It is believed that the acceptance of the public high school in the nineteenth century basically affirmed democracy. It was viewed as such because high school became a bridge between elementary education and a path to public higher education. Before the high school was funded by the collected taxes, there was a tuition charge for each pupil who wanted to attend. In states like Michigan, students were receiving free elementary education and they had already had a state supported university. So why not have the bridge between the gap to be a state funded institution as well? The high school had two main purposes, one of which was to prepare the pupils for a higher education in college and for vocational purposes. European high schools were more rigid then those in the U.S. education system. The students in European schools were given much more homework then students were given in U.S. education. Relating this to modern times, it is a well known fact that people from the islands and many other countries are more knowledgeable and are considered much more smarter than kids from the United States of America. The curriculum in American schools are not as rigorous as other places and for the mere fact that often times, in other countries, education is seen as something very valuable because of the fact that it is paid for where as American students are able to attend elementary, middle, and high school tuition free, even though it is paid for by tax payers. It seems that students who understand that their parents are making sacrifices to send them to school because it is not free have a bigger conscience and are more enthused about school and learning. Otherwise they have a lot of consequences to deal with form their parents and they would want to risk that.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Philosophies
Recently, I had the opportunity to take a philosophy quiz which would determine my views and categorize my educational philosophy. Upon receiving the results for the test it showed that I am more lenient towards both the constructivism approach as well as the progressivism approach. Understanding the basics of both of these learning theories, I believe that I do have similar beliefs that would classify my philosophies. Those results were followed closely by the reconstruction learning theory.
The constructivist educator believes that people generate knowledge and meaning form their own experiences. Basically taking form that knowledge cannot be handed down from one person to another but is constructed by each person separately. Both Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are the most pivotal influences in constructivism. In a constructivist classroom, the teacher might use scaffolding which consists of questions, clues, and or suggestions that may help like a student’s prior knowledge to the new information that they are being taught. Challenges often found in a constructivist classroom usually entail trying to find a new way to solve a math problem or even reframing their ideas on a certain ethnic group. The constructivism learning approach is primarily focused on critical thinking and authentic learning which often leads to its popularity amongst reform circles. Constructivism is often associated with active learning. The educators who follow the constructivism approach are moreover thought of as facilitators opposed to teachers. This is the idea because they are thought to assist pupils with their own understanding of the content being taught and not imposing their (the facilitators) own understanding of the content being taught. I believe that the results for my philosophies being linked to the constructivism approach does hold some weight to itself. I do believe that you can’t always impose your knowledge on someone else because they may not understand the information the same way that you understand it.
The progressivism approach is based on the assumption that humans and even social animals learn by experiencing real life activities with other people. The educators of this approach believe that their students learn in a way similar to scientist by identifying the problem and then creating an assumption (hypothesis) and then experimenting to see if this is actually true. This learning model is similar to John Dewey’s learning model. John Dewey taught that people learned best through social interaction in the real world. Progressive educators believe that you cannot train a person’s mind by making them read historical novels but you are able to train the person’s mind to analyze and information they have to come up with the best and most likely conclusion. Progressivism is basically pragmatism in education. Pragmatism stresses that the way to see if an idea has merit or truth to it is to test it. That way if the idea works in the real world ten it has truth because it wasn’t only practiced with programmed situations but also with real life experiences. I believe that this is true as well because when any scenarios are played out in a controlled setting there are ninety-nine chances that it will have the desired outcome which will be in favor to the idea that is being put to the test. Students in a progressivism learning environment are often seen in little groups discussing multiple topics opposed to a teacher standing at the head of a room giving a lecture. These students often have field trips that will allow them to utilize their multiple intelligences. But if we can also get the same results in any possible situation whether they re controlled or not, then we can prove that the idea really works in the real world with real life interactions.
Finally, the result that followed both the constructivism and progressivism learning approaches is reconstruction. Many progressive educators believe that the way the schools were organized had a great impact on the way that the students learned and were affected. They also believed that because the schools were isolated from the society they weren’t consistent with real world situations.
Overall, the philosophies that were determined based on the results from the philosophy survey were more accurate than I expected. After taking a brief but in depth look at the three philosophies, I believe that I would be an educator who would incorporate all of these learning theories in my own classroom. The ideas displayed by these learning outcomes are very insightful and hopefully are helpful to my future students. Of course, I also believe that changes take place as well. So though these results may suit me during my introduction to education, I feel that if I were to take this survey at the completion of my education I would have somewhat of a different philosophy on education.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
The constructivist educator believes that people generate knowledge and meaning form their own experiences. Basically taking form that knowledge cannot be handed down from one person to another but is constructed by each person separately. Both Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are the most pivotal influences in constructivism. In a constructivist classroom, the teacher might use scaffolding which consists of questions, clues, and or suggestions that may help like a student’s prior knowledge to the new information that they are being taught. Challenges often found in a constructivist classroom usually entail trying to find a new way to solve a math problem or even reframing their ideas on a certain ethnic group. The constructivism learning approach is primarily focused on critical thinking and authentic learning which often leads to its popularity amongst reform circles. Constructivism is often associated with active learning. The educators who follow the constructivism approach are moreover thought of as facilitators opposed to teachers. This is the idea because they are thought to assist pupils with their own understanding of the content being taught and not imposing their (the facilitators) own understanding of the content being taught. I believe that the results for my philosophies being linked to the constructivism approach does hold some weight to itself. I do believe that you can’t always impose your knowledge on someone else because they may not understand the information the same way that you understand it.
The progressivism approach is based on the assumption that humans and even social animals learn by experiencing real life activities with other people. The educators of this approach believe that their students learn in a way similar to scientist by identifying the problem and then creating an assumption (hypothesis) and then experimenting to see if this is actually true. This learning model is similar to John Dewey’s learning model. John Dewey taught that people learned best through social interaction in the real world. Progressive educators believe that you cannot train a person’s mind by making them read historical novels but you are able to train the person’s mind to analyze and information they have to come up with the best and most likely conclusion. Progressivism is basically pragmatism in education. Pragmatism stresses that the way to see if an idea has merit or truth to it is to test it. That way if the idea works in the real world ten it has truth because it wasn’t only practiced with programmed situations but also with real life experiences. I believe that this is true as well because when any scenarios are played out in a controlled setting there are ninety-nine chances that it will have the desired outcome which will be in favor to the idea that is being put to the test. Students in a progressivism learning environment are often seen in little groups discussing multiple topics opposed to a teacher standing at the head of a room giving a lecture. These students often have field trips that will allow them to utilize their multiple intelligences. But if we can also get the same results in any possible situation whether they re controlled or not, then we can prove that the idea really works in the real world with real life interactions.
Finally, the result that followed both the constructivism and progressivism learning approaches is reconstruction. Many progressive educators believe that the way the schools were organized had a great impact on the way that the students learned and were affected. They also believed that because the schools were isolated from the society they weren’t consistent with real world situations.
Overall, the philosophies that were determined based on the results from the philosophy survey were more accurate than I expected. After taking a brief but in depth look at the three philosophies, I believe that I would be an educator who would incorporate all of these learning theories in my own classroom. The ideas displayed by these learning outcomes are very insightful and hopefully are helpful to my future students. Of course, I also believe that changes take place as well. So though these results may suit me during my introduction to education, I feel that if I were to take this survey at the completion of my education I would have somewhat of a different philosophy on education.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Interview with Ms. T
Interview
I had the pleasure of interviewing one of my favorite educators of Miami Norland Senior High school. I made it my business to ask all of the questions that I genuinely wanted answers to. These answers gave me an insight on her outlook towards the school, students, and the role that she plays in making a difference in the lives of many.
What inspired you to teach?
“Well, I was needed. I was needed for Creole-English translation. I decided to give it a try for a year and liked it. I went back to school and came back to teaching.
How long have you been teaching at this school? And how long have you been an educator?
“At this school, I’ve been teaching for 10 years, but I’ve been an educator for 20 years and I’m going to retire in nine”.
Have you always worked in a public school? And what do you like most about it?
“I have always taught in a public school setting. I like having my two-month vacation each year. I also like the professional development involved in the workshops and having a job that requires responsibility and shows that I am appreciated.
What do you enjoy most about teaching?
“The ability to teach my favorite subject and show my students my passion for technology and for accounting. Also, the grade books for this school are now online and my boss trusted me enough to place me in control of making sure the online grade books are running smoothly and that all the teachers are up to date with using the software. “
What was the biggest challenge that you had to face in a classroom?
“I would have to say behavioral problems. Children are thinking that they are adults and are eager to disobey and disrespect. And with all of that, we have to realize that we can only look for the best. “
Have you ever wanted to become an administrator?
“Absolutely not. I like the fact I deal with the students and help them. I want to continue to teach. I found my passion, even with an accounting degree and working at an accounting firm didn’t do it for me. Being able to help kids. My kids. That’s what works for me.
If I didn’t know before, this interview with Charlotte Thebaud-Gerdes showed me why she was one of the most loved and respected teachers at Miami Norland Senior High School. She was genuine. She was real and furthermore she was always stretching out her hand to her students.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
I had the pleasure of interviewing one of my favorite educators of Miami Norland Senior High school. I made it my business to ask all of the questions that I genuinely wanted answers to. These answers gave me an insight on her outlook towards the school, students, and the role that she plays in making a difference in the lives of many.
What inspired you to teach?
“Well, I was needed. I was needed for Creole-English translation. I decided to give it a try for a year and liked it. I went back to school and came back to teaching.
How long have you been teaching at this school? And how long have you been an educator?
“At this school, I’ve been teaching for 10 years, but I’ve been an educator for 20 years and I’m going to retire in nine”.
Have you always worked in a public school? And what do you like most about it?
“I have always taught in a public school setting. I like having my two-month vacation each year. I also like the professional development involved in the workshops and having a job that requires responsibility and shows that I am appreciated.
What do you enjoy most about teaching?
“The ability to teach my favorite subject and show my students my passion for technology and for accounting. Also, the grade books for this school are now online and my boss trusted me enough to place me in control of making sure the online grade books are running smoothly and that all the teachers are up to date with using the software. “
What was the biggest challenge that you had to face in a classroom?
“I would have to say behavioral problems. Children are thinking that they are adults and are eager to disobey and disrespect. And with all of that, we have to realize that we can only look for the best. “
Have you ever wanted to become an administrator?
“Absolutely not. I like the fact I deal with the students and help them. I want to continue to teach. I found my passion, even with an accounting degree and working at an accounting firm didn’t do it for me. Being able to help kids. My kids. That’s what works for me.
If I didn’t know before, this interview with Charlotte Thebaud-Gerdes showed me why she was one of the most loved and respected teachers at Miami Norland Senior High School. She was genuine. She was real and furthermore she was always stretching out her hand to her students.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Socratic Method
Article Review
So far this semester, we’ve discussed a lot of different topics that has stimulated different sensations within us. There were topics that we wouldn’t have imagined if we were not informed and there were also topics that we were already briefly aware. Amongst these intriguing topics, we discussed the many Greek philosophers, including the great Socrates and his impact on the way we think today. Socrates was a very intellectual person who did not consider himself as such. He cherished the simplicities in life and didn’t even consider himself a teacher although many would classify him as such. The main focus in this summary of the article written by Servet Celik is the Socratic Method and dialectic.
Celik writes that Socrates was very widely known and there isn’t a person now who can honestly say that they have never heard of Socrates though they may be unable to explain his theory in detail. Socrates believed in the dialectic which is defined by "the art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of questions and answers, so as to determine their validity. He (Celik) goes on to explain the basis of the dialectic, which is essentially to push students to think for themselves opposed to just providing them with what is believed to be the correct answers to their questions and thus what Socrates was focused on doing. Socrates would hold discussion initiated around a certain attention grabbing subject and then he would proceed with a question answer type conversation throughout the entire discussion. By doing so, he was able to push the involved individuals to think harder than usual and basically determine their own knowledge or lack thereof.
Socrates believed that there was no teaching actually done but remembering. He believed that we learned by remembering what is already stored in our minds.
Even though Socrates didn’t believe that what he was doing was teaching, we believe that his method is exactly what is required to teach and for students to learn. He had clear and concise objectives and rationales to what is done with a fitting routine to accompany them. Socrates denial to actually teaching would not stand as a whole truth in the sense that in his era, the way that people were taught to learn was by rigorous repetition drills and rote learning. So for a man who insisted that he only knew that he knew nothing, to go around inhis village and ask seemingly harmless questions to the ones who declared that they were wise to only prove that they actually knew nothing, was considered a crime for which the punishment was death.
Celik discussed the four main components to the Socratic Method which are: the text, the questions, the leader and the participants. The text would be from any imaginable resource that could strike conversation. The primary or initiating question would be posed by either the teacher (the leader) or the students (the participants). The leader is normally the teacher who not only guides the course of the discussion but also takes part in it. The participants are the ones who determine the success of the entire discussion by participating and being aware of the text in detail and willing to exchange ideas and comments openly.
The article genuinely points out valid ways to implement the Socratic method into today’s classroom and suggests the improvement of students both scholastically and socially. lf the Socratic method were implemented into the schools there is a chance that we would urge the students to learn or rather, remember, the knowledge that they already have stored but have yet to tap into.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
So far this semester, we’ve discussed a lot of different topics that has stimulated different sensations within us. There were topics that we wouldn’t have imagined if we were not informed and there were also topics that we were already briefly aware. Amongst these intriguing topics, we discussed the many Greek philosophers, including the great Socrates and his impact on the way we think today. Socrates was a very intellectual person who did not consider himself as such. He cherished the simplicities in life and didn’t even consider himself a teacher although many would classify him as such. The main focus in this summary of the article written by Servet Celik is the Socratic Method and dialectic.
Celik writes that Socrates was very widely known and there isn’t a person now who can honestly say that they have never heard of Socrates though they may be unable to explain his theory in detail. Socrates believed in the dialectic which is defined by "the art or practice of examining opinions or ideas logically, often by the method of questions and answers, so as to determine their validity. He (Celik) goes on to explain the basis of the dialectic, which is essentially to push students to think for themselves opposed to just providing them with what is believed to be the correct answers to their questions and thus what Socrates was focused on doing. Socrates would hold discussion initiated around a certain attention grabbing subject and then he would proceed with a question answer type conversation throughout the entire discussion. By doing so, he was able to push the involved individuals to think harder than usual and basically determine their own knowledge or lack thereof.
Socrates believed that there was no teaching actually done but remembering. He believed that we learned by remembering what is already stored in our minds.
Even though Socrates didn’t believe that what he was doing was teaching, we believe that his method is exactly what is required to teach and for students to learn. He had clear and concise objectives and rationales to what is done with a fitting routine to accompany them. Socrates denial to actually teaching would not stand as a whole truth in the sense that in his era, the way that people were taught to learn was by rigorous repetition drills and rote learning. So for a man who insisted that he only knew that he knew nothing, to go around inhis village and ask seemingly harmless questions to the ones who declared that they were wise to only prove that they actually knew nothing, was considered a crime for which the punishment was death.
Celik discussed the four main components to the Socratic Method which are: the text, the questions, the leader and the participants. The text would be from any imaginable resource that could strike conversation. The primary or initiating question would be posed by either the teacher (the leader) or the students (the participants). The leader is normally the teacher who not only guides the course of the discussion but also takes part in it. The participants are the ones who determine the success of the entire discussion by participating and being aware of the text in detail and willing to exchange ideas and comments openly.
The article genuinely points out valid ways to implement the Socratic method into today’s classroom and suggests the improvement of students both scholastically and socially. lf the Socratic method were implemented into the schools there is a chance that we would urge the students to learn or rather, remember, the knowledge that they already have stored but have yet to tap into.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Monday, December 14, 2009
Reflection 19
Our school system has done a lot of changing over the years since it first started in colonial times. The first type of school that was established was called a dame school. This was similar to the present day elementary schools. The school was usually located in the home of the teacher who was normally a woman. The teachers were often uneducated and only taught their pupils the basics of the school. The students were only taught to spell and were not taught math or grammar skills. Then in the nineteenth century, Horace Mann coined the “common school” which would provide all white children the chance to get the basics in education. The pupils went to this school from ages six to fourteen. The students were taught reading arithmetic and writing also geography and history. There weren’t report cards like there are in today’s society, but there were end of the year recitals which was when students had to recite the information that they had learned. After the dame schools, and after long deliberation, the society stressed that higher education was needed rather than just the education received from the dame schools. The Latin grammar schools were created because of this stress. Originally, these Latin grammar schools were designed for those who would become ministers and leaders in the communities. This would typically be a male student from the upper class bracket in the society. The girls were not even accepted into these schools because they were informed that the most important and influential people in the society were always men. The Latin grammar schools were used to prepare boys for higher learning. They are similar to today’s high schools in preparing students for college. Horace Mann’s normal school was the place that people could attend after receiving their elementary education. Normal schools provided a two year training program for teachers. You can say that it was similar to what we have as a college today that trains people in the field of their desire. U.S. schools has undergone many different transformations, most of which were for the best of the students and schools.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Reflection 18
Education has always been seen as a way to improve society as a whole. This is true primarily because educators can change the way a person thinks in the way that they teach. When the Russian’s went into space before America, the way that information in the schools were taught was ultimately changed in order to spark intelligence and encourage excelling in mathematics and the sciences. The defeat of being beaten into space caused the politicians of the United States to ignite the fire for students to want to learn. They learned because of defeat. This example is a great one to the effect that education is used to improve society because these politicians believed that by producing more intellectuals they wouldn’t be far behind amongst the other countries in making other discoveries and in going into outer space. In reference to the question I believe that education was once viewed as a means for improving society. This may have been the case in previous years of the history of education. Education was an improvement to society when it wasn’t granted freely to all. I also believe that education was used as a vehicle to improve society when Americans were beaten into space. In modern education, I believe that education can be used to improve society but unfortunately it isn’t utilized to the best of its capabilities. Education doesn’t have to be focused only on the renowned subject matter (reading, science, and math) but there are certain life skills that, if taught in modern schools, maybe we could revert to the times when education was seen as the vehicle that is currently needed to improve society. Curriculum in present day schools seem to be solely based on testing rather than what is actually learned from a particular subject. For instance the state tests seem to categorize students into who’s smart and who’s not. Not all students have the same levels of knowledge on certain subjects. I feel that if we weren’t so focused on drilling the students with the “state test” way of learning then maybe we could develop more of those indirect skills that are learned in a school.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Reflection 18
Colonial New England education and U.S. education are like two opposite ends of the pole. Education in colonial times was much more centered on the religious aspects of life. In present day U. S. education religion is not tolerated in the classroom. It even goes as far as some families being against their child pledging allegiance to the United States flag. The teaching profession was mostly dominated by males. The majority of teachers were male. Women who ventured into the teaching profession were thought to be masculine. Teaching today is a unisex profession even though it is mostly done by women. Unlike present U.S. education, during colonial times religion played a very big part of education. Children were taught to read the bible at a very young age and it was often used as a textbook. In present day U.S. schools, religion is not tolerated as a subject in school due to much diversity in religions and for the fact that each student doesn’t have the same beliefs. There are too many ways to offend someone and religion is simply one of those aspects that aren’t shared by the whole population at any given time. Therefore for the sake of sanity and for the sake of not having an argument, religion is entirely left out of the education system. Discrimination was also a difference between colonial New England education and modern U.S. education. During those times, race wasn’t an issue as discrimination is concerned because African Americans were schooled and if there were schools who secretly taught black children, they were segregated and not taught the same information that the white kids were taught. The biggest site of discrimination would be based on a person’s wealth and their status in the community. In modern day school system, there isn’t any discrimination as far as education because each child has the right to be educated. No matter if the child’s family is rich or poor. In modern day society, schooling can take up a great part in an individual’s life. There are primary schools and secondary schools, and schools to further one’s education to become better at what they initially wanted to do. Everyone has the ability to go to a college or university now-a-days. In colonial times, not everyone went to college and there was such a large gap between the school systems. Unlike now where you go from one school right into another upon completion you graduate and have the bare minimum. In colonial times, what they considered bare minimum, which was attending primary school, stood for a lot.
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
'Oooowwwwwwwwwww"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
