Teachers of English need not sacrifice the mature literacy practices of adults to the informal literacies of youth. Conversely, they need not sacrifice the literacies of youth to the formal literacies of adulthood. (Mills, 2010, pg. 38)
I thought deeply about this passage: how true it is, how I can relate to it, and how it inspires me. First thing that came to mind is how teachers set routines in their classrooms, which is great. It helps our youth create good habits that they carry on into adulthood, hopefully. But, looking deeper, there are other routines that teachers put in place that adolescents don’t see connection with or relation to and that’s when we lose their interest in school. In other words, the traditional pedagogy theories that teachers don’t let go of completely, and therefore make it hard for students to find that link between that and their lives, is basically: “Here’s the rule, this is the strategy, learn it, study it, and good luck applying it outside of class.” So, how do we change this? Well, this article is trying to tell us that we shouldn’t sacrifice mature lectures and then only teach what the students are into nowadays, instead we must bridge the two spectrums in order for students to naturally make connections from their “informal experiences” to what is being taught in class. This inspires me to always keep in mind that I shouldn’t have to sacrifice anyone’s interests, the school’s and student’s, to be able to teach effectively.
I think that, in some cases, it’s important to respect the past as a place that we can learn from as well as critique. To that effect, I think this post could also be generalized to education in all fields.
Teachers of Mathematics, for example, need not sacrifice the mature Mathematics Practices of adults for the informal Mathematical Practices of youth. To me, this means that mathematics teachers should be more accommodating to the strategies of their students. From this angle, the passage indirectly supports the idea that math teachers can function more as facilitators than as the sole source of knowledge. This idea also encourages students to discover the ideas of mathematics for themselves, and teach each other, in an open environment. In classes like this, math teachers are no longer dispensers of knowledge to inactive recipients
I think that, in some cases, it’s important to respect the past as a place that we can learn from as well as critique. To that effect, I think this post could also be generalized to education in all fields.
Teachers of Mathematics, for example, need not sacrifice the mature Mathematics Practices of adults for the informal Mathematical Practices of youth. To me, this means that mathematics teachers should be more accommodating to the strategies of their students. From this angle, the passage indirectly supports the idea that math teachers can function more as facilitators than as the sole source of knowledge. This idea also encourages students to discover the ideas of mathematics for themselves, and teach each other, in an open environment. In classes like this, math teachers are no longer dispensers of knowledge to inactive recipients.