So I wrote this blog once, thought it posted and it did not. This is a total bummer and I hope this one actually works. I am using copy and paste and putting this in a word document just in case, though I suppose you would not be able to read this if it didn't work. Hopefully it does.
The education reform webinar really opened my eyes about standardized testing and the detrimental effects they have on our students. This led me to wonder why we still rely on these tests when evaluating schools, students and even concerning college admissions. I've recently had to read in other classes as well about standardized testing and I'm left wondering why we continue to rely on a standardized testing system that seems to prove itself ineffective over and over again. From what I've learned, there are better options even to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers/schools and the progress of students. While the appeal of our content to our students is paramount, especially with the texts/teaching tools that we decide, we still must remember that we have standards we must meet. I think that as long as we are shackled to the current standardized assessments, we will have trouble fully relating content to students on some level, especially concerning history. Basically, we need to switch to a better assessment method, which already exists, so that teachers can focus on reaching their students to a greater extent.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Bill Ferreter's blog
http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/the_tempered_radical/2012/07/what-economists-dont-understand-about-educators.html
First, I'd like to point out that I left quite a long response. This is me patting myself on the back because I'm a 4 year old. BOOM.
Bill Ferreter blogged about the merit based incentive system for teachers. In his blog he complains about economists from various astute universities have decided that a merit based incentive for teachers would be a way to get teachers to work harder and produce better classroom results. I didn't even know people had ever taken this idea seriously. He explains it as follows:" Essentially, participating teachers are given a bonus at the BEGINNING of a school year -- in Fryer and Levitt's study, $4,000 -- and then told that they'll have to GIVE BACK monies if their students don't meet and/or exceed expectations on standardized tests given at the end of the school year. Now THAT is nothing short of pure #edubrilliance, isn't it?" The man has a good point. Why would you punish teachers who do not perform to a certain standard? This could include EXCEEDING expectaions. That. is. ridiculous. The most alarming part of this for me is that there is no way to actually evaluate good teaching. There are schools in Detroit with 60 kids to a classroom and 20 books. How can you punish a teacher working under those conditions for not meeting an expectation when the actual school system has basically set them up for "failure". Teachers are all dealing with different conditions that may be more or less conducive for learning and trying as hard as they can. As Mr. Ferreter points out, teachers don't phone it in. We care about the children and we try as hard as we can FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not about the money, because teachers come into the profession knowing that they are not going to make a lot of money.
Furthermore, there is no fair way to evaluate teachers because we would have to rely on some sort of standardized test. Maybe we could have the teachers have a principal sit in, and have student questionnaires, but even those would not tell the entire story and could be biased. You could have lazy teachers who tried hard to impress the person evaluating them, or simply teaching to the test. So if there are truly lazy teachers, they will pay attention to the aspects that will earn them money and ignore other important aspects that will not benefit them. As I said in my comment, half of new teachers quit within 5 years, those are the teachers who shouldn't be teaching and they weed themselves out. This incentive would ultimately punish the people who stuck with it and have a passion for teaching. At the end of the day, if economists want to help the school systems, pour more money into the school system. Find private donors, take money from the Defense budget and give some to educational programs, but don't punish teachers or reward them for something that is always going to be slightly out of their control.
First, I'd like to point out that I left quite a long response. This is me patting myself on the back because I'm a 4 year old. BOOM.
Bill Ferreter blogged about the merit based incentive system for teachers. In his blog he complains about economists from various astute universities have decided that a merit based incentive for teachers would be a way to get teachers to work harder and produce better classroom results. I didn't even know people had ever taken this idea seriously. He explains it as follows:" Essentially, participating teachers are given a bonus at the BEGINNING of a school year -- in Fryer and Levitt's study, $4,000 -- and then told that they'll have to GIVE BACK monies if their students don't meet and/or exceed expectations on standardized tests given at the end of the school year. Now THAT is nothing short of pure #edubrilliance, isn't it?" The man has a good point. Why would you punish teachers who do not perform to a certain standard? This could include EXCEEDING expectaions. That. is. ridiculous. The most alarming part of this for me is that there is no way to actually evaluate good teaching. There are schools in Detroit with 60 kids to a classroom and 20 books. How can you punish a teacher working under those conditions for not meeting an expectation when the actual school system has basically set them up for "failure". Teachers are all dealing with different conditions that may be more or less conducive for learning and trying as hard as they can. As Mr. Ferreter points out, teachers don't phone it in. We care about the children and we try as hard as we can FOR THE CHILDREN. It's not about the money, because teachers come into the profession knowing that they are not going to make a lot of money.
Furthermore, there is no fair way to evaluate teachers because we would have to rely on some sort of standardized test. Maybe we could have the teachers have a principal sit in, and have student questionnaires, but even those would not tell the entire story and could be biased. You could have lazy teachers who tried hard to impress the person evaluating them, or simply teaching to the test. So if there are truly lazy teachers, they will pay attention to the aspects that will earn them money and ignore other important aspects that will not benefit them. As I said in my comment, half of new teachers quit within 5 years, those are the teachers who shouldn't be teaching and they weed themselves out. This incentive would ultimately punish the people who stuck with it and have a passion for teaching. At the end of the day, if economists want to help the school systems, pour more money into the school system. Find private donors, take money from the Defense budget and give some to educational programs, but don't punish teachers or reward them for something that is always going to be slightly out of their control.
Monday, July 30, 2012
North Quad, North Quad
The class on Friday was by far my favorite of the semester. I was blown away by how useful all of the programs/apps were. I actually have 3 of them and have never even come close to fully utilizing them. My presentation on skype taught me just how much that program is capable. It has so many third party apps that would be great for the classroom and keeping me organized in general. I wish I had known this when I was in Greece last summer. It would have been great for using with my family and friends back home. However, of all the programs, my favorite is Diigo. I found it to be invaluable as a studying tool for myself. I think that students of all ages could really benefit from using it. Not only does it provide a great studying tool, but a community for studying and sharing important articles and ideas with the click of a button.
I really just had a lot of fun working in the group and having everyone share what they learned. It was really nice that we were all helping each other out with our programs. I really felt like we had a real team aspect going on for us, and it was great. I also liked being able to teach my peers something they hadn't known before. It was interesting to hear everyone's unique takes on the programs and how they would apply them to life, and their classrooms.
Finally, I enjoyed Kristin's teaching session at the end where she helped us set up our rss feeds and discussed social networking. I thought she did a great job teaching on her own even though she had a huge class. I found the rss feed to be incredibly helpful. I am sad to see aviary go, since it was something I was looking forward to utilizing in class with my students, but I'm sure something similar will pop up. Overall, it was a great class and the room in North Quad was really nice. I wish every table had those outlets!
I really just had a lot of fun working in the group and having everyone share what they learned. It was really nice that we were all helping each other out with our programs. I really felt like we had a real team aspect going on for us, and it was great. I also liked being able to teach my peers something they hadn't known before. It was interesting to hear everyone's unique takes on the programs and how they would apply them to life, and their classrooms.
Finally, I enjoyed Kristin's teaching session at the end where she helped us set up our rss feeds and discussed social networking. I thought she did a great job teaching on her own even though she had a huge class. I found the rss feed to be incredibly helpful. I am sad to see aviary go, since it was something I was looking forward to utilizing in class with my students, but I'm sure something similar will pop up. Overall, it was a great class and the room in North Quad was really nice. I wish every table had those outlets!
Monday, July 23, 2012
Rebecca Black
Figure it out.
Friday's class was cool and all, but I feel like we also are forced to do a lot of things that aren't actually useful. For example, Weebly is something I will never utilize. If I get a job using fucking weebly then my life has taken quite a sad turn. I'm sorry, maybe that is offensive but just because the internet is there doesn't always mean we have to use it. I can give my credit card number to a Nigerian prince online too, doesn't mean I need to. While a lot of technology does make my life easier, some things are more trivial than realistic. I worked in a corporate office that utilizes technology all of the time, and I'd never heard of Weebly. It's called Monster.com, and that shit is awesome. You can apply for jobs and they match you and all kinds of things using magic or something. That's cool. There is also this awesome thing called google search on the internet which will allow you to find open job opportunities. Also, there is this mystical thing called the newspaper or you can always make a phone call asking. Link'dIn is basically Weebly except it doesn't suck and has an actual following. I don't mean to knock it, but again, let's be real. Podcast stuff? Cool. Aviary? Kind of cool. Weebly? Please.
It was cool to see how angry birds was utilized, but I also see some downfalls in that. I can see how that could be distracting, or worse seen as a waste of time by the parents. I think when using these things, we have to maybe take the awesome parts of the games and technology and apply them in a non-distracting way. Or maybe make the game part of an assignment and then discuss it in class. However, I found the symbol stuff to be interesting and a good analogy for understanding how foreign or familiar technology can feel to people. I hate to be a negative Nancy in this blog, but there are some days where I feel like I spent 50 thousand dollars to basically spend three hours doing something I could have figured out alone in 5 minutes when utilizing google. I know everyone isn't like that and I can appreciate that. I guess I'm just in a bad mood or something. This isn't to say that I have any problem with the professors or their teaching abilities. I find them both to be knowledgeable and passionate about technology and teaching. I know that they know their stuff and I appreciate that. I have found most of the tech classes to be awesome though. Also, there was no need to be on north campus last week. We could have done that in the school of ed. Just saying.....
Friday's class was cool and all, but I feel like we also are forced to do a lot of things that aren't actually useful. For example, Weebly is something I will never utilize. If I get a job using fucking weebly then my life has taken quite a sad turn. I'm sorry, maybe that is offensive but just because the internet is there doesn't always mean we have to use it. I can give my credit card number to a Nigerian prince online too, doesn't mean I need to. While a lot of technology does make my life easier, some things are more trivial than realistic. I worked in a corporate office that utilizes technology all of the time, and I'd never heard of Weebly. It's called Monster.com, and that shit is awesome. You can apply for jobs and they match you and all kinds of things using magic or something. That's cool. There is also this awesome thing called google search on the internet which will allow you to find open job opportunities. Also, there is this mystical thing called the newspaper or you can always make a phone call asking. Link'dIn is basically Weebly except it doesn't suck and has an actual following. I don't mean to knock it, but again, let's be real. Podcast stuff? Cool. Aviary? Kind of cool. Weebly? Please.
It was cool to see how angry birds was utilized, but I also see some downfalls in that. I can see how that could be distracting, or worse seen as a waste of time by the parents. I think when using these things, we have to maybe take the awesome parts of the games and technology and apply them in a non-distracting way. Or maybe make the game part of an assignment and then discuss it in class. However, I found the symbol stuff to be interesting and a good analogy for understanding how foreign or familiar technology can feel to people. I hate to be a negative Nancy in this blog, but there are some days where I feel like I spent 50 thousand dollars to basically spend three hours doing something I could have figured out alone in 5 minutes when utilizing google. I know everyone isn't like that and I can appreciate that. I guess I'm just in a bad mood or something. This isn't to say that I have any problem with the professors or their teaching abilities. I find them both to be knowledgeable and passionate about technology and teaching. I know that they know their stuff and I appreciate that. I have found most of the tech classes to be awesome though. Also, there was no need to be on north campus last week. We could have done that in the school of ed. Just saying.....
Well this is awkward....
So, this is late. That's real. That happened. But oh well man, life happens and what not. Sun goes up, sun goes down. You can't explain that.
The readings and videos we had to do for class gave me a lot to think about from a pedagogical standpoint. It's awesome that there are teachers out there who try to stay current concerning technology and its practical usage in the classroom. In reality, I utilize technology in my daily life to a degree that may be considered unhealthy. There are some days where the only realistic marriage I ever see myself having is to my cell phone. Basically, I love the internet more than I love most things in life. More generally I love technology and how much easier it makes my daily life. With that being said, why shouldn't or wouldn't I utilize these tools in my classroom? The students I'll be teaching are not much younger than I am and we share many of the same interests when it comes to entertainment. If we share so much common ground in this respect, it should be explored. I liked our assignments because they demonstrated how creative we can be with things that we usually only value as entertainment. If we can use things like "Angry Birds" as a viable and effective teaching tool, why shouldn't we?
I found it interesting how beneficial video games can be to our cognitive processes. Students use problem solving skills in games like world of warcraft, which help them thinking about tactics and traits their characters need. This could be transferred to a classroom environment, by creating a similar setup within the classroom with real world applications. For example, government could be very applicable to such a game. Maybe even have them set up accounts for the game, and make them practice real world exercises within the game in order to prevent wars, or engage in them. Maybe have students practice international relations and treaty situations by having their guilds represent countries. Students could do secret alliances, explicit alliances and treachery in order to achieve a certain goal, while secretly having one group work against those common goals.
Gee talks about students willingness to try new things in video games. If we can transfer that mentality to the classroom, students may be willing to exit their comfort zone in order to learn new things. The fear of failure in real life does not transfer to video games. Video games allow multiple attempts and maybe we should allow the classroom to as well. If students can have redo's on certain assignments, with the goal of trying to exit their comfort zone, maybe students would be more willing to apply their creativity to assignments. Thus, even if we do not directly apply technology in the classroom, we could apply things that video games teach us in order to create a more successful classroom.
The readings and videos we had to do for class gave me a lot to think about from a pedagogical standpoint. It's awesome that there are teachers out there who try to stay current concerning technology and its practical usage in the classroom. In reality, I utilize technology in my daily life to a degree that may be considered unhealthy. There are some days where the only realistic marriage I ever see myself having is to my cell phone. Basically, I love the internet more than I love most things in life. More generally I love technology and how much easier it makes my daily life. With that being said, why shouldn't or wouldn't I utilize these tools in my classroom? The students I'll be teaching are not much younger than I am and we share many of the same interests when it comes to entertainment. If we share so much common ground in this respect, it should be explored. I liked our assignments because they demonstrated how creative we can be with things that we usually only value as entertainment. If we can use things like "Angry Birds" as a viable and effective teaching tool, why shouldn't we?
I found it interesting how beneficial video games can be to our cognitive processes. Students use problem solving skills in games like world of warcraft, which help them thinking about tactics and traits their characters need. This could be transferred to a classroom environment, by creating a similar setup within the classroom with real world applications. For example, government could be very applicable to such a game. Maybe even have them set up accounts for the game, and make them practice real world exercises within the game in order to prevent wars, or engage in them. Maybe have students practice international relations and treaty situations by having their guilds represent countries. Students could do secret alliances, explicit alliances and treachery in order to achieve a certain goal, while secretly having one group work against those common goals.
Gee talks about students willingness to try new things in video games. If we can transfer that mentality to the classroom, students may be willing to exit their comfort zone in order to learn new things. The fear of failure in real life does not transfer to video games. Video games allow multiple attempts and maybe we should allow the classroom to as well. If students can have redo's on certain assignments, with the goal of trying to exit their comfort zone, maybe students would be more willing to apply their creativity to assignments. Thus, even if we do not directly apply technology in the classroom, we could apply things that video games teach us in order to create a more successful classroom.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Reflection 2
First, I have to say that my favorite part of the day was when the students came in to visit us. I was disappointed that they didn't get to hang longer, but I guess it's ok. I definitely would have appreciated more time to just chill before we got down to the nitty-gritty. The lesson planning was really cool. I was introduced to a ton of new websites that can help me with taxonomy and activities for lessons. I must admit that I don't think I could have made such an awesome lesson plan on my own. Having everyone's opinion on how we should go about conducting the lesson was really helpful, and it was really cool to see how creative everyone is with their approach to lesson planning and teaching. I thought overall, we rocked the shit with our lesson plan. If I were in high school, I would have enjoyed that soda ban lesson plan. < that rhymes.
I had a fun lunch with a group of mackers, who I had not met before. I was pretty excited about that. I also thought aviary was pretty cool, but the sound editing was really rudimentary. I make and mix music at home, so I was pumped about doing that activity. I breezed through it, but since I had some problems with the wiki, I ended up being like one of the last people to leave. Either way, I think there are some really awesome possibilities to utilize technology in a creative way in the classroom. I like that teaching can be fun and modern. I'm excited to try out a podcast in class. Overall, I thought the day was pretty helpful, and I was pumped we got out early. The End.
I had a fun lunch with a group of mackers, who I had not met before. I was pretty excited about that. I also thought aviary was pretty cool, but the sound editing was really rudimentary. I make and mix music at home, so I was pumped about doing that activity. I breezed through it, but since I had some problems with the wiki, I ended up being like one of the last people to leave. Either way, I think there are some really awesome possibilities to utilize technology in a creative way in the classroom. I like that teaching can be fun and modern. I'm excited to try out a podcast in class. Overall, I thought the day was pretty helpful, and I was pumped we got out early. The End.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Soda ban
There are 380 calories in a McDonald's milkshake http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/mcdonalds/milkshake/, 110 calories in one 12 oz. beer http://www.beer100.com/beercalories.htm, and 112 calories in a cup of orange juice. There are 140 calories in a 12 oz. can of coca-colahttp://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/coca-cola/.
Mayor Bloomberg and his administration decided that they should ban soda over the size of 16 oz., but only at restaurants. I understand that soda is not healthy for people in any way, but neither is beer. Light beers like a Bud Light has 110 calories in one can, and yet nothing is mentioned about liquor sales in restaurants. It seems that people who go to dinner at a restaurant are just as likely to drink multiple beers throughout dinner, which could add up to nearly a fourth of a person's daily caloric intake. What I find even worse, is that one McDonald's milkshake has 380 calories. One. That is ridiculous and the amount of fat in one milkshake is usually pretty outrageous.
I don't fault the mayor for wanting to make the city healthier, but I think it is hypocritical to put limits on soda sizes and yet milkshakes and alcohol are unaffected. Orange juice also has a lot of calories, but it's actually healthy to have real fruit juice so I don't want to try to lump it in with the other beverages I've mentioned. However, from a caloric standpoint, the juice is almost as bad as a 12 oz. soda. It's easy to find justification for banning foods and beverages, but limiting size on one specific drink, and not actually limiting the amount you can buy seems like a scam.
Alcohol makes a lot of money in taxes for the state and now soda can too. They already raised the tax on soda, and now they are forcing people to buy multiple soda beverages in a sitting if they want more. What they are really doing is creating revenue through taxes for the government and forcing people to spend more money. If he was really concerned about health, he would crack down on milkshakes, ice cream, candy, and other unnecessary snack foods that contribute to the obesity of the american public. Furthermore, he would try to do something about alcohol and the adverse effects it has on the body. Not only do alcoholic beverages contribute to weight gain, but it also can cause liver damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, and addiction. The monetary aspect of this law is already on his mind and he uses it as a defense for his actions, "He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop." This shows that money is what this law comes down to. So now people are going to spend more money at restaurants and be charged more for soda when outside of the city they can get it for much cheaper and without regulation.
I'm not saying that I think soda is good for people. I actually don't drink much myself, but until he is willing to really crack down on the weight problem, bring more physical activities to the schools, create exercise regiments or free gym memberships for citizens and ban snack foods, I don't think that his actions are justified. It literally will do absolutely nothing beneficial for the citizens, but it will make the city's government richer and force the people to spend more. I think that the obesity issue in this nation needs to be addressed, but I think this is the wrong way to go about doing so.
Mayor Bloomberg and his administration decided that they should ban soda over the size of 16 oz., but only at restaurants. I understand that soda is not healthy for people in any way, but neither is beer. Light beers like a Bud Light has 110 calories in one can, and yet nothing is mentioned about liquor sales in restaurants. It seems that people who go to dinner at a restaurant are just as likely to drink multiple beers throughout dinner, which could add up to nearly a fourth of a person's daily caloric intake. What I find even worse, is that one McDonald's milkshake has 380 calories. One. That is ridiculous and the amount of fat in one milkshake is usually pretty outrageous.
I don't fault the mayor for wanting to make the city healthier, but I think it is hypocritical to put limits on soda sizes and yet milkshakes and alcohol are unaffected. Orange juice also has a lot of calories, but it's actually healthy to have real fruit juice so I don't want to try to lump it in with the other beverages I've mentioned. However, from a caloric standpoint, the juice is almost as bad as a 12 oz. soda. It's easy to find justification for banning foods and beverages, but limiting size on one specific drink, and not actually limiting the amount you can buy seems like a scam.
Alcohol makes a lot of money in taxes for the state and now soda can too. They already raised the tax on soda, and now they are forcing people to buy multiple soda beverages in a sitting if they want more. What they are really doing is creating revenue through taxes for the government and forcing people to spend more money. If he was really concerned about health, he would crack down on milkshakes, ice cream, candy, and other unnecessary snack foods that contribute to the obesity of the american public. Furthermore, he would try to do something about alcohol and the adverse effects it has on the body. Not only do alcoholic beverages contribute to weight gain, but it also can cause liver damage, fetal alcohol syndrome, and addiction. The monetary aspect of this law is already on his mind and he uses it as a defense for his actions, "He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop." This shows that money is what this law comes down to. So now people are going to spend more money at restaurants and be charged more for soda when outside of the city they can get it for much cheaper and without regulation.
I'm not saying that I think soda is good for people. I actually don't drink much myself, but until he is willing to really crack down on the weight problem, bring more physical activities to the schools, create exercise regiments or free gym memberships for citizens and ban snack foods, I don't think that his actions are justified. It literally will do absolutely nothing beneficial for the citizens, but it will make the city's government richer and force the people to spend more. I think that the obesity issue in this nation needs to be addressed, but I think this is the wrong way to go about doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)