Response to Shelby, "Swearing"

Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?

As we have said in class, most things teachers do in class are slightly paternalistic (such as assigning readings, having tests, etc). If there were no "paternalistic ploys", there would probably be no point in attending class. However, I think swearing is different because it relies on shock tactics to entice students. I must admit this is a huge pet peeve of mine. A similar example of shock tactics is using sex to advertise a product. It may be true that "sex sells", but it doesn't make the tactics used to sell a product ethical (in other words, the ends do not justify the means). I feel similarly about swearing in classrooms. Although I am not morally opposed to swearing the way I am morally opposed to sexualized images of women in the media, I am uncomfortable with people trying to get my attention by trying to shock me. If anything, it sends the message that "this class is going to be so boring that I'm resorting to shocking you with curse words in order to get you to pay attention". I'm okay with teachers cursing sometimes out of habit, if they are speaking casually, and curse words are a part of their vocabulary. However, I'm less accepting of teachers cursing in order to get my attention. It makes me feel like they do not view me as an adult capable of paying attention simply because I want to.

Question: When (if ever) is shock value a good tactic to get people's attention?

Response to Bryan, "Grading"

Bryan suggested in his blog that it is idealistic and even "ridiculous" to want to get rid of our current grading system. I am saddened by many people's inclination to reject something because it is too idealistic. It would not be easy to get rid of our grading system, and I'm not even saying it would ever happen, but if you believe something is wrong, you should try to fix it. So many amazing things in history would not have happened if people had been "realistic" and not gotten carried away with their ideas. Even if you were to fail at trying to do something radical (such as eliminating the grading system), having that goal and working towards it would effect more change than just accepting things the way they are.
Additionally, you cite some reasons why we should keep grades, such as grad schools and employers looking at them. However, I think you are highlighting the fact that the problem with grading is a problem in our whole society, and in order to get rid of grading, we would have to amend more than just the way our schools function. This makes it a lot more complicated, but no less important.
Question: Is it always appropriate to be idealistic in one's goals?

Response to Andrew, "Being Called Upon"

Andrew discussed the multiple reasons why a student may not be able to answer a teacher's question when called upon in class, and concludes that even if the student is allowed to say "pass", the student may still be embarrassed by clearly not knowing the answer. I think that another reason students should not be called on in class is the fact that the classroom does not exist in a vacuum. Each individual student comes from a very different home and, especially in compulsory education, teachers should act under the assumption that students are coming from a bad environment or situation to be on the safe side. For example, in my elementary school, we were required to get our agendas signed by our parents every night, to ensure that they knew what our homework was. However, this put certain students at a disadvantage. If a student had parents that worked late hours, or didn't have a large presence in their child's life, the student may not be able to get their parents' signature. Similarly, some students may have social anxiety or a fear of public speaking, which would make being called on a traumatic experience. Teachers must be mindful of the fact that all students come from very different backgrounds. It would be nice if we could assume every student were perfectly adjusted and went home to a loving, functional family every afternoon, but, as Allison said, you must deal with the students you have, not the students you wish you had.

Question: How can a teacher be respectful of the various backgrounds students come from?

Self-given grades

We have discussed in class how grades are not always accurate. Sometimes, teacher cannot truly assess how much a student has learned. So, what if students gave themselves grades? Only the person doing the learning can truly know how much he or she has learned. The are the only ones with access to that information. There would be no need to "prove" through tests, projects, class participation, etc, what he or she has learned. However, there is a problem with honesty. Especially with younger students, you may see students giving themselves better grades than they deserve. However, if a real desire to learn was instilled in students, then they would want to give themselves accurate grades so, if they are not understanding the material, they can identify what they need to work on. I think in order for this to work, grades should not be something that can hurt students. In other words, grades should be nothing other than a self-assessment of what has been learned; there are no report cards, and parents should not have access to grades. Grades shouldn't be something the student gets praised or reprimanded for.

Question: Can the honesty problem be worked around with this idea?

Learning Through Games

In class, Becky brought up the example of learning US state capitals as something that you need a test for to ensure students are retaining information. This reminded me of something I had completely forgotten about: the way I learned the US state capitals in fifth grade. My class played a competitive game every day to help us memorize the state capitals. We were divided into two teams: The Capital Connoisseurs and The National Know-It-Alls. Each team would send up a representative to the front of the room, and my teacher would name a state. The first person to say the capital of the state got a point. We kept score every day, and at the end, the winning team got their name put on a big trophy our teacher had bought. This was such a fun and effective way to learn something pretty mundane. Everyone had learned the capitals within a few weeks, because we all wanted to win. The winning team didn't get a better grade; this was just a game. We retained this information better than we would have if we had taken one test on it and moved on. Not only that, but we loved playing that game, so learning the capitals became something fun. Most humans enjoy friendly competition, so I think this is a great way to teach kids something that might otherwise be boring to them.
Question: Have you ever used games as a way to learn something?

"Choosing the Best Answer"

Multiple choice tests often implement a "choose the best answer" policy. This can be very frustrating for the test-taker. The ability to choose the best answer is not always the same thing as choosing the right answer. What is the value in choosing the best answer out of a few not-so-great answers? This may teach students some problem-solving techniques, such as how to choose the best possible solution to a problem where there is no perfect solution, but it does not accurately assess a student's knowledge of a subject. For example, when I was in sixth grade, I had to take a nutrition class. One of our test questions was:
Which of the following should one eat? a)a healthy meal b) a healthy diet.
My teacher argued that the best answer was "a healthy diet" because one healthy meal wont do much for you in the long run, unlike a healthy diet, which is more beneficial. However, this question confused me as an eleven-year-old because you can't eat a healthy diet without eating healthy meals. Eating a healthy diet includes eating healthy meals. Maybe there was a best answer, but both answers were right. Sometimes neither answer is right, even if there is a "best" answer. These kinds of questions seem unnecessarily tricky and confusing.

Improvisation in Music

I played an instrument for 9 years in school, and we were never once faced with the opportunity for improvisation. For me, this is probably a good thing because I know that, while I was pretty good at playing my instrument, I would probably freeze up if ever asked to improvise. I've been thinking about why this is. At first, I thought that it was because I was never exposed to the concept of improvisation in music. However, I think it has more to do with the environment I played music in: school. Schools are very focused on performing tasks as close to perfectly as possible, and following rules as closely as possible. In some respects, this is a good thing. But, because of this, music class was like any other class: a place where students strive for perfection. So, how could a music student feel comfortable ignoring the rules and just playing? We are so rarely given the opportunity to just abandon all the rules and let our emotions guide us in this society.
Question: Do you think the environment affect one's ability to improvise?