It's all coming to an end...

Well, here we are. The last entry. Well, it's the last entry as an EPS 350 blog, anyways. I have to talk about how I've changed, as a teacher, as a result of my pre-internship, and boy, have I ever. I've grown, really.

Let me just start by saying my pre-internship was a universally positive experience. I could barely even contain the joy I felt throughout that three week block, and felt myself talking about it endlessly. It's true, teaching does take over your conversations. My co-op and I got along famously, and my pre-internship partner was a gem. We worked in perfect sync, like some sort of well-oiled, teaching machine.

One of the largest areas where I changed, and grew, was in organization, and dedication. I mean, I am still pretty disorganized, but this experience forced me to learn how to put my nose to the grindstone and PRODUCE. As well, it forced me to keep some sort of system for my materials, lessons, and everything else under the sun I came across. It was truly a "trial-by-fire" in a sense, because I felt, after the first day, in which I ran short of material on a lesson, that I would sink if I didn't make some vital changes, and fast. I mean, trust me when I tell you that you don't want to run short of material... once is enough for that feeling. God, another side-story: At one point I temporarily misplaced my marking sheet and folder of student assignments, and wow, there is another feeling I never want to experience again. You should have seen me while looking for it. My face blended in with the damn whiteboards! But yes, organization is key to teaching, and that includes your thoughts, papers, life, everything.

Another few areas, and broader areas, were just in student interaction. I mean, the classroom environment is just so centered around you, the teacher. If you're happy, confident, and excited, they'll feed off of that. Now, you can't run a class on sheer enthusiasm alone, but my god it helps.

Also, I learned that like, a personal attachment to certain lessons can set you up for quite the fall. I put together a lesson, which I loved, and thought was such a creative endeavor, only to have the students get moody and reject it initially, which made ME moody. Wow, the two days I spent on that activity were particularly miserable, and I guarantee it would have been MUCH better if I would have taken less offense to the students' initial reaction to my assignment.

I'll punctuate this by saying the most important point in my growth as a teacher. After this, I feel like I can BE a teacher, and like I WANT to be a teacher, and hell, maybe even like I can save the world, just a little...

Just a little.

What makes ME a good demoman!?

Well, we are supposed to put together our thoughts on what makes a good teacher, so here goes the neighbourhood!

It's funny, because there is such a network of not-so-tangible qualities that make a good teacher. Moreover, I think there are a lot of different types of "Good teachers," all with qualities all their own. At any rate...

I think a passion for the material is pretty important. Like, you really can't expect the students to care if you don't. That's not to say every teacher needs to be jumping up and down about fractions, or teaching photosynthesis TO THE MAX! I'm just saying that, even if you find the material boring, a general enthusiasm for the pursuit of knowledge is so necessary for a teacher. It's a learned profession, everyone in the faculty says so. I mean, I will fight tooth and nail (although I doubt it will truly be a fight) to keep from stagnating.

I think a love of people, in general, also goes a long way. I mean, if you generally dislike people, especially kids or adolescents, I sure hope you're not planning on becoming a teacher. However, you should be able to relate to people, enjoy their company, and value them overall, because who are you going to be dealing with? Students, other teachers, parents, board members, it's such a social and political job that you have to have some people skills to be successful.

You need some sort of classroom management skills. I've seen them come in all forms. Some people have such commanding personalities that you merely want to do what they ask you. Some people are such powerful speakers you just want to listen to them. I've seen teachers who are excellent and developing rapport with their students, which will result in a somewhat unconventional looking classroom, but one in which students will do what you ask of them regardless.

Also, the ability to adapt. If you have a healthy wit, a decent bank of overal knowledge, and some wisdom, you are so advantaged as a teacher. I mean, it's such a performance to be up there, and while good planning can minimize problems, it won't eliminate them entirely.

I could go on all day about what makes a good teacher, but to me, there is not one "Good teacher." I think there are tons of combinations of different things that make up good teachers. One teacher could be good, while standing in stark contrast against another great teacher. Like, it's really how it all comes together.

It's just that... I'm always reflecting, even when I'm not writing it down...

We have reflections on reflections today here folks. I dunno if we were supposed to have one for reading week, but while I was about, I talked to plenty of people about education systems and issues, so here goes... I'm going to have like, two weeks worth of entries in one long post, so prepare yourself for something real serious...

I'm going to start with what happened today, because it's still fresh in my mind. I was introduced, and exposed, to my school's new registration / class offerings, and it seriously blew my mind. The whole idea revolved around having students, in preparation for grade 10, choose whether they wanted to enroll in what I'd loosely call "trade math" or "academic math." I forget what the former was called, but the latter was like, "pre-calculus" or something. At the beginning this doesn't sound so bad, because it gives of the air of tailoring classes to student needs and interests, even though it is, quite obviously, academically tiered, with one math holding a certain stigma compared to the other. However, I guess the "trade math" is NOT recognized for students looking to enroll in university, which, to me, is a complete crock. I really can't make myself clearer than saying students don't know what they want to do in grade 10. Well, they do know, in that they are concerned with their friends, their relationships, and themselves, but the future really holds zero weight in their minds. Worse yet, if a student takes "trade math" and decides he or she wants to, instead, take a shot at college, they have to start from square one... trade math 10 CANNOT serve as a prerequisite to academic math 20. It just seems outright insane to try and set students on such deeply-rutted, and divisive paths at such an early age. Moreover, obviously, since anyone with the slightest urge to apply to college will go for the academic math, the trade math path is doomed to become nothing more than a stigmatized sort of "idiot math." Maybe I'm being reactionary, but I just don't know. As a sidenote, the idea of stigmatizing trades at all bothers me to no end. What is there to frown upon? More money? Shorter school? Practical knowledge? Pfah!

So begins the second part of this post... while I was in Whistler over reading week, I talked to a whole network of different people from different places, gathering interesting opinions and thoughts on education. Here are some of the more interesting ones, bearing in mind that this is all hearsay, and might require a bit of fact-checking on Google...

I get the impression that teaching is more of an onerous career choice in the United States than in Canada. Mind you, the general consensus is that the American school system, in its current state, is a catastrophe. I mean, it seems to be in a crisis state at this point. They spend an absurd amount per student, teachers are apparently underpaid, and success rates are lacking. Mind you, I've been watching nothing but libertarian "school choice" propaganda videos... I guess, in the states, or most states, your schools are chosen for you, based on where you live... the big libertarian solution is to give parents the right to choose where their kids go, and to shut down schools that are sparsely attended or doing poorly. Another sidenote: I have done my research, and I do know that it's effectively impossible to fire a teacher in the states for bad teaching. Basically, they have to get caught in some scandal to get the hoof, which is kind of scary, considering the flood of teachers applying for jobs in the states. At any rate, I was talking with some people from San Diego, and when I told them I was going to be a teacher, they treated it like such a wildly heroic endeavor. Around here, I don't feel it is... that's not to say I'm in it for the money, or that it's the most thankful job out there, but like... with the right set of degrees, a teacher's salary is nothing to sneeze at, especially considering the benefits, and factoring in the extended holidays involved in the profession. That said, the money sure wasn't the attractive factor to me, but I'm not going to treat myself as some underpaid martyr just yet...

Talking to a guy from the UK was interesting too, because man, did it ever seem like their schools are a good head and shoulders above ours. Mind you, this man had the money to fly to Whistler from the UK, so that may explain his child's seemingly stilted schooling. At any rate, his kid was learning Shakespeare at age 11, and had been for some time already. This blew my mind, (I'm really on a Shakespeare tear lately) as I couldn't have imagined approaching that stuff at an earlier age than 14 or 15. Apparently he got into arguments with his girlfriend regarding the validity and necessity of teaching Shakespeare to students, as he, being a scientist, believed there to be greater merit in teaching science. His girlfriend argued an appreciation of the arts was a necessity to any developed citizen. His clever retort was that she needed him to set up the V.C.R., making some jab at her lack of technological literacy for all the literature she reads. His son talked my ear off too, which was all sorts of fun. It was honestly like speaking to someone with my vocabulary, but like, still the mind and mental development of an 11 year old. Like, he wasn't smarter than our students, but better spoken, if that makes sense. Their school is considerably more rigorous than ours, however. This kid had like, three languages under his belt, and was obviously learning much higher math, science, and literature concepts than I had seen in equivalent grades here. It made me really wonder... is the answer to make things easier? Honestly, in each troubled or problem, or even in "richer" schools, the big answer seems to be to keep scaling back what students learn, or taking much more time... but in one of my field placements I wound up in a grade 5-8 split, and the kids couldn't multiply and divide at all. That seems like such lunacy to me. They spent a week learning about fractions with manipulatives, which seems like such an insanely long time to spend getting the mere concept of fractions down. I just don't know. In the same breath, it's no use sizzling through material, only to drown students, and overwhelm them. I just don't know.

I'm out of breath now, though. See you all next time.

Double entry... all the way

I'm gonna use this for both my EPS blog here and my ELNG reflective assignment, because the topic is pretty relevant to both I suppose... at any rate...

I'm also going to use proper indentation for paragraphs... whoopie...

My big consideration is what to teach students in English courses. Could there be more questions surrounding this topic? I mean... I'm going to come right out and say that I think it's a bit funny that I didn't get a whole lot out of my English class in terms of writing, and what little exposure I did get came in Academic writing. However, my teacher did such a poor job of it that I basically had to forget it all in order to survive English 100. That's besides the point though. I find it strange that academic writing is much of a focus at all in high school. For starters, what percentage of students head on to university? Secondly, it sends a funny message: "If you aren't going to be spending your twenties dissecting literature, there's not much of a point to you learning how to write." Now, I don't know if this has changed, and I think it has a bit, as my high school experiences are getting a bit more stale by now, but like, I don't entirely know where the balance lies. Should kids be writing to express their thoughts? Just to communicate? Hell, lately, by what I've seen on facebook, I'd be satisfied if my students didn't make fools of themselves in their status updates for god's sake. How would that be for a lesson? "Your facebook updates SHOULD contain the following: Capital letters when appropriate, punctuation..." I mean, it feels like the lesson should be "You SHOULD care if you look like a big fool!" Oh well, back on topic... But yeah, should they write to express their thoughts? to dryly inform? To argue? To create? To entertain? Well, to be honest, I think entertainment might be a cornerstone of most any writing, but writing is so damned multifaceted. Maybe students should be given some choice. Does expressive writing sound like a good class? Actually, I'm pretty sure my one prof has a good solution in the idea of a broad writing portfolio, giving students the freedom to write what they want. Even still, that doesn't leave much room for intensive instruction on any specific faction of writing.

On to reading, now... I really disagree with shoving canonical literature down students' throats. I, as a college student, find Shakespeare tough to approach, and even tough to relate to. While I agree that the stories are pretty timeless, and hold insightful commentary, they are just tough to get through. It's like eating a loaf of bread. I mean, it seems a bit sticklerish to hold students to something that I, as a university student, don't enjoy approaching, and in which I don't see the value. Maybe we should get students reading, and enjoying it, before we hand them a network of stuffy old works by dead British authors. Mind you, I do see that happening as well in classrooms. My literacy group teacher gives her students a pretty broad array of relatively new books to choose from, so I'm glad for that I suppose.

End Transmission....

The critical thought follow-up...

I'm writing this at someone else's super bowl party... I don't want to hear about any lack of dedication on my part...

I had planned on talking about this in my last post, the idea of teaching kids critical thought, but I felt like I was running a little long with that last post.

At any rate, the term "Critical thought" gets chucked around so much that it has basically lost all meaning, so I'm gonna kind of lay out the context in which I'm talking about this concept. Obviously, there is the general idea that you shouldn't accept information at face value, without being critical of it, or questioning its source, validity, plausibility, feasability, and basically ever "ility" there is to tack on to this sentence. However, what I'm mainly concerned with is critical thought in relation to current events. I remember, in high school, having a metric ton of teachers who crammed current events down our throats, but they never really gave us the tools to work with the newspaper, so to speak. To background this, I believe that most news sources are somewhat... alarmist, and understandably so. I mean, they have to sell newspapers, or gain viewers, or what have you, and it's a lot easier to do that if people think the news holds some privvy information that I can arm myself with when the world collapses. If you want evidence of this, look to the H1N1 outbreak... as far as the news was concerned, I was to be stocking up on canned food and encasing myself in a bubble... and it worked! I was glued to news sites for a while, until I just shut down to the whole idea, and realized that the sky was not, in fact, falling. However, as I was saying, I had a ton of teachers who would throw newspaper headlines in my face daily, but never really said that the news could concievably have an agenda of its own, just like anything else, and that nothing is truly impartial. Hell, even statistics, which are considered to be the world's impartial information safe-haven, require interpretation and representation to hold any meaning, and that representation and interpretation could hold a significant slant or bias. To get to the core of my philosophy here, students need to be shown the news, and taught how to dissect it. I, and the people in my classes, were taught to accept, well, everything at face value. I can remember only one teacher, our media studies teacher, teaching us about critically consuming media. The funny thing is that media studies is considered such a bird of a course, but it had one of the more lasting impacts on me. In fact, I spent a period of time resenting that course because I could no longer enjoy family guy, as I was aware of the parts of my like, lizard brain that it played off of. "Be aware of the high volume of 'shocks' and 'stunts' designed to re-grab your short attention span." I dunno. I think this sort of concept should spread throughout the whole curriculum. I mean, it's a biiiit tougher to incorporate it into English, depending on what you're reading, but Social Studies, my minor, is ripe for this sort of material.

That's my speech this time. Has anyone seen a performance so cheap as the autotuned routine that the Black Eyed Peas put together for the superbowl half-time show? Also, for a superbowl meal, my sister put together grilled cheese burgers... it's a burger sandwiched between, get this, two grilled cheese sandwiches. Also, there was ham and a fried egg on it. As a joke, I decided to put literally every condiment they had on top. Let the good times roll.

Who to teach to, with some critical thought splashed on the side....

Well, this concept came up... at some point in class. We've abandoned the model of teaching to the middle, or at least that is what I am to believe. Instead, we differentiate instruction, and teach to everyone. However, this concept leaves me with a whole network of questions. Are we essentially preparing three separate lessons, or four, per lesson? I say three or four because it seems like the student grouping is viewed as follows: Bottom, middle, top, and special needs, or differently able, or what have you. This, along with the inclusive model of education, puts a huge strain on teachers, and really challenges them to step up in a lot of ways. Now, I'm coming out and saying it right now, I'm all for inclusive education. I mean, the last thing I want to do is brand a group of students as "The stupids" and shove them into the basement. However, I have a whole host of questions and concerns. Isn't differentiating instruction doing the same thing a bit? I mean, "Here you go Johnny, here is your special test! And your biiiig felt marker to write it with!" (I so stole that joke off of someone.) Moreover, I can't help but feel a certain level of futility with changing terms for students. It seems like any special-needs related term eventually becomes stigmatized... but then I think I agree with it, still. I mean, we aren't calling people "Morons" "Retards" or "Cretins" anymore... not in any official way, anyways. I'd prefer to go in the direction of the positive, to keep from beating someone down. Only so much wordplay can go on, though...

At any rate, back to differentiating. I can't help but think that kids at the lower end will get the attention. I mean, we assume that students at the top will merely take it upon themselves to be good, active, and engaged learners, because they are good. We neglect the possibility that they may get bored, and reject formal education... and without that, they are kind of sunk in this day and age in terms of an intellectual career of some kind. Which is the greater tragedy? A kid falling through the cracks from the bottom or the top? How differentiated can differentiated instruction be? Can I show students a history documentary, and have some recite facts from the documentary, while getting others to give me an in-depth analysis of the events outlined in the documentary? Do I grade students on a relative scale, based on their own person growth? Or do I make them all jump through the same hoop, or over the same hurdle?

Honestly, it makes sense to me to grade students based on their own personal improvement. What else can we expect, really? As long as they are improving themselves, and show drive, are we not succeeding? Obviously, I don't mean infinitesimal improvement, but significant strides. In a gym class we don't look at every student and say "Welp, your final is to become Charles Atlas." No, they get assessed in the beginning, and graded on their improvement. I mean, it's important not to discourage the lower kids by setting them up for failure with the impossible requirement, while, at the same time, making sure that the "smart" kids don't just coast.

This has become more long winded than I thought it would, so I'll save my critical thought speech for next time. Speaking of which, tune in next time... same bat time, same bat channel!

Changing gears again... EPS 350 - Jan. 20, 2011

We are supposed to keep a reflective journal, so I figured why not a reflective blog? Ooh-rahh...

A friend of mine brought up the idea of being auto-didactic today. It's a funny concept to me, in the sense that right now auto-didactism is much more accessible than ever before. Like, the internet, libraries, etc. etc. etc. are accessible to pretty well anyone. However, even though information and education is way more accessible, there is absolutely no value in auto-didactism. Despite the fact that you can acquire any information you want, the only valuable information has to come from a formal institution. Taught yourself to be a mechanic? No good, you need this certificate or that training. Have an innate, or self-taught, sense of the business world? Have fun with that, we only take admin grads here. I don't know. I find modern-day university to be kind of strange, some four-year stopover on the road to real-life. Mind you, I'm in a professional program, so it's much less strange where I am. However, there are a lot of basically worthless degrees out there... I mean, I've seen jobs posted that require "A university degree." Not a specific university degree, just a degree. I find something like, profoundly strange about that. I mean, how is a degree in history relevant to any job other than like, "historian?" People tell me it shows dedication, and I suppose I can agree with that, but I feel like a lot of places may be closing their doors to a lot of potentially quality employees with this sort of thing. Someone else told me "A university degree is the new high school degree." That outright scares me... university is expensive, and for it to produce the equivalent of the last generation's high school degree is kind of garbage. Nevermind the fact that formal academia is NOT for everyone. I mean, the academic world and the workforce really are quite far removed from one another, so it just seems so strange to consider achievement in one relevant to the other.

Well, that's my first post... Kind of all over the map, and I think I've raised more academic issues than I've tackled. In the future, I plan on discussing it with my friends, and pouring the results out on here.