Carrie's TEBlog » Personal Comments

Response to Rob

carmil — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:00:19 +0000

Rob brings up some interesting things in his response to the Labaree article. He notices why a goal of education would be Democratic Equality. All schools are different and get different benefits. Along with that not every teacher is the same. This is why I had said to some extent education should be unified. I think if there was a more unified guideline for education, people would have more equal opportunities and all of problems may be fixed. Basically if everyone knows what is expected and has a set idea of what education is, then it would be easier to fulfill the requirements. I know this seems very idealistic, but I think it could really help. I liked what Rob said about Social Efficacy. No one truly can say when he or she is in middle school or even in high school what he or she wants to be. How can they know if they have not experienced different things? I think that is part of what education does. It shows students all the different possibilities that they have. Students need to be encouraged to explore, not to be narrow-minded. Why would a goal of education be to keep society the way it is, when I thought a goal of education was to encourage social change? It seems contradictory to me.

Response to Amy

carmil — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:50:40 +0000

I agree with Amy that critical pedagogy and thinking are quite similar. I do believe that one cannot exist without the other. I think that a lot of critical pedagogy depends on the basis of critical thinking. Critical pedagogy is about taking critical thinking’s drive to find evidence and reasoning to explain the world and transforming it into action to change it. In general, I feel theories and philosophies all to some degree play of each other. Newer ones are fine tunings of older ones, while opposing philosophies define much of their beliefs on the opposite of the other. In general to have a true theory or philosophy, one must understand how the others work as well. Without knowledge of other existing ideas, there is no true basis for a belief. Critical thinking and pedagogy are describing the same main facts about the world; therefore, they are quite similar. If you got rid of one of the ideas it would simply fall into the other or be exposed over time. Philosophies grow from each other; it just takes someone to define a new one. People who are thinking about the world as described by both critical thinking and pedagogy, know both ideas and need both to support their own thoughts.

Response to Christopher

carmil — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:20:47 +0000

Christopher had a great response to the Ornstein article; however, I have a slightly different opinion then he does on one of the topics. I do not believe there is one correct answer to every question. It is to cut and dry for me. I think that is why the world is constantly changing and why new research is discovered everyday. There are a billion different ways to look at a problem and to say that they all lead to one correct answer is hard for me to believe. I think every question has answers, but the answer depends on so many factors. I mean in math the empty set is both open and closed. Now these things are suppose to be cut and dry one way or the other, yet a set has both properties. I think it is too much of a simplification to say there is one correct answer to every question. The world is so complex, how can we expect there to be only one answer to all its problems. I do understand where Christopher is coming from with his idea. It makes sense for simple problems like he states, but it does not work for more theoretical problems or world wide problems. I think as teachers we should show students that there are some questions in this world that have different answers and the choice is up to them to decide what they think applies more for them. Yet, if we say everything in life has one answer, they will surely think we are crazy. I do think Christopher had some great points though.

Response to RJ

carmil — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 02:43:33 +0000

RJ I think brings up a great point in his response to McNeil. She writes all negative points about teaching. Yes her points are valid, as RJ points out, yet I think her story is very one sided as well. The issue here is you can always take research and make it look the way you want it to look. Honestly, yes teachers are struggling to teach mixed classrooms, but many have some good skills that are beginning to work better and better. When you read articles like this I think it is important to remember there is always another side. We read these kinds of articles to gain both points of view because in the end we choose what works for us. If this article makes you angry then that will affect how you think about teaching in some form as well as if you liked the article. Also perhaps, this is an example of where we already know what we think about teaching and that is what we think to be right. This article is a challenge of the educational system, and no one likes challenges. I think that reading this article would be better if it was accompanied by an article on the other side.

Response to Lisa

carmil — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:36:44 +0000

I totally agree with Lisa that TV can be a useful tool. It is obviously a great tool for exposing children to English and all its forms. Along with that it is one of the main tools for exposing the culture of America. Whether or not people think this is good, I think it is important. How can you expect to get through life ignoring everything around you? TV is a perfect tool to learn quickly what is going on in the nation and perhaps the world. However TV must be considered as reliable as hearsay from a stranger. It is still helpful to be exposed to other people’s opinions because it helps people grow and learn to develop their own opinions. Children are not just learning facts all the time, they are also learning how to get by in the world and who they want to become. TV helps expose children to the different scenarios of the nation and different people. If a child is exposed to TV and also taught what is real and what is not, then they can begin to shape themselves. As long as TV is not the only exposure children have to culture, then I think it will help them in the long run.

Response to Debbie

carmil — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:02:14 +0000

I think Debbie has a great point when she is talking about holding students accountable. Even though many of the steps of being a good teacher seem tedious, they really help with overall learning and classroom management. Students need to learn how to be organized and do things on their own. They will never learn organization if a teacher does not break things down for them and organize the class. Students may think teachers are crazy writing everything out or doing more then what seems necessary; however, in the long run it will help students stay focused and on track. They are not mature enough yet to get things done on their own, so they need teachers to break it down to help them see how to do it on their own. Also to prevent a million questions it is important to convey exactly what you want. Students will feel much better about you as a teacher, I think, if you can convey exactly what you are looking for from them. I remember the main complaint about high school teachers was they were not good at explaining assignments. All it did was cause unneeded stress and resentment. Students can not learn if they do not know what is expected.

Response to Jessica

carmil — Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:32:23 +0000

I can see where Jessica is coming from in her response to Brophy, yet I think he is making a valid point. He is not saying to use name calling, I do not think, it is more of showing the brutal truth of the matter. Apathetic students need a major wake up call from reality, and I believe Brophy is saying to give them a real life scenario. He wants teachers to express to these students that schooling is for more than just the basics. It is what shapes them as a person in society. He wants teachers to show students they have more potential if they can use school as an opportunity to grow as a person. I am not sure he means to have teachers call people without education bad, but he wants to have them express that they are not living to their full potential. To be honest I think he is trying to stress that the only way to reach apathetic students is through harsh reality. Otherwise the students will not get the importance. These are the students who need a kick in the butt so to speak. They need real life examples to see that school is something they need in real life.

Response to Grewer

carmil — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:53:22 +0000

In response to Grewer’s response on the Brophy article, I agree with him about treating a student’s fears seriously. I found it interesting that he realized this is the real world so there is such thing as failure. The issue sometimes I think is teachers try to set up their students in a perfect environment. They want it to be inviting and fun. This however is not always the best way to teach, as we learned in class. Our role as teachers is not only to teach subject matter, but also teach students how to make it in the real world. If we tell students they will not fail if they try hard, then we are setting them up for an extreme let down. As teachers we must present them with failure in a way they can handle. Brophy says failure is important to in the right way. By showing students they can overcome failure, they gain motivation to try more challenging things they could fail doing. I also liked that Grewer pointed out the idea of showing students they have a problem. I am not sure breaking them is the right approach. Showing them they are enabling themselves is important to changing their behavior. I think it can be done in ways that are more subtle, that once students catch onto they will feel even more at fault. Then showing them how to change and deal with this is our next task.

Response to Katie

carmil — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:48:55 +0000

In response to Katie’s response for the motivation article I totally agree with motivation being a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think she makes a really good point about measuring performance on current ability. True grades matter from the past, yet current ability is the most important. If a person can learn and improve their skills then they have accomplished the most important goal. The key is to teach them to be continuous learners and stay motivated. She brings up a good point though, that sometimes students are labeled off the bat as bad students. This I think is one of the worse things teachers can do. Even when I worked for a day care I saw this labeling going on. Everyone knew who the trouble makers were and who you would have to punish. Before they even stepped foot in the room they we already being put on the bad list. In America we have the saying “innocent until proven guilty”. Why does this not apply to a classroom? All labeling does is hurt a students chance of growing and improving. Our society loves to stereotype, but as teachers it is our job not to do so. Labeling only gives teachers an excuse as to why they are failing to help a student. Students need to be shown they can succeed. As teacher we need to look for ways to help them succeed and learn how to better themselves.

Response to RJ

carmil — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:58:02 +0000

I agree with RJ that the requirements will help improve education for students who would generally just take “cake” classes. However he makes a point by saying that the drop out rate would be increased. This could be a bad thing or a good thing. I think that it would weave out the slackers like RJ is saying, and leave us with people who are hard workers. This is good for the workforce because they will be way better workers. As someone looking to be a teacher, this worries me some. I think that we should not just focus on students who excel, but also try to help those who struggle. I think tougher requirements leave those students to just be more frustrated like RJ says. Then the issue is how to we make the students who struggle generally, motivated to face harsher requirements. I think that the government should invest not only in ways to help the best students, but also in ways to help those who struggle. I am not sure how they would go about doing this. Possibly if they increased funding for after school tutoring or something like that, students who struggle could receive help they need. I agree it is a good thing to increase the requirements, yet something needs to be done to help those who get left behind by it.