Since reflection is such an important part of teaching, when are the best times to reflect and how should it be done?
“Reflection is a luxury most teachers do not have the opportunity to indulge in.” (Ladson-Billings p. 20). Because it is beneficial in teaching, somehow teachers need to find a way to fit it in. At the end of the day, or specifically after a new lesson, is a good time to review how things went. Sit and think of what went well, what needs improvement, and what should be removed. When doing this reflection it is very important to look at yourself and teaching styles and not just what your students are doing wrong. If you changed things and made them better there may not be as many problems for the students. As a teacher look over your decisions, how the students responded, and the impact it had on the whole day.
How can you use your experiences in an effective way in the classroom?
I think it is important to know that experiences that you have had that you have enjoyed and found interesting, most likely, you students will also be interested in them. They can really learn a lot from you and when you show enthusiasm in a topic, it is contagious to your class. For example, the people in the chapter used their experiences in their decisions to get into teaching or actually in the classroom: Tara used her experiences from Japan; Candy used her love of theater; and Kyla used her political interests. One of the greatest things about teaching is that you really get to be creative and bring your personality into it. If you are happy to be there then hopefully your students will see that and share the same feelings. So really utilize and take advantage of your experiences and creativity and incorporate it in the classroom.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, February 12, 2007
Weblog 4: Spring Chapter 3
What caused the transition of schools going from integrated to segregated to integrated again?
Although for the most part unwillingly, attempts were finally made (moreso in the North than South) to educate African Americans and give them equal opportunities. To do this, slaves were integrated into schools but this motion did not last long. "It was immediately apparent that most Anglo-Americans were not going to accept integrated educational institutions." (p. 46) African Americans were treated poorly in the public school setting which affected their learning or made them not want to go to school. It became so bad that committees requested the development of separate schools for African Americans. "The African American community supported the segregated school as an alternative to the prejudice existing in the other white-dominated schools." (p. 48) Even though it was rejected at first, school committees opened a segregated school for just African Americans. Children were able to attend either the pubilc school or the segregated private school. While hoping that segregation would bring about a solution to the problems of education (for both Anglo- and African Americans), it actually made the situation worse. It was not long before African Americans discovered that they were not receiving the fair education they were hoping for. "The African American community realized that a segregated education was resulting in an inferior education for their children." (p. 48) Less skilled teachers and poor school conditions were among the problems that attributed to the poor education. Instead of receiving an equal chance at a high-quality education, without the worries of prejudice, African Americans were put in a low-quality learning environment. It was said that "segregated education in the city was a conspiracy by whites to keep blacks in a state of ignorance." (p. 49) To prevent this from happening, blacks fought hard to enforce fair opportunities in integrated schools. They felt that integration provided their best chance for a good education.
Although for the most part unwillingly, attempts were finally made (moreso in the North than South) to educate African Americans and give them equal opportunities. To do this, slaves were integrated into schools but this motion did not last long. "It was immediately apparent that most Anglo-Americans were not going to accept integrated educational institutions." (p. 46) African Americans were treated poorly in the public school setting which affected their learning or made them not want to go to school. It became so bad that committees requested the development of separate schools for African Americans. "The African American community supported the segregated school as an alternative to the prejudice existing in the other white-dominated schools." (p. 48) Even though it was rejected at first, school committees opened a segregated school for just African Americans. Children were able to attend either the pubilc school or the segregated private school. While hoping that segregation would bring about a solution to the problems of education (for both Anglo- and African Americans), it actually made the situation worse. It was not long before African Americans discovered that they were not receiving the fair education they were hoping for. "The African American community realized that a segregated education was resulting in an inferior education for their children." (p. 48) Less skilled teachers and poor school conditions were among the problems that attributed to the poor education. Instead of receiving an equal chance at a high-quality education, without the worries of prejudice, African Americans were put in a low-quality learning environment. It was said that "segregated education in the city was a conspiracy by whites to keep blacks in a state of ignorance." (p. 49) To prevent this from happening, blacks fought hard to enforce fair opportunities in integrated schools. They felt that integration provided their best chance for a good education.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Weblog 3. History is a Weapon / We Have a Story to Tell
It is surprising at how much the point of view and who is telling the story affects accounts of history and what is taught. The same story and events can can come across differently depending on the author (the difference between historiography and history). This can be seen in "History is a Weapon" by Zinn and "We Have a Story to Tell: The Native Peoples of the Chesapeake Region" by Gabrielle Tayac and Edwin Schupman. Zinn presents a side of "Columbus, The Indians, and Human Progress" that is rarely heard or discussed. He describes in detail the pain and destruction the Native Americans experienced. "Not able to enslave the Indians, and not able to live with them, the English decided to exterminate them." Exterminate, unfortunately, is a light term used for what the English did to the Indians. Zinn continues in detail what was done to the Indians, making it almost impossible to not sympathize and pity them. This side of the story is rarely heard making it even more shocking and upsetting. I'm sure very few people know of mass suicides and mothers killing their own infants. This part of history is largely overlooked. "To emphasize the heroism of Columbus and his successors as navigators and discoverers, and to de-emphasize their genocide, is not a technical necessity but an ideological choice." Historiographers have chosen to tell the 'good' side of the story, hiding much of the truth of what really happened. In the end, it is a choice of how the story is presented. Although painful to read, it is important that this side of the story is acknowledged.
The Tayac and Schupman article discusses the negatives that the Native Americans experienced but with a stronger sense of hope for them. It seems more of how the Indians overcame their torture and how they attempted to survive it. From reading the article you still feel sympathetic yet hopeful for the Native Americans and not as resentful toward the English. The fact that the Europeans took over and destroyed much of Native American lives and land is brought up, but not as detailed and gruesome as Zinn's description. It discusses "Wars, loss of land, social upheaval, and disease combined to devastate Native communities." (p. 7) The treaties of that time were discussed in this article, making the Europeans seem somewhat peaceful and not as violent. However, "While the treaties sounded good on paper, most of their provisions were not enforced. English settlers moved onto reservation lands and restricted Native uses of non-reservation lands." (p. 8)
Overall, both articles present the little-known side of the story yet still give a different perspective of the situation. This raises the issue of how and what part of the story is to be taught in schools...
The Tayac and Schupman article discusses the negatives that the Native Americans experienced but with a stronger sense of hope for them. It seems more of how the Indians overcame their torture and how they attempted to survive it. From reading the article you still feel sympathetic yet hopeful for the Native Americans and not as resentful toward the English. The fact that the Europeans took over and destroyed much of Native American lives and land is brought up, but not as detailed and gruesome as Zinn's description. It discusses "Wars, loss of land, social upheaval, and disease combined to devastate Native communities." (p. 7) The treaties of that time were discussed in this article, making the Europeans seem somewhat peaceful and not as violent. However, "While the treaties sounded good on paper, most of their provisions were not enforced. English settlers moved onto reservation lands and restricted Native uses of non-reservation lands." (p. 8)
Overall, both articles present the little-known side of the story yet still give a different perspective of the situation. This raises the issue of how and what part of the story is to be taught in schools...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)