Hi Dr. Jackson!

Do our narrative defense and philosophy portion have to be two distinct sections? I can’t imagine defending my lesson plans without talking about my personal philosophy. This may be because I view lesson plans as a road map, not necessarily a rigid step-by-step manual to by followed to the T (and I think the way I wrote them reflects that). I loathe everything that scripted instruction stands for and the way I see my lesson plans actually happening in my theoretical classroom is directly influenced by research, my philosophy, and the way I see my class-at-large working beyond the lesson plans. I have so many things that are operating (in my head at this point, at least) that don’t belong in my lesson plans. I have thoughts about year-long portfolios for various things, I have reading passports that exist beyond the curriculum but involve the curriculum, etc.  The way I would implement the lesson plan instruction of “Have students draw what they see.” goes so far beyond just drawing and involves many opportunities for expression.

I don’t think I can separate a research-based defense from a philosophical approach because, to me, they are so interrelated. You can’t have one without the other. I, personally, think a lot of the problems we see in education today are caused by trying to isolate research from philosophy and attempting to only take one or the other into account. I think that’s fundamentally flawed and in some cases may actually be dangerous.

I mean, could I make them be two distinct sections? If I absolutely had to. But trying to force it into that structure feels entirely unnatural to me and might do a disservice to to my actual plan.

Please let me know.

Thanks!
Wren