would hate to see us fall into that trap. Or, which is more likely,
our supervisors fall into that trap. I see centers as having enormous
potential. But not the centers as described above.
I, too, believe that teachers teach children. However, I suspect you would
agree with me when I say that, ultimately, children teach children. Learning
is something that is done BY the child not TO the child.
The center format is not the culprit here, in my opinion. There are wonderful
centers and the foundations of those centers are often set up by the teacher.
Would you also agree that a child actually engaged in literacy teaches? Would
you say that a text set (which easily could be "a center" stacked on a round
table) has enormous potential for the child and her peers to teach each other?
Would you say that extended time to rewrite a favorite tale into a radio script
or a readers' theater to be performed would be valuable? Would you say a Lit
Circle on coming home might be powerful?
Yet, even if you agree with me that those things might be wonderful, I say to
you: they're probably not as wonderful as what children might devise to do.
The narrower the center, the more teacher-directed the center, the more
taking-of-teacher-time of the center, the less valuable to the children, I
believe.
I think you were right on the edge of saying all that; I think it was lurking
around in your thoughts.
I love centers. I love to see children working in centers. Kids' work. Not
teachers' contrived activities renamed centers to bring them "up to date" and
"current" and "data-driven."
One of my most thrilling moments in education came when I read Selma
Wasserman's Serious Players in the Primary Classroom. I would also refer you
to the Nebraska-Iowa primary program. Lilian Katz. Kostelnik at UN-L. Reggio
Emilia. Harriet Egertson. Susan Andersen. Many, many traditional early
childhood educators and literacy specialists.
I don't care what age student we teach: the threes, fifth grade, juniors....
Ultimately, what we would hope for our students is that they can teach
themselves and their friends and teachers. Yes, teachers do teach, not
centers. But, if we believe that we teach directly, AND indirectly, then we
share that instruction with our students, materials, time, and opportunities.
And I just hate it that now the language "centers" has been bastardized by
those who just can't get it through their heads that the human is a trustworthy
entity!!!
I am a little bit concerned. My philosophy has been that teachers teach
children and notcenters. I know I can count on this list serve to help me see
the light.Thanks for any input on this subject.Jean/NJ
_________________________________________________________________
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_family_safety_052008
_______________________________________________
Mosaic mailing list
Mosaic@literacyworkshop.org
To unsubscribe or modify your membership please go to
http://literacyworkshop.org/mailman/options/mosaic_literacyworkshop.org.
Search the MOSAIC archives at http://snipurl.com/MosaicArchive.
