Feb. 23rd's class reflection

I was struggling with how models dehumanized people involved, but I understand completely. In fact, it reminds me of my first year in Mexico and the dehumanization that I experienced. My administrator thought that all teaching staff should be able to plan their weeks to the point that if she walked into a classroom at any given time, she should know what was going on. She made all of us write lesson plans for the whole week. This meant 40 lesson plans to her on Monday morning. Being in Mexico,the last thing I wanted to do on the weekend was write 40 lesson plans. Secondly, half the time, or more than half the time, when she walked into my class with her clipboard, I wasn't doing what it said because things had shifted off course by the end of the week. The funny part is that one of my colleagues caught on to the fact that this was just a hoop jump for us and nobody was reading them. Part of this exercise was to share with our colleages the lesson plans for various subjects and levels. The teaching staff wasnt' reading anybody elses lesson plans but either were the administrators. My colleague wrote nursery rhymes, poems and one line jokes on 40 pages and handed them in for about 3 months. Not a single person said anything to her. She finally went to the administrator and told them that the exercise of writing 40 lesson plans was ridiculuous and a waste of trees. The exercise was soon dropped. Now I understand what you meant by dehumanizing because I think that is what I experienced. However, at this moment, if an administrator saw my day book, it would probably look like I was very disorganized, but in my head it is crystal clear.

Secondly, I think that you can still work around a model and use the affective domain. Within the context of a model there is still some degree of personal style and freedom. I think teachers can adjust their lessons accordingly. Many of us can think on our feet.

In regard to art, I have already made my comments on this. I think it is very difficult to assess subjects like art, phys.ed, music, etc. because they are very skill based and if you don't have the aptitude, it doesn't mean you didn't get anything out of the class. Also, like I said in class, in terms of appreciation, is it better for students to know the messages and meanings behind pieces of art, music, etc. or should it be a self-inquiry thing for them? I get a very different take on pieces of art than my husband, but it doesn't mean I don't like it or appreciate it.

Feb. 16th's class

I really got thinking about Graham's comment about the girls that drowned in the car. I went home and talked to my husband about it. Here's the thing....I have always held the view that technology is the new wave and as teacher's we better get knowledgeable about it and be able to teach it and understand the new devices, etc. in order to keep up with the students. This is primarily my reasoning for a pursuing another degree in educational technology. I find myself defending technology to other educators and making a strong case for letting the students "get away" with using devices in class because it it the new thing and it is the teacher's that must start to change and get familiar with this. My husband on the other hand is the complete opposite. He gets very upset with students using devices in class and thinks that students are getting away with far too much and is dead set on not changing his ways in the classroom. So this topic comes up quite a bit between us. We find each other's view a good compliment. However, I went home last night and told him I agreed with him...to his shock, he asked why. I told him what Graham had mentioned about having items stored in long term memory and that eventually sometime in our life they will re-surface whether we find them valuable at the time that we learn them or not. I told him the exercises we did and how we used many parts of the brain and how problem solving comes from long term memory and the ability to use it. I mentioned how the students today are so programmed to use technology as a way of problem solving or perhaps using technology instead of problem solving that the girls in the car may have resorted to using a cell phone to save their lives rather that using their knowledge of pressure or tools to get out of their car. I took back everything I said to my husband about defending technology because now I understand how technology may hinder these students from using their common sense. I say this quite quickly and still do find value and merit in using technology and still feel that teachers need to get on the technology boat, but now understand that it may be dangerous to solely rely on it. Another story is from a trip my husband and I took to Nova Scotia a few years ago. We went to Lunnenberg, stayed at a bed and breakfast with a fellow who used to man the lighthouse there. After telling us it had been shut down and is now a tourist attraction, I asked if GPS had caused that. He said maybe, but just months before a ship had crashed right infront of the lighthouse because the batteries in their GPS had died and they were staring at a broken device rather than using the light from a lighthouse. All the people on board died. There has been conversations about using an ipod touch as a textbook for schools considering they hold much of the information from a textbook and it is relevant to today's use of technology. Also, they have google at their fingertips so that they can find answers to anything. My husband of course was outraged by this. However, now I am second guessing "google at your fingertips". It may not save your life or atleast teach you to problem solve.

February 9th's class

Discussing various models/designs/content of curriculum makes me think of a conversation I had with a colleague not long ago. We were talking about how both of our grandfathers dropped out of school in grade 8 because they had to go to work to support the family. Without a high school education, we both said they were very intelligent, in fact rank among some of the smartest people we know. I'm not sure if part of this is due to the age and experience at which point we knew them, which I think is a education of its own, but certainly social skills come in to play big time in terms of intelligence. We were suggesting that forcing a child into the work force makes them very sociable and therefore, the mere conversations with older people is a learning experience. We also agreed that students can learn an awful lot from being in a work place and that apprenticeship programs and practicums are sometimes, the best option for students who don't want to be in a classroom. So, all this talk about designs of curriculum made me think of having no curriculum. I saw that Graham posted on my blog about the instance of having no curriculum in a school, so what if the public school system only ran until Grade 8? What would happen? It worked in the early part of the 20th century and there were some very smart people....not that I'm suggesting this as an option!

Thoughts on Feb. 2's class....

I enjoyed the conversations about metaphors....the funny thing is that I love this topic because I am a very concrete and linear thinker. My father in law told me that was a terrible thing to say about myself! I'd say that I "get" metaphors, but never initally go looking for them.

My question for discussion is about the Kliebard article. It appears that he is suggesting that curriculum is a metaphor, theory, idealistic, not practical. That's kind of ironic, isn't it? Teaching is a practial thing and yet the guide we use is not. It's kind of funny to me. At the same time, I appreciate that completely because it give me tons of freedom in terms of methods and style of teaching. So my question is...what is curriculum's use?