Textbook chapter 1 to 3

As I began to read the text I started to think about my own teaching methods. At Amber Hill it is obvious that they are following the more traditional approach where there is an obvious barrier separating students from teachers and definitely the principal. There was not a whole lot of interaction between either.According to Palinscar(1998), "interactions such as those achieved through classroom discussion are thought to provide mechanisms for higher order thinking". At Amber Hill the lack of communication that was occurring within the classroom will hinder such development.


Phoenix Park on the other hand did foster more communication. The principal along with the teachers were constantly interacting with the students. This type of interaction will allow for higher order thinking.

I try to use a balance of both schools. Due to the high percent of students marks being based on the paper pencil test as well as the vast number of objectives that have to be covered by June it would be hard to use the project inquiry discussion all year but in no way is it useful for me to get up at the board doing a chalk and talk all class. I do present objectives and examples but I also give the students time to explore ideas on their own using the investigation approach. I also get students up to the board to lead discussions. I think that for now my balance is working. I would like it if there was not such an emphasis on the paper and pencil testing.

Palinscar, A. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review            

                      Of Psychology, 49, 345-375.