Tuesday, May 4, 2010
reflection on readings and class
I felt that I learned a lot in tongight's class. One thing I had to look up was what "Constructivist" meant in terms of teacher education. I do agree that Pacific uses this model, and while it feels different to me than the rote memorization/test/write a paper to prove what you know method, I do appreciate a different way of learning. Constructivist learning is described as being a more natural way of learning, where students aren't given a black and white right or wrong stamp from the instructor. Rather, the students themselves are encouraged to find his or her own answers based on prior experiences, knowledge, as so on. This is a topic I plan to re-visit a little later.
Monday, May 3, 2010
"Aimee Mullins" and her 12 pairs of legs
Recently, I viewed the video featuring "Aimee Mullins and Her 12 Pairs of Legs." While I wasn't completely sure what to expect given such a title, I believe Ms. Mullins embodies a wonderful sense of strength, vitality, and determination as she educates her audiences about what it is like to be not neccesarrily "disabled," but "able."
Aimee Mullins is a model, motivational speaker, and athlete (did I miss anything)? Her "12 pairs of legs" are various legs which have been tailored to fit her body to suit different needs, such as those she uses for running. Some are made just for fun, such as the pair that makes her six inches taller, or the beautiful intricate pair carved out of wood, which resemble a fancy pair of boots.
Mullins poses the question, "what makes someone beautiful?" Who dictates beauty, and why is beauty so limited? (If anyone hasn't watched the video already, it's worth it just for her Pamela Anderson joke). Mullins wants others to see not what she doesn't have, but what she has. Her vision of legs as an artform empowers her, as one friend of hers commented, "you are six inches taller today? That's not fair!"
The term "disability" is a limiting, and often demeaning term that often times is tossed about too lightly. Mullins encourages people to celebrate each other's differences, and celebrate who we are as individuals.
Response: I enjoyed the video, witnessing a strong, motivated person speak with such conviction. How might we view the person walking through the store with a prosthesis? With sympathy, or with indifference? People like Ms. Mullins actively convey to audiences that, yes, there are some differences, but no, it doesn't mean they're any less talented, funny, beautiful, smart, etc.
Aimee Mullins is a model, motivational speaker, and athlete (did I miss anything)? Her "12 pairs of legs" are various legs which have been tailored to fit her body to suit different needs, such as those she uses for running. Some are made just for fun, such as the pair that makes her six inches taller, or the beautiful intricate pair carved out of wood, which resemble a fancy pair of boots.
Mullins poses the question, "what makes someone beautiful?" Who dictates beauty, and why is beauty so limited? (If anyone hasn't watched the video already, it's worth it just for her Pamela Anderson joke). Mullins wants others to see not what she doesn't have, but what she has. Her vision of legs as an artform empowers her, as one friend of hers commented, "you are six inches taller today? That's not fair!"
The term "disability" is a limiting, and often demeaning term that often times is tossed about too lightly. Mullins encourages people to celebrate each other's differences, and celebrate who we are as individuals.
Response: I enjoyed the video, witnessing a strong, motivated person speak with such conviction. How might we view the person walking through the store with a prosthesis? With sympathy, or with indifference? People like Ms. Mullins actively convey to audiences that, yes, there are some differences, but no, it doesn't mean they're any less talented, funny, beautiful, smart, etc.
Response to "The Side Effects of NCLB"
This is indeed a subject I feel strongly about. In the article, "The Side Effects of NCLB" by Gordon Cawelti, the author raises several serious and important questions we should all be asking ourselves as we muddle through the murky waters of NCLB.
Yes, we needed some restructuring of the delicate framework responsible for ensuring our children receive an equally based education, that "No Child [would be] Left Behind," and that each and every student deserves a quality education. Schools needed to be held accountable, and poor teaching/management practices needed to be dissolved. I understand this competely. What pains me, is the fact that now, in the quest to uphold "NCLB," it seems the fundamental purpose for insurrecting this oversight in the first place comes with unforseen consequences that had not been taken into account.
The author effectively breaks down the article into several "side effects." Side effect 1, for example, leads to "A Skewed Curriculum." According to the author, (and if one were to take the time to honestly address the malfunctional issues of NCLB,) standards-based reform has led us to a curriculum that is primarily based on math, reading and writing. Not that these things are bad....they're not. The problem that comes into play happens when our children and our students complete their schooling knowing little of science, social studies or the arts, because their schooldistricts are "teaching to the test." Tragically, there is little, if any time (or funding for that matter) for art, music, or science. I see this NCLB as the bully bulldozer in my children's school-bulldozing its way through so many of the opportunities I and so many of the other students and their families hold dear. When our children and our students apply for college, how can we provide them with experiences to create "well-rounded" children when research-based methods lead NCLB and do not include opportunities for our children to become so?
Another side effect of NCLB is that we now have stressed out teachers and stressed students. Many teachers' jobs are dependent upon how well students perform on standardized tests. What's the problem with this? Well....a lot, actually. Some students just don't know how to do well on a "test." Period. In our teaching programs, why are teachers taught that all students have different levels of intellegence, or more specifically, we are taught to adhere to Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. We are taught that it is essentially unfair and unjust to assess a student through a pencil-paper test each and every time, because 1) some are just not good at taking tests 2) there are other ways students can convey what they have learned through various methods of assessment, i.e. projects, a story, a timeline, powerpoint presentation, writing a play, etc, etc, because these multiple-levels of intellignce must be taken into account. Another issue with forcing students to take these computerized tests is that some will not take the test seriously at all. Really. Some will show up for their test, type A, A, A, for each given choice, and will do it just to get it overwith. Meanwhile, the teachers who have poured their hearts and souls into helping their students along are penalized because some of the students in their classroom did not "perform well" on the tests. Not that this will happen all of the time, but it does happen.
I could easily continue writing on the subject of NCLB, but alas, at this point I cannot, as I have other items waiting on my back burner. NCLB is, however, something I will plan to delve into more deeply in the future, as it continues to morph and change with every year that passes.
As I mentioned earlier, I completely understand the need for standards to be put into place, the need for accountability, and the need for every child to receive the education he or she deserves. But let's be smart about it. Let's take an honest look at how this NCLB thing is organized, how we are in fact, hurting, instead of helping our kids, and how taking high stakes tests is not the only way to try to prove that children are learning.
Yes, we needed some restructuring of the delicate framework responsible for ensuring our children receive an equally based education, that "No Child [would be] Left Behind," and that each and every student deserves a quality education. Schools needed to be held accountable, and poor teaching/management practices needed to be dissolved. I understand this competely. What pains me, is the fact that now, in the quest to uphold "NCLB," it seems the fundamental purpose for insurrecting this oversight in the first place comes with unforseen consequences that had not been taken into account.
The author effectively breaks down the article into several "side effects." Side effect 1, for example, leads to "A Skewed Curriculum." According to the author, (and if one were to take the time to honestly address the malfunctional issues of NCLB,) standards-based reform has led us to a curriculum that is primarily based on math, reading and writing. Not that these things are bad....they're not. The problem that comes into play happens when our children and our students complete their schooling knowing little of science, social studies or the arts, because their schooldistricts are "teaching to the test." Tragically, there is little, if any time (or funding for that matter) for art, music, or science. I see this NCLB as the bully bulldozer in my children's school-bulldozing its way through so many of the opportunities I and so many of the other students and their families hold dear. When our children and our students apply for college, how can we provide them with experiences to create "well-rounded" children when research-based methods lead NCLB and do not include opportunities for our children to become so?
Another side effect of NCLB is that we now have stressed out teachers and stressed students. Many teachers' jobs are dependent upon how well students perform on standardized tests. What's the problem with this? Well....a lot, actually. Some students just don't know how to do well on a "test." Period. In our teaching programs, why are teachers taught that all students have different levels of intellegence, or more specifically, we are taught to adhere to Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. We are taught that it is essentially unfair and unjust to assess a student through a pencil-paper test each and every time, because 1) some are just not good at taking tests 2) there are other ways students can convey what they have learned through various methods of assessment, i.e. projects, a story, a timeline, powerpoint presentation, writing a play, etc, etc, because these multiple-levels of intellignce must be taken into account. Another issue with forcing students to take these computerized tests is that some will not take the test seriously at all. Really. Some will show up for their test, type A, A, A, for each given choice, and will do it just to get it overwith. Meanwhile, the teachers who have poured their hearts and souls into helping their students along are penalized because some of the students in their classroom did not "perform well" on the tests. Not that this will happen all of the time, but it does happen.
I could easily continue writing on the subject of NCLB, but alas, at this point I cannot, as I have other items waiting on my back burner. NCLB is, however, something I will plan to delve into more deeply in the future, as it continues to morph and change with every year that passes.
As I mentioned earlier, I completely understand the need for standards to be put into place, the need for accountability, and the need for every child to receive the education he or she deserves. But let's be smart about it. Let's take an honest look at how this NCLB thing is organized, how we are in fact, hurting, instead of helping our kids, and how taking high stakes tests is not the only way to try to prove that children are learning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)