“They offered to us a legacy of liberatory pedagogy that demanded active resistance and rebellion against sexism and racism” (hooks 2).
Though applied to feminism, this quote expands beyond that and reaches all forms of active pedagogy. The key words that stick out in this quote are “liberatory pedagogy.” Education should be freeing; education should uncover truths so that students can explore the world. Yet education barely means this by today’s standards. We are falling back into the modes of traditional education where the teacher imparts information and the students listen and “learn” silently. But hooks offers a better way to look at education, through active resistance and rebellion. Any student who feels that they are not receiving the education they deserve, without limits and boundaries, without all of the information, with a narrowed view of the world, should speak out and defend what education truly should be: freeing.
“When we acknowledge that we do not know everything, that we do not have all the answers, we risk students leaving our classrooms and telling others that we are not prepared. It is important to make it clear to students that we are prepared and that the willingness to be open and honest about what we do not know is a gesture of respect for them” (hooks 9).
This has been an ongoing issue in education. How much do we let our students know about the knowledge that we have to offer? If I were to teach a lesson on a concept that I was a bit shaky on, I feel that I would be one to let my students know that it isn’t my strong suit, even if I run the risk of appearing “unprepared.” This idea falls in line with what hooks is talking about; it shows that I would respect my students enough to be completely honest with them. Also, having open honesty with students makes education less of a teacher-as-ruler and students-as-subjects form of learning and more of a humanistic form of learning. Students aren’t going to learn everything, and they can digest that better knowing that their teacher hasn’t learned everything as well.
“Though most adolescents who come out do so in high school, sex researchers and counselors say that middle-school students are increasingly coming out to friends or family or to an adult in school” (Denizet-Lewis 2).
In today’s society, students are coming out about their sexual orientation at much younger ages than before. It used to be that if a student realized that he or she was homosexual, that it wouldn’t come out until later years in high school or even college. This being said, it wasn’t much of an issue for teachers who would have to deal with bullying and harassment. Now it seems that this a crucial issue that teachers must work with on a daily basis. Not only do teachers have to teach their curriculum, but they must work to change what our society has deemed as the “social norms” so as to make the classroom a comfortable environment for all students. This requires looking at your own beliefs and the beliefs of your students and their families. But what happens when a teacher looks at himself or herself and realizes that they aren’t an open and accepting individual, that he or she hasn’t accepted homosexuality as a norm? All of the readings suggest that teachers need to be open, but if this social bias exists—and it does—then isn’t it most likely that some of these narrow minded individuals are teachers?
“Queer theory offers educators a lens through which educators can transform their praxis so as to explore and celebrate the tensions and new understandings created by teaching new ways of seeing the world” (Meyer 15).
This quote follows closely with the questions I have posed from the previous quote explanation. Queer theory is fairly new, and I totally see its point in attempting to transform ways of thinking. As a future teacher, I am constantly thinking of new ways I can teach and how it will relate to a larger purpose. A curriculum is a failed curriculum if it only manages to stay within the walls of the classroom. The curriculum needs to be related to every student’s lives, and with the ever expanding diversity of students, this means more ways to expand the curriculum. If teachers fail to make this connection, students who do not feel accepted will further feel rejected and spite school.
“Educational structures wield extraordinary ideological power due to their role in teaching what the culture has deemed as important and valuable to future generations” (Meyer 21-2).
This statement is true, and doesn’t even seem that bad, but the problem with this statement is what our culture has deemed as valuable to our students. New theories have popped up over the years, but the one that seems to stick from generation to generation is the traditional teaching of basic skills and core subjects without personal inferences. In order to fix our educational structures, we have to fix what our culture considers important. In today’s society, we are biased, racist, sexist, and a combination of things that will negatively impact our students. Beyond the basic educational skills, our students learn how to form stereotypes and harsh opinions of their fellow classmates. As teachers, we need to bring positive aspects of the world into our classroom, bring in diversity, and show our students how to open up their minds and be better, more accepting learners.
“Over time, subjects in the high school have acquired dubious gender association; some are ‘masculine,’ other are ‘feminine.’ In reality, math, auto shop, and science are not mal domains; nor are literature, home economics, and music the province of females. Yet in the unreality of the school environment, this has become the case” (Unks 324).
This is so true. Because certain subjects have gotten the rap for being masculine and feminine, males and females often stick to the subjects that are deemed appropriate for them. This sounds ridiculous, especially because everyone knows what their own interests are, but it continues to happen in schools today. The problem is difficult to fix, though. Males stick to auto shop and not home economics or music (and this is only one reason, not always the case) because they don’t want to hear the jeers of “that’s so gay,” a common phrase used by adolescents and adults alike. The term “gay” has come to replace terms like “stupid, dumb, or not cool,” but has a harsher connotation. Heterosexuals don’t want to be referred to as gay, and homosexuals don’t like hearing the term slandered. It seems that what really needs to be taught is mutual respect among all students, that way students don’t have to feel hindered by choosing class electives and can freely express their interests.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Blog 2: Liberal Pedagogy
“Because grades have come to represent so much, they are increasingly perceived by the general public as representing little if anything at all” (Landan 150).
I was pleased to find a reading on assessment because it was something I never really considered before. Grading is grading, or so I thought. The major significance in this reading, however, concerned the controversies of assessment. In past educational text books, we have learned that there are many different ways to assess students that go beyond paper and pencil testing. Different forms of assessment give every student the opportunity to earn good grades. This seemed to be the very definition of fairness in assessing students’ growth in the classroom, but Landan brings up something that educational idealists fail to mention: there is still bias in the classroom. So he says that grades represent so much; in other words, unfortunately grades mean more than a student’s progress or measure of educational skills. Grades feed into whether or not a teacher likes a student, good or bad behavior, popularity, and a number of things that have nothing to do with the actual academic intelligence of the student. Because grades have come to measure more than academic achievement, grades are hardly an accurate measurement of what a student has achieved. So why do we still have a grading system? Landan’s article demonstrates that the grading system, like most systems, are flawed, and the best thing we can do as teachers is to keep this bias in mind, and try to stray as far from it as possible.
“To the disinterested observer, an F is commonly understood to mean that a student has failed to understand the subject matter. Missing work is not the same thing as a failure to understand; it simply means that the student’s level of comprehension has yet to be determined” (Landan 155).
Landan brings up another really great point in grading: missing assignments. As liberal teachers, grading missing or incomplete work as an F is failing to take the students’ thoughts and concerns into consideration. Though the teacher has ultimate control of the classroom, the students should have some freedom. I believe that this would include flexibility with late or missing assignments. Giving an automatic F for missing work falls under the traditional theory of teaching, not liberal. A liberal teacher might work out a system that allows for a certain number of incompletes, as an incomplete is not a grade, and then students will have the ability to make up the assignments later. This way, students are not getting low grades, and eventually they will be assessed for the work they do complete. It sounds great, but the only problem I do have is being able to manage a system like this. High school teachers have a lot of students. If a teacher has five classes with over twenty students per class, that is over a hundred students. That is a lot of work to keep track of. It is almost easier to go the traditional route and mark a student down for not having the work in time, but again teachers must sacrifice to help their students. My only answer to keeping track of late work that teacher choose to accept is, stay organized. If our students can’t be organized, then we will have to be organized for them.
“All of us need to convey to our students and our colleagues every day that ‘you are important to me as a person’” (Wong 65).
Though this reading seems to be targeted for elementary school teachers, it provides information that teachers of all levels can heed from. This quote encompasses liberal pedagogy; we must treat our students as people. We are no more important than they are; we are there to provide a guided education. Though we are the ones with the degrees, I’m sure we can stand to learn plenty of things from our students. Also, if we treat our students like they matter (because they DO matter!) they will most likely give us a mutual respect and be willing to work with us and learn from us. Wong mentions being an inviting teacher versus a disinviting teacher. After reading a few examples, I didn’t realize how easy it was to be unintentionally disinviting, therefore forgetting to treat students as people. One disinviting comment is, “I was hired to teach history, not do these other things.” I’ll admit that I have said something along these lines before concerning my content area: I want to teach English. But I realize that other stuff has to come with that, and not every student is going to embrace English in the way that I have, so I must teach other things as well, such as appreciation or life skills that can be taken from literature.
“Learning has nothing to do with what the teacher covers. Learning has to do with what the student accomplishes” (Wong 210).
We hear this over and over again: covering the material. Covering the material is just another way to say that you got through the material, but “getting through” something implies that it was unpleasant and you’re happy that it’s in the past. Instead of getting through the curriculum, we want our students to REMEMBER the curriculum. Remembering information is the first step to truly learning what has been taught. I also equate covering material with traditional pedagogy, and learning the material as liberal pedagogy. As liberal teachers, we need to forget about going through the motions of teaching and actually point out and UNCOVER what needs to be taught. If teachers can simply point out what a student should learn from the material they are going to present, instead of just putting it out there for students, then so much more learning would be accomplished.
“The cruelty of No Child Left Behind puts childhood at grave risk, setting schools on a course that will produce very, very angry children who grow up to be adults whose values are very skewed and who are mad as hell to boot” (Ohanian 21).
Ohanian is angry, and I don’t blame her! Like the rest of us going into education, she wants everyone to stop looking at scoring data and focus on the students, mainly, whether or not the students are happy. In general, students say they don’t really like school, and No Child Left Behind is making it a lot easier for them to say that. Instead of having the opportunity to enjoy their education, students are getting more and more tests thrown at them, and all of the fun gets sucked out of them. It is emotionally draining on students to have testing without true learning. Basically, No Child Left Behind puts so much stress on children, it allows them to be anything but that—children—and why wouldn’t it make them angry? But No Child Left Behind is something that all of us will have to face, so now it will be our jobs to see our students as people, and try to be there to support and nurture them through rigorous testing. If students have someone there for them in their younger years, we might possibly be able to prevent those angry adults with skewed values.
“The books we choose to bring into our classroom say a lot about what we think is important, whose stories get told, whose voices are heard, whose are marginalized” (Christensen 3).
An aspect of traditional pedagogy is teaching to the text book. In liberal pedagogy, the text is more flexible, and the curriculum can be shaped through a collection of texts that the students have interest in. Though student interest is important, the teacher has control of the classroom and can choose what material to use. Christensen points out that it is important to pay attention to our students’ interests when choosing the material we bring into our classrooms. As a future English teacher, I would choose literature that reflects students’ interests and cultures. What we as teachers think is important should be the material that impacts our students.
I was pleased to find a reading on assessment because it was something I never really considered before. Grading is grading, or so I thought. The major significance in this reading, however, concerned the controversies of assessment. In past educational text books, we have learned that there are many different ways to assess students that go beyond paper and pencil testing. Different forms of assessment give every student the opportunity to earn good grades. This seemed to be the very definition of fairness in assessing students’ growth in the classroom, but Landan brings up something that educational idealists fail to mention: there is still bias in the classroom. So he says that grades represent so much; in other words, unfortunately grades mean more than a student’s progress or measure of educational skills. Grades feed into whether or not a teacher likes a student, good or bad behavior, popularity, and a number of things that have nothing to do with the actual academic intelligence of the student. Because grades have come to measure more than academic achievement, grades are hardly an accurate measurement of what a student has achieved. So why do we still have a grading system? Landan’s article demonstrates that the grading system, like most systems, are flawed, and the best thing we can do as teachers is to keep this bias in mind, and try to stray as far from it as possible.
“To the disinterested observer, an F is commonly understood to mean that a student has failed to understand the subject matter. Missing work is not the same thing as a failure to understand; it simply means that the student’s level of comprehension has yet to be determined” (Landan 155).
Landan brings up another really great point in grading: missing assignments. As liberal teachers, grading missing or incomplete work as an F is failing to take the students’ thoughts and concerns into consideration. Though the teacher has ultimate control of the classroom, the students should have some freedom. I believe that this would include flexibility with late or missing assignments. Giving an automatic F for missing work falls under the traditional theory of teaching, not liberal. A liberal teacher might work out a system that allows for a certain number of incompletes, as an incomplete is not a grade, and then students will have the ability to make up the assignments later. This way, students are not getting low grades, and eventually they will be assessed for the work they do complete. It sounds great, but the only problem I do have is being able to manage a system like this. High school teachers have a lot of students. If a teacher has five classes with over twenty students per class, that is over a hundred students. That is a lot of work to keep track of. It is almost easier to go the traditional route and mark a student down for not having the work in time, but again teachers must sacrifice to help their students. My only answer to keeping track of late work that teacher choose to accept is, stay organized. If our students can’t be organized, then we will have to be organized for them.
“All of us need to convey to our students and our colleagues every day that ‘you are important to me as a person’” (Wong 65).
Though this reading seems to be targeted for elementary school teachers, it provides information that teachers of all levels can heed from. This quote encompasses liberal pedagogy; we must treat our students as people. We are no more important than they are; we are there to provide a guided education. Though we are the ones with the degrees, I’m sure we can stand to learn plenty of things from our students. Also, if we treat our students like they matter (because they DO matter!) they will most likely give us a mutual respect and be willing to work with us and learn from us. Wong mentions being an inviting teacher versus a disinviting teacher. After reading a few examples, I didn’t realize how easy it was to be unintentionally disinviting, therefore forgetting to treat students as people. One disinviting comment is, “I was hired to teach history, not do these other things.” I’ll admit that I have said something along these lines before concerning my content area: I want to teach English. But I realize that other stuff has to come with that, and not every student is going to embrace English in the way that I have, so I must teach other things as well, such as appreciation or life skills that can be taken from literature.
“Learning has nothing to do with what the teacher covers. Learning has to do with what the student accomplishes” (Wong 210).
We hear this over and over again: covering the material. Covering the material is just another way to say that you got through the material, but “getting through” something implies that it was unpleasant and you’re happy that it’s in the past. Instead of getting through the curriculum, we want our students to REMEMBER the curriculum. Remembering information is the first step to truly learning what has been taught. I also equate covering material with traditional pedagogy, and learning the material as liberal pedagogy. As liberal teachers, we need to forget about going through the motions of teaching and actually point out and UNCOVER what needs to be taught. If teachers can simply point out what a student should learn from the material they are going to present, instead of just putting it out there for students, then so much more learning would be accomplished.
“The cruelty of No Child Left Behind puts childhood at grave risk, setting schools on a course that will produce very, very angry children who grow up to be adults whose values are very skewed and who are mad as hell to boot” (Ohanian 21).
Ohanian is angry, and I don’t blame her! Like the rest of us going into education, she wants everyone to stop looking at scoring data and focus on the students, mainly, whether or not the students are happy. In general, students say they don’t really like school, and No Child Left Behind is making it a lot easier for them to say that. Instead of having the opportunity to enjoy their education, students are getting more and more tests thrown at them, and all of the fun gets sucked out of them. It is emotionally draining on students to have testing without true learning. Basically, No Child Left Behind puts so much stress on children, it allows them to be anything but that—children—and why wouldn’t it make them angry? But No Child Left Behind is something that all of us will have to face, so now it will be our jobs to see our students as people, and try to be there to support and nurture them through rigorous testing. If students have someone there for them in their younger years, we might possibly be able to prevent those angry adults with skewed values.
“The books we choose to bring into our classroom say a lot about what we think is important, whose stories get told, whose voices are heard, whose are marginalized” (Christensen 3).
An aspect of traditional pedagogy is teaching to the text book. In liberal pedagogy, the text is more flexible, and the curriculum can be shaped through a collection of texts that the students have interest in. Though student interest is important, the teacher has control of the classroom and can choose what material to use. Christensen points out that it is important to pay attention to our students’ interests when choosing the material we bring into our classrooms. As a future English teacher, I would choose literature that reflects students’ interests and cultures. What we as teachers think is important should be the material that impacts our students.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Blog 1
1. "They [students] are being forced to take high-stakes exams that not only fail to deliver on promises to improve student learning, but also take a high toll in terms of anxiety and failure, especially for the most disadvantaged students. Simultaneously, students are subjected to classroom experiences focused on rote test preparation skills rather than genuine understanding" (Hinchey 99).
Throughout Chapter 5, Hinchey discusses the consequences, which happen to be mainly negative, of the government's idea of an educational reform. This quote is pulled from the section on how educational reform impacts the students and deals with standardized testing, an issue that continues to pop up in our education courses and an issue that as teachers we will have to battle year after year. Standardized testing's purpose is to measure the standards (as its title denotes) of our students, yet government and educational leaders do not see eye to eye in its measurement. Hinchey points out what most teachers already know: if standardized testing isn't harming our students, then it is definitely harming our curriculum. Based on the traditional pedagogy that we have been studying, standardized testing actually fits in with the curriculum because it relies on "rote test preparation skills," or in other words basic memorization. But if we want students to actually learn the material and develop understanding, these methods that the government requires of schools across the nation will do little to provide that understanding.
2. "Too often...basic skills are taught in isolation from interesting content, leaving students wondering what use phonics or set theory could possibly have in their lives" (Kohl 25).
Herbert Kohl's short and simple piece on the many questions people have before going into teaching provides numerous insights into the teaching profession in general. Though the article is meant for us to ask ourselves if we are ready to go into teaching, Kohl lays out many things that should or shouldn't be done in the classroom, such as teaching content apart from relevance. This seems to be the definition of traditional pedagogy: giving the facts without the reasons. In the traditional sense, school has always been seen as a formal institution, but Kohl asks us to lose a little bit of the formality and be informal (to a certain extent) with students. This informality will reveal students' interests and provide the teacher with intriguing ways to present the necessary curriculum--something all of us should strive for as teachers.
3. "Education is suffering from narration sickness" (Friere 1).
Friere coins the phrase "narration sickness" as the lack of learning that occurs when a teacher constantly lectures and the students sit back and listen. This is passive education at its worst. In his article, Friere argues against the traditional method of learning and believes it to do more harm to students than good. Learning should be looked at as a sharing between the teacher and the student, but when a class is lecture based, the teacher is subconsciously saying that he is the one with all of the knowledge and the students must be filled with his knowledge. This reminds me of a quote from W.B. Yeats: "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." If a classroom does follow the lecture format, students may be filled with the information, but what are they doing with it? When students suffer from "narration sickness," they are not being taught how to use the information that they have received, and therefore they are not actually learning.
4. "With so much depending on testing results, educators feel forced to do 'whatever it takes' to protect school scores" (Hinchey 106).
Education used to be about the students. We as teachers are there to provide the students with as much of a well-rounded education as possible. Hinchey is right: educators do feel forced to do what is necessary to get their schools good scores on standardized tests, and she expands on this idea throughout her article, claiming that if schools do not maintain high enough scores, teachers can lose their jobs. When a teacher's job is on the line, the essential question no longer is "what can my students learn so that they will have an education that will stay with them?" but "what do my students need to know so that they can get through this one test?" A teacher should always have an interest in his students, but it would be difficult to maintain that interest when he must look out for himself. Besides, how can he teach his students once he is gone?
5. "In addition to losing ground in terms of ethical behavior, teachers have also lost controls of the curriculum, so that they can no longer teacher what they believe in or what they believe their students most need" (Hinchey 106).
This quote builds off of the previous quote. Not only do teachers have to do what it takes, they may have to teach many things that they believe may not be beneficial to their students in the long run. This is occurring in schools today, and in my own experience, this is happening in a K-8 school in Hartford. The teacher who I am doing my field observations with, a 6th grade teacher, is currently putting her lessons on hold in order to teach the material for the CMTs. If standardized tests were designed properly, she wouldn't have to be doing this. She actually feels stressed that she has to push back a big unit just so she can squeeze in time for "CMT training" as she referred to it. This example reiterates a point that Hinchey makes throughout the chapter: standardized testing affects more than we think, and there definitely needs to be a reform to education different from what the government is suggesting.
6. "Direct instruction as an instructional method works for only a small percentage of students, not for a great variety. The students who have other than verbal "intelligence," or who come from different cultural world views will fail" (Direct Instruction Link in Folder 2).
Direct instruction is a method that falls under the traditional realm of teaching. Sometimes, a bit of direct instruction has its appropriate uses, but most of the time students will fail to gain information if they cannot apply the given information. This quote touches on the differentiations in learning and that not all students learn verbally. From past courses, I have learned that in fact most students are visual learners. In that case, direct instruction would work best (if used at all) when paired with another instructional aide so that students can take conceptual information and visualize it. Different types of learning only prove that a teacher cannot rely on just one teaching method, but instead needs to vary multiple methods to ensure that students are not only gaining information, but recognizing and applying that information.
Throughout Chapter 5, Hinchey discusses the consequences, which happen to be mainly negative, of the government's idea of an educational reform. This quote is pulled from the section on how educational reform impacts the students and deals with standardized testing, an issue that continues to pop up in our education courses and an issue that as teachers we will have to battle year after year. Standardized testing's purpose is to measure the standards (as its title denotes) of our students, yet government and educational leaders do not see eye to eye in its measurement. Hinchey points out what most teachers already know: if standardized testing isn't harming our students, then it is definitely harming our curriculum. Based on the traditional pedagogy that we have been studying, standardized testing actually fits in with the curriculum because it relies on "rote test preparation skills," or in other words basic memorization. But if we want students to actually learn the material and develop understanding, these methods that the government requires of schools across the nation will do little to provide that understanding.
2. "Too often...basic skills are taught in isolation from interesting content, leaving students wondering what use phonics or set theory could possibly have in their lives" (Kohl 25).
Herbert Kohl's short and simple piece on the many questions people have before going into teaching provides numerous insights into the teaching profession in general. Though the article is meant for us to ask ourselves if we are ready to go into teaching, Kohl lays out many things that should or shouldn't be done in the classroom, such as teaching content apart from relevance. This seems to be the definition of traditional pedagogy: giving the facts without the reasons. In the traditional sense, school has always been seen as a formal institution, but Kohl asks us to lose a little bit of the formality and be informal (to a certain extent) with students. This informality will reveal students' interests and provide the teacher with intriguing ways to present the necessary curriculum--something all of us should strive for as teachers.
3. "Education is suffering from narration sickness" (Friere 1).
Friere coins the phrase "narration sickness" as the lack of learning that occurs when a teacher constantly lectures and the students sit back and listen. This is passive education at its worst. In his article, Friere argues against the traditional method of learning and believes it to do more harm to students than good. Learning should be looked at as a sharing between the teacher and the student, but when a class is lecture based, the teacher is subconsciously saying that he is the one with all of the knowledge and the students must be filled with his knowledge. This reminds me of a quote from W.B. Yeats: "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." If a classroom does follow the lecture format, students may be filled with the information, but what are they doing with it? When students suffer from "narration sickness," they are not being taught how to use the information that they have received, and therefore they are not actually learning.
4. "With so much depending on testing results, educators feel forced to do 'whatever it takes' to protect school scores" (Hinchey 106).
Education used to be about the students. We as teachers are there to provide the students with as much of a well-rounded education as possible. Hinchey is right: educators do feel forced to do what is necessary to get their schools good scores on standardized tests, and she expands on this idea throughout her article, claiming that if schools do not maintain high enough scores, teachers can lose their jobs. When a teacher's job is on the line, the essential question no longer is "what can my students learn so that they will have an education that will stay with them?" but "what do my students need to know so that they can get through this one test?" A teacher should always have an interest in his students, but it would be difficult to maintain that interest when he must look out for himself. Besides, how can he teach his students once he is gone?
5. "In addition to losing ground in terms of ethical behavior, teachers have also lost controls of the curriculum, so that they can no longer teacher what they believe in or what they believe their students most need" (Hinchey 106).
This quote builds off of the previous quote. Not only do teachers have to do what it takes, they may have to teach many things that they believe may not be beneficial to their students in the long run. This is occurring in schools today, and in my own experience, this is happening in a K-8 school in Hartford. The teacher who I am doing my field observations with, a 6th grade teacher, is currently putting her lessons on hold in order to teach the material for the CMTs. If standardized tests were designed properly, she wouldn't have to be doing this. She actually feels stressed that she has to push back a big unit just so she can squeeze in time for "CMT training" as she referred to it. This example reiterates a point that Hinchey makes throughout the chapter: standardized testing affects more than we think, and there definitely needs to be a reform to education different from what the government is suggesting.
6. "Direct instruction as an instructional method works for only a small percentage of students, not for a great variety. The students who have other than verbal "intelligence," or who come from different cultural world views will fail" (Direct Instruction Link in Folder 2).
Direct instruction is a method that falls under the traditional realm of teaching. Sometimes, a bit of direct instruction has its appropriate uses, but most of the time students will fail to gain information if they cannot apply the given information. This quote touches on the differentiations in learning and that not all students learn verbally. From past courses, I have learned that in fact most students are visual learners. In that case, direct instruction would work best (if used at all) when paired with another instructional aide so that students can take conceptual information and visualize it. Different types of learning only prove that a teacher cannot rely on just one teaching method, but instead needs to vary multiple methods to ensure that students are not only gaining information, but recognizing and applying that information.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
