1. The performance seemed to suggest that the main factor leading to domestic violence does not start within the relationship. Rather, it is a product of the abuser's social environment. The high school kid seemed encouraged to press that girl despite her protests because in the culture that exists in his school, this is the manly thing to do. The man who abused his girlfriend was mentioned to be a good friend before they started dating, perhaps that is how he was brought up to view relationships.
Part of what perpetuates dating violence seems to be mainly related to an unclear definition of what exactly it is. The woman that was being abused didn't seem to know it, and so when her friend tried to help she took offense. Similarly, if the boys on the basketball team had defined what was going on as rape, they would have been much more inclined to stop it.
2. I think that the culture in a society will respond very little to government interaction on this subject, again because so many people don't recognize domestic violence. That being said, I do think it would be helpful to recognize domestic violence as it's own crime. It seems like in our society domestic violence is often regarded as simple assault in our modern system, and the part about domestic abuse is simply mentioned when it comes to finger-pointing. True certain actions are identified as abuse, but I still think it is important to focus on that more and define it better.
3. one thing briefly mentioned was pressure on guys by their friends. There used to be these commercials on the radio trying to discourage having sex before you were ready. There were two of them, a girl talking to her friends and a guy talking to his friends. The girl would say things like 'he keeps pressuring me' and her friend would say something like 'if he keeps doing it leave him'. The guy would talk about how he feels uncomfortable being one of the few guys that's never done it (kind of like the virgin Larry) and he wants to just hurry up so he can brag. His friends discourage him from doing it just for that reason, and at some point one of them says 'half those guys who say they're doing it are lying anyway'. I know that type of pressure exists, but I still wonder if that's true.
4. I suppose so. A lot of the people in my discussion group said they didn't feel they had been exposed to anything new with it, but a different group of ninth graders may feel differently. And in the discussion, I think, people probably felt they came up with something new. It might also work to do something similar with an issue less commonly discussed in depth by SOF students, like gang violence.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Hw 57
Part 1:
Part 2:
When Parenting Theories Backfire-- Well that theory, honestly, was not a very good idea. Even without the unpredictable responses, a child that is constantly being asked "you choose" will come to think of themself either as the ruler of the universe, or feel that options are pressing in on them from all sides. Plus, a parent constantly asking the same question will begin to sound like a broken record, and eventually be discredited and ignored, leaving the child to feel alone. And the unpredictable responses are going to be a problem when you try applying anyone else's theory: if you didn't invent it, you won't know how to counteract something that goes outside it's boundries.
Attachment Parenting-- they worked pretty hard to make some of thise start with B, huh? Anyway, I don't have any strong responces to this. My main reaction was that these methods may not always be applicable, but that is also mentioned later on. The only thing I sort of disagree with was the babywearing thing: I'm not against it, I just don't think it's as helpful as it seems. I think the main issue is that that's the time that babies get the most stimulation, but if you provide them with objects or other people to interact with most of the time being carried around won't be that different for them.
- What should be the guiding principles? Love? Obedience? Loving obedience? Humor? Empowerment? Subordination? Time outs? Separate cribs or co-sleeping? Breast feeding or bottle? Child-centered or parent-centered? etc.
- What were the best parts of how you were parented (since the worst parts don't really belong in a public class blog)?
Part 2:
When Parenting Theories Backfire-- Well that theory, honestly, was not a very good idea. Even without the unpredictable responses, a child that is constantly being asked "you choose" will come to think of themself either as the ruler of the universe, or feel that options are pressing in on them from all sides. Plus, a parent constantly asking the same question will begin to sound like a broken record, and eventually be discredited and ignored, leaving the child to feel alone. And the unpredictable responses are going to be a problem when you try applying anyone else's theory: if you didn't invent it, you won't know how to counteract something that goes outside it's boundries.
Attachment Parenting-- they worked pretty hard to make some of thise start with B, huh? Anyway, I don't have any strong responces to this. My main reaction was that these methods may not always be applicable, but that is also mentioned later on. The only thing I sort of disagree with was the babywearing thing: I'm not against it, I just don't think it's as helpful as it seems. I think the main issue is that that's the time that babies get the most stimulation, but if you provide them with objects or other people to interact with most of the time being carried around won't be that different for them.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Hw 56
Part 1:
Since the people I'm interviewing (my mom and her friend) are therapists themselves and have taught therapy in graduate school, I made no effort to simplify my questions:
-What are some of the benefits of drugs over talk therapy?
-Under what circumstances is talk therapy most effective?
-Would the addition of talk therapy be helpful in a situation that calls for drug therapy? Vice-versa?
These were just some basic starting points, since they know much more about the topic than I do.
Part 2:
I first talked to my mother, who used to have a private practice and currently teaches family systems. She said, in essence:
The use of drug therapy vs talk therapy depends largely on how entrenched the behavior is. For more recent, situational depression and anxiety, medication is likely to be unnecessary; but in the case of a patient that has chronic, chemically based emotional issues drugs will be necessary to put them in an appropriate state to change their behavior. Drugs are essentially helpful as a jumpstart, they make people motivated to and capable of change when their state was otherwise intractable, but are ultimately incapable of actually changing them. She mentioned that a lot of people take drugs to sort of stabilize themselves for talk therapy, as otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to put in the work needed to change their situation; and that ultimately a combination of both is often what is most effective.
I then talked with her best friend, who is currently running a busy private practice, she said:
Drugs treat the chemical component most quickly. While talk therapy has been shown to alter chemical composition of the brain in a more long term way, it is not as quick. She also mentioned that talk therapy has the benefit of being a form of interaction in itself, just the act of talking to someone in itself can be helpful. The purpose of therapy is to get the patient to change their behavior in a way that would help them deal with or fix their emotional problems, and drugs on their own ultimately can't teach someone the new methods they might need. She also mentioned that because of this a patient may remain dependent on drugs for their entire life because they haven't actually addressed the cause of the problem.Overall, she agrees that a combination is best.
Part 3:
Overall, it seems like my thesis has been slightly altered by these interviews: I was originally going to argue talk therapy over medication, but now it seems like it might be best to advocate for a combo approach. I may still be able to argue that drugs on their own are not as effective as talk therapy on its own or a combination, however.
Part 4:
On a scale of 'definitely true' to 'definitely false': "I prefer for an unpleasant situation to be resolved as opposed to just going away." or something.
Since the people I'm interviewing (my mom and her friend) are therapists themselves and have taught therapy in graduate school, I made no effort to simplify my questions:
-What are some of the benefits of drugs over talk therapy?
-Under what circumstances is talk therapy most effective?
-Would the addition of talk therapy be helpful in a situation that calls for drug therapy? Vice-versa?
These were just some basic starting points, since they know much more about the topic than I do.
Part 2:
I first talked to my mother, who used to have a private practice and currently teaches family systems. She said, in essence:
The use of drug therapy vs talk therapy depends largely on how entrenched the behavior is. For more recent, situational depression and anxiety, medication is likely to be unnecessary; but in the case of a patient that has chronic, chemically based emotional issues drugs will be necessary to put them in an appropriate state to change their behavior. Drugs are essentially helpful as a jumpstart, they make people motivated to and capable of change when their state was otherwise intractable, but are ultimately incapable of actually changing them. She mentioned that a lot of people take drugs to sort of stabilize themselves for talk therapy, as otherwise they probably wouldn't be able to put in the work needed to change their situation; and that ultimately a combination of both is often what is most effective.
I then talked with her best friend, who is currently running a busy private practice, she said:
Drugs treat the chemical component most quickly. While talk therapy has been shown to alter chemical composition of the brain in a more long term way, it is not as quick. She also mentioned that talk therapy has the benefit of being a form of interaction in itself, just the act of talking to someone in itself can be helpful. The purpose of therapy is to get the patient to change their behavior in a way that would help them deal with or fix their emotional problems, and drugs on their own ultimately can't teach someone the new methods they might need. She also mentioned that because of this a patient may remain dependent on drugs for their entire life because they haven't actually addressed the cause of the problem.Overall, she agrees that a combination is best.
Part 3:
Overall, it seems like my thesis has been slightly altered by these interviews: I was originally going to argue talk therapy over medication, but now it seems like it might be best to advocate for a combo approach. I may still be able to argue that drugs on their own are not as effective as talk therapy on its own or a combination, however.
Part 4:
On a scale of 'definitely true' to 'definitely false': "I prefer for an unpleasant situation to be resolved as opposed to just going away." or something.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Hw 55
Part 1:
My question: "Is therapy as effective as medication for treatment of stress and depression?"
Part 2:
Yu-Xi: Your question is interesting, but potentially difficult to investigate. In order to make it easier, you may want to chose one specific aspect of bonding to investigate in depth. For example, you could ask 'What are some common situations that lead to deepening romantic relationships?' You could also try to make your question easier to research by making it more scientific, so that there would be more concrete evidence available.
Devin (section 1) :
This is a really good question. The only room I see for improvement is in the word 'qualities', you may want to tighten that up a little. On the other hand, I think it would work just as well as it is if you then define specific aspects in the thesis of the paper itself.
Part 3:
Marano, Hara. "Talk Therapy vs. Drugs ." Psychology Today. N.p., 01 Feb 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
A short but interesting source from Psychology Today. It talks about the different types of effects that the two therapies have on the brain.
Davis, Jeanie. "Depression: Drug v. Talk Therapy." CBS News. CBS News, 08 Sep. 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
An article on the subject. It calls attention to the changes in treatment over the years, and some of the benefits and downsides of both. Also cites some useful statistics on prescription drug use and coverage.
"Do You Need Drugs or Talk Therapy?." Health.com. N.p., 05 May 2008. Web. 12 May 2010..
An article from Health.com comparing the two. This one seems to be leaning towards talk therapy, but perhaps as a defense of it in the face of support for drug therapy. Like the previous article, it mentions that drugs work faster but talk works better.
"Drugs vs. talk therapy." Consumer Reports Health. Consumer Reports, Oct 2004. Web. 12 May 2010..
From Consumer Reports. Contains a wide variety of information, from analysis of the results of a large survey to discussion about insurance coverage to comparisons of different drugs.
My question: "Is therapy as effective as medication for treatment of stress and depression?"
Part 2:
Yu-Xi: Your question is interesting, but potentially difficult to investigate. In order to make it easier, you may want to chose one specific aspect of bonding to investigate in depth. For example, you could ask 'What are some common situations that lead to deepening romantic relationships?' You could also try to make your question easier to research by making it more scientific, so that there would be more concrete evidence available.
Devin (section 1) :
This is a really good question. The only room I see for improvement is in the word 'qualities', you may want to tighten that up a little. On the other hand, I think it would work just as well as it is if you then define specific aspects in the thesis of the paper itself.
Part 3:
Marano, Hara. "Talk Therapy vs. Drugs ." Psychology Today. N.p., 01 Feb 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
A short but interesting source from Psychology Today. It talks about the different types of effects that the two therapies have on the brain.
Davis, Jeanie. "Depression: Drug v. Talk Therapy." CBS News. CBS News, 08 Sep. 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
An article on the subject. It calls attention to the changes in treatment over the years, and some of the benefits and downsides of both. Also cites some useful statistics on prescription drug use and coverage.
"Do You Need Drugs or Talk Therapy?." Health.com. N.p., 05 May 2008. Web. 12 May 2010.
An article from Health.com comparing the two. This one seems to be leaning towards talk therapy, but perhaps as a defense of it in the face of support for drug therapy. Like the previous article, it mentions that drugs work faster but talk works better.
"Drugs vs. talk therapy." Consumer Reports Health. Consumer Reports, Oct 2004. Web. 12 May 2010.
From Consumer Reports. Contains a wide variety of information, from analysis of the results of a large survey to discussion about insurance coverage to comparisons of different drugs.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Hw 54
| INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population. |
Big five test (I’m not sure if I took the right one, since the link didn’t work for me, but here it is)
| Big Five Test Results |
| Extroversion (48%) medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being assertive and social and being withdrawn and solitary. Accommodation (72%) high which suggests you are overly kind natured, trusting, and helpful at the expense too often of your own individual development (martyr complex). Orderliness (54%) medium which suggests you are moderately organized, structured, and self controlled while still remaining flexible, varied, and fun. Emotional Stability (48%) medium which suggests you average somewhere in between being calm and resilient and being anxious and reactive. Inquisitiveness (82%) high which suggests you are very intellectual, curious, imaginative but possibly not very practical. |
personality tests by similarminds.com
I took the first test a long time ago on this
website and got very different results, but people change, huh? Overall, I think neither of them paint a fantastic picture of me, after reading the descriptions I think INTJ fits me best. I wouldn’t say any particular test is that reliable, since even humans often can’t seem to get this right. Honestly, I wouldn’t call these any more accurate than astrology, though obviously a lot more science went into it. I don’t trust it any more than astrology as a predictor of relationships or compatibility, either. Not only is this only mildly inaccurate from the personal viewpoint, but given that it’s all about the personal viewpoint I definitely wouldn’t use it as a method for defining others.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Hw 53
Part 2:
Overall, the survey was pretty much what I expected. There weren’t any questions that I found unusually interesting or that caught me off guard. I didn’t really feel embarrassed answering any of them, but that might just be me. I can’t really say that I trust the statistics due to the sample size and the selection bias (everyone who took the survey was a New Yorker interested in taking this class) but it’ll still be interesting to look at the results.
Part 3:
The questions that surprised me the most were the ones about drugs and drinking. Honestly, I was surprised that so few people said that they had been drunk or used drugs; it seems like every time I’m early for advisory someone down the hallway is talking about how smashed they were the night before. It makes sense that of all questions for people to lie on those would be the ones, but it seems to me that most of the kids I know in this class aren’t really the type to lie about this stuff. Whatever the reason, I wasn’t expecting that.
Part 4:
I looked at both of the professional surveys and, given their specific focuses, they didn’t really seem to have much in common with ours. This is probably a function of the fact that they are professional studies; the whole organization is devoted to studying one thing. The only real similarity I found is the suicide question (there is a similar question in the second survey). I think that the professionals made an important distinction that we kind of forgot about: they only asked about the 12 months before the survey. I’m not proud to say that I checked the “No, only once in a while, not much” box, because I had thought about it, once, when I was like seven, when I was overreacting to a lost homework assignment and thought I would never get into middle school. They also added the word ‘seriously’, which I think is important because that would have changed my answer as well.
Overall, the survey was pretty much what I expected. There weren’t any questions that I found unusually interesting or that caught me off guard. I didn’t really feel embarrassed answering any of them, but that might just be me. I can’t really say that I trust the statistics due to the sample size and the selection bias (everyone who took the survey was a New Yorker interested in taking this class) but it’ll still be interesting to look at the results.
Part 3:
The questions that surprised me the most were the ones about drugs and drinking. Honestly, I was surprised that so few people said that they had been drunk or used drugs; it seems like every time I’m early for advisory someone down the hallway is talking about how smashed they were the night before. It makes sense that of all questions for people to lie on those would be the ones, but it seems to me that most of the kids I know in this class aren’t really the type to lie about this stuff. Whatever the reason, I wasn’t expecting that.
Part 4:
I looked at both of the professional surveys and, given their specific focuses, they didn’t really seem to have much in common with ours. This is probably a function of the fact that they are professional studies; the whole organization is devoted to studying one thing. The only real similarity I found is the suicide question (there is a similar question in the second survey). I think that the professionals made an important distinction that we kind of forgot about: they only asked about the 12 months before the survey. I’m not proud to say that I checked the “No, only once in a while, not much” box, because I had thought about it, once, when I was like seven, when I was overreacting to a lost homework assignment and thought I would never get into middle school. They also added the word ‘seriously’, which I think is important because that would have changed my answer as well.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Hw 52
Hw 52-
As mentioned, this assignment is ridiculously impossible. Oh well.
Since I can’t possibly address all that, I’ll just talk a little about how I feel about people in general.
This may not surprise anyone, but in general, I like people. It’s not like there’s nobody I don’t get along with, but I tend to try and see negatives as one aspect of the person and not necessarily something condemning. I try to value everyone, even when they make it particularly hard for me. I can honestly say that I appreciate and hold dear the lives of strangers, though as a human it would be denying myself to say that there aren’t those I love more. I think it is popular right now to be cynical-- if asked what they think would be the right thing to do if they saw someone being mugged, most people in our class would probably say something like “ignore it, it’s not like I know them.” They would also probably claim that that’s what they would do in that situation, even if it’s not the real answer. I honestly don’t understand the point of this. I genuinely think that the right thing to do would be to help them, and if asked what I would do I would say that I would at least try. Whether I would actually do it probably depends mainly on how much courage I can pluck up in the actual situation. Which brings me to my next point.
I think that the worst thing that someone can be is a hypocrite. Obviously, some situations make it worse than others (saying veggies are good for you and refusing to eat carrots isn’t as bad as saying god hates homosexuals on your way to meet your gay ‘escort’, for example) but as a whole, there is no greater violation of personal or pubic honesty. I can’t say I blame a person if they commit hypocrisy unknowingly, or over something they can’t control, or if they’re trying to learn something to correct it, that’s just another of the unpleasant aspects of humanity. But if someone knows that they are a complete hypocrite and takes no steps to the contrary, I personally find that infuriating.
Another thing that I tend to stay away from, as most people who know me know, is polarized opinions. I think that there is nothing to gain by excluding other’s viewpoints in almost any aspect of life. If you exclude them because they’re wrong then you should at least grant them an audience in the hopes that they’ll do you the same, and if you exclude them to preserve your own ideas, perhaps they are so easily changed because they are yet unfinished (in which case another opinion could do you good).
Unlike one of the more popular teenage philosophies, I see nothing wrong with courtesy. Blatantly speaking your mind may be a good way to get your point across, there is definitely a time and place for it, and lying to protect someone’s feelings rarely does any good, but when it comes to non-helpful thoughts like insults and general rudeness I don’t see the point of making these things known. I also don’t have a problem with doing things I don’t want to do at all because society demands it; it is part of life and there’s no way around it. Wolves get killed for eating before their turn, I see no reason to claim that societal norms aren’t a major part of any social animal’s life.
As mentioned, this assignment is ridiculously impossible. Oh well.
Since I can’t possibly address all that, I’ll just talk a little about how I feel about people in general.
This may not surprise anyone, but in general, I like people. It’s not like there’s nobody I don’t get along with, but I tend to try and see negatives as one aspect of the person and not necessarily something condemning. I try to value everyone, even when they make it particularly hard for me. I can honestly say that I appreciate and hold dear the lives of strangers, though as a human it would be denying myself to say that there aren’t those I love more. I think it is popular right now to be cynical-- if asked what they think would be the right thing to do if they saw someone being mugged, most people in our class would probably say something like “ignore it, it’s not like I know them.” They would also probably claim that that’s what they would do in that situation, even if it’s not the real answer. I honestly don’t understand the point of this. I genuinely think that the right thing to do would be to help them, and if asked what I would do I would say that I would at least try. Whether I would actually do it probably depends mainly on how much courage I can pluck up in the actual situation. Which brings me to my next point.
I think that the worst thing that someone can be is a hypocrite. Obviously, some situations make it worse than others (saying veggies are good for you and refusing to eat carrots isn’t as bad as saying god hates homosexuals on your way to meet your gay ‘escort’, for example) but as a whole, there is no greater violation of personal or pubic honesty. I can’t say I blame a person if they commit hypocrisy unknowingly, or over something they can’t control, or if they’re trying to learn something to correct it, that’s just another of the unpleasant aspects of humanity. But if someone knows that they are a complete hypocrite and takes no steps to the contrary, I personally find that infuriating.
Another thing that I tend to stay away from, as most people who know me know, is polarized opinions. I think that there is nothing to gain by excluding other’s viewpoints in almost any aspect of life. If you exclude them because they’re wrong then you should at least grant them an audience in the hopes that they’ll do you the same, and if you exclude them to preserve your own ideas, perhaps they are so easily changed because they are yet unfinished (in which case another opinion could do you good).
Unlike one of the more popular teenage philosophies, I see nothing wrong with courtesy. Blatantly speaking your mind may be a good way to get your point across, there is definitely a time and place for it, and lying to protect someone’s feelings rarely does any good, but when it comes to non-helpful thoughts like insults and general rudeness I don’t see the point of making these things known. I also don’t have a problem with doing things I don’t want to do at all because society demands it; it is part of life and there’s no way around it. Wolves get killed for eating before their turn, I see no reason to claim that societal norms aren’t a major part of any social animal’s life.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
HW 50
Gatto-I read his acceptance speech for the "teacher of the year" award.
The speech often points out the halted nature of the current school system--that the school bell forces a child to halt an learning that they may be doing and move on to the next class, only to be interrupted again. He also refers to school as a prison, talking about classrooms as literal cells in an effort to point out how school cuts us off from real life. He seems to be making the point that there is a big distinction to be made between school and education, and that in fact, the two almost contradict each-other.
One point I found particularly interesting was the proclamation that "No one believes anymore that scientists are trained in science classes or politicians in civics classes or poets in English classes." I was drawn to this statement, because, for the most part, it is true. While I disagree with a lot of the cynicism in this speech, I cannot help but agree that subjects taught in school are very rarely thought of as proper training for their role in later life; I also wonder how long it took after the advent of the public school system for this disassociation to occur.
Freire- like Gatto, he makes the point that the lessons taught in school are unlike the lessons learned in life in that life is much less predictable than advertised. He also seems to agree with Gatto's point that teaching subjects at scheduled time in random order cuts off the learning process, but this is not as central to his argument. Instead, he focuses on the downsides of the banking model, criticizing how it allows students to ingest copious quantities of information without really digesting it, and thus what occurs in schools nowadays cannot really be called "learning".
Overall, I would agree that the banking model is an accurate depiction of how modern schooling works. I think that it's important to remember, however, that it's effectiveness is largely dependent on the individual. While a teacher is given a list of facts to deposit in their students brains, the method with which they choose to do this is often up to them (though obviously the role of the system in shaping their ideas of how this should occur plays a big part). I think that the banking model operates under the expectation that students will grow up in loving, intellectual families that will provide the abstract thinking part of their education in their long, in-depth conversations about life. I an one of the extremely few people who grew up in such a household, and honestly, the banking model as I have experienced it has worked for me.
Deplit- I read the "power and pedagogy" article. The tone of this article is different from the two I have read so far, it focuses more on the interaction between schoolwork and home life. Deplit often refers to the 'power culture', mainly meaning white culture but also referring to the upper class. She begins by pointing out that (like I mentioned a second ago) most modern educational methods in the US expect students to come in with their critical thinking skills already formed, when in fact this is extremely unlikely in any culture except that of the power elite (and probably even then). She then brings up five fundamental points, which are, in essence:
-Being in school enforces several types of incombatable power.
-The way that one presents themself will determine whether or not others view them as part of the 'culture of power'.
-The culture in institutions is passed upon the culture of power outside of the institutions, and if members of the institution act in a way more appropriate to another culture those actions will be seen as invalid.
-When trying to communicate the norms of one culture to another culture, trying to imply anything is useless and it is better to explicitly lay out the rules.
-People who have power are less comfortable admitting it, while people without power are quite aware of their situation.
My main reaction was to the first part of the article, where she wrote about how students who aren't part of the culture of power are considered to be "remedial" because they aren't presented with skills as compatible with current teaching methods. She says that to remedy this, it is important to teach a program that makes those basic skills available. I largely agree, but I think that it is important to note that making the program more accessible to those who never had a chance to learn those skills makes it less helpful to those that did. If the method is focused too much on being inclusive and bringing people on board, those that are already on board will not benefit. And since those with the skills deemed important by the power elite already intact are in fact the power elite themselves, it is important to remember that once they loose interest the school is no longer part of the power culture and thus begins to be considered 'remedial'.
John Fanning- In his interview, Mr Fanning focused on how he got into teaching and administration, and what he liked about it. He said that in his band he took things for granted, and decided that he wanted to give something back. He mentioned that he had decided the best thing that you can give someone is an education, since that opens the gate to future success.
One thing that I found interesting in Mr. Fanning's interview was when he talked about how when he first got into administration he expected to be the understanding type, that would give kids a break because he had been there himself; and how different he turned out to be. I think that what changed there was his perception of what makes a good administrator: before hand he had only experienced the job from the outside and thus a more understanding style seemed favorable, but once he recieved the post he became aware of how much structure was needed. I feel that his current approach is much more what the school needs, because though he doesn't loose sight of the school's goals he still doesn't allow students the type of freedom they would need to go down the wrong path without trying really, really hard.
-Being in school enforces several types of incombatable power.
-The way that one presents themself will determine whether or not others view them as part of the 'culture of power'.
-The culture in institutions is passed upon the culture of power outside of the institutions, and if members of the institution act in a way more appropriate to another culture those actions will be seen as invalid.
-When trying to communicate the norms of one culture to another culture, trying to imply anything is useless and it is better to explicitly lay out the rules.
-People who have power are less comfortable admitting it, while people without power are quite aware of their situation.
My main reaction was to the first part of the article, where she wrote about how students who aren't part of the culture of power are considered to be "remedial" because they aren't presented with skills as compatible with current teaching methods. She says that to remedy this, it is important to teach a program that makes those basic skills available. I largely agree, but I think that it is important to note that making the program more accessible to those who never had a chance to learn those skills makes it less helpful to those that did. If the method is focused too much on being inclusive and bringing people on board, those that are already on board will not benefit. And since those with the skills deemed important by the power elite already intact are in fact the power elite themselves, it is important to remember that once they loose interest the school is no longer part of the power culture and thus begins to be considered 'remedial'.
John Fanning- In his interview, Mr Fanning focused on how he got into teaching and administration, and what he liked about it. He said that in his band he took things for granted, and decided that he wanted to give something back. He mentioned that he had decided the best thing that you can give someone is an education, since that opens the gate to future success.
One thing that I found interesting in Mr. Fanning's interview was when he talked about how when he first got into administration he expected to be the understanding type, that would give kids a break because he had been there himself; and how different he turned out to be. I think that what changed there was his perception of what makes a good administrator: before hand he had only experienced the job from the outside and thus a more understanding style seemed favorable, but once he recieved the post he became aware of how much structure was needed. I feel that his current approach is much more what the school needs, because though he doesn't loose sight of the school's goals he still doesn't allow students the type of freedom they would need to go down the wrong path without trying really, really hard.
HW 49
Before I begin my profound sociological analysis of the film, I must point out... Evan is so gangster XD
Since our class didn't finish our teacher film, I wrote my analysis on the other class's. Thus, I didn't actually have any part in the film.
The message of the film seems to be that in a situation where the students don't want to learn, very little can actually be accomplished no matter what the teacher does. The teacher first attempts to simply teach over the students, which fails miserably. He then uses some Andy-esque put-downs to glean a little attention from the students, but it only lasts for a moment and doesn't inspire them to learn. The point where he finally explodes, in ordinary movies, is where one student would give a rousing speech about he always believed in them and it's time they gave him something worth believing in, but that didn't work either. The mood at the end is one of sadness and pity for both the students and the teacher, as it seems that nothing will ever change for any of them.
I don't think that this film is really comperable to the other films that we watched in class, because of the utter difference in tone, message, and even sheer purpose. The tone of the average savior teacher film is uplifting and inspiring, while this was depressing and gave the sense that there is no hope for the school system. These tones reflect the messages of the films: A general savior teacher film has the message that the kids just needed someone from outside of their prison-like lives to come and show them that they do mean something, while the message of this film was that that stuff doesn't work in real life. Finally, the purpose of a savior teacher film is to be released publically and make millions in the box office, while the purpose of this film was to send the message that movies are not really relivant.
I think that it is not particularly unusual to expect school to provide a means for escape. As discussed in a previous post, school is commonly thought of as a battleground for poilitical change, and heavily relied upon as a mold for the future of the current school-age generation. School is thought of not only as a powerful positive force, but also as somewhat a counter-negative: in some neighborhoods it as advertized as nothing more or less than a way to keep kids off the streets.
Since our class didn't finish our teacher film, I wrote my analysis on the other class's. Thus, I didn't actually have any part in the film.
The message of the film seems to be that in a situation where the students don't want to learn, very little can actually be accomplished no matter what the teacher does. The teacher first attempts to simply teach over the students, which fails miserably. He then uses some Andy-esque put-downs to glean a little attention from the students, but it only lasts for a moment and doesn't inspire them to learn. The point where he finally explodes, in ordinary movies, is where one student would give a rousing speech about he always believed in them and it's time they gave him something worth believing in, but that didn't work either. The mood at the end is one of sadness and pity for both the students and the teacher, as it seems that nothing will ever change for any of them.
I don't think that this film is really comperable to the other films that we watched in class, because of the utter difference in tone, message, and even sheer purpose. The tone of the average savior teacher film is uplifting and inspiring, while this was depressing and gave the sense that there is no hope for the school system. These tones reflect the messages of the films: A general savior teacher film has the message that the kids just needed someone from outside of their prison-like lives to come and show them that they do mean something, while the message of this film was that that stuff doesn't work in real life. Finally, the purpose of a savior teacher film is to be released publically and make millions in the box office, while the purpose of this film was to send the message that movies are not really relivant.
I think that it is not particularly unusual to expect school to provide a means for escape. As discussed in a previous post, school is commonly thought of as a battleground for poilitical change, and heavily relied upon as a mold for the future of the current school-age generation. School is thought of not only as a powerful positive force, but also as somewhat a counter-negative: in some neighborhoods it as advertized as nothing more or less than a way to keep kids off the streets.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Hw 48
Film Treatment
Scene 2: The teacher waits outside of the principal's office with other teachers, and is called in. They eagerly shake hands with the principal, and begin talking. It is mentioned that this is their first teaching job. The principal says something like "don't let it intimidate you" talking about it being their first teaching job, which the teacher takes as a 'warning' and responds with something like "don't worry, no matter how hard it is, I know I can reach these kids!" and practically skips off to class. The principal looks after them, puzzled, and mutters something like 'yeah, ok, you go ahead and do that...'
Scene 3: Teacher enters the classroom to find all students in their assigned seats, buzzing quietly about who their new teacher will be. He enters the room from the back, unnoticed, and when nobody responds he gives an exasperated sigh and runs to the front of the room. At this point everyone has stopped talking, but this does not stop him from slamming a book down on the desk to get their attention. He gives an impassioned speech (perhaps mentioning death or their relative smallness at some point) about how this is the type of behavior that made the last teacher quit, but if they think they can drive him out too they'll have to do better than that because he's not giving up on them that easy. A student politely raises their hand and, when the teacher vaguely motions to them while recovering from his emotional moment, points out that the last teacher broke their ankle and will be back in a week. The teacher responds with something like, 'ok, um, well then, class dismissed' at which point the one actual troubled student points out that they've only been in class for like a minute. The teacher laughes awkwardly.
Scene 4: Unfortunately, due to the length of the film, this scene must be a montage. It spans the next week, and involves a series of moments where the teacher provides unnecessary and annoying encouragement, such as yelling "you can do it! I believe in you!" In the ear of a student taking a test.
Scene 5: The old teacher returns, cast crutches and all. This is only seen briefly in a shot where the new teacher is seen from afar talking to her (their conversation is not audible). Closer to the camera, the one troubled student is watching them talk from outside the school (they are sitting on a stoop, eating a sandwich). The teacher slinks out, disappointed that they were not able to reach anyone in their first week of teaching. The troubled student notices this and comments on it. The teacher sits down next to them and immediately opens up about how they were hoping it would be like a movie, etc. Afterward there is a pause, in which the teacher seems to be thinking "aw, what do you care." The student surprises him by giving him half of their sandwich. They begin talking.
Scene 6: This is a several hours later, they have been talking the whole time (the scene opens with some sort of orphaned punchline from the teacher, like "...and I swear, it wasn't even a fish!") and it is now dark out. The teacher notices the time, and, startled, jumps up and proclaims that their [insert loved one here] wanted them to [insert errand here]. The student wishes him luck, and hopes they see him around. He mentions that it's pretty late, and they should probably head home. The student mentions that they don't want to go home, and when asked why they reveal that they are having family troubles. The teacher pauses for a while, and then offers to go home with them and talk to their family about it.
Scene 7: Also a bit of a montage. This starts when they get to the student's home and the situation is explained (the problem is neither parties fault, it's mainly a misunderstanding), and then as they begin talking the audio fades and the view switches to outside the window where they can be seen talking inside. Following are several snippets of their conversation, containing therapeutic insights such as "well maybe she's just acting that way because she's not ready to let go of the relationship you had" that seem to span several hours.
Scene 8: The teacher (let's call him Adam Lester) leaves their house at 2:00 am, the family shakes his hand and thanks him on the way out. The student catches him on his way to the bus stop and calls after him "Hey, thanks Mr. Lester!" He turns and says "call me Adam."
Since I am still not sure exactly what the guidelines are for this film, I decided to write the treatment based off of my brainstorming ideas from assignment 47. Here it is:
Scene 1: Rap music, traffic.
(optional segway: teacher walks into the school past a group of 'hooligans' misbehaving. This can optionally include, after a few normal examples, incredibly exaggerated shenanigans like kids playing pool outdoors for no reason. (Alternitavely, they could pass the exact opposite of this scene, complete with people of different races skipping arm-in-arm and lemonade stands, which might be funnier but harder for an audience to understand. It might be clearer if the rap music continues to play over it.) The teacher enters the school, but not before glancing back at them from the doorway and shaking his head in despair at how society has failed them.)
(optional segway: teacher walks into the school past a group of 'hooligans' misbehaving. This can optionally include, after a few normal examples, incredibly exaggerated shenanigans like kids playing pool outdoors for no reason. (Alternitavely, they could pass the exact opposite of this scene, complete with people of different races skipping arm-in-arm and lemonade stands, which might be funnier but harder for an audience to understand. It might be clearer if the rap music continues to play over it.) The teacher enters the school, but not before glancing back at them from the doorway and shaking his head in despair at how society has failed them.)
Scene 2: The teacher waits outside of the principal's office with other teachers, and is called in. They eagerly shake hands with the principal, and begin talking. It is mentioned that this is their first teaching job. The principal says something like "don't let it intimidate you" talking about it being their first teaching job, which the teacher takes as a 'warning' and responds with something like "don't worry, no matter how hard it is, I know I can reach these kids!" and practically skips off to class. The principal looks after them, puzzled, and mutters something like 'yeah, ok, you go ahead and do that...'
Scene 3: Teacher enters the classroom to find all students in their assigned seats, buzzing quietly about who their new teacher will be. He enters the room from the back, unnoticed, and when nobody responds he gives an exasperated sigh and runs to the front of the room. At this point everyone has stopped talking, but this does not stop him from slamming a book down on the desk to get their attention. He gives an impassioned speech (perhaps mentioning death or their relative smallness at some point) about how this is the type of behavior that made the last teacher quit, but if they think they can drive him out too they'll have to do better than that because he's not giving up on them that easy. A student politely raises their hand and, when the teacher vaguely motions to them while recovering from his emotional moment, points out that the last teacher broke their ankle and will be back in a week. The teacher responds with something like, 'ok, um, well then, class dismissed' at which point the one actual troubled student points out that they've only been in class for like a minute. The teacher laughes awkwardly.
Scene 4: Unfortunately, due to the length of the film, this scene must be a montage. It spans the next week, and involves a series of moments where the teacher provides unnecessary and annoying encouragement, such as yelling "you can do it! I believe in you!" In the ear of a student taking a test.
Scene 5: The old teacher returns, cast crutches and all. This is only seen briefly in a shot where the new teacher is seen from afar talking to her (their conversation is not audible). Closer to the camera, the one troubled student is watching them talk from outside the school (they are sitting on a stoop, eating a sandwich). The teacher slinks out, disappointed that they were not able to reach anyone in their first week of teaching. The troubled student notices this and comments on it. The teacher sits down next to them and immediately opens up about how they were hoping it would be like a movie, etc. Afterward there is a pause, in which the teacher seems to be thinking "aw, what do you care." The student surprises him by giving him half of their sandwich. They begin talking.
Scene 6: This is a several hours later, they have been talking the whole time (the scene opens with some sort of orphaned punchline from the teacher, like "...and I swear, it wasn't even a fish!") and it is now dark out. The teacher notices the time, and, startled, jumps up and proclaims that their [insert loved one here] wanted them to [insert errand here]. The student wishes him luck, and hopes they see him around. He mentions that it's pretty late, and they should probably head home. The student mentions that they don't want to go home, and when asked why they reveal that they are having family troubles. The teacher pauses for a while, and then offers to go home with them and talk to their family about it.
Scene 7: Also a bit of a montage. This starts when they get to the student's home and the situation is explained (the problem is neither parties fault, it's mainly a misunderstanding), and then as they begin talking the audio fades and the view switches to outside the window where they can be seen talking inside. Following are several snippets of their conversation, containing therapeutic insights such as "well maybe she's just acting that way because she's not ready to let go of the relationship you had" that seem to span several hours.
Scene 8: The teacher (let's call him Adam Lester) leaves their house at 2:00 am, the family shakes his hand and thanks him on the way out. The student catches him on his way to the bus stop and calls after him "Hey, thanks Mr. Lester!" He turns and says "call me Adam."
Hw 47
class film ideas:
I had the idea of a student walking on the desks while giving a rousing speech, which really appealed to me for the pure visual and interest value. Depending on the type of story, this speech could either rally the students to rebellion or be completely ignored.
Since I am partial to the idea of a parody (I feel that not only would it be funny, but like our "cool" unit videos, it might be a way to draw people in and get a message across) I focused the rest of my ideas on a story that would be funny but touching and have a somewhat less conventional message.
I had the following ideas along those lines:
-->intentional overuse of tropes
-->teacher trying to save kids who don't need to be saved
---->in this case, there could be one kid who does, in fact, need to be saved, and the more heartfelt part of the film could involve the teacher actually saving them.
------>off of that, the teacher could save them by taking on the role of a friend instead, thereby preserving the notion of the "super teacher" as just being their fantasy and sending the message that, while people can be 'saved', it doesn't require a missionary to do it.
Hw 45
After reading the texts I decided to focus on how different Hirsch and Sizer’s theories are from each-other, and where they overlap.
Overall, I do think that the theories are reciprocal of each-other (in a mathematical sense, they are literally both the other argument flipped around). Hirsch thinks that students should be taught a basic depository of knowledge and any personal development will happen individually and be based on this. Sizer thinks that students should be led to grow personally, and they will accumulate knowledge due to the intellectual interest derived from their develpoment as time goes on.
Personally, I tend to agree more with Sizer. I strongly agree with the quote at the end of the New York Times’ obituary for him, “Inspiration, hunger: these are the qualities that drive good schools.” I think that above all else, it is important for students to be inspired to have a personal love of learning, and that Sizer’s methods are a strong way to encourage that.
However, I also disagree with him on some points, and favor a few of Hirsch’s ideas instead. Specifically, the point listed in the FacultyShack interview as one of the Common Principals of “depth over coverage” is something that I am currently quite annoyed at this school about-- I am just finding out that I will have to spend at least a semester in college learning things that most people were taught in high-school. Of course, it’s always possible that my Sizer-style-education-inspired love of learning is why I’m upset by the prospect that there was more to learn and I didn’t have access to it, which could (and often does) prompt me to look for it on my own. I also currently take issue with my Sizer-style-education’s taboo on route memorization; while in general I think that conceptual understanding is a much more useful tool for learning and skill for later life, I can barely find New York on a map.
Here’s my theory: it should be assumed that the student will not contribute to their learning process at all on their own. As President Obama mentioned in the speech featured in the last assignment, some students have extenuating circumstances and most are pretty lazy, either way they probably won’t do their education justice. Therefore, I don’t think that personal development and basic knowledge should be divided into two categories, one to be taught, one to be gained independently. Both will play a crucial role in a current student’s future life, and therefore both should be given the attention in school that they will not be given outside of school.
Hw 44
I honestly don't think it's unreasonable to expect as much as we do from schools. From the age of five onward, children spend the majority of their lives in these institutions, being intentionally molded by society. Anything that can feasibly get into a child's head at that point, a school can put in there if it wants to. If we tell a school to make a child accepting of others, it can do so. If we tell a school to make a child recognize jews by their bone structure, it will. Children spend more time in school than with their parents, and it makes sense that they can inherit parental-style values from a school.
That being said, first let me respond to President Obama's speech:
I think that, more than school as a means for political change, his speech can be better summed up by his line "where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up." Honestly, a lot of the speech involved things that I have heard and already support, like 'don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it'. I think it's possible that the sheer abundance of such phrases may desensitize children to them, and make them loose some of their meaning. One less common thing that struck me, however, was that he said 'even when it feels like everyone has given up on you, don't ever give up on yourself.' I think that is a good sentiment to take away from the speech, as I feel like too often that is one of the problems that people have with school. Hearing it does sort of give one a feeling of responsibility for their own education, but unfortunately I'm not sure how long after the speech this feeling will last for most.
As for the USA Today's column, I agree and disagree. I think that in order to create more jobs there need to be more entrepreneurs, creating new companies and new positions. However, I strongly disagree that a military-style education is the way to achieve that. Military education may instill a sense of devotion to the mission, but this is a far cry from instilling the creativity and ingenuity needed to start a business like google. The article also emphasizes loyalty to the 'mission' of making money over the value of an employee, but then proclaims that businesses should try to value employees more, so it is unclear exactly what the author wants from their idea of the new school system. Not even mentioning the fact that the entrepreneur's school would be available only to a very small opportune group, and that the likelihood that bringing in successful businessmen will convince people that things need to be done differently is incredibly slim, the theories in this article definitely have some flaws.
The New York Times article, on the other hand, I largely agree with. The concept that a school should start with a passion for learning and build up around that is something I've thought for a long time, though obviously Ms. Kenny has discovered a better formula for it than I could ever come up with. I also especially agree that "teaching to the test" is something that should be avoided. I did particularly well on standardized tests in elementary school, when all we were told was that there would be a test and what it would consist of. Granted this is not the right approach for everyone, but I think in all cases it is much easier to learn something when the student and the teacher are excited about it (something that test prep is unlikely to achieve).
Overall I find 'school as a battleground for political change' an interesting topic, and I actually think that I would be more interested in focusing my attention on that this unit than my previous topic.
That being said, first let me respond to President Obama's speech:
I think that, more than school as a means for political change, his speech can be better summed up by his line "where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up." Honestly, a lot of the speech involved things that I have heard and already support, like 'don't be afraid to ask for help if you need it'. I think it's possible that the sheer abundance of such phrases may desensitize children to them, and make them loose some of their meaning. One less common thing that struck me, however, was that he said 'even when it feels like everyone has given up on you, don't ever give up on yourself.' I think that is a good sentiment to take away from the speech, as I feel like too often that is one of the problems that people have with school. Hearing it does sort of give one a feeling of responsibility for their own education, but unfortunately I'm not sure how long after the speech this feeling will last for most.
As for the USA Today's column, I agree and disagree. I think that in order to create more jobs there need to be more entrepreneurs, creating new companies and new positions. However, I strongly disagree that a military-style education is the way to achieve that. Military education may instill a sense of devotion to the mission, but this is a far cry from instilling the creativity and ingenuity needed to start a business like google. The article also emphasizes loyalty to the 'mission' of making money over the value of an employee, but then proclaims that businesses should try to value employees more, so it is unclear exactly what the author wants from their idea of the new school system. Not even mentioning the fact that the entrepreneur's school would be available only to a very small opportune group, and that the likelihood that bringing in successful businessmen will convince people that things need to be done differently is incredibly slim, the theories in this article definitely have some flaws.
The New York Times article, on the other hand, I largely agree with. The concept that a school should start with a passion for learning and build up around that is something I've thought for a long time, though obviously Ms. Kenny has discovered a better formula for it than I could ever come up with. I also especially agree that "teaching to the test" is something that should be avoided. I did particularly well on standardized tests in elementary school, when all we were told was that there would be a test and what it would consist of. Granted this is not the right approach for everyone, but I think in all cases it is much easier to learn something when the student and the teacher are excited about it (something that test prep is unlikely to achieve).
Overall I find 'school as a battleground for political change' an interesting topic, and I actually think that I would be more interested in focusing my attention on that this unit than my previous topic.
Hw 41 and 42
Since I am still unsure about exactly what I want my topic to be, I decided to just look for some general information or statistics schools.
"Fast Facts." National Canter for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, n.d. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
A short text with a lot of information packed into it. This is a sheet of statistics about schools gathered from a variety of sources, ranging in topic from the amount of elementary school children attending private school to the percentage of female high school graduates enrolling in college. A useful source for almost any education-based study.
"National Statistics." Youth Violence Project. U.S. Violence in Schools, n.d. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
A page of charts and graphs documenting violence in schools over time. The website seems to be a bit partial to the hypothesis that overall violence has decreased since 1994, but the actual data was pulled from a variety of sources and seems to be unaltered.
Senior, Jennifer. "The Junior Meritocracy." New York Magazine 31 Jan 2010: n. pag. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
An interesting article from New York Magazine about how elementary school placement tests such as the ERB provide unfair comparisons of future students. Beginning with an overview of the test's effects later in life and moving on to related topics like why these tests don't provide a good picture of a student's future prospects, this article provides an in-depth look at the ramifications of early intelligence testing.
Other interesting articles:
http://www.educationbug.org/a/public-school-uniform-debate.html
A page talking about the debate over school uniforms. I hadn't heard about this debate since elementary school, and I forgot how interesting I found it.
http://www.education.com/topic/school-bullying-teasing/
A fairly extensive portal page on bullying. Links range from Spanish information on recognizing the warning signs of bullying to the psychological mechanisms that cause it.
HW 42:
Part A:
A possible topic that I am thinking of exploring is the specific laws governing objectivity in teaching. I looked for sources based on that.
Kleiman, Mark. "What Sort of 'Objectivity' in the Classroom?" The Huffington Past 3 Mar 2010: n. pag. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/what-sort-of-objectivity_b_108598.html.
This is a small article from the Huffington post. It makes a point similar to one that Andy seemed to be making in class: essentially that, no matter how hard, you try, there is no such thing as complete objectivity in the classroom. This article seems to be advocating that this is a good thing. Not that there should be no limitations on what can be taught, but that teaching theories proven to be wrong and letting the children decide would be a massive waste of time.
Kantor, J. (2008). Teaching law, testing ideas, obama stood slightly apart . The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html
Although not strictly on topic, I came across this article in my research and found it interesting. Written during the 2008 presidential race, it focuses on Barack Obama's time teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. Based on what is now well known of his personality, it is easy to picture him in all of the mentioned roles. On a slightly more on-topic note, there is a section mentioning that teaching along with some top conservitive minds did not seem to shake him.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~coco8/topic_4/students/james-simermeyer879181864.html
This article talks about objectivity in the teaching of the sciences. It specifically mentions the example of creationism vs. the theory of evolution, and how technically not teaching creationism is an example of bias.
Part B:
My essential question:
Is absolute objectivity in teaching possible? If not, does this mean that the concept of objectivity can be ignored completely, or do there still need to be boundaries on how opinion can factor into teaching?
This question is especially important to me personally because I am a firm supporter of objective learning. That is not to say that I believe that it is possible to be 100% objective. There will always be subconscious leading towards the side that one agrees with, and decisions of what is 'important' to teach cannot be made without bias. I also don't necessarily think that every single angle of a topic must be taught, because, as mentioned in the first article I found for this assignment, that would take a massive amount of time.
I believe that, for example, when presenting a scientific study, one should teach the procedure and results, not the more debatable conclusions. While it is true that teaching can never be fully without bias, I am strongly against the idea that this lifts any responsibility to attempt removing it.
"Fast Facts." National Canter for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, n.d. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
A short text with a lot of information packed into it. This is a sheet of statistics about schools gathered from a variety of sources, ranging in topic from the amount of elementary school children attending private school to the percentage of female high school graduates enrolling in college. A useful source for almost any education-based study.
"National Statistics." Youth Violence Project. U.S. Violence in Schools, n.d. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
A page of charts and graphs documenting violence in schools over time. The website seems to be a bit partial to the hypothesis that overall violence has decreased since 1994, but the actual data was pulled from a variety of sources and seems to be unaltered.
Senior, Jennifer. "The Junior Meritocracy." New York Magazine 31 Jan 2010: n. pag. Web. 24 Feb 2010. .
An interesting article from New York Magazine about how elementary school placement tests such as the ERB provide unfair comparisons of future students. Beginning with an overview of the test's effects later in life and moving on to related topics like why these tests don't provide a good picture of a student's future prospects, this article provides an in-depth look at the ramifications of early intelligence testing.
Other interesting articles:
http://www.educationbug.org/a/public-school-uniform-debate.html
A page talking about the debate over school uniforms. I hadn't heard about this debate since elementary school, and I forgot how interesting I found it.
http://www.education.com/topic/school-bullying-teasing/
A fairly extensive portal page on bullying. Links range from Spanish information on recognizing the warning signs of bullying to the psychological mechanisms that cause it.
HW 42:
Part A:
A possible topic that I am thinking of exploring is the specific laws governing objectivity in teaching. I looked for sources based on that.
Kleiman, Mark. "What Sort of 'Objectivity' in the Classroom?" The Huffington Past 3 Mar 2010: n. pag. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/what-sort-of-objectivity_b_108598.html.
This is a small article from the Huffington post. It makes a point similar to one that Andy seemed to be making in class: essentially that, no matter how hard, you try, there is no such thing as complete objectivity in the classroom. This article seems to be advocating that this is a good thing. Not that there should be no limitations on what can be taught, but that teaching theories proven to be wrong and letting the children decide would be a massive waste of time.
Kantor, J. (2008). Teaching law, testing ideas, obama stood slightly apart . The New York Times, Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html
Although not strictly on topic, I came across this article in my research and found it interesting. Written during the 2008 presidential race, it focuses on Barack Obama's time teaching at the University of Chicago Law School. Based on what is now well known of his personality, it is easy to picture him in all of the mentioned roles. On a slightly more on-topic note, there is a section mentioning that teaching along with some top conservitive minds did not seem to shake him.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~coco8/topic_4/students/james-simermeyer879181864.html
This article talks about objectivity in the teaching of the sciences. It specifically mentions the example of creationism vs. the theory of evolution, and how technically not teaching creationism is an example of bias.
Part B:
My essential question:
Is absolute objectivity in teaching possible? If not, does this mean that the concept of objectivity can be ignored completely, or do there still need to be boundaries on how opinion can factor into teaching?
This question is especially important to me personally because I am a firm supporter of objective learning. That is not to say that I believe that it is possible to be 100% objective. There will always be subconscious leading towards the side that one agrees with, and decisions of what is 'important' to teach cannot be made without bias. I also don't necessarily think that every single angle of a topic must be taught, because, as mentioned in the first article I found for this assignment, that would take a massive amount of time.
I believe that, for example, when presenting a scientific study, one should teach the procedure and results, not the more debatable conclusions. While it is true that teaching can never be fully without bias, I am strongly against the idea that this lifts any responsibility to attempt removing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)