I know this isn't about child development class, but it's what is on my mind. Over the past 2 weeks I have learned more about science than in the last 18 years of school. Hands-on learning combined with thoughtful group discussions are amazing! My group today had a discussion that started with the question "what makes things move?". By the end of the discussion (that we never really finished) we had discussed how airplanes fly, why salt melts ice and problems of fat people falling out of planes. Talking through these problems with peers was extremely engaging. This practice is not limited to science. We discuss in small groups in every other class and do hands-on activities. In my experience science has been the most interesting (no offense Zalika) because we are learning simple things that reflect huge ideas of how the world works.
The more I read about Vygostky the more I like his ideas. I can tell that we use scaffolding and group work to deeply understand the subject matter in all of our classes. Being in a large university for my undergraduate studies I wasn't exposed to this type of learning. It feels like I have truly and deeply understood the topics over the past two weeks. Learning to the test in my undergrad did not have this effect. It's been challenging but it's been great at the same time.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Learn through history
As I read Schooled to Order I’m getting very upset. I want to go back to the 1860s and shake up the reformers! Why is it that we always seem to blame the poor? John Dewey who considered himself a Socialist at the time surprised me. Suddenly Dewey’s progressive schooling ideas seemed less innovative and more like a trade school. Training to buck up and listen to the man.“When the school introduces and trains each child of society into membership within such a little community, saturating him with the spirit of service, and providing him with the instruments of effective self-direction, we shall have the deepest and best guaranty of a larger society which is worthy, lovely, and harmonious.” (Nasaw, 103) Yet, Dewey was aware of why the workers were so fed up with working conditions. I suppose he just wanted to make it peaceful instead of imposing radical changes to the industrial times.
The Classroom Environment
Reading about Montessori's ideas about creating an "interesting, beautiful environment" (the quote is actually Mooney's from page 27) was something that stood out to me, because I too need an interesting, beautiful environment. And not to knock L&C, but the only classroom that I find interesting is the Yellow Lab in which we have our Science and Children class. Naturally, one may say, "But Rachael, you like science, so it is no surprise that you enjoy being in that classroom." Or one may say it's just the wheelie chairs...
I posit that both conclusions are false. Ok, maybe not about the wheelie chairs -- those things are sweet. Instead, if we look at our classrooms in Rogers Hall, I would be lying if I called them interesting or beautiful; orderly, yes, stimulating, not so much. And then there is the classroom in which we have our Arts class. I really hate that room. Even though I am interested in the subject and enthusiastic even to express my creativity and artistic side, I am having the hardest time concentrating on much of anything other than the clock in that room. And I can attribute that to one thing -- temperature.
I have always been a bit sensitive to heat. Heat affects us all in varying degrees, but it does affect us all in ways that are not conducive to education. The classroom in which I am interning this year was very hot when I visited. Will this be detrimental to not only me, but also the students. I know that spending dollars on air conditioning would be an insane idea, but would it be worth it in terms of the students performance (I use performance in this instance, since it seems that is all any bureauocrats care about -- but that's another topic).
So that lead me to think about a theme that keeps coming up in conversation with the other ladies in the cohort is about the issue of giving up household duties and hoping that the men/partners in our lives will pick up the slack. Many of those conversation involve frustration and dismay that our homes are becoming less "beautiful." Is this merely a male/female thing? Is it because men were not made aware of the importance of an orderly environment while children? I normally would say it's cultural, but I am just posing some questions for further thought.
So that lead me to thinking about how boys and girls would see an "interesting, beautiful environment." Would the girls gravitate more toward the beauty/order/cleanliness aspect, and the boys would be into the interesting/cool stuff everywhere aspect? Or would an orderly environment perhaps affect the boys to the end that they too begin to appreciate orderliness? Could a classroom save women a headache in the future?
Hmm.
I posit that both conclusions are false. Ok, maybe not about the wheelie chairs -- those things are sweet. Instead, if we look at our classrooms in Rogers Hall, I would be lying if I called them interesting or beautiful; orderly, yes, stimulating, not so much. And then there is the classroom in which we have our Arts class. I really hate that room. Even though I am interested in the subject and enthusiastic even to express my creativity and artistic side, I am having the hardest time concentrating on much of anything other than the clock in that room. And I can attribute that to one thing -- temperature.
I have always been a bit sensitive to heat. Heat affects us all in varying degrees, but it does affect us all in ways that are not conducive to education. The classroom in which I am interning this year was very hot when I visited. Will this be detrimental to not only me, but also the students. I know that spending dollars on air conditioning would be an insane idea, but would it be worth it in terms of the students performance (I use performance in this instance, since it seems that is all any bureauocrats care about -- but that's another topic).
So that lead me to think about a theme that keeps coming up in conversation with the other ladies in the cohort is about the issue of giving up household duties and hoping that the men/partners in our lives will pick up the slack. Many of those conversation involve frustration and dismay that our homes are becoming less "beautiful." Is this merely a male/female thing? Is it because men were not made aware of the importance of an orderly environment while children? I normally would say it's cultural, but I am just posing some questions for further thought.
So that lead me to thinking about how boys and girls would see an "interesting, beautiful environment." Would the girls gravitate more toward the beauty/order/cleanliness aspect, and the boys would be into the interesting/cool stuff everywhere aspect? Or would an orderly environment perhaps affect the boys to the end that they too begin to appreciate orderliness? Could a classroom save women a headache in the future?
Hmm.
Go Vygotsky!
I’m so glad that we get to free-blog today, because there is so much to rant and rave about these days!
First of all, I do have to say that I am finding this whole “Blog” post thing to be very challenging for me. I have never been very computer savvy, and quite frankly, would prefer to just be a Luddite. But alas, the technological ways of our world are catching up to us, and I have no doubt that they are only going to get more and more crazy as time goes on. And I most certainly don’t want to be “that teacher” who always goes, “Oh, well I would turn on/fix/use that machine, but someone who knows more about that stuff should help me”. I’ve had so many of those teachers, where you are thinking to yourself, “Get with the times! We’re not in ’54 anymore!”. But I’m afraid I’m totally going to be “one of those” if this blog stuff gets any more out of control than it already is!!! (You know, part of me is joking, but part of me is not.)
I would also like to comment on a little revelation I had today. When reading the supplemental info on Vygotsky tonight, I realized that his theory is in essence, exactly what we were doing today in Science class: Science Talks. While feeling highly doubtful about this little endeavor while just reading about it, I realized today in class when we actually DID it, that I was really getting a lot out of it. Not only was I learning, but I was SUPER DUPER excited about science and the world around me, and how does it work? Just talking with my peers about it all today made me want to go to the bar after school, perhaps on my Friday nights and find like-minded people to just “talk about our wonders”. It was so amazing to feel first-hand what it was that we were learning about and to actually see how well it seems t work.
Of course, there’s always the other side of this argument (and I do always like to play Devil’s Advocate): What happens if you are having your “Science Talk” (or any other exploratory talk for that matter) with someone who is way beyond your thought level? How do they keep from ruining all the wonder? How do they leave space for others to go around and around until they reach the answer, when they know it plainly and simply? I suppose the argument could be that even if a smarty-pants student were to ruin it for the others, they would have the ability to ask clarifying questions to that person until they all understood the concept. Then, not only are the other students learning, but the “smart” student is challenged to explore his or her own knowledge further to be able to put the thing into the terms that the other students require to understand. Go Vygotsky!
The other fear I have as a teacher with a lot of these Theories of Childhood is that I just won’t be able to shut up. I mean, I know that I grapple with being a chronic interrupter; I also know that I am a bit of a perfectionist and will panic if I feel that my students are headed in the wrong direction towards an answer. But I also know that it’s the process that will help them to learn, not just acquiring the answer first try. I guess it’s just important for now to notice, realize, and be mindful of where my struggles lie, and then utilize my professors and peers to help me work through the stuff so that hopefully, by the time I hit the classroom, it won’t be quite so difficult any more. Help!
First of all, I do have to say that I am finding this whole “Blog” post thing to be very challenging for me. I have never been very computer savvy, and quite frankly, would prefer to just be a Luddite. But alas, the technological ways of our world are catching up to us, and I have no doubt that they are only going to get more and more crazy as time goes on. And I most certainly don’t want to be “that teacher” who always goes, “Oh, well I would turn on/fix/use that machine, but someone who knows more about that stuff should help me”. I’ve had so many of those teachers, where you are thinking to yourself, “Get with the times! We’re not in ’54 anymore!”. But I’m afraid I’m totally going to be “one of those” if this blog stuff gets any more out of control than it already is!!! (You know, part of me is joking, but part of me is not.)
I would also like to comment on a little revelation I had today. When reading the supplemental info on Vygotsky tonight, I realized that his theory is in essence, exactly what we were doing today in Science class: Science Talks. While feeling highly doubtful about this little endeavor while just reading about it, I realized today in class when we actually DID it, that I was really getting a lot out of it. Not only was I learning, but I was SUPER DUPER excited about science and the world around me, and how does it work? Just talking with my peers about it all today made me want to go to the bar after school, perhaps on my Friday nights and find like-minded people to just “talk about our wonders”. It was so amazing to feel first-hand what it was that we were learning about and to actually see how well it seems t work.
Of course, there’s always the other side of this argument (and I do always like to play Devil’s Advocate): What happens if you are having your “Science Talk” (or any other exploratory talk for that matter) with someone who is way beyond your thought level? How do they keep from ruining all the wonder? How do they leave space for others to go around and around until they reach the answer, when they know it plainly and simply? I suppose the argument could be that even if a smarty-pants student were to ruin it for the others, they would have the ability to ask clarifying questions to that person until they all understood the concept. Then, not only are the other students learning, but the “smart” student is challenged to explore his or her own knowledge further to be able to put the thing into the terms that the other students require to understand. Go Vygotsky!
The other fear I have as a teacher with a lot of these Theories of Childhood is that I just won’t be able to shut up. I mean, I know that I grapple with being a chronic interrupter; I also know that I am a bit of a perfectionist and will panic if I feel that my students are headed in the wrong direction towards an answer. But I also know that it’s the process that will help them to learn, not just acquiring the answer first try. I guess it’s just important for now to notice, realize, and be mindful of where my struggles lie, and then utilize my professors and peers to help me work through the stuff so that hopefully, by the time I hit the classroom, it won’t be quite so difficult any more. Help!
Treasures
I really like the idea of getting treasures from what we read, do and hear in class. Ever since Zalika brought this idea up I have been trying to use it all of our classes. One seems to always remember the important items in class but the concept of treasuring what is important to you is empowering. I want my future classrooms to take treasures away with them.
On the surface the yardstick and theories book seem like easy reads, not much to them, but when you dive under the surface there is information in them that will easily help me along my teaching path. I have not studied the developmental theorists before and to get an over view was a great way to approach the topic. But what I will treasure from the development discussion is the small break out groups and how everyone took an active part in teaching the others in the group. I learned more about each theorist from this discussion than I did from just the text alone.
We have been reading about critical theory and the history of schools in ED 550. I am amazed about how we have not learned through our history but are prone to make the same mistakes over and over. How do we get out of the rut that we have fallen into and start making some changes? This critical questioning is an amazing treasure that we have be given. I hope that we can take our ideas and begin to help shape the change that we all want in our education system.
My favorite treasure has been on that inspired me to apply to Lewis and Clark and it was the philosophy that by going through this program we are going to become agents of change. I believe that by becoming this change agent the schools that we eventually get jobs in will be the better for it and the children we end up teaching will in turn be inspired to become an agent for change in their world.
Inspired and Frustrated
Expanding my awareness of the different theories on childhood education has been bitter sweet for me. On one hand, I am inspired by learning about alternative teaching methods that I wish I had been exposed to as a child, and on the other hand I feel disheartened by the reality of the limitations in public. schools. After participating in our mock parent/teacher conferences, I understand the difficulty in defending certain styles of teaching that are more abstract than lectures and worksheets. However, I wish the proponents of standardized education would spend more time in a diverse array of classrooms, so they had a better understanding of how wasteful that perspective can be.
My opinions on this subject come from my experiences working in a Life Learning classroom with children with exceptionalities. I will never forget the frustrated expressions on the faces of the teacher, occupational therapist, and speech therapist as they spent days performing the required standardized tests with children who were unable to understand the tasks. Not only was is a waste of time for the adults and funds for the district, but was equally as frustrating for the children. I remember the teachers laughing about how one child got a pretty good score because he liked the way the letter "B" looked and picked it for every answer. It seems so unfair to measure children by these standards when so many of their amazing strengths cannot be appreciated through filling in bubbles. I wish there was a wider acceptance of some of these other learning methods that allow more exploration and encouragement for the children's self esteems.
My opinions on this subject come from my experiences working in a Life Learning classroom with children with exceptionalities. I will never forget the frustrated expressions on the faces of the teacher, occupational therapist, and speech therapist as they spent days performing the required standardized tests with children who were unable to understand the tasks. Not only was is a waste of time for the adults and funds for the district, but was equally as frustrating for the children. I remember the teachers laughing about how one child got a pretty good score because he liked the way the letter "B" looked and picked it for every answer. It seems so unfair to measure children by these standards when so many of their amazing strengths cannot be appreciated through filling in bubbles. I wish there was a wider acceptance of some of these other learning methods that allow more exploration and encouragement for the children's self esteems.
I don't wanna be bad...
I am still having a couple issues. I know that there is not a right and wrong way to teach, and having had many different styles of teachers in the past myself, I've experienced that. But what truly makes that "great" teacher. Is a great teacher one who follows these philosophies that we are learning, or is a great teacher just in-tune with their "inner self"? Is it someone who truly knows how children develop and how to be in tune with the children? With all these possibilities, it seems a little daunting. It makes me feel that I need to be an expert in all these areas to be a good teacher. It scares me to know that there are many teachers out there who started just like us, with these positive ideals and motivation to change the world, who are now what the children call "bad teachers". What made them change? Because really... we all go into teaching because we like children. I can't picture anyone going into the profession cause they just really want to bore kids. So where did that flip happen and how can we be aware of this and prevent it?
On a completely different tangent... I am actually enjoying reading about the theories that educators have. Coming from a psychology background, Piaget and Erikson have been pounded relentlessly into my brain. Knowing what stages are at what age, and what types of development are characteristic of a certain level of development, was a very loft and vague concept before. Actually sitting down in class and finding useful and productive ways of teaching through these philosophies grounds my knowledge in a useful manner. And as always it is interesting to note how many differences there are in the theories depending on why and how you apply them.
On a completely different tangent... I am actually enjoying reading about the theories that educators have. Coming from a psychology background, Piaget and Erikson have been pounded relentlessly into my brain. Knowing what stages are at what age, and what types of development are characteristic of a certain level of development, was a very loft and vague concept before. Actually sitting down in class and finding useful and productive ways of teaching through these philosophies grounds my knowledge in a useful manner. And as always it is interesting to note how many differences there are in the theories depending on why and how you apply them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)