(One step to becoming a professional teacher, in my district, is to reflect on a blog. Hence "Reflection" at the beginning of the post title.)
I'm about four pages in, and he just talked about the difference between strategy and technique. I'll use a sports example, because I like sports. I think there are two main aspects to coaching: practice and play-call. I've often wondered what makes a good coach good. Which is more important? practice or play call? I think about Vince Lombardi, because he seemed to be the kind of coach who emphasized the latter. I assume that because he's a legendary coach, but all the video I've seen of him has him standing on the sidelines with a grimace. Therefore I deduce that he must do nearly all of his coaching in practices.
I just looked him up.
Lombardi created punishing training regimens and expected absolute dedication and effort from his players. The 1959 Packers were an immediate improvement, finishing at 7-5. Rookie head coach Lombardi was named Coach of the Year.His success wasn't from his brilliant play calls, it was from his training regimens and expectations of dedication.
So anyway, back to teaching. I tend to wax philosophical and consider lofty and elaborate strategies. With just the right strategy, I think, I'll be a better teacher. Or at least my life will be a little easier. Or something good will come from it. Right? Wrong.
Strategy is fine, but it comes second to technique. A brilliant rotational, gamified, blended strategy won't mean anything if I don't have the technique of classroom management, for example.
So for now, time to read on. Time to focus on technique before getting to the lofty strategies.