Brain Function

I know I'm over the blogging limit, but I really felt like putting in my two cents about the lecture last week. I am in constant fascination about how the brain works, and what can hinder it's development. So, indeed, I found it interesting how a brain with a concussion is just as harmful as a brain hindered by alcohol. Not that I agree with alcohol in the first place, but it's just one more factor on the scale. What really irritated me about the lecture was her blatant statement: "Alcoholism is a disease. If you have any hint of it in your family history, you are more likely to have issues with it yourself." Not a direct quote, but you understand what I am saying. What irritates me about this belief is the fact that scientists and the like don't seem to want to place much weight on human choice. They basically say, 'it's in the family, so it's not their fault'. That's total BS. It's just giving people an excuse to do something they know is wrong. Human beings have choices, therefore if they wish to stop drinking, or even choose not to start in the first place, then it is completely possible. It's the same with smoking, attitude, even doing schoolwork. Everyone has a choice to do what they wish, and it seems stupid for society to claim a hindrance on what people can and can't do. To ultimately tie this in to the study of the damage of concussions and drinking, it seems that teens, although "aware", do not want to face the consequences. Granted, this issue is more noticeable in college where the brain is apparently less vulnerable, but it still seems that young adults at this point would rather ignore for a night of fun. And I've heard the excuse, "It's not everyone doing it", but I also listen during and after the weekends to people yelling at 1 AM, and interesting stories that follow. Is this a joke? How can people know of the consequences and still do something that could cause immense long-term damage? There is so much I could say on this issue. Granted, I do admit that I am very close to these problems, making my opinion very strong in one direction, but also admittedly, I have see this issue. I have seen the consequences, and I do not think many people are as lucky. And then, it seems that by the time college hits, it's just too cool to think about the negative issues. And it saddens me. So what does this say about these people? I'm not saying they are bad people, I'm saying that they should possibly make better decisions. And with that, I'm not trying to point a finger or insult anyone. This is a blatant observation, and I hope someday it might not be such an issue.

Semester Blogging Reflection

These blogs have been helpful with bringing thoughts together, reflecting on key points to the week. Reading other blogs also brought in other perspectives, challenging or reinforcing what I might think. That's not to say an opinion is right or wrong, simply that people at times have an interesting point of view. This could be of great help during a teaching career because it's continuously emphasized that teachers need to be in constant communication with one another about the students and the goings-on of the school. And with dedication, this is something teachers can take two minutes to do, giving them the opportunity to give and receive information they might need. And over the years, you could eventually reflect on them and see how far you've come, eventually providing an opportunity for newer teachers to learn from what you've come to know.

Constructivism

It is true that how one learns creates a likelihood that they will teach in that way too. But, I also agree that teachers should be open to other teaching possibilities. This creates the "bridge" toward helping children learn in different ways, allowing those who struggle to know they too can achieve that grade they want. The main constructivist approach centers on "people learning while doing". While this may be true for some people, others may prefer by learning while observing. It all depends on the child and what they've grown learning. Teachers need to observe their class, and know the best approach to learning, whether it be the constructivist approach or not.

"Smart Kids"

I have a hard time grasping the thought that some families don't have many learning opportunities at home, therefore children will likely struggle more in school. What? Do parents not realize that learning begins at home? I think this might be the reason why parents are so set on getting their children enrolled in pre-schools early. They are too busy with their 'adult' lives, therefore someone needs too teach their kids. But, apparently, that is having a greater negative impact on children's lives--more so than parents are willing to admit. It seems that parents in Finland have the right idea. Construct a more relaxed environment, don't set overly high expectations in school and later in college, etc. It seems to be working because Finnish kids seem to be excelling greatly. So why, when we are so intent on improving our children, are we failing? Children need the opportunity to be children. Otherwise they'll burn out early and they wont be able to know when they can take a break. This is more harmful to them than almost any other form of abuse.

Parental Roles

So I've been thinking about the speaker last week and the issues of parental roles in the family here versus Vietnam. I had mixed feelings on the subject, especially as he spoke on parents in the past compared to now. It amazes me that they had such strong influence in their children's lives, even to the point of who they marry. But, it seems that those who did have great parental influence did better in school. Although this is true, it seems unfathomable that the parents should be that much involved in their child's life. It seems that this is the case currently though, as children prefer parent's input, but not control. I can completely agree with this. Parents have "been through it" once, and they do understand regardless what the child thinks. So to have the watchful eye at least is helpful, but not complete control. Children will be lost if they are controlled for the most influential parts of their lives. They need guidance, not control.

Environmental Help

I went to a lecture near the beginning of the semester (so it's surprising I still remember stuff about it), where the speaker focused on environmental issues. I found it interesting because she really got into how this affects people (including children) and what measures are taken to help resolve these issues. One incident she presented was a lot that was basically a dump sight in a neighborhood filled with children. What are the odds they will come across broken bottles or something more dangerous and really hurt themselves? They don't have many places to play, and no one seems to care enough to prevent incidents...
Some of the ways to help were fairly interesting, like where to plant trees and take some out. One of particular interest was a rooftop garden. She was really detailed with these issues and focused greatly on the positive impacts (which, when you think about it, one wouldn't especially wish to focus on the negative when trying to persuade an issue).
I'm admittedly not overly "environmental". I do recycle and turn off appliances and the like, but I'm not as hard core as some people. But that doesn't mean students shouldn't know about these issues. I wouldn't necessarily try to be hypocritical...I just know that these issues are ever growing and eventually they cannot be ignored. It's all a part of taking that one step and hoping that you can reach one person.

Cell Phone Usage

After hearing the story about a teenage girl who committed suicide because her boyfriend sent nude pictures of her to everyone who wanted them, I was curious and searched out the full story.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1538742/jesse_logan_committed_suicide_after.html?cat=15

This poor girl is one example of many who commit the crime of "sexting". And after reading the article of how many children/teenagers have cell phones and why they used them, I am completely appalled. Which is more stupid: the parents or the teens? The parents because they allow the teens to have cell phones, the teens because they simply disregard the responsibility that a cell phone holds. The fact that many know that "sexting" is a crime, yet continue to do so, I can't even fathom it.
Personally, I don't think anyone should have a cell phone until they're 18. Unless they are traveling a lot (and let's be honest, how much do teenagers travel?), or they have major family issues where someone could die at any moment, it's just not a good idea. And even if they had an emergency of that sort, what teacher or such would/should allow the use of the phone until a particular part of the day? I didn't have a cell phone until my first year of college. And I have family issues where I needed to be in touch with my family all the time. But, what good was it going to do me to keep in touch while I'm in class? If they needed me that bad, they could contact the school to call me. Now that I'm in college, I find great advantage to keep in touch with people at home. Teens don't treat this privilege with respect. Especially while driving. I do understand the want of a phone while in the car, but I also know that talking and driving at the same time is not easy, and texting is worse. Honestly, I really have nothing good to say about cell phones for teenagers, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead here.

Black History Month Conference

I went to two of the sections in the Black History Conference, and one of them I found particularly interesting. It was the section at 2:45, and it seemed to be aimed mainly at Paideia students. But the speaker had a message that she sent to everyone, and one that stuck with me. It tied into the theme of the entire conference: movement. She expanded on this, starting with movement being integration (as many of the African Americans did), moving to this being in art, music, and the like. She emphasized that had not several of the primary figures during the Integration time spoken up (Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, etc), African Americans would not have the rights they do today. Or if they had, they would not be as far along as they actually are.
With that, other speakers I heard were also very focused on movement, namly Integration. But the majority of this movement dealt with persecution and the fleeing of it. What I had a hard time grasping was the fact that this persectuion of African Americans has been ongoing since the 1800s. It has even dated back to when they were still in Africa, as they continuously fled from the areas into persecution and found minimal solace in refugee camps (a mini history lesson for those who did not know). I don't think people today grasp the seriousness of what the "Americans" have done to the African Americans. This persecution has been going on too long, and still does today. And this sort of teaching really needs to start in the classroom. We can be friends with anyone. Skin color should not make a difference. Unfortunately, with the "ignorance" of the parents, not many children will be exposed to the diversity, whether it be unintentional or not. This conference was eye-opening in how little people really know about African American history. And it's not just theirs. It's everyones. We all have played a part, and still do, so long as we keep these stories alive.

Thoughts on the article

So I read the article about the advantages and disadvantages of having personal laptops in school, and it really didn't sway my opinion very much. Mostly, this was due to their acknowledgment of the students taking advantage of having the computers all the time, but there was no concrete proposal of what to do about it. So the question stands, what is there to do about it? Take the computers away? But then, doesn't that defeat the purpose? You can't monitor where the kids are 24/7. They're going to take advantage.....even the considered "smart" ones. Having the technology required to be right in front of you is a huge temptation, and it encourages them to become completely hooked on it. At least in the classrooms without computers, the teachers are more likely to see the students faces once in awhile, rather than just the backs of the laptops.

I'm not saying there aren't advantages. It would be nice to have all the information you ever need for your students at hand whenever they need it. But that also takes away book learning and paper/pencil work. It didn't kill us to do those things as kids, and it certainly wont kill them. The best reason to continue to learn these things is aimed at the dependency of technology. It's always breaking down. So what happens when these overly dependent students experience a complete wipe out of the technology? They will be so lost, they wont know what to do. It just feels like technology as a requirement in the schools does not hold any advantages worth pursuing.

Teacher's Panel

Listening to the returning students, now teachers, was about what I expected it to be. They're all experiencing something that they were prepared for, but with a few "curve balls" thrown in. They each have an opinion on how prepared they were for teaching in general, but it also proves that you are never prepared enough. There are always going to be those complications that you don't expect until you experience it. Even as a more advanced teacher, you're going to see situations that are new or different. But, that is where you are adaptable. You work with the changes which could lead to a beneficial outcome for both the teacher and the students.

Review of "Paper Clips"

To start, I admit the background of the movie was fairly fascinating. This is mainly due to my interest in the Holocaust. In all of the history I've learned, the Holocaust was the most intriguing, and most horrifying. I can hardly imagine something that horrible happening to millions of people.
That being said, I feel that the movie could have been more beneficial had the teachers added more background to what the Holocaust was about. More people than Jews died, although they were the majority. Even people who harbored Jews or other "fugitives" were shipped away to the concentration camps. Now, I will admit that the movie only showed snippets of what the teachers presented, but personally, it felt that the information provided (from what I did see) was fairly incomplete. There was so much more that could have been done to provide insight to this horrific event, and it didn't seem to head that direction.
But, even though the information seemed lacking, I will admit that the morals and such that came from this experiment were well stated. Reflecting on one's own life in comparison to a mass genocide event can be fairly eye opening, although not necessarily on the same level. It allowed the students, and the teachers, to look at their own lives and the lives of their ancestors and see if they could be proud of who the are. Many times, the teachers especially, had difficulty. But at the same time, the students could see these issues and hone those emotional skills so they can work with the pain to make it something more desirable in the future.