this reminded me of this class
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsp5WH-Yas
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
HW 50
John Taylor Gatto
Gatto's take on the pedagogy of the American school system is that it is isolating and takes away a person's individuality by making them part of the system. They are trained to have predictable reactions to authority, compliance. He states that school is anti-life by restricting kids with little sense of the future and past connectedness because everything is determined by the next bell or the next course. It reduces them as people because they are given very little time for themselves when many of the hours are dedicated to schoolwork. The kids of this system are passive, spoon fed, and that is the result of how the system was formulated, to make them passive and indifferent.
In some parts I do agree with Gatto's take on school's affect on the individual, I don't think it makes them afraid of intimacy because students still very intimate in this day and age, at least the kids in this school, because the school is like a community and for the most part, the kids in our school aren't excluding in any way to other kids. So I don't think we fear intimacy too much. Many times its the opposite because people often give full disclosure of themselves with things like twitter, facebook, blogging or vlogging.
I agree though, that it puts limits on the individual in some ways.
"School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up."
I think this part of it is true because when you take away responsibility from a child, they will start to act like a child in our sense of the word. Like Peter Pan, who has never grown up, he has no responsibilities. I think the system was able to achieve its purpose and in some ways its rather brilliant how well it has done that by doing these basic things. In other countries like Japan, the schools in small towns give children as young as five, tasks and responsibilities such as wood carving and washing dishes. The kids don't get hurt (as so many adults seem to fear) and they're responsible because they're used to the work. In the past the people of our age are doing "adult" work at soon as they entered their teens they were considered adults and they acted like it too, because they had to. They were given responsibility. But the kids today are babied and as a result act like babies too. In school we have to follow an authority, so we learn how to do that as well.
Paulo Freire
Paulo Freire states that the problem with schooling is in which the authority figure sees to themselves as the narrator, to pour their words into the students, who are the receptacles. Because schooling is seen in this way, Freire says it is not not natural because it presents information in a way that is unrelated to the real world. Students come to see this form of knowledge in a way that is not connected to how related to how the world operates. To Freire this way of teaching is a form of nepotism, "love of death" instead of coming from a love of life, because it treats knowledge like it is a static thing, which it isn't, it grows, is re-invented, is continuing. This form of teaching Freire says expects students to be, passive containers to await the teacher's words, because that sort of behavior is rewarded by being considered good students.
I think that rote memorization, in some ways are helpful for things such as math and once you have learned all those equations, you can move on to practical applications but not before or else you won't understand what you are doing. Other things like language are better learned by doing and experiencing, which have more of a learning curve. I think when we are young like in elementary school, it can't be helped that teachers will treat us that way, because we are learning from them. The role of authority comes in play too, because we are taught to listen to adults from a young age which continues on till when we are older (which we can see from the Milgram Experiments, which best exemplifies how compliant people are in the face of authority). This way of teaching can be bad because its expected of students to learn from teachers, as solely the pupil.
Lisa Delpit
Her Method of teaching is to adapt to the student's circumstances that they are from and adjust her teaching methods to them.Gatto's take on the pedagogy of the American school system is that it is isolating and takes away a person's individuality by making them part of the system. They are trained to have predictable reactions to authority, compliance. He states that school is anti-life by restricting kids with little sense of the future and past connectedness because everything is determined by the next bell or the next course. It reduces them as people because they are given very little time for themselves when many of the hours are dedicated to schoolwork. The kids of this system are passive, spoon fed, and that is the result of how the system was formulated, to make them passive and indifferent.
In some parts I do agree with Gatto's take on school's affect on the individual, I don't think it makes them afraid of intimacy because students still very intimate in this day and age, at least the kids in this school, because the school is like a community and for the most part, the kids in our school aren't excluding in any way to other kids. So I don't think we fear intimacy too much. Many times its the opposite because people often give full disclosure of themselves with things like twitter, facebook, blogging or vlogging.
I agree though, that it puts limits on the individual in some ways.
"School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up."
I think this part of it is true because when you take away responsibility from a child, they will start to act like a child in our sense of the word. Like Peter Pan, who has never grown up, he has no responsibilities. I think the system was able to achieve its purpose and in some ways its rather brilliant how well it has done that by doing these basic things. In other countries like Japan, the schools in small towns give children as young as five, tasks and responsibilities such as wood carving and washing dishes. The kids don't get hurt (as so many adults seem to fear) and they're responsible because they're used to the work. In the past the people of our age are doing "adult" work at soon as they entered their teens they were considered adults and they acted like it too, because they had to. They were given responsibility. But the kids today are babied and as a result act like babies too. In school we have to follow an authority, so we learn how to do that as well.
Paulo Freire
Paulo Freire states that the problem with schooling is in which the authority figure sees to themselves as the narrator, to pour their words into the students, who are the receptacles. Because schooling is seen in this way, Freire says it is not not natural because it presents information in a way that is unrelated to the real world. Students come to see this form of knowledge in a way that is not connected to how related to how the world operates. To Freire this way of teaching is a form of nepotism, "love of death" instead of coming from a love of life, because it treats knowledge like it is a static thing, which it isn't, it grows, is re-invented, is continuing. This form of teaching Freire says expects students to be, passive containers to await the teacher's words, because that sort of behavior is rewarded by being considered good students.
I think that rote memorization, in some ways are helpful for things such as math and once you have learned all those equations, you can move on to practical applications but not before or else you won't understand what you are doing. Other things like language are better learned by doing and experiencing, which have more of a learning curve. I think when we are young like in elementary school, it can't be helped that teachers will treat us that way, because we are learning from them. The role of authority comes in play too, because we are taught to listen to adults from a young age which continues on till when we are older (which we can see from the Milgram Experiments, which best exemplifies how compliant people are in the face of authority). This way of teaching can be bad because its expected of students to learn from teachers, as solely the pupil.
Lisa Delpit
"I have found from working with both pre-service and practicing teachers, they have to be extremely open to their students. Their hearts need to be open. They have to know how to observe and listen to their students. More than just having strategies they need to find out about the children and their parents. I call this ethnographic teaching.Teachers can create a curriculum based on strengths rather than weaknesses, then they are teaching to their student's needs. "
She doesn't think that kids should be subjected to the "basic skills" curriculum because that is exceedingly slow and kids find it boring. "Not by being forced to attend to hollow, inane, decontextualized subskills, but rather within the context of meaningful communicative endeavors; that they must be allowed the resource of the teacher’s expert knowledge, while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well" I agree with this statement because I was once in a class where it operated like this and the whole time I was just wondering why it was going so slow, because in the previous grade, the teacher was able to teach more material in less time and the students where still able to fully comprehend it. In elementary school, my third grade class was the hardest out of 4th and 5th because it was the most challenging and I actually liked it the most. I kept noting the difference in pace in 4th and 5th grade in comparison which seemed too slow. So I imagine for other kids, if kids are placed in "basic skills" curriculum it'd be even worse. In third grade my teacher always said, "no child is stupid, they're just lazy" and he was right in the context of the typical American student, which we all were/are. That was motivating to me because he was saying you guys can do this if you just try. It wasn't out of reach.
"while being helped to acknowledge their own ‘expertness’ as well"
Delphini says that kids have to feel like they're learning something or else they'll feel cheated, this depends on the child, but in general its true, though kids rejoice whenever there is a substitute with the actual teacher they expect to learn something and get something out of it. If they learn they are able to do something then they're more willing to do it.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
HW 49
In the film, the teacher is drunk, and in his drunken slumber he dreams of having intellectual discussions with them and sharing his knowledge with the students but the reality of it was very different. The dream represents his subconscious desire to make an impact on the students and to stir up the student's minds. When he wakes up, he tells the students off and makes a dramatic exit. The students don't say anything for a moment and then return to their conversations as if nothing had happened. Maybe this means that people's expectations are sometimes idealistic and they get disappointed when they aren't met, and their disappointment can sometimes lead to that person's meltdown which we see at the end of the film.
This is very different from most of the savior/teacher films we watched, where the teacher basically changes his/her student's lives. The dream that the teacher has is kind of like the typical teacher/savior film, like the Dead Poets Society where the words are really deep and insightful and the students are contributing to the conversations. But the ending, where the teacher wakes up, shows that doesn' t happen.
From the savior/teacher films, the message is basically to bring salvation to the students, and our education in our culture, is in part to do all that. Hopefully by teaching students about certain subjects they will be informed members of our society. Schooling is seen as a vehicle to salvation. That is why so much emphasis is put on getting a higher education. That once students get an education they can escape anything, their poverty, troubles at home, etc.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
HW 48- Treatment
Shot in the Office style, with interviews.
Scene 1:
Camera follows Jack Greene, a man seeking to fulfill his longtime dream of becoming a teacher walks into an empty classroom, he is very bubbly, he smiles happily clutching his work planner to his chest. He clears off the desk and sets his work planner on it. He writes his name several times on the chalk board, before finally deciding on a Script format making a star at the e.
Scene 1.5:
Camera set. Still in front of his desk, Jack Greene talks to the camera about his first day. "Today's my first day teaching. I am SOOO excited. These kids are going to be in for a real treat. I am going to make history come alive" He waves both his arms when he says "alive".
Scene 2:
The students file into the class room. He introduces himself and underlines his name each time he says it. He plays a history game with them to remember their names. He precedes to sing a song about history exuberantly and tries to get the class to join along. They do albeit not as enthusiastically. He brings out a chest that he had been hiding and pulls out a huge turkey costume, shoots students reactions. He tells them that will be their new term project.
Scene 1:
Camera follows Jack Greene, a man seeking to fulfill his longtime dream of becoming a teacher walks into an empty classroom, he is very bubbly, he smiles happily clutching his work planner to his chest. He clears off the desk and sets his work planner on it. He writes his name several times on the chalk board, before finally deciding on a Script format making a star at the e.
Scene 1.5:
Camera set. Still in front of his desk, Jack Greene talks to the camera about his first day. "Today's my first day teaching. I am SOOO excited. These kids are going to be in for a real treat. I am going to make history come alive" He waves both his arms when he says "alive".
Scene 2:
The students file into the class room. He introduces himself and underlines his name each time he says it. He plays a history game with them to remember their names. He precedes to sing a song about history exuberantly and tries to get the class to join along. They do albeit not as enthusiastically. He brings out a chest that he had been hiding and pulls out a huge turkey costume, shoots students reactions. He tells them that will be their new term project.
Scene 2.5:
Random Student Reaction. Camera is set in front of a studious looking student with glasses. She says Mr. Greene is weird. She pushes her glasses.
Scene 3:
The class are dressed in pilgrim and indian outfits and reenacting "Thanksgiving" One student dressed as a huge turkey is lying on the table. Boy student dressed in a Pilgrim costume fakes cutting into turkey and says it is good and asks about how the crops are going to another boy dressed in an Indian costume replies its good. Then Boy dressed in Pilgrim costume asks how the Indian boy feels about them taking the land. Indian boy replies ...bad but its okay because later the Indians are going to scalp them so they're good. Boy dressed in Pilgrim costume says cool.
Scene 3.5:
The bell rings and its lunchtime. The students leave.
Scene 4:
Camera set. Jack Greene at desk. Happy and smiling, "You know, I think I really got through to them today."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Extra Cred- The Class
Students and Teachers have different agendas when going to school. The problem seems to arise when the teacher's agenda clashes with the students. The students at 14 and 15 are trying to find out who they are. But everyone is trying to protect their egos, the roles that they have made for themselves and when they feel that being threatened or challenged they lash out to protect the persona they've developed. The teachers are like the judges and give commentary on the students on what they have to work on and its only one way in the film. The school wants discipline, the teacher wants respect, and the students want their respect as well as the respect of their peers, but the teacher doesn't really give respect to the students. Maybe because his role as a teacher places him as a higher authority and because his goal is to "tame" the students. He thinks that he needs to teach them but only views it as a one way thing. Its like when he called the girls skanks he defends himself and tries to say he didn't say it like that because it looks bad for his ego.
"Teachers can complain about us and vise versa, right?"
"No, It doesn't work both ways."
It seems a bit hypothecritical to me and in Mr. Marin's mind, it shows where the distribution of power is in school. So it kind of culminates in resentment from the students because they're kind of looked down upon, they're not treated as equals. Its always a power struggle between the students and the teachers. Thats because the students know that their role in the system is very little and they try to get power in any form they can. "It's always the same" and they know that any form of power given to them by the system is a facade because they can't really do anything with it.
"Whenever we talk, you yell."
I think that's because Marin feels threatened when the students have a voice cause he's afraid that means he has less of one. The students need to respect the teachers but the same doesn't hold true in the system for the teachers, and the students lash out to have some semblence of power (like the beginning of the film with Khoumba and Mr. Marin and Khoumba leaves him a letter saying that). I think that's the basis of it, or at least part of it. The idealistic approach would address this, to start from treating the students as individuals and respecting them as one. Maybe its still possible to have discipline without looking down on the students and the students will reciprocate that respect. Part of it is listening the students and of course the same goes for students. Just go from there.
I think the teachers do want to help the students because at the end with Souleymane, Mr. Marin is trying not to get the disciplinary hearing, the route they usually take, which 12/12 will leads to an expulsion because he doesn't want to risk Souleymane being sent back to Mali. Everyone's human and everyone makes mistakes, so I think that Souleymane should be held accountable but at the same time Mr. Marin trying to help him is right too because it might be in his power to do so. We always have to try, or attempt to so even if it doesn't work out, we know we did try to do something and made an effort.
"Teachers can complain about us and vise versa, right?"
"No, It doesn't work both ways."
It seems a bit hypothecritical to me and in Mr. Marin's mind, it shows where the distribution of power is in school. So it kind of culminates in resentment from the students because they're kind of looked down upon, they're not treated as equals. Its always a power struggle between the students and the teachers. Thats because the students know that their role in the system is very little and they try to get power in any form they can. "It's always the same" and they know that any form of power given to them by the system is a facade because they can't really do anything with it.
"Whenever we talk, you yell."
I think that's because Marin feels threatened when the students have a voice cause he's afraid that means he has less of one. The students need to respect the teachers but the same doesn't hold true in the system for the teachers, and the students lash out to have some semblence of power (like the beginning of the film with Khoumba and Mr. Marin and Khoumba leaves him a letter saying that). I think that's the basis of it, or at least part of it. The idealistic approach would address this, to start from treating the students as individuals and respecting them as one. Maybe its still possible to have discipline without looking down on the students and the students will reciprocate that respect. Part of it is listening the students and of course the same goes for students. Just go from there.
I think the teachers do want to help the students because at the end with Souleymane, Mr. Marin is trying not to get the disciplinary hearing, the route they usually take, which 12/12 will leads to an expulsion because he doesn't want to risk Souleymane being sent back to Mali. Everyone's human and everyone makes mistakes, so I think that Souleymane should be held accountable but at the same time Mr. Marin trying to help him is right too because it might be in his power to do so. We always have to try, or attempt to so even if it doesn't work out, we know we did try to do something and made an effort.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
HW 47- Class Film Preparation 1
Please compose a colorful list of 5-10 ideas that should be considered for inclusion in your section's version of the "Savior/Teacher" film. You could address plot, character, theme, tone, cinematography, dialogue, key images, tropes, references, or our collective process of making the film. Indicate which of the ideas are most important to you by putting an asterix by the one or few which you think are most compelling. Due the morning we return from Spring Break.
1. Trying to fix something that's not broken (Sam's Savior/Teacher film idea) where the teacher comes in with a "Lets save the students mentality" but the students are fine and there isn't anything really to save
2. Referencing Dead Poets Society- The teacher gets inspirational *cue inspirational music* gives a speech about going to college and tell the students to stand on their chairs. The students stare at the teacher and slowly stand on their chairs. *still standing* after a few moments, students are still standing on chairs *music stops* one student asks "now what?" teacher smiles and says "Just feel the inspiration." *music countinues*
3. Tone parody/satirical/silly
4. Trope- Blackboard Jungle- the teacher coming to talk to principal.
Parody version-
P: "I like what you're doing with the kids"
T: "I'm going to have them read Hamlet"
P: "Okay, sure if that's what you want."
T: "You can't stop me!"
P: "Okay..."
T: "These kids can do it I believe in them!"
P: "Okay, go for it."
T: Uh...what? You're okay with it?
P: "Yeah"
T: "Oh. Okay."
5. Cimenatography- Shot of cars or the brooklyn bridge (trope), have a shot of the school from the outside. Subway ride shot.
6.Trope- talk about death. The kids are on the roof, Teacher tells them to look around them. Asks them what they see. They say pigeons, buildings, a garden. Teacher tells them they're wrong, that its part of it, but what they see is the world that they're going to live in and to look carefully and things like that.
7.Go outside on a field trip
8. Shoot how school really is, with more than one class in a documentary style.
-have teacher interview or commentary about what they think about school and their classes
-have students interviews
-just one teacher so its not all over the place
1. Trying to fix something that's not broken (Sam's Savior/Teacher film idea) where the teacher comes in with a "Lets save the students mentality" but the students are fine and there isn't anything really to save
2. Referencing Dead Poets Society- The teacher gets inspirational *cue inspirational music* gives a speech about going to college and tell the students to stand on their chairs. The students stare at the teacher and slowly stand on their chairs. *still standing* after a few moments, students are still standing on chairs *music stops* one student asks "now what?" teacher smiles and says "Just feel the inspiration." *music countinues*
3. Tone parody/satirical/silly
4. Trope- Blackboard Jungle- the teacher coming to talk to principal.
Parody version-
P: "I like what you're doing with the kids"
T: "I'm going to have them read Hamlet"
P: "Okay, sure if that's what you want."
T: "You can't stop me!"
P: "Okay..."
T: "These kids can do it I believe in them!"
P: "Okay, go for it."
T: Uh...what? You're okay with it?
P: "Yeah"
T: "Oh. Okay."
5. Cimenatography- Shot of cars or the brooklyn bridge (trope), have a shot of the school from the outside. Subway ride shot.
6.Trope- talk about death. The kids are on the roof, Teacher tells them to look around them. Asks them what they see. They say pigeons, buildings, a garden. Teacher tells them they're wrong, that its part of it, but what they see is the world that they're going to live in and to look carefully and things like that.
7.Go outside on a field trip
8. Shoot how school really is, with more than one class in a documentary style.
-have teacher interview or commentary about what they think about school and their classes
-have students interviews
-just one teacher so its not all over the place
Monday, March 22, 2010
HW 45- More Thoughts on Schools
1. Do these theories contradict each other? Intellectually, emotionally, practically? In what ways do they? Could they be adapted to work together? Hirsh believed that students need to know a certain amount of background knowledge to be able to understand certain texts or passages. He emphasizes knowledge in terms of memorizing and remembering. Sizer was more focused on the community and the environment of the students and the teachers so students can develop their intellect. He wanted to focus more on depth than coverage. He wanted to push students intellectually to what they were able to do. Hirsh was more focused on the practical knowledge of school that there were certain things that students needed to learn in order to be able to understand things in this society and that this information was background knowledge that would help students understand more detailed text. I think though it is practical, because rote memorization and drills are useful, it neglects the emotional aspect of school, from community and relationships. I think these two theories could work together. Students can learn a wide arrange of knowledge that is considered (by whom?) neccesary and delve indepth in certain points of these, while in an environment that always pushes them to do better and think intellectually like Sizer proposes to have.
2. Which of the two theories do you find more resonant in your own experience? Has your education at one of Sizer's schools (he not only inspired SOF, he also came and visited) taught you to use your mind well, to be intellectually alert, to be able to think about important aspects of your life and society? Have you had any teachers that seemed inspired, now that you know about it, by Hirsch? For instance, would you say that the chemistry class's focus on molarity and ions and the periodic table of elements create an emphasis on knowledge?
I think math classes in general is more inspired by Hirsh, or it always has been that way even before Hirsh, because in my experience from elementary especially, we needed a background knowledge such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division before we were able to understand more complex equations. I learned much of this through rote memorization and flash cards (like the multiplication table). But it was even more useful when I was able to practice it after I had a basic understanding of it. I think I experienced Sizer's method of teaching in third grade, where the teacher is like coach to the student, because third grade, out of the other classes in my elementary school was one of the hardest. The teacher would always push us to learn and teach us more things. But at the same time he developed a relationship with his students and we really respected him because he would share things that he liked like Motown, or Hannah Barbara cartoons. He was strict but that was balanced because he was also fun. So there was a community aspect to it. Also the course was simple in the way it was laid out. It was clear what we had to do in each lesson so it wasn't haphazard or confusing. We had incentives, because on fridays, if the class was good, which it almost always was, we would be able to watch Hannah Barbara Cartoons (I don't know if this would work with high schoolers but in elementary it worked well). I think in SOF, there is good sense of community among the students and teachers. I can see how it was inspired by Sizer. I do think though, there was some sense to Hirsh's emphasis on basic knowledge, because in math and science we should memorize certain information but because we don't need to, we don't. I think, I've always been a bit contrary, especially last year, I would often overanalyze and over think things, I don't think I do this as much this year because I have been trying not to. I think its more of my personal choice, than of my schools, because I was influenced by my contact with other people that led me to this conclusion. Sometimes though...I want rote memorization, because I have more of a clear goal, I have to do x in order to understand y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)