Lazy Teachers, There Is Still Hope For You

In my time as a student, I have seen more than my fair share of some bad teachers.

And I mean BAD.

There was the one who hated kids, which everyone has. Then there was the one who we couldn't tell what gender he/she/it was (and I don't think he/she/it knew either). Perhaps even scarier was the one who didn't speak English. That last one might have been a foreign language teacher, but I don't know for sure.

But even so, all of them do not compare with the teachers who are L-A-Z-Y. You know who they are. They miss the first day of class for who knows why, the spend an eternity in the Teachers' Lounge, and they grade on a curve that, due to the lack of teaching, doesn't curve at all. If they don't want to do their job, why don't they just say so?

There is, however, one reason why they could still be teaching. If you look at an extreme example of the Constructivism Teaching Theory, these lazy teachers could be doing something (gasp) right. Constructivism focuses more on concepts with grouping and categorizing things that have a certain commonality. How could you be lazy and get that work done, you might ask? Easy, just have the students do it.

Wait, what? Students WORK? (gasp, gasp) Why not? If they want to, then why not? Isn't that what we want? The students wanting to learn? Teachers getting them to be self-motivated? Isn't that a better way? Why am I still writing sentences ending in question marks?

Seriously, think about it. Students get interested in a topic, they research it, and then share what they know with others who have done the same. As long as the teacher can do the motivating part, the sky is the limit.

Unfortunately, these lazy teachers are dealing with young children and teenagers. Getting them motivated to even get out of bed is a challenge. Maybe teaching using a constructivist method is hard. Lazy teachers, you can ignore this method. It's too time consuming and requires too much effort. Besides, don't you have to go to the Teachers' Lounge now?

While you are on your 5 hour break, the readers who actually want to do something worthwhile will listen to some basic ideas/practices to get the students motivated. There are known as the 5 'E's--Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. They are all Student Centered, or actions the student will undertake.

For example: Remember when that special time of year rolled around when the 7th graders dissected frogs? Well, cancel that. Try the following. Ask the students something like "Ever wonder how a small animal like a frog can jump so far?" The students should be interested, so you say "Why do you think they can jump so far?" When the students have submitted their theories, you can ask them to work together in groups to find out which theory or theories are correct. Ask them to look this information up on their own. They shouldn't mind since the theories are theirs; they're just finding data to back them up. Finally, you compare findings. Wouldn't you know it, you covered the anatomy of a frog without cutting one open? Kermit gets to live and everyone is happy.

There are 2 Things I Can Never, Ever, Ever Remember. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Make that 3

I wish I had a neuralizer.

You know, that little flashy thing the Men In Black use to wipe out people's memory. I know I'd use it on a regular, if not daily, basis. I'd make people forget all the embarrassing things I'd done and convince them I'd done something more groovy. Do we still use that word, 'groovy'? No?

FLASH!!!

I'd make people forget all the embarrassing things I'd done and convince them I'd done something more hip. I'd be able to avoid all of those moments when I could literally feel my ears turning red and wanted to crawl into a tunnel where no one could find me. You ever felt that way? Yes?

FLASH!!!

You can thank me later.

Anyways, this is my lead into this posting's topic: Memory (I swear, if someone starts singing the song from Cats I'm gonna shoot something). Suffice to say, I don't remember EVERYTHING. In fact, most of the time I'm making things up. I'm terrible with names, a trait I get from my mother. I like waiting while she goes through my brothers' names before she gets to mine. Sometimes, just to throw her off, I answer to a name that isn't mine.

At the same time, I can remember some things very well. Anything I've seen on TV or on film, I can replay it for you. I love storytelling, and can usually remember every single detail of the plot. When I'm involved in a play or film shoot, usually line memorization is an easy thing for me, even Shakespeare. So, you may wonder, what causes you to remember some things well and other things not so well?

Answer: I haven't a clue (I forgot).

FLASH!!!

Answer: The Human Memory System. First, Input goes into the Sensory Register. If you aren't paying attention or trying hard enough, that info gets lost. But, most of time it goes to Working (Short-Term) Memory, which lasts about 15-20 seconds tops. If effort isn't put forth to retain the info, it gets lost here. However, by using In Depth Processing (linking the new knowledge to old knowledge), we can transfer the info into our Long Term Memory for future reference. Some stuff still gets lost, but that's usually because the In Depth Processing stopped or was only strong enough for a certain duration of time.

The main point to focus on is the In Depth Processing. It's safe to say that if the brain doesn't see something as relevant, it won't hold onto it. Teachers have the task of not only presenting the information but also the In Depth Processing. There are several ways to do this, but which methods one uses is dependent on their unique situation (What? You didn't expect me to tell you EVERYTHING, did you? I may always be right, but I'm not a "How To" manual).

Brains function in the same way and yet differently from one human to the next. One person may remember written words, another images, and another what it hears. Perhaps the best approach to teaching a subject is to try and reach as many of the information gathering senses as possible. That way you're playing to a whole range of people instead of a select few.

My lesson plans will be geared towards theatre, and you can bet that I'll have some fun with that. The students won't know what hit them and before long, will be shocked to realize they've learned something (Dance puppets, dance!!!). For example, Shakespeare. You cannot just READ Shakespeare. No play was ever meant to be read only. My students will translate the language, watch it, perform it and, most importantly, understand it! Oh, and in case any of you out there are going to try and steal my ideas. . .


FLASH!!!

Christopher Reeve IS Superman

This week my professor challenged us to research something related to the progress in brain research. I decided to write about the late Man of Steel, (a personal hero of my wife and myself) Christopher Reeve, and the progress he made after his spinal cord injury in 1995. Technically speaking, the brain is connected to the spinal cord and both are parts of the nervous system. The article I read can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/sep/17/science.highereducation
First, some background: Reeve was injured when his horse halted before a jump and he landed on his head. His first and second vertabrae were crushed, effectively leaving his brain separated from the rest of his body. He was left wheelchair bound, had to have a respirator tube connected to his lungs, and was dependent on nurses aides the rest of his life. This is a complete 180 degree turn for a man who was cast as the most iconic superhero ever.
Thus began his quest to hope. It was his hope that inspired him to do everything possible to someday walk again. He threw himself into physical therapy, using the same work ethic that helped him get in shape to play Superman. When originally cast for the role in the 70s, he began training in the gym to fit the part physically. He expanded his chest by 4 inches and gained 20 pounds of pure muscle. After the injury, he, and his team of therapists and trainers to his dying day, daily worked his muscles and other joints. The theory he believed and practiced was that by keeping the body active, the neurological pathways his brain was separated from could reestablish themselves. What were his results? Because of his therapy, Reeve regained feeling in 65% of his body, being able to feel the prick of a needle and tell the difference between hot and cold again. He was able to move his finger on command and straighten his legs. Reeve was able to get off his respirator and breath on his own for 30 minutes. Bear in mind, this is after he had to have his spinal cord completely reattached! These results, according to some doctors, weren't supposed to happen. They were nothing short of miraculous.
Reeve didn't stop there. He founded or led a number of organizations dedicated to drawing attention to curing people with similar conditions to his. He pushed for politically backing for Spinal Cord and Stem Cell research. The amazing thing, to me, was that he also went back to work, making films and television appearances again. "I've still never had a dream that I'm disabled," he says. "Never."
Faster than a speeding bullet? No. More powerful than a locomotive? Not really. But he still flew. Don't even try to argue with me. Christopher Reeve IS Superman.

Getting In Touch With My Inner "Chi"

I'm a guy, which be traditional definition means I have a license to "not give a darn" when it comes to emotions. But, I'm also a guy who wants to teach others, which means I have to be able to pretend to care. I'm also married, which means I better be able to pretend that I care convincingly.

I think it's safe to say that generally men are regarded as less emotional as women. Despite the previous paragraph, I would like to denounce that claim and confess that men have as many emotions as women (though we are sometimes more successful at hiding them). Some of you females out there may ask "Why don't the men in my life show their emotions?" I don't know, for starters, but I have theories. These theories range from "shut up and let the man get in a word" to "yes, that man does have the emotional capacity of a rock". The bottom line is this:people on a whole have different emotional levels and intelligences.


Wait, what?!?! EMOTIONAL Intelligence? That's a new term. Remember, I am a student. I learn cool new words like that all the time (here's a cool one: Hippocampus--I swear I'm not making that one up). It turns out emotions play a large part in human development and growth (sorry Spock).


Say, for example, you're walking down the street and you see a lone child crying. You might think, Hmmm, 'crying = sad' and 'sad = not happy'. . . maybe this child isn't happy. Hopefully you would take the time to find out why the child is unhappy. Congratulations, you've just used what you knew about emotions to begin resolving a situation. It's at this point the child stops crying, hugs you, then steals your wallet and runs off. Kids do the darnedest things.


Emotional Intelligence, like regular intelligence, depends on many factors. The most important, I feel, are your sense of self, your social skills, and what your morals are. Each of these three things affects the others. In order to teach, I need to be keenly aware of all three in my students.


Real life example: One of my older brothers has a very tumultuous past. It was debatable whether he would graduate high school or not. Heck, I'm amazed he never did any hard time in jail from the stories I've heard. However, it comes as no shock to me why he did some of the things he did because I grew up in pretty much the same environment and circumstances. The primary difference was that in his teenage (rebellious) years he tried some things which were self-destructive. Thankfully he later realized this and got back on track. I saw the results of those actions and decided to not try them when I reached his age. I think I should point out our morals were always the same. We had been raised by the same parents and in the same culture. How we ended up living by them was a different process, but ultimately we ended up with very similar outlooks on how to live our lives.


Emotional Intelligence, in my opinion, can only be developed by getting out there in public and letting life happen, trying new things, all while holding on to what you know is correct. In the future, when I'm in the classroom, I think the best thing to do in order for that emotional intelligence to kick in is (1) Know the individual's background/history, (2) Know their current circumstances, and (3) try and relate to the individual or at least something I'm already familiar with.

Ode to Piaget and Vygotsky (Yeah, I didn't pronounce their names right on the first try either)

My professor has continued her quest to analyze everything and has suckered me into joining her. This week, we are studying Cognitive and Linguistic Development. Before this class, I didn't even know how to pronounce those words. After this class. . . . . well. . . .

Let's just skip to the review.

It turns out a certain Swiss guy and a certain Russian have developed their own theories explaining how our cognitive and language skills grow.

Piaget claims the following: children are active and motivated learners, they can construct knowledge from their experiences, can learn through the processes of assimilation and accommodation, interaction between one's physical and social environments is essential, the process of equilibration promotes progression toward increasingly complex thought, and cognitive development is stagelike in nature.

Vygotsky's views are as follows: through informal conversations and formal schooling, adults convey to children the ways in which their culture interprets and responds to the world, thought and language become increasingly interdependent in the first few years of life, complex mental processes begin as social activities; as children develop, they gradually internalize processes from social contexts and begin to use them interdependtly, challenging tasks promote maximum cognitive growth, and play allows children to stretch themselves cognitively.


Stay with me people.


While that is a mouthful, it's a mouthful of interesting and relevant information (especially for people who have or work with young kids). I think the gyst of what is being said is what we do when we are young has a profound effect on how we learn and grow.


Quick example: When I was 3 or 4 years old, I saw a pan on the stove. I didn't process the concept of "heat" along with the "no touchy" rule. As you can guess, I burned myself ( I barely survived, but enough about me). Needless to say, I never touched a pan again. . .ever. Seriously, I don't cook. Pans are evil.



The point is, what I experienced as a young child had an influence on me later in life. My brain at the time "wasn't quite ripe yet," if you know what I mean. But, like any good farmer or winemaker (choose your metaphor), how the fruit is cared for during the ripening process determines the outcome.


In my case, I'll be dealing with teenagers. Despite what I've seen, these are pieces of fruit nearing the end of the ripening process (they're just too busy "expressing themselves"). It would be safe to assume that my highly superior intellect would just confuse them (GASP!). So what do we do? First, we see where they are intellectually. You'd be amazed at how much you can tell about intellect based off of the subject's hobbies or interests. Second, you break down your lesson plan into the core pieces of information. Lastly, use that magnificent Osmosis Machine created by Dr. Mildenstein to mutate your student's brain to absorb all of the information. if you don't have the machine, you can change that last step into meeting the students on their level.


Make the lesson challenging, but make it appropriate.