Monday, May 2, 2011
Teaching evolution, and making other alternative beliefs aware to the students leans into religion, which makes public schools nervous. However, there are students of varying beliefs and a good discussion could come from laying all views out on the table.
Allowing students to explore all areas, and then make their own decisions, is the best way. We’ve discussed whether or not they (the students) are able to make their own inferences and decisions in a smart way, and we’ve concluded that they can. I believe that knowledge can extend to this as well.
I wrote in my Q&A response how at my Catholic school (which may be progressive, now that I think of it), we were beginning to shift into thinking that we were taught the creationism stories as a way to explain the unexplicable (like parables) and now, with science, they are finally being explained properly, and the stories are now just stories.
I think it is difficult to fully ascribe to believing in both. I think it would be really difficult to believe in science and in religion. I think one can believe theres a higher power that watches over this world that science and evolution created, but beyond that it's hard to think that God created the organisms which then took on a life of their own. It's a tough subject, and I feel confused now that I'm trying to think of how to explain how I balance Catholicism and evolution.
Truthfully, I think science and evolution is undeniable for the most part, whereas creationism raises a lot of questions and has little proof.
I think one reason is that it may be a stepping stone to an ultimate goal. I think one example here is the core courses in the College. We have to take these cores, which include math and science, or classes way outside of our comfort zone. Being an English major, Calculus and Environmental Science were not my favorite classes and I struggled through them. However, I did the work because they led to the ultimate goal of a degree. I think outside motivation, or motivation that this work leads to your final goals, is a big reason for people to do work they hate, suck at, or just don't feel like doing.
Second semester senior year of high school I took a mandatory "accounting" class about how to write checks, pay bills online, choose insurance, etc. Every second semester senior had to take it. However, I hated every second-- because I was already doing all of those things, and had been for at least two years. I wish my school made it a Sophomore requirement, seeing as I bought my car at 16, opened a joint checking with my mom where I wrote checks for the car payment and insurance, as well as already chose an insurance. I learned how to do all of these things from my parents. Although maybe the class would be beneficial as a mandatory course earlier, I think Senior year, in my case, was way too late. I had already been there, and done that.
I'm torn on whether it should be mandatory or not though. I feel as if those skills are skills kids learn from their parents, or guardians, or older siblings. The mandatory class was a giant waste of time in my case. However, I am well aware that a lot of kids don't have that guidance, and in those cases, these classes could be beneficial. Maybe these "real life" skills could be combined into a life skills course, but ultimately, I do not think they should be mandatory.
However, there may be some worthy teachers who instead took a different job at an office or the like, due to the harsh reality that they may not be able to live on a teacher's salary. The article said, "At the moment, the average teacher’s pay is on par with that of a toll taker or bartender."
Those jobs are not desirable jobs and are certainly not jobs you need a degree for. Why are these teachers with advanced degrees brought down to that level then?
Shelby asked: Which would be the more effective route to take for educational reformation: more alternative, private schools, or revamping public schools?
As a child of private schools, I know firsthand the benefits of my private education, and that I thrived under it. I did not go to the public school because my parents did not think it was up to par with my learning ability and they wanted to give me a better opportunity, along with the fact that my parents are pretty religious. My mom had to work at the school in order for us to get a discounted tuition so that I could attend. For that reason, I think we should work to revamp public schools so that parents do not have to struggle for private education, and everyone has the same opportunity to receive a quality education, free of charge. England is doing something right over there with their free education (that is of a high standard). We need to look at their system, and fix ours in accordance.
I've never really thought about it, but it would seem that it does. The average American is not going to retire at 65. This leads to at least 45 long years of work with little vacation. Unless you're someone who would use your free time to read, or watch educational programs, I feel as if lifelong learning would slack. Those with precious free time would more than likely prefer to spend time with family, rest, take a mindless vacation, or watch mindless television. The stress of the American workforce is already palpable in my few short weeks of just applying for jobs. I'm not looking forward to my future 50 years of employment in the slightest. However, to fix this conundrum, maybe organizations should offer courses through a local college or help their employees get their masters degrees? Allowing the time (and possibly paying for it) could help the employee learn and grow, while the organization gains a better worker.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Question: Would you be open to being taught through comics in a classroom? Do you think it would make students more motivated to do their work?
Should we be harder on kids that use profanity? Or is it not as big a deal as some of us are making it out to be? Should it be met with disciplinary action on behalf of the students? The teachers?
Response to Brittany: Can you think of ways the conventional school-schedule model can be adjusted to help these students receive a quality education?
Although I’ve ALWAYS thought high-school started way too early, I think that there should be ways to allow students the opportunity to work, or fufill other special needs they may have. One friend of mine took the opportunity to leave school early in order to go straight to her job. It was the school-to-work program. Although I couldn’t believe that she had to do that, it’s a harsh reality for some families. Allowing her to finish PE independently and take her free periods at the end of the day facilitated this afterschool job. This girl used all that money from her afterschool job to get her associates, and now she has a good preschool teaching job.
There was also a student I knew of that took night classes so that he could watch his siblings during the day, since his parents were working and couldn’t afford daycare. I think the unconventional night classes, and school-to-work program, is giving students who wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity, the chance to succeed and make sure they have a brighter future.
“Smith turned to student-peer ratings of forty-two common personality traits, based on each student's observation of the actual classroom behavior of his or her classmates. A statistical technique called factor analysis then allowed for the identification of five general traits-agreeableness, extroversion, work orientation, emotionality and helpfulness-that proved stable across different samples. Of these five traits, only the work-orientation factor, which Smith calls "strength of character"-including such traits as ". . . not a quitter, conscientious, responsible, insistently orderly, not prone to daydreaming, determined, persevering . . ."-was related to school success. Smith then proceeded to show that, in several samples, this work-orientation trait was three times more successful in predicting post-high-school academic performance than any combination of thirteen cognitive variables, including SAT verbal, SAT mathematical, and school class rank.”
I’m glad that Smith found a way beyond standardized testing. Everyone knows that standardized tests are too objective and cannot tell a school or employer a student’s true aptitude, but no one really had a good alternative. Although we discussed the personal essay as a good way to tell a student’s personality, I believe that Smith is on to something. A student might not test well, but be the most conscientious student in the class. Relying on peers, who are quite honest in most cases, seems to be a good way to put a face and personality to a transcript. I believe that this aspect should be added to a person’s portfolio. Although it is quite possible that you could run into human nature, and some students would be unfairly scrutinized or lauded, I believe that in general it could really work. It might be able to help a student go places they deserve to, but otherwise wouldn’t be given the opportunity to.
Can peer evaluations help or hinder?
That working-class parents seem to favor stricter educational methods is a reflection of their own work experiences, which have demonstrated that submission to authority is an essential ingredient in one's ability to get and hold a steady, well-paying job. That professional and self-employed parents prefer a more open atmosphere and a greater emphasis on motivational control is similarly a reflection of their position in the social division of labor. When given the opportunity, higher-status parents are far more likely than their lower-status neighbors to choose "open classrooms" for their children.
Bowles and Gintis’ argument expanded to include parental involvement in a student’s education. I have always thought that a teacher can only do so much, especially in elementary education. Flash cards, reading at home, doing homework: all falls on the parent to help a child continue learning outside of the classroom. With what the article argues, this makes even more sense now. Typical working class parents do not have the time to take to stress learning, so they do what they can, which is to teach their child how to be successful. Higher up parents, who might have the time or the resources to make sure their child learns out of the classroom, then have the ability to stress learning, and encourage children to be lifelong learners, rather than citizens ready to work. This circle of inequality seems a tough one to break and go beyond. Sure, more and more students are given the opportunity, but without the backing from parents or family, it can fail. Once again it is the age-old tale of upringing and birth playing a huge part in a child’s future. What can a teacher do to help break this cycle? Especially an overworked inner-city teacher?
Response to Brittany: Do you remember any teachers who made their classes/lessons memorable by using humor in their teaching?
I believe that funny teachers are often the teachers who truly love their subject. These teachers make their lessons fun, and their classes fun to be in. That can be a lifesaver when a student just doesn’t want to be there, or is having a bad day. The light humor makes a classroom comfortable, and learning easier.
My AP History teacher senior year of high school made learning American History so much fun, I regularly watch the history channel and “American Experience” tv show now. When we were learning about the sixties, and hippies, he made us all come in to school dressed as hippies. We then went and protested against another teacher’s class. This teacher had directed everyone to dress up and dress in military garb. The teacher was a former military general, and usually very serious, but everyone had fun that day as we recreated one of the protests that usually went on. Sure, we burned a day of class and had fun, but I always remember it. He always did little activities or had running jokes that made the time pass, and made me remember and retain the material.
Like Russell, I believe in the power of a good lecture. Sure, Russell seems to go above a beyond in terms of preparation than any teacher I think ever does, but a stimulating lecture can allow for a teacher to pass forth ideas in a fast manner. Excited teachers can make great lectures incredibly stimulating and helpful. However, I do believe that a lecture should be only part of the teaching method. Students can listen to a lecture, and then do group work and discuss the lecture with a small assignment. That can ensure that a student grasps the material. Pre-reading could also help with students learning the material. Although a facilitated discussion is also a good idea, I don’t want to discredit a good lecture. Good theories and points can be relayed, and writing them down has always helped me learn.
Does the power of a lecture depend strictly on the teacher, or is lecture a dead art?
Response to Shelby: Does our liberal arts curriculum at MCLA encourage the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake?
I love the question, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. I often never paid attention to things outside of my interests, and the core curriculum has forced me to pay attention to everything. I never thought that environmental studies would ever interest me, but they did, and they now do. I believe that I have received a much better education than my peers at other institutions due to the fact that I stepped out of my major and learned a lot more than I ever would anywhere else. MCLA curriculum teaches students to be lifelong learners. Maybe in the future, I’ll pick up a book that usually had no interest to me, just to see if I like it. I believe that MCLA encouraged me to learn, and continue learning, just because its there, and you might even like it.
I do not believe that a liberal arts education is paternalistic. A student freely chooses to enroll in this type of school, first of all. Secondly, a liberal education is all about the freedom to choose. Yes, there are categories and requirements, but I believe that the CORE structure at MCLA opened my eyes to a whole new world. Each class that I thought I would absolutely hate (Environmental Research, anyone?) turned out to be something amazing that enriched my learning here. The initial core requirements seem daunting due to the fact that they’re in whole new fields, but they truly instill values and allow a student to be a lifelong learner in all fields. The business class that I took to fulfill the core actually excited me, and I picked up a business minor. This minor has led me to a pretty prestigious marketing job that I’m going to take after graduation, despite the fact that I am a Broadcast Journalism major. Without the CORE, I’d probably be struggling to find a journalism job in this tough market. Although I know I will follow my journalism aspirations one day, it is now my 10 year plan instead of forced right-now plan. Yes, classes fill quick, but I think that MCLA did a great job in opening my eyes to a whole world of possibilities and making me interested in multiple new things.
Did the core requirements cause anyone to change a major, or grab a different minor?
Response to Shelby: How can teachers and students help encourage, and make less intimidating, participation in class?
I think one way is to not instantly shoot down a student if they say the wrong thing. That is one way to ensure a student never participates again. Beyond that, I always feel most comfortable to respond when one person isn’t dominating a conversation. Sometimes, one student has so many ideas and comments that either no one else can get a word in, or you don’t want to sound dumb to this apparently very knowledgeable student, so you allow them to continue dominating the discussion. I’ve always felt most comfortable with laid-back situations, and discussions that include personal responses with personal experience. Also, teachers that don’t randomly call on students also allow for a comfortable atmosphere in which students want to participate in. Cold calling on students can make them embarrassed, and make the rest of the class very nervous.
When is cold calling on students appropriate?
Class structure in college is laid out in the very first day of class. A student sees the criteria of how to secure a good grade, and it is then their responsibility to live up to those standards if they want a good grade. I tend to enjoy classrooms that give me the expectations, and then allow me to try and live up to them.
Russell said that he often calls on a student randomly to speak up. I believe that that seems incredibly paternalistic, and unnecessary in college level courses where the students are all functioning adults capable of guiding their own education. Classes where the teacher randomly calls on students make me incredibly nervous. I am always sweating bullets, so to speak, and making sure that I have something to say if I have to, regardless if I want to or not, or if it is good or not. I believe that Jules has the right idea to let a student do as they choose. Also, like Alison says that she details why she calls on random students, I have never had a teacher do that. IF they explained themselves, and relayed that they’re not doing it just to keep me on my toes, maybe I would have been less nervous.
I have one class currently that is incredibly paternalistic and it is really getting on my last nerve. It is something that I love, but the handholding that is going on is causing me to truly hate it. Also, there is a strict 2-absence policy, so I now sit there and do nothing, but at least I’m there, right? Attendance policies in college really annoy me. I am paying for the class, and it’s my grade in the end. Therefore, if I want to succeed I’ll go, but if I don’t feel like going, it should NOT reduce my grade by a full letter. That’s just too harsh and paternalistic.
Are attendance requirements ridiculous in college?
I believe that testing has its place in the classroom. It is a necessary evil to determine how a student is grasping information. However, it should not be the only tool used to evaluate a student. If testing is the only grading method, students will be apt to “learn for the test”, or cram all of the material, spout it out at the test, and then instantly forget it all. This results in the students not really learning much at all. If testing is just a small part of a student’s grade, they are more likely to grasp the information. If paired with discussion, group work, papers, and other activities, the student is then apt to have to learn the material in order to complete the other work.
Some students just may not be good test takers. They may get nervous or just struggle and not be able to secure good grades. This instills fear and anxiety in them and makes it even more difficult to learn.
I used to have a teacher that said your test grade was the amount of material you learned. I highly disagree with that, and it would always make me angry. I could’ve learned the material, but the test was unclear. I even could have grasped much more, but just am terrible at taking tests.
Allowing a student other ways to improve their grade beyond testing is the best way to insure the material is learned. It also makes life a bit easier for the student so that they may grasp all of the material in a positive atmosphere.
This article I found [http://www.eastsideinstitute.org/ImprovReading.html] is about an inner-city (Brooklyn) teacher who played improv games with her students, like the “Yes, and” game where students have to go around in a circle and build upon each other’s stories. These games engaged the student’s creative side, and as a result, the teacher has the best-performing class in New York City. Her students, after playing the game for some time, became more attentive and more excited about learning. Not only teaching improvisational skills, these games also taught the students to work together for one common goal, making the class have a better group dynamic.
Improvisational skills keep a person on their feet, and able to adapt to any situation. Teaching improv can be difficult, but like the example, it can be done, and it is undoubtedly beneficial for students to learn such skills, which will help them for the rest of their lives.
1) What are other games you’ve played that in retrospect, helped your improvisation skills?
Beyond music, there are other times in the classroom where a child can be creative. I believe that in elementary school, and even in times during middle school, a child’s creative nature needs to be nurtured, in every subject being taught. Students shouldn’t always have to be grounded in reality. Allowing their minds to wander about the subject, or allowing free time to draw, can really help them make connections on their own time. Plus, a young kid’s mind works in funny ways, usually resulting in the funniest of stories or pictures. Creativity causes students to make connections, solve problems, and think of other questions on top of that. Such skills will undoubtedly help them in the future with anything they encounter.
How can a teacher incorporate creativity beyond music or art?
When there is always constant talk of music and arts programs potentially being pulled from schools, I believe that it is mostly a huge disservice to the student. There is always room for other cuts, seeing as music/arts teachers aren’t paid that much anyways. I believe that music gives the students a much-needed break in the work day. It gives students something to look forward to and breaks up the monotony of sitting in a desk. Beyond that, it stimulates creativity and brain activity. Music students usually excel in all areas further than students without musical training, which is probably true but I couldn’t find any hardwired facts. Despite that, just allowing a student to try something new in a new field could inspire something inside that changes them. Music is very mathematically based, and a student with that kind of thinking could really take to it. Personally, I only remember ever learning how to play the recorder, but music was still a much welcomed break for the teacher and for the students who just couldn’t sit in the chairs very much longer.
Does elementary music education have enough value to justify its keeping?
Response to Mary: do you think one can be taught how to adapt, or must it be something they learn through experience? Why?
I believe that no one can be taught how to fully adapt and improvise to certain situations. However, someone can be taught the skills needed to adapt to any situation. For example: you learn cpr, you learn 911, you learn crisis management skills. Each experience that requires someone to adapt helps them build for next time. The next time something happens, they can then use the skills they’ve learned, plus use the experience gained from previous times, to hopefully, improvise and adapt well. Adaption is super important, seeing as nothing ever goes as planned. I think it is something that takes things that are learned, and combines them with experience, to work.
What skills should one have to ensure they are somewhat prepared for situations that would cause them to have to adapt?
Someone said that improvisation allows a student to be “empowered in the face of uncertainity,” which I really liked.
Teaching a student to have improvisational skills is integral to their education. Not everything goes to plan. Improvisational skills are important in school, work, and even in day to day life situations. For example, a person needs to be able to think on their feet. Tragedy can occur, and improv could potentially help in a life or death situation. Beyond the extreme, improv requires a student to be fully immersed in what is being learned at the time, or what is going on. Improv is very difficult for a day-dreamer, so I believe that requiring improv, or randomly calling on a student for an answer, ensures that a student is giving their full attention.
Does improvisation have a place beyond dangerous situations?
Monday, February 21, 2011
"Having the students read a standard text or the teacher present the canon, not only is a waste of time; it stiﬂes the process of developing new understanding. In standard instruction there is a text to be read and relied upon and most class time is taken up by instructor lectures, yet we see no useful change in understanding. Instead, most of the class time needs to be occupied with students explaining to each other their conceptions, discussing how well the various conceptions ﬁt the experiences with the phenomena, planning with each other what adjustments might be called for when the ﬁt to experience is found lacking, and discussing the results of tests of these accommodations against further experience with the phenomena."
Monday, February 7, 2011
I think students within each culture learn differently from each other as well, making individual attention imperative. For example, my brothers and I are all of the same background and we have the same parents. I have one overachieving brother who is a computer and math whiz majoring in computer engineering or something and never struggles with anything. As for myself, I suck at numbers and computers, but I can write really well and I thrive in the humanities. My other brother is just a terrible student overall, and he is hobbling through college, barely passing, and hating every second of it. We all received the same attention from my mother, who is really into reading and read to us often. She did everything a parent should do, and I do credit her for the success in school my brothers and I have achieved, all at a different level.
I think lumping students into culture categories based on assumptions of their learning style is detrimental. Like Jessica said, each student requires individual attention. Most stereotypes do not hold up in all cases, for example, ( and not to buy into a stereotype, or offend) but there probably is an asian that is horrible at math somewhere.
Although individualized attention is definitely difficult to extend to each student at every point due to a multitude of unfair reasons (like money, staffing, politics), teachers should strive to do their best with their resources to ensure that the student is gaining all that is possible from their education no matter their background.
This seems like a pretty common sense take, so am I missing some point? Or is it really this simple?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Should schools get rid of traditional testing, have fewer tests, or stay the way they are?
I think that SparkNotes and Cliff’s Notes are useful as a supplement to reading the material. In my experience with using them in my own education, they reinforce important ideas and themes that can sometimes be missed, despite how closely you read a text. In particular, Sparknote’s No Fear Shakespeare actually helped me understand and become a fan of Shakespeare, no matter how much that may upset Shakespeare purists.
In regards to “lazy” students using them, I think they can only be misused on fact-based exams on the text. Sparknotes gives you enough information to understand setting, plot, main characters, etc, which is all of the basics that would be on a objective text. However, usually literature tests are essay-based. Often, just reading the Sparknotes is apparent in the student’s writing. I’m not ashamed to admit that I ran into a time crunch in my advanced Lit class in high school and only read the Sparknotes, and was called out by the teacher for only knowing the “surface” of the novel.
If Sparknotes is combined with a thorough, critical reading of the text, I believe that they can enhance the understanding of the novel, and make it easier to dissect and fully understand. Besides, at least the student is actually reading rather than watching a horrible film adaptation (ex. Demi Moore in The Scarlet Letter).
Has anyone else used these improperly and not receive a good grade? Or am I off, and it's possible to do well by only reading the summaries?
Being one in a sea of hundreds of students in a class makes it possible to just show up and not critically think about anything that is being conveyed. In those types of classes, a student probably only has to learn for the test, which very well could be online and therefore, probably open book. It seems that student’s are paying a lot more than a MCLA student to essentially go through the motions.
Although a student in a large college should be conscientious of their own studies, chances are they probably won’t be, and since they’re not being encouraged to go above and beyond to learn, they won’t.
After watching the State of the Union, President Obama stressed education as crucial to the US remaining a strong force ahead of the game. Having students that are going to college, but not actually critically becoming better at anything, is not progress. Although large universities are necessary due to the large numbers of students seeking higher education, I think institutions should work to make class sizes reasonable. Students should be seen as more than money, and the students should ensure that they are being treated than more than a tuition payment. Also, those professors of the large classes should be focusing on instilling as much information as possible to the students, not just throwing it out there to get it done.
Despite what large universities can offer, I think small colleges and universities are still the better choice to ensure critical learning is achieved. Large classes just create logistical problems that make it tough to demand quality thought and reasoning.