Homework

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Social Mobility and ME

So there are two kinds of social mobility.

1. Intergenerational

2. Intragenerational

I got to thinking about my own position. In the past my families were humble farmers. My great grandfathers worked the land as well as additional work to support the family. As far as I know my one great grandfather worked on Canadian Rails and was involved in the Great War. My grandfathers were both farmers. The one had training in air mechanics for the Second World War while the other enrolled in the army. After the war they both returned to farming. One also worked odd jobs and drove the school bus.

My parents made the traditional nuclear family picture. My mom started out going through hair school, met a nice Christian man with a stable job. Dad had been working as a gas plant operator for a number of years before they met. They built their brick house on a hill and started their family of three. Kids were involved in sports, dance and music in their small farm community. Grandparents lived no more than an hour away and eventually got closer and closer. Mom went back to work just to keep herself busy once the kids were old enough to be left alone at home after school.

Then there was me. I am the youngest of us three. My oldest brother has had experience in several vocational domains but nothing overly steady. The middle child is a successful welder who will potentially be able to retire by the time he is 40. And I went on to post secondary education. A 5 year combined degree for French education.

I think there has been an intergenerational mobility. My grandparents and great grandparents would have been lower working class. They had to work extremely hard to make ends meet. They had strong community ties to ensure survival among neighbors. My mom married a stable successful middle class man that made a spot for himself on moving up the ladder. At present I believe he is the highest paid operator at the company because he has the highest superiority, time-wise. My dad worked his way up by staying with what he knew was going to support his family in a middle class situation. I would even venture to say he is upper middle class. He was able to keep farming just as a hobby and still allow his kids to follow their own dreams and support them as they needed it.

As for myself, I am lower class right now because I live below the poverty line. I live off of scholarships, a few months work in the summer and credit. However, once I am graduated and sign a contract I will become middle class. If I start at $57-59 000/year I would say I will be doing pretty good. I don't think I will climb any higher than where my parents are presently though. Perhaps my children will? Maybe its a trend of every other generation? We will see.

Norms

Norms are those unwritten rules that generally get followed depending on the culture. They are behaviours or ways we operate not because we HAVE to but just do it anyways.

For example, H1N1 lines. People stay in the lines in Canada. They might not somewhere else. There is no law saying you have to. We could push all we want. HOWEVER, there are cultural sanctions that take place such as getting disgruntled looks or in the case of the Flames jumping the lines, people get fired and the situation was strongly frowned upon by the media and general public.

I notice that in this sociological perspective course we take a step out of our little cultural bubbles and try to be unbiased about what we see. It almost appears that when we do that however, we tend to look at our own practices from a negative perspective and call it critical thinking. We step back and ask "Why do we do that? Who said we have to do that? Other cultures don't do that." It's almost a rebel stance. We become that teenage girl or boy saying "Well if that's what I am supposed to do, then why don't I do the opposite. There is no law, I can do whatever."

I think it is important to look at the positives and the negatives equally. Let's keep looking at the lines example.

What might be some negative perspectives on this practice? It might look silly, this long queue all the way down the street. It doesn't get you anywhere any faster. It might get you there even slower because some people break the norms and "budge". If supplies are limited why should you have to wait behind someone else if you might lose out.

What might be some positive perspectives on this practice? It reduces stress among crowds. At least in Canada, we seem to have these space bubbles where out of common courtesy you don't step over someone's personal boundaries. There is an element of politeness. Patience is seen as a virtue with our predominantly Christian backgrounds.

So I can see both sides of the story. But I think its better to create a calming environment. In this respect, I find our norms to be positive and useful in our culture and society.

Gender Equity

I came across the self-evaluation handout on Heightening Your Awareness on Gender Equity today.

At one time I thought that I tried to neutralize the way I treated my students, at least in regards to their learning, comfortability in the classroom and in the student-teacher relationship I shared with them. Turns out not so much. I didn't fail. But I wouldn't say it was an honorable pass either.

I answered 11/20 yeses. This means I got a 55% on Gender Equity in my classrooms.

I am fully aware that I use the words "hun" or "darling" specifically for girls and "bud" for boys. I also make comments towards socially acceptable self-expression and appearances. However, in my defense I haven't singled out or excluded students that show individuality through neutrality of gender or of cross gender appearances. I definitely give more attention to the boys because generally it is their behaviour and mannerisms are the ones that need to be in check more often. The novels I have used have been more likely to have male protagonists. I never considered the discussion of reversing the roles of males and females in the literature we read. I am more tolerant towards boys and roughness or foulness, than to girls.

Oops? As I have defended my actions before in that I agree with socialization to some degree, I don't feel that my giving compliments or "pet names" to boys or girls does not harm them. I think it builds a relationship and builds their self image in our culture. If I were in another country I would probably give complements that would be appropriate for that culture so that children feel accepted and comfortable in their environment as they have been raised. If a social construction crosses a moral boundary that is when I have an issue.

However, I did take the effort to eliminate stereotypes. I made an effort while creating a powerpoint for FSL 10 for a lesson on occupations. I had made the powerpoint with images, quite stereotypically. I noticed this as I looked back through it. So what did I do? I went back and "messed" up a bunch of them! I turned nurses to men, servers to men, etc.

ROME

Contest mobility

A system of movement in society based upon meritocracy.

It is a popular belief in the USA. You need both talent AND effort in order to merit the shift in status. It is an earned status. This means however that there is room for movability between classes if one is willing and capable to work for it. An example given is the story of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare shows to be lazy and thinks himself superior to the tortoise. The tortoise has a steady and positive work ethic. It is also a system that is open as long as possible.

However, you must have visible credentials in order to move up the ladder. There is also a known competing elite. That may be politicians, actors, and corporate leaders.

An interestingly, with the contest mobility concept in the USA at present is Obama becoming president. He shows that the American Dream carries some sense of truth to it. Through the murky reality of racism in North America, the vision of equality and working your way up is open to people of different races, color and status.

Even more interesting, there is a parallel that can be made with Rome. While Rome had some influential leaders and corrupt political schemes, there is the idea that the empire may have fallen had there not been some substantial changes in leadership. Rome was at its strongest point in history when a General was named Emperor. The Empire survived an additional 300 years. The USA is known for its global influence and control at the moment and a black man was just named president. How long will their reign survive?

Push for Literacy

The other day we were talking about how their is always a push for literacy and math skills. It is continually increased for children of younger and younger ages. Basically, if a child does not already know their alphabet by the time they come into gr.1 they are already behind.

There seems to be a global competition.

It is both at a political and a parental level.

Politically speaking, the curriculum changes every few years. It changes perspective depending on the group in power as well as by the complexity of the content. It is noticed that for example Chinese education has a much more difficult literacy program and so Canadians must be challenged just as much. It is noticed that French education systems increased their annual in school hours so Canadians should consider longer hours as well. Learning objectives and content delve deeper and deeper.

On the parental scope, parents are more and more concerned about what level their child is at. They realize that the neighbors kids can already use cursive writing, so their children need to step it up. Children are being put into more complex preschool programs to get them "ready" for gr.1.

Isn't it interesting thought that each child's brain develops at a different rate? That different areas mature differently by sex, genetics, and, for the sake of argument, puberty. It takes a child on average at least 18 months before they can begin to communicate using language and syntax. Some take longer, some less time. Depending on the hormones and genetic construction of a child will their pubescent changes begin to occur. Once they do, different abilities will become stronger. Girls and boys who hit puberty earlier on in life are more likely to increase their literacy skills at that time. Therefore those that hit puberty later on will have a much smaller area devoted to language in the brain. Those that hit it later, also are generally better with spatial skills. Generally it is the girls that mature earlier and the boys later. However, statistics show that that is not always the case and so there are hormonal and sex differences in learning capabilities.

There is a correlation between literacy and math skills and development or puberty.

Why when all the scientific research and evidence is there, is it not taken into account when setting up curriculum goals?

Neutralizing gender and Parents

How do you deal with parents disagreeing with neutralizing gender?

This is a question that came up in class after the Sex and Gender presentation. I think it is a good question and a difficult one to deal with. Coming from a small farming community, gender roles are quite well defined and it is easily noticed and talked about if someone is doing differently.

As teachers we are encouraged to step out of the bubble and look into the community we are working with in order to see things from a non biased perspective. It makes it much more easy for us to neutralize gender in our eyes. Individuality and choice are what we value. However, when dealing with pink vs. blue it is a controversial concept.

Parents raise their children as boys and girls, blue and pink. Perhaps it is because they are less likely to look at the imposed genders we have in our culture. They are following the norms as they see fit and acceptable. So when the teacher makes a comment about how Jocelyn likes to wear guy jeans and be called Joe, and that that is her personal decision and is not to be seen negatively, mom and dad may disagree.

I think in our white western Christian culture it is "natural" to identify things with male vs. female roles. It is tradition. It is "written". To neutralize these standards and values is threatening to Biblical account.

So how do we deal with confrontation from parents?

It is important to always remember who we have behind us. Administration is there for back up. However, it doesn't hurt to sit down and get on the same page with the parents. Be sure to stress that in no way do you wish to offend their beliefs.

Gender vs. Sex

During one of the presentations we've had in class, the following discussion question was given:

If you woke up tomorrow and were the opposite sex how would your life be different?

I said:

1. I would be more inclined to work in the oil patch than to be at university in order to make fast money.

2. I would be better at sports.

Some other really good comments were made.

Some of the people in class are married and they said that they would have less stress when thinking about the possibility of starting a family. At the moment their career would be put on hold and they would expect to stay home and raise the children. Whereas if they were the man, their life would not be much altered because they would just continue their day job to support the family financially.

The guys said they would probably still be teachers. However, the one comment was made that they would fit into the program better because as it stands there are only about 4 men in the class. As men they are a minority group in the education program.

How do these roles affect us?

Shift to Man Power Model

The provinces of Canada are the who set up curriculum. Basically education is decentralized. However, the education systems are not so different across the country probably because there is an international standard that is expected to be met.

The Man Power Model is a shift away from student centered education to national standards. Which is said to shift throughout the industrial world. While the content decisions are made by the province, the federal influence is significant. Originally curriculum was set by a group of teachers. It has since transgressed into the hands or rather influenced by "members of community" aka MP's and their friends.

The functionalist view on this is that of orderly progression and management of conflict.

The conflict theorist view on it is that those who want their influence in curriculum must be powerful enough politically to have what they wish in the curriculum. For example, an MP may wish to have more emphasis on the importance of vocational education put into curriculum and would likely get what he/she wanted. Whereas an artist or a professor may wish to see more emphasis put on the arts or foreign language classes and would not see it done.

The model is a practice of teaching what they need in this precise moment, for example, pipe welders. It is cheaper for the employer to have under-skilled workers doing a single job rather than the highly educated and experienced workers.

Conflict theorists call it "de-skill" and see it as a threat to education.

Functionalists say it makes sense because employers need someone doing a specific job at a specific time in order to keep the flow of production going.

How does it make better workers? Teachers?

Well, it doesn't. If there is not a demand for more artists, then grants and funding in that area goes down. If the research shows a need for a specific skill at a specific time in order for money to be made, then the budget is likely to be approved.

A new concept is "Teacher proofing". Sort of sounds like child proofing a medicine bottle, also called dummy proof. Not an overly flattering term is it? It allows for tests to be narrowed in content, lays out the content of the questions for the teachers. Originally it was thought that a lot of complaints would come of it, but there were none. It simplifies the teacher's job. It also centralizes the content and what is tested. The idea of it is that teachers can't screw up because of the restriction given. Teachers are no longer independent professionals.

Gamer

Going to the movies anytime soon?

Do you ever think about what you are watching? Why you are watching it? What makes it entertainment? Where are the lines between entertainment and what is not?

There are social and cultural constraints on what "society" views as acceptable for entertainment.

Who creates these boundaries? By whose authority do these boundaries persist?

What is acceptable in one community or culture is different from another. For example, what is viewed on TV in your neighbor's place may be more gruesome or sexually orientated than what you may view at home. Likewise, what Canadians view on TV may be very different or even seen as wrong in the eyes of someone from Iran.

I went to the movies the other night thinking I was going for entertainment. Instead, I came out with my head exploding from sociological questions.

Gamer. On the one hand, it was seemly entertaining. On the other, what message about desensitization is it sending about our own society and the direction its headed in? Going into the film I remember thinking this would be a good discussion topic for graphic media. I thought it would be a good way to portray how "loose" media has become. Some have said that it won't be long before we are back to gladiator days watching real people fight and die. As I watched I felt my body and mind sway with the entertaining effects. I caught myself thinking "Whoa! Crazy! That was awesome!" Then thinking "No, if that was real as the film is portraying it to be, then it is demented and gruesome. Why is this okay to be viewing? What is it teaching our youth?"

It fights fire with fire aka just as gory and desensitizing as any other action film.

Critical Thinkers - Shifty

On a side note in class critical thinking was brought up.

Is critical thinking in its pure unbiased form? Or is it taught in schools according to the political influence of the time?

In the last few years educators have had to push critical thinking. Textbooks have texts that support this idea in order to get students to solve problems on their own and to reflect on the circumstances presented by society. The first question is, why is teaching critical thinking important? Maybe it will create a "society" of highly innovative and independent thinkers that can sail through problems. Students may be better in mathematics, sciences and be able to be an asset to the job sector.

On the other hand, critical thinking according to who? Schools buy brand new textbooks to help teach the concept. Problems in society such as poverty, media influence, opposing political standpoints, etc. are presented in the textbooks. However, every ten years or so there's an updated textbook needing to be bought. Is it because the problems are outdated or because the points of view in power have changed?

It's something to think about. I'm thinking the latter just because as far as history goes, the general problems of society don't change very often. However, government control and influence changes like the wind.

October Isn't September

During one of our classes last week we were talking about Ethnographic Research. A few characteristics of this research method are that it stems from the anthropological discipline. It is a study of culture, and in some contexts looking at your own culture. Most of the research is simply observation. The researcher comes up with a picture and then records it, instead of writing a hypothesis beforehand. It is to be bias-free and contextual.

However, as we were examining the positives and negatives of this method I came across an idea that I found to be of interest.

The one advantage in particular that caught my attention was that you must look at the complete picture of the environment, the complete cycle of it. The example given was that in a classroom September is very different from October so you cannot observe one month and make assumptions about the other.

We are taught that September is the most important month of the school year. This is when the teacher establishes the tone. Rules and routines are set and practiced in order to create a sense of the environment that says manageable yet comfortable. Isn't it interesting that students going into their first professional semester are taught how crucial this is to their career as well as to their practicum coming up. In order to be successful you must create a positive environment. We read all about it but never get to see it in the making. Students are put into their placements late in the year and never get to properly observe how a teacher establishes such an environment. We learn very quickly that observation and experience are far more superior to our learning to be educators than the studies beforehand.

Wouldn't it make sense to send students out to observe the first part of the year at least just to observe before sending them out to experiment on their own on what doesn't work and what might work?

ULSU Fashion & Food Drive

I thought it very worth while to talk about the upcoming ULSU Fashion & Food Drive at the University of Lethbridge.

With a group of friends and a very innovative executive member of the EUS we are working towards putting together a scholarship for education students that show a strong interest in volunteering and being involved in the Education Faculty.

At the moment we are putting together the materials needed to get the show on the road.

Basically, once we've done our job of setting up, all the rest of the public need to do to help out and get involved is to donate and go shopping!

Collection runs from October 26 - November 6.

There will be 3 boxes around campus : beside the Security Services office on the 9th Floor, in the 1st Choice Savings Centre by the Fitness Center Stairs, 6th level Atrium of University Hall for clothing drop offs. There will also be drop off points at St. Mary’s School at 422-20th Street S. and Nicholas Sheran Community School at 380 Laval Blvd. W. Just bag up those old clothes that you don't wear anymore and we will do the rest! If you don't have clothing to donate but would still like to help, the Students Union (SU180) is taking food and cash donations.

On November 9th, 10th, 12th & 13th from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Students’ Union Ballroom on Level 3 of the SU building is where the sale will be found! Entry will cost $2 or one non-perishable food item. All clothing items that are received will be racked, sorted and marked $2-5.

The hope is to raise around $3000 for the scholarship and all other donations to the food bank will go directly to the ULSU Food Bank (into the hands and mouths of students).

It's a great opportunity to get involved with helping our student body community and to have a great time shopping!

WWW

On the World Wide Web there are also different search engines which I was not aware of until my professor let us in on a few best kept secrets this week.

Have a look at:

Google Scholar
- Lets you use resources that are actually scholarly and helps sift through the popular information such as wikipedia

Clusty.com
- Not necessarily scholarly but it is organized by relevance instead of popularity

Bing
- Much like google but gives you access to perhaps a different 15% of the web sources available

Grokker

KartOO
- These two are very neat because they offer different format styles, so if you are can organize thoughts better with graphic organizers you can switch to that format instead of lists of sites

Way Back Machine
- This is a new personal favorite! It allows you to look up stills/photographs of websites prior to their current updates

Surfing

Thanks to some special help from the U of L staff regarding online research tools I am just going to add a few types of databases that I found to be the most useful.

I specifically use ERIC, EBSCO, and PSYCH regularly.

The ones which were new to me and I think I will find very useful are Credo Reference and World Sciences.

I would like to use more Canadian resources but unfortunately, they are not as numerous.

Montessori

I have never heard of Montessori Methods until this past month. Apparently it is a form of education used quite a lot in Europe and has been in North America since 1912.

The method was designed by Maria Montessori, a doctor from Italy. Through a lot of research and observation Montessori wrote a book to explain her ideologies, philosophy and practices. Her popularity rose and fell during war times, but Europe was quite committed to the this particular style of teaching. North America rekindled its interest sometime in the 50's.

Montessori schools use methods that allow child autonomy in learning through personal goals and self guidance. Instead of children being passive learners in a teacher-centered environment, they are encouraged to be active participants. The environment is enriched by materials such as manipulatives, textured letters, geometric games and craft items for the child to develop their own understanding of the subjects presented to them through multiple-sensory methods. Children are encouraged to become independent learners while being interested in the topics chosen, for example choosing their own books to read or papers to write. Montessori also puts a lot of importance on community building and having the family involved in the child's education.

When I first encountered this idea I thought it sounded too much like a free-for-all, which is also what a lot of critics have thought too. I thought children would not be motivated to work. I had the opportunity to visit a grades 3, 4, 5 Montessori classroom last week and find myself being that much more intrigued by their methods. There are limits enforced by the teacher instead of the children being able to just go where ever and when ever they please. As I observed I saw that the teachers do have a very important role in the system, however this classroom was not a true Montessori classroom yet as the teachers were still learning themselves how to conduct it properly. They admitted that it was difficult to give autonomy. The classroom is set up in specific subject centers. For each class period the students, generally, would set goals for a subject they felt they needed to work a little extra on and then could go on to additional projects once they had fulfilled their goals. There was a variety of high quality, wooden manipulatives for the math center, globes and maps and books for the social studies center, experiment devices in the science center, and a large variety of reading in the language arts center. There was a small section for French as well. Students evaluated their progress regularly on their own and had reading conferences with their teacher. When I visited the teachers did a mini lesson on grammar which later would allow the students to apply the skills in their own writing. The teachers at this school felt that more teacher guidance was needed in this area as the children seemed weakest in their writing abilities. There was a large focus on child interest. For example students could choose a topic of their own interest to write on so long as it was somehow related to the unit theme. The children seemed quite motivated and disciplined despite the fact that they were not continuously being instructed by the teachers. Teachers are trained to guide child learning in a different fashion so that the children become their own problem solver.

I would like to observe a class like this again but preferably one that has been up and running for longer with more experienced teachers. I agree with the enriched environment and the use of multiple-sensory or multiple intelligence focused activities. I like the idea of children being their own problem solvers and successful.

Montessori, Maria, and June Goodrich. Maria Montessori with an introduction by June Goodrich. 1912. N.p.: Barnes & Nobles Publishing, 2003. 9-18. Web. Google Scholar. 14 Oct. 2009 .

Comments on Oct. 1 Class Perception and Reality

We looked at a few different Sociological Perspectives, one in particular was Phenomenology. In our lecture we learned that a guy by the name of Alfred Schutz mixed philosophy and sociology to get phenomenology. Basically the idea is, what you see is what you get or what you THINK is real is REAL to you in your mind's creation of the world. This idea can actually explain a lot of differences between societies separated by national boundaries for example the USA and Canada.

An image that was presented to the class shows two bubbles divided by a line, above the line is the public's perception/ outrage and below the line is the reality of the situation. If you think about the the concept of terrorism. Where has it inflated the most? Canadians and Americans have taken on very different perceptions of national security since 9/11. The general public in the US was put on a fear chart. People were kept informed as to what the degree of fear and national security was at by a scale yellow-red on TV. Canadians on the other hand let the incident phase out. It was scary and people were outraged in the beginning. I remember being in junior high, in a specific desk, in my math class, staring blankly at the radio that we all listened to in silence and disbelief. We have had a fairly safe and uneventful past 8 years where there has been no attacks on our country and so we have not had the public focus on their fear of terrorism in the same manner.

I am aware that I am generalizing by saying "Canadians" and "Americans", obviously not all people share the same views. But what I am getting at is how the USA has put a lot of focus and energy into national security which has escalated fear of terrorism well over what the actual likelihood or reality of a similar attack would be. Canada on the other hand, did not put the same kind of national focus on terrorism and so our perception of terrorism and escalation is much less in comparison with the USA.

Comments on Sept. 29 Class Surplus Value

Value
- Worth, nothing is worth anything until value is put into it.

For example: A rock has no value, unless it is turned into ore than the work/ labor/ effort that has been put into the production of the product creates value.

Surplus Value
- Difference between what a product costs to produce and what it sells for

For example: Profit, which could be explained in some terms as cost needed for machinery, the amount the owner takes home or how much the workers get "ripped off".

These are a couple of terms that have come up in the course in the past week. They are important to our "society" because we are a capitalist country that puts a lot of importance on capital gain. Capitalism is the main ideology of the dominant class in Canada and therefore is seen as essential and important.

The dominant ideology is transmitted through institutions such as schools. Schools are a place of instilling loyalty, compliance, respect, work ethic, perhaps docility and tolerance for tedium? Why? To help students function in "society". Or in other words, to prepare kids going out into a workforce where there job is going to be tedious and they will be expected to comply to their employers desires. It is for the good of "society" and to maintain the needs of the means of production.

This view so far seems to be quite functionalist. It explains how capitalism "works" in our "society".

My question is, how early do children learn these values? I am beginning to think almost too soon. A couple of weeks ago I was at work, which is an after school program for primary schoolers, we had an incident with "value".

Were you aware that hazel nuts can have a value near to diamonds on the playground?

I noticed that a group of children were all gathered in a general area of the trees. When I went to investigate I found a child quite high in a tree retrieving nuts for the people on the ground. His plan was to get enough so that each child got one. Of course once he got back to the ground there was a surplus of nuts. That seemed all fine, until the children relocated and realized this. There was grabbing, raising of voices, complaints and stealing. All of a sudden when there was a surplus value, the demand rose above product availability. There were small groups supporting that everyone should get an equal share, then there were groups saying "we harvested the nuts we should get them", and finally, the oldest children of the group said "we are the oldest we deserve more than you little guys". The oldest children ended up stealing the majority and running off with them to hide them in what we will call the "bank". Once this area was discovered the oldest students relocated their lot to an area that was beyond anyone's reach, through a chain link fence which was out of bounds. They assumed that because they were of highest status that they could hoard the nuts and could also access them while no one else could.

By this time myself and the other staff had intervened and reinforced the boundaries of their play area and that no one was to touch the nuts any longer because they only caused chaos and "public unrest".

But isn't it interesting how the children have this concept of capitalism understood by the time they reach first grade? Even at this age there were minority groups which wanted what would be best for the group as a whole, yet the children with the highest status were the dominant group and were smallest in numbers.

Canadian History

Isn't it interesting how there are so many histories available about Canada, and yet there are so many discrepancies among them. It all depends on whose point a view the story is coming from. Perspective seems to take a major role in history.

Look at Nazi Germany for example. Their history books stated that they were working for the good of the father land, and they believed it full heartedly. On the contrary, the Allies' history books would tell you that the Nazi regime is guilty of genocide, and they are believed full heartedly. Yet, these are as different as black and white it seems. In the end, the triumphant group wins out history. Why is it that there is no worldwide, common history? Is it just the way things are? Is it because there are still too many power struggles not just between nations but also within social stratification that need to be changed?

When does history begin?

History, according to who?

Oh Canada. When does Canada's history begin? Is it when the French and English began colonizing her? Or is it when the Vikings first landed? Or is it when the First Nations People potentially crossed the Bering Strait? Which story is told most frequently and has the most focus in classrooms? Personally, I would say the group the has political majority has influenced Canada's history the most. So in other words, the English and French have written Canada's history from their point of view as a victory over savage and resourceful lands. It seems only as of late that the other histories - which are as true as the next - have begun surfacing more and more. As the minorities are beginning to have light shone on their rights, needs and beliefs so is the light beginning to shine on their side of the story.

Are you aware of the following terms that I have pulled from chapter one in "Sociology of Education":

First Nations
Residential schools
Cultural genocide
Christianity

We are looking at a people, a place, an event and an idea. What's the problem? These are the words which form one portion of Canada's history. The First Nations people were an oral culture close with nature and survival, but deemed savage by newcomers from Europe. The political majority established residential schools in order to educate these wild and uncivilized people. While trying to enforce their Christian values, they stole the purpose and pride of a people's culture, cultural genocide.

It doesn't paint a pretty picture does it?

I always wonder, why are those struggling for the highest degree of power so threatened by culture?
I am hoping that this world is slowly realizing that different is beautiful.

I think what has bothered me the most about the readings between pages 9 and 20 is the following statement:
the last residential school was closed as recently as 1984.

That is not very long ago. We consider ourselves modern, civilized, multicultural, tolerant, having rights and morals, etc. That date which is not so long ago, however, does not portray this image at all. We have left a people, the original people of this land, to be oppressed, suppressed and forgotten politically, economically and educationally. Maybe our European influenced system is not the best way of learning in school and we could learn a thing or two from their oral culture. Just because the European influence is the "winner", does not make it right.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for our education system to start looking back on the methods used prior to our own. Think of it like going back to antiquity, finding the forgotten curriculum. Survival. Kinship and Community. Nature. Mastery of talents. Strength in body, mind and soul.

Centralized vs. Decentralized

It seems just like Canada to be somewhere in the middle being its own little unique entity in the world that few know about.

Continuing in Chapter one, I read that Canada is decentralized at the national level but centralized at the provincial level. I was aware of this before reading it. It is interesting to compare Canada's system with others around the world. For instance, how France is completely centralized. It has been a long standing tradition and highly supported within their own country. Personally, I support our system because while it makes sense to centralize some aspects, for example overall themes or general outcomes. It makes sense to remain decentralized provincially because it is important to include local texts, history, information, etc. It makes learning relevant to each region. However, when looking internationally it is not quite so simple. Expectations and methodology are not universal.

As stated in the text, success is not necessarily achieved due to the content or how the system is set up, but rather how things are done in each classroom. Teachers are well aware that the methods of instruction they use and the performance tasks that students complete are much more closely tied to achievement. Whether that be strictly rote learning geared towards test results or be it using multiple intelligences strategies for students to complete chosen tasks.

Since reading the expected texts, I am beginning to question more the governance of our education systems. I came across the line that reads "who organizes the system, who controls it, and how is it controlled". I really do not know. It is true that often you just hear "they". Well, who is they? I generally resort to saying the government. But who in the government? And why do those people within the government or other "they's" get to choose? Am I even right in saying the government?

From a few conversations that I have been a part of or over heard in my education career, I often hear that depending on the economy and what jobs are in demand that determines largely which subjects students are pushed towards in high school and into university. The rumours float and that is where the general public heads for job opportunities. But who is it that generates the going word, or why is it exactly that those jobs are so much more important at certain times and others not at all?

Technician vs. Autonomous professional

In class the idea of technician vs. autonomous professional came up. Basically, it means being trained and reactive vs. a reflective practitioner that is proactive. I started to question, where do I fit in? I often say that I am educated. I have a high school diploma and will be graduating with a BA/BEd. in less than one year. Don't I sound so smart!

But then I get to thinking about what kind of training I have had. Well, I have done two professional practicums in education. From which have I learned the most? In all honesty, I would say the practical experiences have left the biggest influence on my knowledge as a teacher. Most of the "education" I have had has been unbelievable amounts of information and facts. Facts and information that I should now be able to use to think on my own and be proactive. Well that all sounds good to me, but I don't see it as reality. At least not MY reality.

A term that came up in class was "trained incapacity" meaning training that has been pushed too far. The example given in class was building a bridge. The construction crew would simply build the bridge to be a perfectly strong structure the way they have been trained to do, but none would ask the bigger question "SHOULD we build a bridge here?" But is there such a thing as educated incapacity? At times I honestly would believe myself to fall under this idea. Something my father always says is don't become educated beyond your means. What he means by this is that there are people in our society that have been educated for so many years that they only know facts and information, they cannot deal with practical everyday issues or have any trade skills. The degree to which my education has taken me is what I like to call information overload. There is so much theology, ideology, research, terminology, etc. that I have studied and gotten the general idea about but never mastered, that I find myself being left with nothing to prove myself as an autonomous professional. The moment that the test has been written or the paper marked I move onto the next course and forget the previous material. If I were truly a reflective practitioner would I not be a better critical thinker?

(It is interesting how this concept branches off nicely from my previous post.)

As a student we are expected to think critically now because we are at a higher level of education. Once I am a teacher I will most certainly be expected to think critically, analyze and evaluate mine and others' work. According to some, I have been educated to do this. Then why is it that so often I feel that I am not capable of doing this? Does that make me a failure? Was I trained too much as a child through rote learning, or did I somehow miss a step in the education system called critical thinking and reflection 101.

I am finding a pattern in my own writing. I am seeing a sense of self blame, which falls under the myth of student responsibility in their achievement. Perhaps it is not all my fault, but that something in the performance tasks of self reflection, criticism and evaluation needs to be changed in curriculum. I am also seeing that I, as a student, feel the need for more training in some areas than the amount of education I have been given. It is interesting to me to think about the necessity for both training and education, but then where are they best suited and in what quantity.

Chapter One of "Sociology of Education" by Barakett and Cleghorn

Naturally, the first chapter is a run through of the basics of sociology and eventually sociology of education. There is a lot of jargon that is introduced. As a reader myself, I appreciate the review of terms, however it is quite like reading through the dictionary. Thankfully, as the reader, you also come to realize that the sociology of education deals with people, which I briefly stated in my personal portrait as something I am interested in. Looking at the sociological perspective of schools and their purpose in society is the hook in this chosen text. The focus, depending on the method, generally has to do with the tendencies and relationships between school administration, family, government as well as gender, ethnicity, and economic-status.

The topics that seemed to interest me the most in this chapter are the myths. For example:

1. If a student succeeds in school it is because of their own doing on tests that are "fair".
2. A student's success in school is not directly related to their home life.
3. Students learn to think critically at school.

These are ideas that I have been raised maybe even "socialized" to consider true. Now I question myself, do I believe these things to be truth because I have been told to or because through deductive reasoning I have come to these conclusions on my own. In all honesty, there may have been a time when I believe these ideas to be true but over the years of university I have been led to think otherwise.

Looking at the first myth, I still strongly believe that a large portion of a student's achievement rests on their own shoulders, however, it is also the responsibility of the teacher to ensure the use of the right methods of teaching so that the student can succeed. I would also go to say that a child's success rests in the hands of the education system as a whole, the child's network of family and friends, and finally the government. Looking at the big picture, I would say each individual child's success in school and in life rests on the community. A community is not limited to the immediate surrounding either. It may branch out nationally, or even internationally.

My previous explanation obviously feeds into the second myth. The environment that a child lives in is reflected in their achievement. Not one part of the environment solely affects their abilities in school, but all of them. Their influences are ever changing, day to day. For example, if a child's single mom couldn't pay the bills on time, that month the student may be more concerned about making some side cash to help out economically instead of on doing their math homework. Or, suppose a student has a basketball tournament and an English essay due the same week, one activity may have precedence over the other.



Finally the third myth feeds nicely into the following question I came across in Chapter One:

"What kind of education would teachers need to have in order to integrate critical thinking into the curriculum?"

First of all, I do not agree that schools teach critical thinking. In my personal experience, I did extremely well through school because I could regurgitate information from my teachers and tell them what they wanted to hear. Once I got to higher levels of education and had to begin formulating my own opinion and writing it in great lengths, I felt like too much pressure was being put on me. Who was I as a person in society to give their opinion? I was just a pon, not one to criticize or take the lead on any theologies. In all honesty, it was frightening.

So now to answer the question, according to my own perspective, integrating critical thinking into the curriculum is something that certainly would not come over night. Traditionally, education methods tend to use a lot of rote learning. There has been a swing towards hands on education and self expression, but again it has been a slow process and not universally used. It is hard to integrate into classrooms especially if teachers themselves have not had the training. I think it would have to start with the source, meaning teachers would need further training in philosophy and sociology. They themselves would need to feel more confident in putting themselves and their ideas out there in order to model for and teach students to follow in their own ways. But, on the other hand, some would see the expansion of self expression and critical thinking as more work for the teachers. How could they assess ideologies "fairly". However, once teachers have the training then curriculum goals and outcomes would have to be altered somewhat. Teaching students how to learn, how to express, how to take a stance, how to criticize and support would have to be integrated much earlier in the education system. Yet, how plausible is that if scientifically children are said to not have the capabilities to think that abstractly until later on. Activities and performance tasks would have to be extremely well thought out to ensure that students are using their own minds and finding strategic ways of supporting their thoughts and criticisms. Debates and looking at discussion topics from more philosophical and/or sociologically points of view would help in increasing student abilities in critical thinking.

It is hard for me to answer this question on my own partially because I am coming from a background where I did not learn to think critically until later on in life. I speaking from a point of view where even today it is hard for me to use critical thinking and abstract thought. Reading texts can often be the hardest task I have in a day because it is so full of theology and terminology beyond my training or ability. It is a often a whole other language that I have not learned, perhaps critical thinking is a language that needs to be taught in schools when students are still building their repertoire of language and creating representations of this world.

A New Self Portrait

In my first post I would just like to introduce myself a little so that you, the reader, can get a better feel for who I am.

First off, this is my second blog ever! The first one I did was for another Education course dealing with technology and Internet in the classroom. I actually found it quite helpful. I love to write and while I 'had' to blog as an evaluation tool, I found it rewarding. It really gives me a chance to explore my profession as well as my personal growth in this profession I have chosen; Education.

Anyways, because I feel that the previous blog I did did not hinder me in anyway, I have chosen to do a second blog for a Sociological Perspective Education course. I am very excited about this course! In my first years of university (this being my fifth and final year) I thoroughly enjoyed my sociology and anthropology courses. It turns out, I love people! I love to learn about the what, where, when, why, how and how much about people from all over. It just so happens that I also have a passion for education, which deals with people! This blog will be focused on the sociological aspects, predominantly but not limited to, education in Alberta, Canada.

As I have already mentioned I am a fifth year education student in Alberta. It has been a long hard go, but at the same time I would not change anything about my student career. I have worked hard for my achievements. I am currently registered as a Pre B.A./B.Ed. student with a major in French and a minor in English. This program has been exactly what I hoped it would be. I have enjoyed three and half years of fabulous arts and science courses offered by a range of faculties. I have also spent a semester abroad, living in Avignon, France, in order to increase my French proficiency. Coming from an extremely small farming community in central Alberta the move to Lethbridge and then to the south of France were life changing experiences for me. Small town girl gone city. No, that is not entirely true either. I will always be country at heart, but I do have an addiction for travel which will come out in my writing, experiences and teaching philosophy. I have also had the opportunity to complete my first two professional semesters teaching, first, grades 5/6 and then grades 9 through 12 FSL. In all honesty, the first placement was a challenge and nearly had me change my life plans. But, me being who I am and having such an amazing network of supportive family and friends I stuck with it. I am more than glad that I did because my second placement was a dream! It fully reminded me why I want to be a teacher and reminded me of the passion inside of me!

So now I am ready for my final semester of courses before finishing up the spring with my final placement! I hope this first post has given you a small insight into who I am before I begin getting into deeper conversation about the sociological studies and trends of education.