I just read through three blogs about HOMEWORK. Apparently there is some kind of debate going on about the importance of it and the degree of homework given depending on age.
After reading through them all, I think I have to agree that less homework is important in the elementary years. Six hours at school is a long time for them and quite stressful. At this age children are much more eager to learn if they are given the right motivations for their readiness, learning styles and interests. Reading is probably the most important aspect of their education at this level because if they are illiterate as they move up, they will not be as successful in ANY of the subjects required as they could be. Reading at night is a good family practice anyways. I think growing up it was a nice slow down to the evening, it was time spent with the people I loved, and it was a story! In some cases I think math should be done as homework as well because for some children they need assistance all through class to get the concepts, but are they able to take learning into their own hands or to complete the questions independently? They won't be successful if they cannot do it on their own either. Also, if students are not given any homework in the early years, they will get to the higher grades and be overwhelmed and unorganized when trying to keep track of what is required for them in all their classes.
I agree that children need extra-curricular activities, time with family, and time to just relax and/or play. I think everyone does. Its a big part of mental health. I also have a motto that goes "Work hard, Play hard". It's the concept of work ethic and meriting a break. Do you deserve the break?
My other comment regarding homework goes along with the saying "Practice makes perfect", well I like to re-amp it a little to"Practice makes better", because you can't always expect perfection. Think about all the extra-curricular activities kids have though. Dance, music, hockey, volleyball, etc. they are all based on practicing in order to be successful! School is no different in that aspect. Children need practice in order to be successful in literacy and arithmetic.
Friday, November 27, 2009
High Post-Secondary Grades and Successful Teachers
We had a really interesting research presentation this week trying to make a correlation between high post-secondary grades and successful teachers. The question was, is there a positive correlation between the two?
Some of the research focused on how long teachers stayed teaching. "Success" was defined as still teaching after 7 years. Doesn't really seem like a rational definition to base research on in my opinion. I think success should be measured by student success, classroom management and environment, teacher's well-being and happiness, etc. There would also be a large number of teachers that may have changed careers and moved up the ladder elsewhere, or moved overseas, or began a family and maybe chose to return teaching later on. There are a lot of factors I think were not taken into account for the published research. Anyways, the results were that full time teachers were most successful in the transition from student to teacher. So teachers who are most successful have had more experience for longer consecutive periods of time. Well that seems feasible to me.
I'm going to step aside from the research presented and talk more about the question, why do we use GPA to get into the Education Faculty?
The research above basically says the more hands on experience you get the better the teacher you will be. And in discussions I have had with others and in my own experience, teachers that have mastered a subject and its content are not guaranteed to be good teachers. It is important to be able to explain a method or a concept in several different ways so that students can absorb what is important. I have had decent grades throughout university. I think I am sitting somewhere around a 3.4, but I wouldn't say that makes me a good and qualified teacher. I think it means that I have studied hard, read the materials I was told to, maybe even went to class, and am able to write essays. It is my practicum in the classroom that shows my abilities as a teacher. It's there that I show if I can be prepared, punctual, responsive to children, and a facilitator of learning. I am certain a lot of great teachers have been turned away because they were not as successful on the GPA scale. Why is this the case?
Some of the research focused on how long teachers stayed teaching. "Success" was defined as still teaching after 7 years. Doesn't really seem like a rational definition to base research on in my opinion. I think success should be measured by student success, classroom management and environment, teacher's well-being and happiness, etc. There would also be a large number of teachers that may have changed careers and moved up the ladder elsewhere, or moved overseas, or began a family and maybe chose to return teaching later on. There are a lot of factors I think were not taken into account for the published research. Anyways, the results were that full time teachers were most successful in the transition from student to teacher. So teachers who are most successful have had more experience for longer consecutive periods of time. Well that seems feasible to me.
I'm going to step aside from the research presented and talk more about the question, why do we use GPA to get into the Education Faculty?
The research above basically says the more hands on experience you get the better the teacher you will be. And in discussions I have had with others and in my own experience, teachers that have mastered a subject and its content are not guaranteed to be good teachers. It is important to be able to explain a method or a concept in several different ways so that students can absorb what is important. I have had decent grades throughout university. I think I am sitting somewhere around a 3.4, but I wouldn't say that makes me a good and qualified teacher. I think it means that I have studied hard, read the materials I was told to, maybe even went to class, and am able to write essays. It is my practicum in the classroom that shows my abilities as a teacher. It's there that I show if I can be prepared, punctual, responsive to children, and a facilitator of learning. I am certain a lot of great teachers have been turned away because they were not as successful on the GPA scale. Why is this the case?
Preparation
During the presentation this week we looked at strengths and weaknesses in our program at the university. We had a look at a little quiz created by professors asking university students and first year teachers to rate the preparation and importance they placed on certain aspects of their training. Even for myself I only rated one item at the highest possible placement on the scale and all the rest below.
The most common deficiencies found in the quiz were:
1. Classroom management
2. Understanding the changing nature of pupils' families
3. Working with parents
4. Establishing rapport with pupils
5. Working in an organization (relating with peers in productive interpersonal relationships)
I feel that we have discussed classroom management a great deal in my courses. We have been given a lot of theory on it and showed several practices that we could do in our own classrooms. We have also had several practicums where we should have been putting them into use and deciding which ones work best for us individually.
As for the changing nature of families, well I think we looked at this a little bit in social context in PSII.
Even so, we will become most prepared in these areas through experience in our practicums. It really doesn't seem feasible to have a course on how to make relationships, either you are a people person or you're not. If you're nervous, then practice will make better.
The strengths found were:
1. Writing and using lesson plans
2. Using audio-visual aids and media
3. Knowledge and Skill in computer based instruction
For the most part I would agree with these as well. With the exception of the computer instruction. We have had a few PD sessions offered on using the Smart Board and in PSI there was a technology course but I found it a waste of time. I did not really learn much new or retain anything if there was new stuff.
The most common deficiencies found in the quiz were:
1. Classroom management
2. Understanding the changing nature of pupils' families
3. Working with parents
4. Establishing rapport with pupils
5. Working in an organization (relating with peers in productive interpersonal relationships)
I feel that we have discussed classroom management a great deal in my courses. We have been given a lot of theory on it and showed several practices that we could do in our own classrooms. We have also had several practicums where we should have been putting them into use and deciding which ones work best for us individually.
As for the changing nature of families, well I think we looked at this a little bit in social context in PSII.
Even so, we will become most prepared in these areas through experience in our practicums. It really doesn't seem feasible to have a course on how to make relationships, either you are a people person or you're not. If you're nervous, then practice will make better.
The strengths found were:
1. Writing and using lesson plans
2. Using audio-visual aids and media
3. Knowledge and Skill in computer based instruction
For the most part I would agree with these as well. With the exception of the computer instruction. We have had a few PD sessions offered on using the Smart Board and in PSI there was a technology course but I found it a waste of time. I did not really learn much new or retain anything if there was new stuff.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
28 UP Nick
Finally, there was Nick.
- He was from a small farming community
- He went to school in a one room school house and was the only boy in his grade
- Had some social issues because he only associated with adults
- He spent most of his time on his own outside with animals and the natural elements of the world
- He was swept up after writing the 11+ exams in England
- Received grants to schools of the highest quality
- Re-socialized to fit into the elite
- There was a noticeable change in body language from age 14 as a young boy with his head between his knees to a young man of 21 who was a very confident Oxford student
- Took physics at Oxford, where he felt he needed to prove something as there were only 10 000 students
- Became an assistant professor in the USA where he noticed people had to go out and make things happen for themselves as there were populations of up to 40 000 students at one university
- He was the product of a Sponsorship system, which in turn made him the head of the Contest system when he moved to the States
- He noticed a difference in his thinking about finances once he switched systems, in the sponsorship he was taken care of whereas in the contest system he cared more about money because he had to make it for himself
- He was from a small farming community
- He went to school in a one room school house and was the only boy in his grade
- Had some social issues because he only associated with adults
- He spent most of his time on his own outside with animals and the natural elements of the world
- He was swept up after writing the 11+ exams in England
- Received grants to schools of the highest quality
- Re-socialized to fit into the elite
- There was a noticeable change in body language from age 14 as a young boy with his head between his knees to a young man of 21 who was a very confident Oxford student
- Took physics at Oxford, where he felt he needed to prove something as there were only 10 000 students
- Became an assistant professor in the USA where he noticed people had to go out and make things happen for themselves as there were populations of up to 40 000 students at one university
- He was the product of a Sponsorship system, which in turn made him the head of the Contest system when he moved to the States
- He noticed a difference in his thinking about finances once he switched systems, in the sponsorship he was taken care of whereas in the contest system he cared more about money because he had to make it for himself
28 UP Suzi
In the second part of the viewing we looked at Suzi.
- At age 7 Suzi was obviously from an upper class family, it was clear from the way she held herself, they way she spoke of her future and her physical appearance
- She wanted 2 kids with a nanny to take care of them
- She went to boarding school at 8 years of age which includes women's finishing school
- She spent her summers at her father's estate in Scotland
- At 16 she left school and moved to Paris, she just wasn't "interested" in school
- At 21 she was against marriage
- She wanted to get on with her own life
- She had a much more rebellious and feministic body language as she chain smoked, spoke of marriage and thought she knew everything but still had no real aspirations in life
- By 22 she was married, she said she just hadn't met the right man yet and didn't know what she wanted out of life yet at 21
- She married down but was still within a comfortable upper class standing
- At 28 she didn't see herself as moving up any further
- Hated boarding school because she was too young at 8 to leave her family, but has decided to send her children at 13 years old because it is a little older, and it is what she knows and so will send her children through the system she understands best
"The double rebellion"
- Rich upper class women go to university, generally have Marxist professors. The women rebel against their sexist, wealthy, elite upbringing. Then they graduate and marry someone of their own class anyways.
Suzi seems to follow this path. She rebels at some point but still ends up in the same comfortable status she was raised in and continues to keep her children in the same one as well. It comes down to inheritance and marriage. I think there is a trend in this behaviour because the women, and men, know that there will always be that safety net there for if they ever decide to return to the easy, wealthy life that is handed to them.
- At age 7 Suzi was obviously from an upper class family, it was clear from the way she held herself, they way she spoke of her future and her physical appearance
- She wanted 2 kids with a nanny to take care of them
- She went to boarding school at 8 years of age which includes women's finishing school
- She spent her summers at her father's estate in Scotland
- At 16 she left school and moved to Paris, she just wasn't "interested" in school
- At 21 she was against marriage
- She wanted to get on with her own life
- She had a much more rebellious and feministic body language as she chain smoked, spoke of marriage and thought she knew everything but still had no real aspirations in life
- By 22 she was married, she said she just hadn't met the right man yet and didn't know what she wanted out of life yet at 21
- She married down but was still within a comfortable upper class standing
- At 28 she didn't see herself as moving up any further
- Hated boarding school because she was too young at 8 to leave her family, but has decided to send her children at 13 years old because it is a little older, and it is what she knows and so will send her children through the system she understands best
"The double rebellion"
- Rich upper class women go to university, generally have Marxist professors. The women rebel against their sexist, wealthy, elite upbringing. Then they graduate and marry someone of their own class anyways.
Suzi seems to follow this path. She rebels at some point but still ends up in the same comfortable status she was raised in and continues to keep her children in the same one as well. It comes down to inheritance and marriage. I think there is a trend in this behaviour because the women, and men, know that there will always be that safety net there for if they ever decide to return to the easy, wealthy life that is handed to them.
28 UP Part 2
I have to start with the 28 UP part 2 because I missed the first viewing because of illness. Class was a little confusing when I walked in and people were making predictions on what would happen with Paul, Suzi and Nick. WHO?
What I got out of Paul was:
- He had no idea what a university was when he was 7 "What's university?"
- He had said he was quite lazy in school, and didn't have the "discipline" like the elite
- He had been discouraged from his occupational dreams of teaching because of his grades
- At 7 years old he could be seen building houses on the playground
- He had not been close to his family as his parents were divorced
- At age 8 he had immigrated from England to Australia
- He became a brick layer
- He married and traveled 15 000 km through Australia for 7 months
- He was from a working class in England and moved to a contest mobility country where he became upper middle class with his taking on of a trade
- He began to work independently
- He took on the view that "I don't sit on my bum all day, I chase it."
- He sees himself as just average, which shows a lack of self-confidence
- He shows aspiration for his kids
It's interesting that this man went through some very big life changing situations. I think as a child he was strongly influenced by his family social status as well as the detachment from family during the move to Australia. Because of his marks and his economic status in England he was not encouraged to pursue post secondary education, even at a very young age. His lack of confidence could be related to a lack of relationships and the types of encouragements he received growing up.
If he had stayed in England and still became a brick layer, he would have taken on the role and accepted as his place. Probably never aspiring for much more. However, because he was in a different context he was able to get some on hand training and make his way up fairly quickly and eventually work for himself, giving his children a good economic basis to live with.
What I got out of Paul was:
- He had no idea what a university was when he was 7 "What's university?"
- He had said he was quite lazy in school, and didn't have the "discipline" like the elite
- He had been discouraged from his occupational dreams of teaching because of his grades
- At 7 years old he could be seen building houses on the playground
- He had not been close to his family as his parents were divorced
- At age 8 he had immigrated from England to Australia
- He became a brick layer
- He married and traveled 15 000 km through Australia for 7 months
- He was from a working class in England and moved to a contest mobility country where he became upper middle class with his taking on of a trade
- He began to work independently
- He took on the view that "I don't sit on my bum all day, I chase it."
- He sees himself as just average, which shows a lack of self-confidence
- He shows aspiration for his kids
It's interesting that this man went through some very big life changing situations. I think as a child he was strongly influenced by his family social status as well as the detachment from family during the move to Australia. Because of his marks and his economic status in England he was not encouraged to pursue post secondary education, even at a very young age. His lack of confidence could be related to a lack of relationships and the types of encouragements he received growing up.
If he had stayed in England and still became a brick layer, he would have taken on the role and accepted as his place. Probably never aspiring for much more. However, because he was in a different context he was able to get some on hand training and make his way up fairly quickly and eventually work for himself, giving his children a good economic basis to live with.
Thoughts on Sponsored Mobility
England.
Sponsored mobility.
Status is given to you.
Early selection.
Only 1 elite.
Oxford tie.
Sounds just lovely, if you're in the right crowd. I already stated that I come from an upper middle class family, but I know it was worked for. It even sounds a little bit like the survival of the fittest. And yet not. If "fittest" is defined as wealth, then yes. If it is defined as hard working, then not necessarily.
I was raised in a meritocratic society. Work for what you believe in, work hard to be successful. And so I have. It bothers me when I know people cheat, lie or are just handed success. What did they do to deserve it? Is it jealousy or my value of work ethic?
Is it fair to give credentials to people based on their family name and wealth? And recruit the best of the best from the lower classes just to make the upper class stronger and more successful? The 11+ Club exam for example. Its a recruiting mechanism for brilliant children that would make it in Oxford crowd ONLY because they are smart. All because of a tie they wear and can sprinkle some Latin into their conversations, they will be a success.
I guess what I am saying is, I'm just not a fan.
It creates a monopoly of credentials.
ADDITION:
I also wanted to add that had my family been in a sponsored mobility situation, I may just be a housewife right now instead of a nearly successful post secondary graduate. My family may still be struggling at farming, working on the railroad, etc.
I know the view is different. People see themselves as and defined as a "brick layer". "My grandfather was an X, my father was an X, I am an X. I accept it and am proud of it." You know your place in society and are comfortable with it. Maybe I am just too eager and motivated to be restricted in that manner.
Sponsored mobility.
Status is given to you.
Early selection.
Only 1 elite.
Oxford tie.
Sounds just lovely, if you're in the right crowd. I already stated that I come from an upper middle class family, but I know it was worked for. It even sounds a little bit like the survival of the fittest. And yet not. If "fittest" is defined as wealth, then yes. If it is defined as hard working, then not necessarily.
I was raised in a meritocratic society. Work for what you believe in, work hard to be successful. And so I have. It bothers me when I know people cheat, lie or are just handed success. What did they do to deserve it? Is it jealousy or my value of work ethic?
Is it fair to give credentials to people based on their family name and wealth? And recruit the best of the best from the lower classes just to make the upper class stronger and more successful? The 11+ Club exam for example. Its a recruiting mechanism for brilliant children that would make it in Oxford crowd ONLY because they are smart. All because of a tie they wear and can sprinkle some Latin into their conversations, they will be a success.
I guess what I am saying is, I'm just not a fan.
It creates a monopoly of credentials.
ADDITION:
I also wanted to add that had my family been in a sponsored mobility situation, I may just be a housewife right now instead of a nearly successful post secondary graduate. My family may still be struggling at farming, working on the railroad, etc.
I know the view is different. People see themselves as and defined as a "brick layer". "My grandfather was an X, my father was an X, I am an X. I accept it and am proud of it." You know your place in society and are comfortable with it. Maybe I am just too eager and motivated to be restricted in that manner.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
