Technology and Education

     Honestly, after watching the film in today's class concerning the effects technology has on children who grow up with it, I am more convinced than before that technology should have a very minimal role in education.  I believe that it is sad that we should even consider a future in education where teaching becomes more of an attempt to perform for and play with our students than an attempt to get them to learn.  While play can be a powerful learning tool, the use of technology, in my opinion, often takes the creativity out of the activity.  This lack of active creative involvement often leaves children as somewhat passive learners, as they expect easy learning and instant gratification for their acheivements. 
    
     Recently, in Anthropology class, we discussed a recent article in the newspaper about a study done by the University of Victoria.  The university faculty tested 60 mostly white middle-class four year-olds and divided them randomly into three groups.  One group watched Spongebob Squarepants, another watched the more calmly paced and realistic show "Caillou", and the final group drew pictures rather than watch TV.  The children who watched Spongebob exhibited a lack of concentration and self-control in comparison to ther other groups after watching only nine minutes of the show.  I think that this study serves as a brilliant illustration of the detriment technology is to our society.  Quite honestly, several studies have show that television causes a shortening of attention spans in children.  Also, as the film showed rather well, technology provides such a temptation to multitask, a practice which causes these individuals to accomplish all the tasks they set out to do simultaneously in a far more ineffective manner.  At present, our school system is a last bastion against the mesmerizing power technology seems to hold over our youth; it is a place where focus, persistance and learning are still emphasized.  To further integrate technology into the way children learn, in my opinion, is to urge this lack of attention span and belief in multitasking into education.   Essentially, for children who are already exposed to an excess of technology and various forms of media, this practice would remove an important source of focus and normalcy from their lives. 
  
     The film also emphasized that with every major advance in technology, intellectual skills and cultural values have been lost.  With the advent of writing, humanity ceased to place the same value in memory, with technology, we are losing focus, attention and perseverance.  I think that although each new technological advancement does carry benefits, perhaps they are not beneficial enough to outweigh the losses that eventually accompany them.  Perhaps we also lose a bit of our humanity with each virtue or trait that we relinquish to machinery. 
    
     For my EDFX 203 class, I have the opportunity to oberve two grade nine English Advanced classes each Wednesday and Friday.  I have been circulating and reading over their shoulders as they work for the past two times I've visited the school, and I am somewhat dismayed by some of what I see.  As an English major, I value my language and the art of writing substantially.  However, as I circulate, it is quite rare to find a student who displays accurate spelling.  Among one group, I saw "musically" spelled as "muscly," "musicly" and "musicaly" but I did not see the correct spelling at all, which, quite frankly, I find troubling.  I also find that as a general rule, their writing is quite choppy and I have even once witnessed the use of common chat abbreviations in a formal analytical assignment.  I know that they are young, however, they are an advanced class.  I expect more from students who claim to read avidly and be interested in the topic. 
    
     I see the use of technology as negatively influencing the lives of students.  While there are ways in which technology clearly can benefit education, I simply do not believe it is worth the effects it has upon our future generations.

-Rachel

This is an image that came up when I googled mulititasking.... I felt it was effective

This one was simply funny....

Erik Erikson's stages

     In yesterday's class, we learned about Erik Erikson's stages of human development, and honestly, I found it very interesting.  As I was looking at the stages, I could't help but notice that the first stage is trust vs. Mistrust, an issue that one of my friends really struggles with.  However, the consecutive stages, up until stage 6, are all traits that he outwardly exhibits.  Essentially, this prompted me to wonder how my friend would fit into this theory.  So, I thought of a few possible ways by which this could work... 
   
     My first thought is that perhaps he progressed through these stages, then, due to his recent painful breakup with his girlfriend, may have really taken it to heart, and , in a sense, regressed to stage one while retaining the qualities of the later stages.
    
     I really don't know if this is possible within the context of Erikson's theory, but another theory I came up with is that he, due to his family  situation, may have learned to fake the stages above the one at which he naturally is.  He has actually told me at times that he actually has a lot of trouble socially, and feels like he does not fit in, yet he is quite brilliant at small talk and many people positively love him.  So I suppose that perhaps this ability to falsify what he does not feel could have resulted in him adopting these surface traits to appear healthy while retaining the corresponding insecurities.  However, once again, I am completely unsure if this is possible in the context of Erikson's theory....
    

     Anyhow... Personally, I can't really narrow down my own psychological state to one stage in particular.  To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure they entirely fit me as an individual. I am industrious and hard working, yet I have struggled a lot with insecurity over the years.  However, I feel like I am finally starting to know who I am, and therefore I guess I would be moving into the sixth stage, although I really do show aspects of all three.
   
     In short, I found Erikson's theories fairly accurate and thought provoking.  As a future secondary school teacher, I suppose my question is how do we as teachers help our students to discover who they are, if that is the stage of advancement they are going through at the time?

 Thanks for reading my blog.
-Rachel

My Bronfenbrenner Ecological Niche.

My name is Rachel Hanks. I am an 18 year old female of very mixed ancestry. I am a student, a student teacher and a loving daughter and sister.
Microsystem: I attend RDC. I started a practicum today where I observe two advanced grade 9 English classes. My family consists of my mother, my little brother, and my father. I interact frequently with my friends. I am a member of the Christian club here at the college.
I suppose you can see my mesosystem in various ways. I sometimes bring my friends to Impact, and my college life influences my family because of all the homework I get, and my family life influences my education because emotions definitely influence how well you retain information and focus.
Exosystem: the legal system, the course requirements put in place by the U of L, Henry's eavestroughing (my dad's workplace), Media, etc.
Macrosystem: Christianity!!! I am pro life, conservative and I believe strongly that education is essential (being the first in my family to actually go to college or university, I've definitely seen how hard it is to survive without one).
Chronosystem: I have a cell phone and an ipad. I live in a democratic society. I like watching movies. It's 2011....
Really, I suppose it's somewhat difficult to disagree with Bronfenbrenner's theories. From my point of view, this is simply putting fancy names to common sense categorization of one's social milieu. However, I cannot really object to any of his systems, and I do think that it is very important to note the interconnectedness of one's microsystems in the teaching profession. My mother often says that whenever teenagers act abnormally or angrily, there's always a deeper reason that the teenager might not even realize themselves. I somewhat see this as a way to perceive Bronfenbrenner's theories in the context of teaching. Whenever our students behave abnormally, there is a reason, and since we have a limited perception of the microsystems of our students, it is almost inevitable that we have to deal with a solid dose of pain passing through the mesosystem into our classroom. And thus, I feel the value in Bronfenbrenner's theory is simply that it functions as a reminder that we truly cannot see all the facets of our students life, therefore, we really should show them compassion within a professional context and be understanding as we deal with the symptoms of this deeper pain they may be experiencing elsewhere.

Vygotsky vs. Piaget

     Today we studied Vygovsky's theories of learning. Generally, I agree with him on many points. However, like with Piaget, I have definite problems with the notion that in the absence of language, no thinking takes place. I suppose I believe that our mind uses whatever medium we are most exposed to in our thoughts, thus for infants, they would think in pictures, for blind men, in sounds, whether these sounds are indeed languages or not. I am bilingual, and when I am sitting in a French class or having a conversation with someone, I think in French even though it is not the language with which I am most comfortable. In those situations, my brain is receiving input in French, therefore my mind compensates by switching the language in which the reasoning process takes place to better accommodate the input it receives. I imagine therefore that in the absence of language, the brain would merely choose whatever form of input it most receives and use it in much the same symbolic function of language for the thought process.

     However, I do agree with the rest of Vygotsky's theory. I feel that it is indeed vital in teaching to constantly assess the current, individual learning level of each student and find ways to challenge them and support them in their learning. I personally see Piaget's theory as limiting the success of students by categorizing them with age groups as opposed to simply cognitive development. I believe that this practices of putting stages and ages together leads teachers to sacrifice the needs of those who are developing more slowly or quickly than the majority in order to cater to most students as opposed to putting extra effort into approaching students at their respective levels.

     As I have already stated in a previous post, I feel Piaget's approach dehumanizes the younger levels of thinking as it almost suggests that they are incapable of intelligent thought until they are older, while Vygotsky's theory allows us to view their current progress as intelligent for the level of learning which they are currently at. Anyhow, while I disagree with Vygotsky and Piaget that thought does not exist in the absence of language, I find the remainder of Vygotsky's theories actually quite accurate.
-Rachel

Helen Keller couldn't communicate through language for quite some time.  Yet, I would argue that she was capable of reason and thought......

Piaget's four stages......

     Today we discussed Piaget's four stages of cognitive development in class.  While I do think there is definitely value in what Piaget has done, in really analyzing and compartmentalizing the stages of cognitive development, I strongly disagree that there is no thinking in the sensorimotor stage of development.  I rather think that language does not define thought, it is merely a medium through which thought takes place.  Thus, these young children can think and reason to some extent, yet this thought is not in the form of the standardized vocal symbols of speech, but probably rather much more of a function of the mediums through which they experience the world, through images.  I know that this also is speculation, but I would say that to define thought as language actually serves to dehumanize these infants as it assumes that because we cannot understand them, they are not as human, not as capable of reason as are we.  I would rather say that it appears that they cannot reason simply because they do not have a schema of prior knowledge with which they can reason to the extent that adults reason.  Similarly, just because a man does not have access to a kitchen does not mean that he does not have the capability to cook.  These infants are working and reasoning at an admirable rate to build a knowledge base with which they can better interact with the world around them in the years to come. 
     I suppose in the context of Piaget's stages, I see the sensorimotor stage as defined by the infant needs to touch and, often, bite the world around them.  As this is the way in which they interact with the world around them at this stage, they react to this external stimulus, and thus begin to build a knowledge base of the world around them. 
     To go off on a tangent, today's class really brought some sympathy for my mother into my life.  My brother is eight years younger than I am.  My mom has actually often said that it sometimes seems that we go through similar behavioural stages at the same time and so, today, I really found it interesting that egocentrism was a characteristic of both preoperational and formal operational thought.  My poor mother had to deal with my brother's self-serving stage at the same time as I began to demand that my chores be put on hold because I had "amazing pressure from school that was going to determine the course of my life and thus it was her fault if I failed not only in school but in life" just because she made me clean the dishes once.  It felt somewhat validating to have psychological theory affirm my mother's experiences, but I really, dearly, hope that my future children don't both decide to go through their egocentric phases simultaneously, however divinely just that retribution might seem. 

     Anyhow, to cover the one stage that I have not yet mentioned, while I don't remember going through it very well, I remember one time at a homeschool conference, the leaders of a small group told us they were going to distribute m&ms to the group but they asked an older child to group the candies into enough groups for everyone, and I was really quite angry because I saw this division as an unnescessary, time-wasting activity that kept me from the candy that was rightfully mine, while the person doing the activity clearly felt it a useful illustration of the concept.  I suppose this example serves to reveal the contrast in perception of an egocentric preoperational child from that of a concrete operational who is more able to learn and benefit from physically manipulating objects.
Anyhow, I hope you enjoyed this highly anecdotal, rambling post.
-Rachel

Learning Through Love

     I've been blessed with some amazing teachers throughout my years in school, most of them English teachers.  Perhaps one of the most effective that I have ever had was my eleventh grade English teacher. 
     My teacher was consistently warm and affectionate to all of her students, but genuinely so.  You could simply see love for both you and her work practically radiate from her eyes.  She held high expectations of all of her students, however, she displayed these expectations to her class in such a way that you didn't feel you had to attain success to be valued, but rather that she simply believed in you, thought you capable and stood ready to celebrate with you once you acheived the potential that she always knew you could.  One wanted to do well in her class. 
     My class had a tendency to hesitate in responding to her questions throughout the school year, and Mrs. W. noticed quickly.  She'd often make it clear to us that "Wait time works well in this class," essentially meaning that she was going to stand at the front of the room silently until someone worked up the courage to respond.  This approach to teaching really was effective and she was able to, without showing any signs of frustraion, motivate us to participate in class discussions simply by displaying a confidence that, given enough time, any one of us could come up with a brilliant answer.
     Throughout the year, she displayed a great passion and love for both her subject and her students and really ensured that we not only learned, but felt very appreciated and intelligent while doing so.  In fact, I would have to admit that she is probably one of the greater reasons why I decided to become a teacher.
     Thank you Mrs. W.
-Rachel

I found this image on google.  I know it's not entirely relevant, but I just really find it interesting.

Why I want to teach

     In class today we discussed why we want to teach, and it caused me to really examine my own motivations in teaching.  If I were to be perfectly honest, I think that I do like teaching others, but that I definitely don't teach for the same altruistic reasons that most of my peers seem to posess.  My mom says that ever since I was young, I have been an extremely competitive person.  I played the flute throughought middle and high school, and originally, my mom says, it was nearly impossible to tear me away from the instrument.  I remember having friends over to play and polishing my flute as I talked to them.  However, as soon as I reached a level of playing where I felt that I had accomplished what I set out to learn, practicing became a chore.  I've noticed that I tend to come alive when faced with challenges, but once an activity ceases to become challenging, I often lose interest.  For me, I think this is a cause for concern.  If my satisfaction comes from conquering new challenges and not from the children themselves, how will I remain interested once I find a method and system that renders teaching simple? 
     Now that I examine myself, I believe that is why I was drawn to teaching the subjects I currently plan to teach.  English and physics are subjects which consistently pose great challenges; you cannot learn passively in them and expect to excel.  So, while my current desire to teach is definitely motivated by passion for my subject areas, I find myself wondering if this passion will last, or if I will even want to teach after a few years in the field.
     My Education Field Experience professor recently gave us an assignment where we were asked to come up with a metaphor to decribe our current perception of what teaching will be like.  At this time in my life, I think I perceive teaching as setting out onto the open sea on a sailboat.  You never know what each individual day will hold, yet you know on whole, you can expect many to be calm, peaceful days where the sun reflects serenely onto the wide expanse of water and the wind gently pushes you forwards into the unknown.  Beautiful days where life is a joy and teaching is a pleasure.  Yet, you can also expect days, even weeks, where the sea tosses you savagely and storms batter you from above, days when teaching seems impossible, thankless or stressful.  Yet, the sailboat is able to survive by firmly anchoring itself in the waters.  For me, I think the current caution in my life is to choose my anchors, my sources of stability in hard times, carefully.  If I choose to rely on the joy I obtain from conquering challenges, I know it will eventually abandon me, leaving me at the mercy of the rigours of my chosen line of work.  So, while this desire to be challenged is healthy in its own respect, I will focus on making my family and my faith the center of my life, because they have proven far more reliable sources of sustenance.
      -Rachel

Intolerence and Immersion

Hello everyone.

My Quebec host family

     As I am somewhat new to this world of blogging, I figure I had better introduce myself.  My name is Rachel, and I am a first year student in the RDC Bachelor of Education Program.  I am an English major, and so I really enjoy reading and writing, particularly short stories, or anything of a creative nature.  I've had quite a few travel experiences in my short life; I've been to the U.S. four times, to Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands and to Quebec. 

     I went to Quebec in the summer of last year as a part of the government funded Explore program, a five-week language immersion experience.  I lived with a French family and attended classes every weekday morning and various activities in the evenings that were designed to promote French speaking in a casual setting.  We were, indeed, forced to speak French and told that, should we be caught speaking our native toungue five times, we would be sent home immediately at our own expense.  However, although it was difficult at first, we all learned a great deal of not only the language, but also of the Quebecois culture.  It was an incredible experience as we all got the chance to observe and explore the different language and culture without losing our grasp of our own.

     All in all, my experience in Quebec was phenomenal, and I benefitted greatly from speaking a language other than my own.  As such, I was a bit dismayed at the vehemence some of the students in our class used when discussing the practice of forcing students to speak in the language of instruction.  I definitely agree that one of the best aspects of working in education is the exposure to other cultures, races, languages and religions, however, I think that in our effort to be pluralistic and accomodating, we sometimes forget to ensure that these multicultural students are also benefitting from their exposure to our Canadian culture.  In my opinion, it is not at all wrong to ask these students to speak the language of instruction in the classroom because it not only helps to develop their competency in the language in which their learning is evaluated, but exposes them to different perspectives and cultures from which they might benefit.  I completely disagree that this practice robs them of proficiency in their own language, because, quite frankly, the great majority of them speak their native toungue at home, allowing them to retain this aspect of their own culture.  As a past French Immersion student, I have often found that when my classmates were resistent to speaking French in the classroom, it was not because of a belief that it would rob them of opportunities to speak in English, but rather was because French seemed too difficult or unenjoyable.  Yet, after finishing their French education, many of them are immensely grateful for the opportunities opened to them by the culture that was forced upon them in their youth.

     As you can see, I believe very strongly that for a culture to be truly multicultural, we cannot shy away from the cultural differences of others in the name of defending our language and beliefs, rather we must experience the cultures of others while retaining a firm grasp of owr own. 
Thank you so much for enduring this brief rant.
I hope you enjoyed it.
Rachel