I thought the discussion we had in class on how to best arrange classrooms was a very interesting one. I got to thinking that one need not necessarily have a singular arrangement for the classroom. With proper training, one could get the children to be able to move the tables or desks around for different situations.
I saw this fifth grade teacher in Bellingham do this once, she was in this tiny little portable of a tiny little school and she had 36 5th grade students (23 of them boys) and she had to be very creative with space. She had this set up though where students would move the desks around for different situations, the system was a little rough but it was near the beginning of the school year so I'm sure with some training they could do it really efficiently.
It reminded me of 18th and 19th century wooden naval vessels like in the movie Master and Commander with Russell Crowe. The sailors would sleep in hammocks on the gun deck, and when an enemy ship came into sight the officers would shout the command "Beat to quarters" and the crew would convert the whole area into a space of battle.
While students should not be asked to combat French privateers, I think the general idea is a sound one that can be applied in the classroom. One can have different table arrangements the children know, like one that's in a horseshoe shape, one that's in a circle, one that's in different table groups so small groups can collaborate, or stack the tables around the edge if the entire floor space is needed.
It would require some refinement but it could create opportunities that a traditional static classroom may not.
Showing posts with label BEDUC 427. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BEDUC 427. Show all posts
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Lecture, WEST-E, and Knowledge Oh My!
I've been giving some thought to some of the themes in this class, and I'm beginning to feel a little pushback to some of them. Namely in how we discuss schooling and how it needs to be changed. I think though that maybe not everything should be changed, just because something is old or traditional does not mean that it is bad. So here are some ponderings I have. My main note is to say that this is not meant to be excessively critical, I just think these should be adressed and I prefer to listen when I'm in class.
1. One of the themes of the last class period seemed to be that lecture should be avoided when at all possible. I don't think this is true. There is a place for lecture in delivering content knowledge when the teacher has more expertise than the students. That is not to say that lecture should be the only way that knowledge is communicated, only that it should be be valued and used. Indeed, some people actually do learn best through lecturing, and some people really do enjoy a well done lecture, I would say therefore that including lecturing is a matter of teaching every student. One must also keep in mind that lecturing should only be implemented when the teacher has rich and extensive content knowledge of the subject on which he or she is lecturing, and can do a good job of delivering the lecture in a way that conveys the knowledge, is rhetorically pleasing, and frames the knowledge in a way that the students to turn it into a deeper truth with additional study. But content knowledge is key in all of this, which leads me to my next point.
2. At the last class period it was said that the WEST-Es were of limited value, but I am not so sure about that. I think that some apparatus needs to exist to measure content knowledge, because I think that that is very important. While I agree that teachers should not have to know absolutely everything about what they teach, that would require more than a handful of advanced degrees, I think it is important to have a rich knowledge on what one teaches, and this requires some extra work outside the class. If one does not take the time to learn content knowledge, one runs the risk of being wrong and spreading false information. One example of this is an incident I have seen more than a few times: the teacher is talking about Columbus with the a class and says something to the effect that Christopher Columbus was the only man in Europe who knew the earth was round. This is patently false and gives the wrong impression of the middle ages and the Renaissance. Any educated person of the day knew the earth was round, and therefore every clergyman knew it. It is alongside the term "dark ages" in making the middle ages seem like a time only of ignorance and stagnation, a "world lit only by fire." This is false however, the middle ages were actually a period of great innovation, art, and growth in Europe.
3. Finally, I understand that schooling has a multitude of purposes, and diffusion of knowledge is not the only one, but I certainly think that it is one. It is my belief that deep knowledge is good in and of itself. The intrinsic value of knowledge is devalued when completely outsourced to the internet. Google is a great tool, and it can lead to great deal of knowledge, but I do not want to completely outsource my ability to know facts to a computer. There is value in developing deep knowledge of a subject without the aid of a computer. It builds perseverance and depth of knowledge. Maybe that makes me a luddite, but if it does then I'm a luddite, and proudly so. I'm not saying that we should resort to rote memorization of the capitals and such. And I do believe that teaching skills to get knowledge on the internet is important. What I am saying is that there is a place for diffusing knowledge in the classroom. This is the type of deep knowledge that can be so ingrained that the child can turn it into a truth that is meaningful to them, and thus let the knowledge turn to wisdom and shape them as they grow.
I hope that didn't sound like a tirade, at least not an angry one. I acknowledge that my comments are diffuse and need to be further developed before they are of any use. They are some old fashioned notions I think. But that doesn't make them bad.
Flavius Arrianus
1. One of the themes of the last class period seemed to be that lecture should be avoided when at all possible. I don't think this is true. There is a place for lecture in delivering content knowledge when the teacher has more expertise than the students. That is not to say that lecture should be the only way that knowledge is communicated, only that it should be be valued and used. Indeed, some people actually do learn best through lecturing, and some people really do enjoy a well done lecture, I would say therefore that including lecturing is a matter of teaching every student. One must also keep in mind that lecturing should only be implemented when the teacher has rich and extensive content knowledge of the subject on which he or she is lecturing, and can do a good job of delivering the lecture in a way that conveys the knowledge, is rhetorically pleasing, and frames the knowledge in a way that the students to turn it into a deeper truth with additional study. But content knowledge is key in all of this, which leads me to my next point.
2. At the last class period it was said that the WEST-Es were of limited value, but I am not so sure about that. I think that some apparatus needs to exist to measure content knowledge, because I think that that is very important. While I agree that teachers should not have to know absolutely everything about what they teach, that would require more than a handful of advanced degrees, I think it is important to have a rich knowledge on what one teaches, and this requires some extra work outside the class. If one does not take the time to learn content knowledge, one runs the risk of being wrong and spreading false information. One example of this is an incident I have seen more than a few times: the teacher is talking about Columbus with the a class and says something to the effect that Christopher Columbus was the only man in Europe who knew the earth was round. This is patently false and gives the wrong impression of the middle ages and the Renaissance. Any educated person of the day knew the earth was round, and therefore every clergyman knew it. It is alongside the term "dark ages" in making the middle ages seem like a time only of ignorance and stagnation, a "world lit only by fire." This is false however, the middle ages were actually a period of great innovation, art, and growth in Europe.
3. Finally, I understand that schooling has a multitude of purposes, and diffusion of knowledge is not the only one, but I certainly think that it is one. It is my belief that deep knowledge is good in and of itself. The intrinsic value of knowledge is devalued when completely outsourced to the internet. Google is a great tool, and it can lead to great deal of knowledge, but I do not want to completely outsource my ability to know facts to a computer. There is value in developing deep knowledge of a subject without the aid of a computer. It builds perseverance and depth of knowledge. Maybe that makes me a luddite, but if it does then I'm a luddite, and proudly so. I'm not saying that we should resort to rote memorization of the capitals and such. And I do believe that teaching skills to get knowledge on the internet is important. What I am saying is that there is a place for diffusing knowledge in the classroom. This is the type of deep knowledge that can be so ingrained that the child can turn it into a truth that is meaningful to them, and thus let the knowledge turn to wisdom and shape them as they grow.
I hope that didn't sound like a tirade, at least not an angry one. I acknowledge that my comments are diffuse and need to be further developed before they are of any use. They are some old fashioned notions I think. But that doesn't make them bad.
Flavius Arrianus
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Thoughts on our Religion in Schools discussion
I think our class discussion on Religion in the Public Schools yesterday was really quite interesting, and I've been thinking about this and have a couple of questions/comments on religion in school and classroom community.
1. The scenario with the child who upon being asked what they did over the weekend says, "I was saved by Jesus." This is a delicate situation that requires a delicate touch by the teacher, but I think one thing that should be avoided is what I think of as the "kids say the darndest things approach." This is a really easy approach, and totally understandable, especially for those teachers that themselves are not religious. However, I think that it's important to acknowledge that this it is very likely that this is an important part of this child's life. If a teacher, someone whose opinion the child probably values hugely, does not seem to take the child seriously, is this building bridges to the child? Would instead a comment like, "I'm very happy for you, that must have been an important moment for you, I'm glad you felt you could share that with me," be legal/appropriate?
2. The scenario that was brought up where one child, I'll call him Johnny, offends another child's, I'll call him Paul, takes exception to this due to religious beliefs. While I understand, and support, the fact that I can't tell Johnny to put his feet down because Paul's or my own religions have some compunction against it, can I turn this into a lesson on classroom community? Could I for example explain to Johnny that when he puts his feet up it makes Paul feel like he is not welcome in our class, and while he may not himself see anything wrong with putting his feet on the furniture, everyone is different, and it helps our class when everybody loves and respects each other.Does this constitute state advancement of a religion, or does it constitute promoting a tolerant and welcoming classroom community? Or maybe both? I hope that made sense, on a grammatical level.
I thought it was a really interesting discussion we had yesterday and I value the cohorts opinions on these matters. Whether we as individuals are religious or not, religion is in our classrooms, in incredible diversity, and this is a great opportunity! Religious freedom is an intrinsic part of the American Republic, and I am so glad we live in a nation where a students religion is not repressed. Many countries even in the developed world, I'm looking at you France, do not give this liberty. Considering that this is how America is, what do we as teachers do about it?
Flavius Arrianus
1. The scenario with the child who upon being asked what they did over the weekend says, "I was saved by Jesus." This is a delicate situation that requires a delicate touch by the teacher, but I think one thing that should be avoided is what I think of as the "kids say the darndest things approach." This is a really easy approach, and totally understandable, especially for those teachers that themselves are not religious. However, I think that it's important to acknowledge that this it is very likely that this is an important part of this child's life. If a teacher, someone whose opinion the child probably values hugely, does not seem to take the child seriously, is this building bridges to the child? Would instead a comment like, "I'm very happy for you, that must have been an important moment for you, I'm glad you felt you could share that with me," be legal/appropriate?
2. The scenario that was brought up where one child, I'll call him Johnny, offends another child's, I'll call him Paul, takes exception to this due to religious beliefs. While I understand, and support, the fact that I can't tell Johnny to put his feet down because Paul's or my own religions have some compunction against it, can I turn this into a lesson on classroom community? Could I for example explain to Johnny that when he puts his feet up it makes Paul feel like he is not welcome in our class, and while he may not himself see anything wrong with putting his feet on the furniture, everyone is different, and it helps our class when everybody loves and respects each other.Does this constitute state advancement of a religion, or does it constitute promoting a tolerant and welcoming classroom community? Or maybe both? I hope that made sense, on a grammatical level.
I thought it was a really interesting discussion we had yesterday and I value the cohorts opinions on these matters. Whether we as individuals are religious or not, religion is in our classrooms, in incredible diversity, and this is a great opportunity! Religious freedom is an intrinsic part of the American Republic, and I am so glad we live in a nation where a students religion is not repressed. Many countries even in the developed world, I'm looking at you France, do not give this liberty. Considering that this is how America is, what do we as teachers do about it?
Flavius Arrianus
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Education, Community, and Atticus Finch (Journal #3)
This week's readings on building safe and multicultural community have really got me thinking. They have me thinking about what it means to build a safe community. They have me thinking about how the school that I work at is not really a safe community, at least not entirely. And they have me thinking about my favorite book, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. If you have not read this masterpiece of American literature, then some of this post may not make sense. I also recommend you read it, or at the very least see the movie, it has Gregory Peck and is a very good and faithful adaptation of the great American novel.
The Greene Article discusses the need for imagination in order to build a safe community, imagination to think as others and to be outside of ourselves. This reminds me of when Atticus tells his daughter, that you never really know a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you step into his skin and walk around it. The thing is, this is not always easy, and is often very difficult, which is why many people do not do it, the benefits do not outweigh the costs for them. But teachers cannot afford to make it a choice, it is a matter of duty for those in the profession. Trying to understand a person does not always lead to agreeing with them, but what is not needed is a universal consensus, what is needed is a universal respect, and this is what builds a safe community.
The article by Sapon-Shevin discusses building a safe community for learning by embracing both student's differences and similarities alike with clear rules and structures in place. I really liked the idea of the teacher facilitating safe community building through rules and activities created by the teacher, as well the establishment of clear rules and expectations. This really spoke to me, since that's what America is all about. Our similarities and differences are both celebrated through a strong Republican government. America is not a democracy, which rules by the omnipotent will of the majority, there are clear rules in place that prevent that from being the case, and that allow real freedom and diversity to thrive. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch fights for these ideals in the court, which he claims are "the nations great leveler." He charges the men on the jury to do their duty to what's right, to make the town of Maycomb a safe place for all people to not only celebrate their differences, but to celebrate being American together. American schools likewise can also function as a great leveler, if teachers will do their duty to make them a safe place for everyone. The very ethos of American civilization is expressed by Thomas Jefferson who claimed that, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If it is God that made all students equal in dignity, and equal in worth, who am I to put my prejudices above the almighty?
The Greene Article discusses the need for imagination in order to build a safe community, imagination to think as others and to be outside of ourselves. This reminds me of when Atticus tells his daughter, that you never really know a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you step into his skin and walk around it. The thing is, this is not always easy, and is often very difficult, which is why many people do not do it, the benefits do not outweigh the costs for them. But teachers cannot afford to make it a choice, it is a matter of duty for those in the profession. Trying to understand a person does not always lead to agreeing with them, but what is not needed is a universal consensus, what is needed is a universal respect, and this is what builds a safe community.
The article by Sapon-Shevin discusses building a safe community for learning by embracing both student's differences and similarities alike with clear rules and structures in place. I really liked the idea of the teacher facilitating safe community building through rules and activities created by the teacher, as well the establishment of clear rules and expectations. This really spoke to me, since that's what America is all about. Our similarities and differences are both celebrated through a strong Republican government. America is not a democracy, which rules by the omnipotent will of the majority, there are clear rules in place that prevent that from being the case, and that allow real freedom and diversity to thrive. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch fights for these ideals in the court, which he claims are "the nations great leveler." He charges the men on the jury to do their duty to what's right, to make the town of Maycomb a safe place for all people to not only celebrate their differences, but to celebrate being American together. American schools likewise can also function as a great leveler, if teachers will do their duty to make them a safe place for everyone. The very ethos of American civilization is expressed by Thomas Jefferson who claimed that, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If it is God that made all students equal in dignity, and equal in worth, who am I to put my prejudices above the almighty?
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
A response to my letter
I recently got a response to the letter I sent to the Publisher by William Goldman, and the good news is that I got a response within two weeks of sending the letter. The bad news is that it was not the extra scene, instead it was a letter by William Goldman that detailed that since the early seventies he has been having legal troubles with the estate of S. Morgenstern, the fictional author of the Princess Bride. It was a very funny letter in keeping with the general tone of the novel, and my satisfaction was made only greater by waiting for it, a sensation that is universal in its trueness. I consider this a victory for letter writing.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
On the Virtues of Letter Writing
I reckon I oughta start blogging now as I need one every two weeks, I sure hope that this works.
Recently for my Middle Level Learners class (BEDUC 480) I was informed that I was required to read a young adult novel and do an assignment related to said novel. After consulting one of the lists provided for choosing the novel, I decided upon The Princess Bride by William Goldman. There is a movie, you may be familiar. The book is really quite good, Goldman has an engaging writing style and the whole novel has an interesting framing device. Long story short, Goldman presents the book as his abridged, as he calls it the "good parts version," of a longer novel by S. Morgenstern, a fictional author from the fictional country of Florin. In one particular section, Goldman writes, as himself commenting on the "original" Morgenstern text, that at one point he wishes that Morgenstern had written more on a particular scene, namely the re-unification of Wesley and Princess Buttercup. Rather than change the original text by inserting the scene, he instead tells the reader that if they want to read the scene they can write in to his publisher who will send a copy of the text.
The address listed is:
Jelenka Harvey
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
222 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02116
I wrote in to see if this would still work, the novel was originally published in 1973, and there is a website listed in the newer edition that I have but I have two education related reasons for writing in instead.
1. It is important to always be curious, and this means nothing if that curiosity is never followed through with. I was curious if this would actually work, the address is 40 years and I don't even know if it ever worked. I want to find out though, and I think that it's worth a stamp and an envelop to find out. If I think that it's important for children to remain curious, who would I be if I did not follow through on my own curiosity. It may get me nothing, but that's not the point.
2. Despite the fact that it is being used less and less these days, I think that there is still value in letter writing, and it's a skill that I like to keep fresh, and think is important to cultivate in our children. Some would say that this skill is irrelevant what with all the modern technology that there is today. But I disagree whole-heartedly, for a few reasons. While not as many letters are written in these days, the skills needed to write letters well will always be relevant. Firstly, is the ability to politely and clearly communicate ideas with someone who will not respond immediately. Even with instant messaging, texting, and the other available resources available, clear communication is key, and a letter trains this skill, and without the ability to instantly clarify, a letter requires one to communicate clearly the first time. Secondly, letters require one to learn how a bureaucratic system like the post office works and gives a view into the workings of the government. The fact that this system is not always efficient, and often requires some problem solving on the part of the citizen helps teach problem solving skills. Thirdly, it teaches patience, which is a virtue regardless of time and place, and the feeling of surprise and delight when one receives a nice letter is much greater than from any form of instant communication.
So there you have it, I'll be sure to put on my blog when I get a response, if I ever get a response. Please find attached a scanned copy of the letter I sent.
Recently for my Middle Level Learners class (BEDUC 480) I was informed that I was required to read a young adult novel and do an assignment related to said novel. After consulting one of the lists provided for choosing the novel, I decided upon The Princess Bride by William Goldman. There is a movie, you may be familiar. The book is really quite good, Goldman has an engaging writing style and the whole novel has an interesting framing device. Long story short, Goldman presents the book as his abridged, as he calls it the "good parts version," of a longer novel by S. Morgenstern, a fictional author from the fictional country of Florin. In one particular section, Goldman writes, as himself commenting on the "original" Morgenstern text, that at one point he wishes that Morgenstern had written more on a particular scene, namely the re-unification of Wesley and Princess Buttercup. Rather than change the original text by inserting the scene, he instead tells the reader that if they want to read the scene they can write in to his publisher who will send a copy of the text.
The address listed is:
Jelenka Harvey
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
222 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02116
I wrote in to see if this would still work, the novel was originally published in 1973, and there is a website listed in the newer edition that I have but I have two education related reasons for writing in instead.
1. It is important to always be curious, and this means nothing if that curiosity is never followed through with. I was curious if this would actually work, the address is 40 years and I don't even know if it ever worked. I want to find out though, and I think that it's worth a stamp and an envelop to find out. If I think that it's important for children to remain curious, who would I be if I did not follow through on my own curiosity. It may get me nothing, but that's not the point.
2. Despite the fact that it is being used less and less these days, I think that there is still value in letter writing, and it's a skill that I like to keep fresh, and think is important to cultivate in our children. Some would say that this skill is irrelevant what with all the modern technology that there is today. But I disagree whole-heartedly, for a few reasons. While not as many letters are written in these days, the skills needed to write letters well will always be relevant. Firstly, is the ability to politely and clearly communicate ideas with someone who will not respond immediately. Even with instant messaging, texting, and the other available resources available, clear communication is key, and a letter trains this skill, and without the ability to instantly clarify, a letter requires one to communicate clearly the first time. Secondly, letters require one to learn how a bureaucratic system like the post office works and gives a view into the workings of the government. The fact that this system is not always efficient, and often requires some problem solving on the part of the citizen helps teach problem solving skills. Thirdly, it teaches patience, which is a virtue regardless of time and place, and the feeling of surprise and delight when one receives a nice letter is much greater than from any form of instant communication.
So there you have it, I'll be sure to put on my blog when I get a response, if I ever get a response. Please find attached a scanned copy of the letter I sent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)