The readings prompted me to look at three threads together: space, language, and assessment. On space, I get the appeal of learning gardens even if I’m not exactly an outdoors person—there is something about fresh air that quiets the noise. If I ever use a garden, I’d keep it lean and purposeful: a portable blackboard, tight notes, a short task that only makes sense because we’re outside, then back to regular tools. Calling ecosystems “co-teachers” is an interesting nudge; at minimum it reminds me to treat the place with respect instead of as decor.
On language, Kimmerer’s “grammar of animacy” stuck. I rely on precise math/physics terms because they prevent us from talking past each other, but I can see how a nouns-only register flattens things. A small shift in sequence might help: let students notice a phenomenon first—growth, pull, drift—then name it, and keep a parallel, verb-ish gloss so the idea feels alive instead of museum-labeled. It’s also a quiet way to signal that more than one knowledge system can sit at the table.
On assessment, the case for refocusing from grades to learning lands for me, with caveats. Grades still translate for parents and universities, but in class we can lower the temperature: more low-stakes completion credit where it makes sense, a retake or alternate demo of understanding, co-making a rubric so students see the target and help define “excellent.” I like the “firm goals, flexible means” framing. It doesn’t throw out standards; it just gives students room to show what they can do without everything riding on one number.
No comments:
Post a Comment