We recently read an article in class about the superintendent of a school in Washington DC. Her plan is totally revamp the system by getting rid of the ineffective teachers. Filtering them out, essentially. Then the teachers who are doing extremely well will be offered 6 digit salaries if they give up their union rights. Seems like a good idea.
I agree, there are a ton of teachers that are ineffective and don't exactly know what they're doing. I think there's a better way to handle it than putting a bunch of people out of a job. I've noticed that in all my classes there are a large number of students learning to be teachers that I know will be very effective. Maybe this is one of the good things about NCLB, it produces a higher level of teachers.
Offering teachers a higher salary for the loss of union rights, in my opinion, is rediculous. If I was looking for a good salary, I wouldn't be a teacher so that's not much of an incentive. I want to be a teacher because I want to do what I love and hopefully inspire that in my students. I also don't want at risk of losing my job because I do one thing the superintendent doesn't like. I'd rather have the superintendent talk to me about I could do differently and then I can change.
One solution could be to have more guidance after student teaching and into the first few year of teaching in the real world. Most beginning teachers freak out because they don't have a mentor anymore and don't know who to go to or have anyone to go to for help. If there was more guidance, beginning teachers would have someone to go to with their questions and problems and thus, become better teachers.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Motivation
Motivation is an internal state that maintains a behavior. Motivation can come from outside parties (extrinsic motivation) with incentives, rewards, and punishments. It can also come from internal needs for growth and self-fulfillment. There is also the need for meaning and understanding what's being presented and the identity with a community.
In a classroom, a teacher needs to create motivation in their students by making the subject matter seem interesting and engaging. To do that a teacher needs to give a reason for the students to learn the subject, make them think that if they don't know what's being taught, they're going to feel empty inside somehow.
A classroom should also feel like a community where all the students work together to learn the subject matter. If students feel part of something, they'll be more excited to go to class and be more engaged in what's going on. Common goals in a classroom help make a more tight knit community.
In a classroom, a teacher needs to create motivation in their students by making the subject matter seem interesting and engaging. To do that a teacher needs to give a reason for the students to learn the subject, make them think that if they don't know what's being taught, they're going to feel empty inside somehow.
A classroom should also feel like a community where all the students work together to learn the subject matter. If students feel part of something, they'll be more excited to go to class and be more engaged in what's going on. Common goals in a classroom help make a more tight knit community.
Cognitive vs. Behavioral
Cognitive perspective is when knowledg is learned and becomes used and applied in everyday situation. Changes in knowledge can then make changes in behavior. Behavioral orientations are similar in that it views reinforcement as an important aspect of learning. However, cognitive perspective uses reinforcement as communication with students to show what will happen if the behaviors are repeated. Behavioral orientations use reinforcement to strengthen responses.
Essentially, you have to let your students know what you don't like and how to fix it so that bad behaviors don't continue. You also have to tell your students what you DO like so that good behaviors do continue. Both are equally important. Reinforcement is an essential part of seeing the results in a classroom that you want.
Essentially, you have to let your students know what you don't like and how to fix it so that bad behaviors don't continue. You also have to tell your students what you DO like so that good behaviors do continue. Both are equally important. Reinforcement is an essential part of seeing the results in a classroom that you want.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Grading
This kind of an extension of my last post I guess. Funny enough, we talked about grading last night in lecture and that was what I was planning on writing about today. Funny...
Grading for a performing arts class can be difficult. You do want present an accurate reflection of abilities to the parents at conference time to make sure they know how their student is doing. At the same time, the parents might become upset with the results. Band and choir are supposed to be "fun" classes. Parents (and students) don't always feel like it's necessary for a student to be punished for doing poorly in a "fun" class. However, there are people who see these classes as more than just fun. It's unfair to give all the students A's just for showing up to class when some students are fulfilling their potential, and others are not.
Someone at lecture last night said that grades were a way of communicating with students about their progress or how well they did on something. I think this is an excellent way of describing what grades should be. Grading should be based on an individual's skill level and not be a cookie cutter that's expected to work for all students. However, the students should be told that this is the case so there is no confusion.
Teachers should also let their students what they're looking for when they grade. I know personally that if I didn't know what my teacher was looking for in an assignment, I wouldn't know where to begin or what to include. If I know how my teacher grades and what s/he is looking for, it's easier for me to complete the assignment. It also equally important to allow some wiggle room in your grading strategies in case there is a time where something not what you expected.
Grading for a performing arts class can be difficult. You do want present an accurate reflection of abilities to the parents at conference time to make sure they know how their student is doing. At the same time, the parents might become upset with the results. Band and choir are supposed to be "fun" classes. Parents (and students) don't always feel like it's necessary for a student to be punished for doing poorly in a "fun" class. However, there are people who see these classes as more than just fun. It's unfair to give all the students A's just for showing up to class when some students are fulfilling their potential, and others are not.
Someone at lecture last night said that grades were a way of communicating with students about their progress or how well they did on something. I think this is an excellent way of describing what grades should be. Grading should be based on an individual's skill level and not be a cookie cutter that's expected to work for all students. However, the students should be told that this is the case so there is no confusion.
Teachers should also let their students what they're looking for when they grade. I know personally that if I didn't know what my teacher was looking for in an assignment, I wouldn't know where to begin or what to include. If I know how my teacher grades and what s/he is looking for, it's easier for me to complete the assignment. It also equally important to allow some wiggle room in your grading strategies in case there is a time where something not what you expected.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural Knowledge is being able to perform what you know. This is a very important component of teaching music. Students need to be able to demonstrate what they know about the music and their instruments. The best way students do this is through concerts and other performances. The difficult thing about grading students how well they perform is that you don't want to insult the student and their abilities. But my question is, how is grading someone based on how well they play saxophone different from grading a student on how well they do math? If a math problem is presented and the student is expected to find the correct solution, is that different than presenting a student with a piece of music and expecting it to be played correctly? After all, they're both forms of demonstrating procedural knowledge.
The difference between the two is that math and music are two different types of intelligences. There are 8 areas of intelligences total (including mathematical/logistical and musical). A student may excel in one area and be absolutely terrible in another. Should a student be judged based off that? Maybe judging a student on how well s/he performs tasks in comparison to their overall performance in that intelligence is a better solution.
The difference between the two is that math and music are two different types of intelligences. There are 8 areas of intelligences total (including mathematical/logistical and musical). A student may excel in one area and be absolutely terrible in another. Should a student be judged based off that? Maybe judging a student on how well s/he performs tasks in comparison to their overall performance in that intelligence is a better solution.
Monday, October 6, 2008
High Stakes High School and Raising the Bar
So in Ed Psych we did a little role play thing. We had an imaginary school district with a school board, a superintendent and a curriculum director, concerned parents of both high and low acheiving students, a teacher's union, local business owners, and of course the tax payers. The goal of this role play was to talk over and present opinions about a change in the district standards. I'd actually say it was more than just a change, more like an overhaul. The new plan for the imaginary school district was based solely on No Child Left Behind. In fact, it was the epitome of No Child Left Behind. Obviously, at a liberal arts school, most of us were opposed to this plan. I was part of the teacher's union and got to put in my few cents against it for a few minutes but since we were on a time restraint, my professors, Dr. Langholz and Dr. Knick, stopped asking for questions. This is why I'm thankful for the opportunity to blog.
First of all, I'm all for raising the bar. We all should strive for acheivement. That's why I want to be a teacher. I don't like the idea of a bar though. Not everybody's arms are the same length so not everyone can reach it. If you raise standards that some students already can't acheive, what good will it do? If a student is doing all s/he can to acheive the goals presented and continually fails, why on earth would that student continue trying? A focus on personal goals as compared to national goals would benefit the students more. Meeting a personal goal can raise self esteem and self concept and thus raise a student's drive to succeed and in the end, learn more.
Second of all, standardized tests focus on only certain types of learning. Most (if not all) focus on logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences but there are six other types of intelligence (as defined by Wolfolk) that are totally ignored. These are musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligences. With standardized testing, if a student does poorly with logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences, then that student must do poorly overall. This SHOULD NOT be and IS NOT the case.
The last thing that I wanted to say was in response to something Dr. Knick said. With all of us listing off reasons why this proposal would be destructive to the district, Dr. Knick said that what it comes down to is that we didn't trust our students. We didn't put our full trust in our students to meet the requirements set in place. What I got from the proposal, with the need for teachers to submit lesson plans weekly and the need for teachers to attend seminars on what to teach and how to teach it, is that the school board doesn't trust the teachers. As a teacher, I would have complete faith that every student can succeed, and a student's success should based on what that student is capable of and not what other students and the rest of the country are capable of. That should be the focus of every teacher. Teachers also should not be motivated by pay bonuses. I don't think there's a person out there who wants to be a teacher for the money and an extra $1000 if students meet "national standards"? I'm sorry but that just makes me laugh.
:)
First of all, I'm all for raising the bar. We all should strive for acheivement. That's why I want to be a teacher. I don't like the idea of a bar though. Not everybody's arms are the same length so not everyone can reach it. If you raise standards that some students already can't acheive, what good will it do? If a student is doing all s/he can to acheive the goals presented and continually fails, why on earth would that student continue trying? A focus on personal goals as compared to national goals would benefit the students more. Meeting a personal goal can raise self esteem and self concept and thus raise a student's drive to succeed and in the end, learn more.
Second of all, standardized tests focus on only certain types of learning. Most (if not all) focus on logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences but there are six other types of intelligence (as defined by Wolfolk) that are totally ignored. These are musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligences. With standardized testing, if a student does poorly with logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences, then that student must do poorly overall. This SHOULD NOT be and IS NOT the case.
The last thing that I wanted to say was in response to something Dr. Knick said. With all of us listing off reasons why this proposal would be destructive to the district, Dr. Knick said that what it comes down to is that we didn't trust our students. We didn't put our full trust in our students to meet the requirements set in place. What I got from the proposal, with the need for teachers to submit lesson plans weekly and the need for teachers to attend seminars on what to teach and how to teach it, is that the school board doesn't trust the teachers. As a teacher, I would have complete faith that every student can succeed, and a student's success should based on what that student is capable of and not what other students and the rest of the country are capable of. That should be the focus of every teacher. Teachers also should not be motivated by pay bonuses. I don't think there's a person out there who wants to be a teacher for the money and an extra $1000 if students meet "national standards"? I'm sorry but that just makes me laugh.
:)
Friday, September 19, 2008
Lions for Lambs and other such things
So this is my first entry for class and I hope I'm doing this pretty close to how my teacher wants it.
so in this movie, Lions for Lambs, there's a kid in college who stopped caring about school because he started finding other things more important. he has a meeting with one of his professors to talk about what's going on. the student lists off all these things that are apparently getting in the way of him attending class. the teacher saw potential in him so that's why he made the meeting. the teacher said, "i'm salesman. i'm selling you to you."
i think this is a great example of what teachers should do. we should be selling our students to themselves. helping them find what interests them instead of turning them off to certain subjects because they're "boring" or they think there are more important things. there shouldn't be anything more important than an education. education is meant to open doors of opportunity and every opportunity should be open.
in class we've also been talking about no child left behind. it's one of those things that's good in theory, like communism. it's good to have a national standard and try to bring every student up to the same level, especially between states. in my experience, however, no child left behind has failed... miserably. the biggest thing i've encountered with this is standardized tests. in my high school, there wasn't a whole lot done before we took the tests. the administration was just like "ok, on this day you're taking test. go!" it wasn't a huge deal. because of that, no one really took it seriously. some just carelessly filled in bubbles, some went through the motions, and others struggled. well how it turns it out is that my high school got an overall terrible score. i think it was something like two stars out of five, whereas the other high school in our district got four or five stars.
well the next year, our administration cracked down and they cracked down hard. the students that did terribly were put into tutor sessions and it was a requirement to do well on this test or you wouldn't graduate. the reason why is because if we did terribly again, we'd lose funding and might get most of our teachers replaced. cutting funding sounds counter-intuitive to me. if a school is doing bad, wouldn't you want to give them more money to help them instead of hurt them even further? and by replacing teachers (with government approved teachers, mind you) that implies it's the TEACHERS' fault that the students aren't doing well. anyone who went to my high school knows that there are some great well-rounded teachers (of course there were some terrible ones too but the good outnumbered the bad). in my experience, if a student isn't learning, it's because they're chosing not to, not being the teacher isn't trying to engage them.
so in this movie, Lions for Lambs, there's a kid in college who stopped caring about school because he started finding other things more important. he has a meeting with one of his professors to talk about what's going on. the student lists off all these things that are apparently getting in the way of him attending class. the teacher saw potential in him so that's why he made the meeting. the teacher said, "i'm salesman. i'm selling you to you."
i think this is a great example of what teachers should do. we should be selling our students to themselves. helping them find what interests them instead of turning them off to certain subjects because they're "boring" or they think there are more important things. there shouldn't be anything more important than an education. education is meant to open doors of opportunity and every opportunity should be open.
in class we've also been talking about no child left behind. it's one of those things that's good in theory, like communism. it's good to have a national standard and try to bring every student up to the same level, especially between states. in my experience, however, no child left behind has failed... miserably. the biggest thing i've encountered with this is standardized tests. in my high school, there wasn't a whole lot done before we took the tests. the administration was just like "ok, on this day you're taking test. go!" it wasn't a huge deal. because of that, no one really took it seriously. some just carelessly filled in bubbles, some went through the motions, and others struggled. well how it turns it out is that my high school got an overall terrible score. i think it was something like two stars out of five, whereas the other high school in our district got four or five stars.
well the next year, our administration cracked down and they cracked down hard. the students that did terribly were put into tutor sessions and it was a requirement to do well on this test or you wouldn't graduate. the reason why is because if we did terribly again, we'd lose funding and might get most of our teachers replaced. cutting funding sounds counter-intuitive to me. if a school is doing bad, wouldn't you want to give them more money to help them instead of hurt them even further? and by replacing teachers (with government approved teachers, mind you) that implies it's the TEACHERS' fault that the students aren't doing well. anyone who went to my high school knows that there are some great well-rounded teachers (of course there were some terrible ones too but the good outnumbered the bad). in my experience, if a student isn't learning, it's because they're chosing not to, not being the teacher isn't trying to engage them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
