What Makes for a Master Teacher?

I find it helpful to use a variety of resources when teaching. I am a subscriber to Discovery Education. They have thousands of educational videos, and I can always find a video to reinforce my teaching. Being knowledgeable of multiple intelligences, I understand that I need to use a variety of strategies to reach all learners and using videos is one way to potentially reach everyone.

Additionally, Discovery Education has several cartoon series that focus on character building. I work in an inner city Title 1 school where violence is everywhere and lockdowns are common. Three times per week at the end of the day I show one of the 30 minute cartoons. We spend 10 minutes after the video discussing what happened. Students are getting a lot out of this. So yes, films, videos, and whatever else it takes to reach the students is fine with me!

Finding Nemo? Wow! I do believe that movies can be used in the classroom as a great learning tool if it relates to the subject being taught. I have used some of Ken Burn's Civil War in my classroom, but just in 10-15 minute segments. They are so well done and it really gives students an inside look at the war. As far as the list for master teachers, I believe one thing is missing. Master teachers should be challenged everyday. I believe if a teacher is being challenged, they are challenging their students as well. Education is a two way street.

@ Daniel R. Venables: Thank you for invoking the name of Ted Sizer, with whom I worked closely in the early-90s. Sadly, even if he were still with us, Ted's humanistic approach towards kids and education would have little traction in a climate where the word "innovation" has been claimed by those who represent the antithesis of creative thought. An article you may find interesting in light of your post (we need Ted Sizer now more than ever):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gregory-michie/education-reform-innovation...

The title of this post is interesting and really drew me in. However, I must admit being a bit disappointed to read what I have to say is a naive and hyperbolic essay on what could have been a really good and meaningful commentary on an important idea: What makes for a master teacher?

I agree with the author that Robyn Jackson misses the mark and I rather like the 7 alternate characteristics posed in the essay.

The challenge, of course, is how to actually do these things. Saying that teachers SHOULD do them is of limited value - a bit like DuFour saying schools SHOULD have collaborative cultures. Great. I agree. Now say how (which, in the case of DuFour, he never quite does).

I've spent my recent professional reading time on Schmoker's new book "Focus" and I Skyped with him last week. He's really got me thinking about 'authentic literacy' and 'purposeful writing' in all subject areas (I say this as a 24-year veteran math teacher).

Ted Sizer (to whom Schmoker dedicated "Focus") said it best when he said (back in 1984) that master teachers push kids to "use their minds well". That can happen lots of ways, but clearly it does not happen often enough in most classrooms. To me, it's not a matter of showing a movie or not, it's about making kids "use their minds well", whether the context of doing so is a movie, a piece or text, a true-life problem to solve or something else.

[to reply to me directly go to www.authenticPLCs.com]

I agree that teachers should be working harder than their students. If we want them to work hard we need to be a model of how hard they should be working.
I feel that movies are often used as a time filler for those "rough" days. I see movies being used all the time in school. I try to stay away frm the movies because there are many other activities that can be done in which learning takes place. These activities can also be fun for the students.

I agree with several posts that assert "not working harder than your students" could mean that both teacher and student are putting forth extensive effort. The teacher is putting forth the effort to create an engaging lesson, and hence, the students are also actively engaged in their learning. I think it's more along of the lines of the "shoulder to shoulder" effort you mentioned in your post. It is a vague statement, though, that needs clarification to be helpful.

A question in regards to showing movies - is there any justification for using them? For example, at a former school, we completed all literacy assessments in one day, twice a year. Previously, teachers had been spending two weeks, twice a year, trying to piece together the time needed to administer reading assessments. Further, the time was often fragmented, interrupted, and the testing environment was not conducive to accurate testing. The school decided that for one day, twice a year, students would have an altered scheduled supported by specials staff, parent volunteers, and a few substitutes. Classes were combined so the kids "traveled" to activities in groups of 40-60. They had an instruction block monitored by specialist, parents, and substitutes. It was similar to a study hall. During this time, students from a grade level were pulled by all the teachers in the school (grades 1-5) to be tested. With all the teachers working together, the assessments for a grade level were completed in 1 to 1.5 hours. Then that grade level moved on to a field day block and a movie block, which allowed the teachers to test the other grade levels. It took a ton of planning and cooperation, but it worked well. No, the students did not gain "real learning" that day and did watch a full length movie, but important (and required) data was gained in an efficient manner. Does the ends justify the means?

As a teacher, I would agree that movies are not excusable even on the last day of school. My principal is very determined that our students receive our best to the very end. Yes, students are restless and unfocused, knowing that spring break or summer vacation begins the next day. Yet, when we show movies and do not relate them to learning, we are doing our students an injustice. They are here to learn (whether they know it or not) and teachers are there to teach, not babysit. I believe movies can be used effectively to teach, but should only be done so on a rare basis. For example, when studying folk tales in second grade, the teacher could show a short folk tale and compare the video to the story. A master teacher is always providing a learning experience where the students and the teacher work hard to excel. I find it that many teachers fail to carry out number seven: celebrate new learning. Students work hard on a project or presentation and they are recognized. But what about the child who finally learned to follow a specific rule or ended his sentences with a period? We must remember to celebrate even the smallest achievements, for it means the world to some of our students.

You are correct when you say it is inexcusable to show films instead of teaching. You are wrong, however, to imply that full films cannot be shown as part of the curriculum. I teach a class called Film Arts, in which the entire curriculum consists of cinematic study, and I show full-length films in my Language Arts courses and use them to meet Listening and Speaking standards and to integrate VAPA/Visual Arts, VAPA/Theatre, and CTE standards (two of my classes are Arts, Media and Entertainment specific). Showing "10 minutes of a film" and expecting thorough analysis is akin to reading one scene of a Shakespeare play and expecting students to understand the play in its entirety. What you suggest is a meaningful exercise, but it does not lend itself to complete learning.

I think it's great to challenge the quick sayings we come across and re-think what we mean when we say them. I can see "not working harder than the students" as making sure the kids are showing up and actively learning, not watching the Master Teacher Show. I can also see the phrase as shifting the focus of what teaching really is. Looking at it from both sides helps me to look at my own teaching, make sure my efforts are visible and getting the returns I want, and readjust as necessary. Thanks for the opportunity for a good think!

I believe that the comment about not working harder than your students relates to making sure that students are doing the thinking, creating, problem solving, extrapolation, etc. vs. having the teacher do all of this for them in "teacher directed" mode. I currently have some high school AP students who are at the top of their classes. It amazes me that they are more focused on parroting back the correct memorized answer than they are understanding the meanings or applications behind the topics at hand. In other words, someone has done all of the hard thinking for them in the past, and they expect this to continue. Such "learning" is a disservice to students in the long run, and the book's author is trying to help us avoid the mistake of providing all of the answers -- even if this sometimes makes us feel really good about giving one of the world's best speeches about subject x.

Regarding the use of movies, it would be wonderful if students could become as exited about math and science as they are about entertainment, CSI, and sports. Maybe we should use even more short movies to make sure that our subjects are relevant to students' interests -- especially in math. So few students want to become engineers, doctors, scientists, economists, accountants and IT professionals! Have we spent enough time selling our students on the relevance, exciting careers, and financial rewards associated with our subjects? While I don't condone wasting a day on Nemo, I think we need to take the "establish a reason to learn" ideal very much to heart.