Re: Shelby 5/1/11

How can teachers encourage students to do their work well, without patronizingly rewarding or punishing them?

I can understand where Shelby is coming from, yet I find myself feeling guilty when I do not hand in work. Just yesterday I had a paper due that I did not do, and when the professor asked if we had it to turn in I said, "Don't hate me..." Out of fear and embarrassment, students sometimes do not to go to class if they do not have an assignment finished that is due. Students especially at the college level care a lot about what their professors think. We are conditioned to do our work and this guilt spawns from past punishment/reinforcement but also the idea of future goals. When future goals are kept in mind it is not so ridiculous to hear someone say that they hope their professor is not mad at them. In college you have to find those professors who you enjoy learning from, take a lot of classes with them, and really get on their good side because when it comes time for graduate school, it is those teachers who you will ask for a letter of recommendation. If you are constantly late or neglect to do your work for that professor, chances are they will not write that letter for you. Also since you are close to a select few of teachers, when you preform inadequately you feel like you have disappointed them.

I have a couple of suggestions for teachers to get their students to do their work without ridiculing, punishing or rewarding. The first is setting high, but realistic goals. If a teacher babies their students that is not going to make them do work because they know that the teacher will not punish them and that makes the teachers more susceptible to be walked over. Students will find excuses to not do their work and find a way to waste class time. By setting high and realistic goals, the students will value and respect the teacher for testing them and being bold enough for setting such standards. Although when the standards are too high students may avoid taking classes with that teacher. the second suggestion is make assignments internally rewarding. By making a fun assignment or having the student choose a topic, they are more likely to complete it.

Question: Is it ridiculous to feel guilty or worry that a professor will be mad at you if you do not do an assignment?

Mathematical Pedagogy

In the article from Lesser & Blake (2007), they bring up the problems with mathematic pedagogy. Their arguments are that mathematic teaching lacks political, social/cultural, and historical connections. Early in the article they also highlight how the idea that students are unable to learn math is a self fulfilling prophesy. Although the connection to cultural ideas (like the disproportional Barbie) and political issues (like the death penalty) are a helpful ways for children to learn, I do not think that the lack of these real-life examples are the only reason why math is stereotyped as incomprehensible.

The reason why students have such a hard time learning math is because of the teachers themselves. I'm not saying that all math teachers are bad at teaching but I have two theories in addition to Lesser & Blake (2007). First, the masters of the field go on to becoming nuclear engineers, physicist, governmental statistical analysts, ect. Secondly, math teachers think that some students are incapable of learning math because they do not understand the way that they think. Since they love math and it comes easy to them they just assume that you are the same and if you aren't than their is something wrong with you and you do not have the mental capacity for it. They do not understand that the things that they think are common sense are not common sense to everyone who is not primarily left brained.

Why do you think math is hard for students to learn?

Respecting Religions

I've read about many religions and/or theistic ideas from our current world views: Taoism, pantheism, Buddism, Christianity, Judaism and more. I find all of these religions interesting, yet no matter how many I read about and am informed about my religion reins true to me. This could be stubbornness. Yet, I do not claim that any of them may not be true. When I educate myself on a new religion I think to myself, "that might be true." The thing is that we do not know and people argue over which is right. The YEC is afraid that if these Christians are taught evolution that they will lose their faith in God. Yet, if they lose faith that easily they probably weren't that committed to that faith in the first place.

We talked about pantheism in class on Wednesday (the "God is the universe" one) and it really intrigued me. It makes a lot of sense from a theistic and evolution point of view because there is always the question of how the first piece of material that made the world got there. That religion is very interesting, I like that idea, that may be the truth, yet I feel like mine makes the most sense. I feel that way about most religions.

Question: Do you think admitting that another person's religion may be correct, yet standing true to your own is ideal way to respecting other religions? Are there other idealistic factors?

Re: Mike "Being Civil About Opinions"

When is it appropriate for a teacher to express his or her opinions on their students? What about the students voicing theirs? We all have the right to voice our opinions, but how far can it go until it becomes harmful? When is it okay?

I remember my history teachers never gave their opinions about political issues and you could never tell which way they really felt. I think it is important for teachers not to give their opinions because it influences the opinions of the students. Of course when students write a paper for them they are more likely to choose the teachers side of the argument because the student thinks that it is what they want to hear and that they will get a better grade. Because of their role of authority it is important that the personal biases of the teachers do not get in the way of what they are teaching. It is okay for students to voice their opinions because they do not have a professional role. In most discussion based classes the teacher or professor acts as the moderator and does not post a view point because of their influence. If you ask a teacher after class what their opinion is I think it is okay if they answer. My science teacher went over evolution my sophomore year of high school. My friend asked him if he truly believed in it, when he was not in front of the class. He answered her by saying, "Sometimes I look at the sunset and I just know that someone must have painted it." When it comes to religious affiliation I think that is okay for teachers to say what their opinions are as long as they do not try to force them on to others, it is in private, and as long as it does not cause a religious debate.

Question: How does the role of a teacher influence you and your opinions in comparision to peers and parents?

Re: Andrew 4/20/11

If we were more informed about others' religions would we still be likely to have wars and think negatively about their cultures or is it harder to hate someone who you understand?

Should children be told which religion they want to follow or should they be allowed to choose?

I can understand where Andrew is coming from when it comes to defeating our egocentrism and possibly discontinuing wars. Unfortunately, I do not think that teaching world religions in high school will stop congress from declaring war, there are more factors that contribute to their decisions other than egocentric tendencies. I do however think that learning about other cultures will diminish negative thoughts about them. Understanding is at least one step toward eliminating hatred. With an empathetic mind set one can understand the other countries from their shoes yet still not like them. If we can still hate ourselves for things we have done or do, that shows that empathy does not solve hatred. That said, empathy and egocentrism is not the problem that we face, the problem is the overriding amount of patriotism to the point where pride turns into the need to win and be best.

As for children choosing their own religion, I'm not to sure I believe in that or not. Children do not tend to spend their days contemplating the meaning of life or what religion to follow. Technically you are born whatever your mother is (at least in my religion, I'm not sure about others). Yet, again you can't really stop someone from believing in a certain religion or not, if that is what they truly believe, yelling, trying to convince or questioning probably will not do anything. Children are pretty stubborn on their beliefs whether they be true or not. If a child is taught all the different religions thoroughly I don't see why they couldn't choose which to believe. If you really want your child to believe the same things you do if you engage in religious activities with them on a regular basis they are less likely to feel the need to convert.

Question: Why are some people so concerned by the beliefs of others? Why do they get upset when others do not have the same views as they do?

Creationism in schools

Reading Pennock's article got me a little irritated. Public schools tend to teach only evolutionary theories and when catholic schools teach them it is only as a "false theory." The YEC is working to ban the practices of public schools only teaching evolution-science and have only creationist point of views be taught. This is both unrealistic and stubborn. Getting rid of the teaching of things like plate tectonics does not go against anything that the bible says and getting rid of it would be a shame because those are important things that we should know about the earth. And even if it did, educators are so concerned with not making the the knowledge exposed in the classroom contradict itself yet that is the way the world is. My first thought was, 'why not instead of arguing that this way is the only way, we compromise?' Why not have a unit of going over scientific theories as well as western and eastern theories. Sadly, Arkansas tried to create a plan like this by making the "Balance treatment" act that entailed equal treatment to creation-science and evolution-science. Unfortunately it was 'unconstitutional' because it went against our freedom to religion.

Question: Is it against that same freedom to ban mentioning of the possibility that western or eastern religions are true?

Philosophy of Children

Since our topic this week was philosophy for children, I thought it would be relevant to go over the philosophy of children. The philosophy of children (SEP) first attempts to define what children are. In our reading this week, Piaget's theories were used as one of the arguments against philosophy in the elementary classroom. Yet, Piaget classifies children as what they are not able to do rather than what they are capable of doing. This negative outlook and classification of "deficit conception" puts up a barrier of what they may be capable of. The second way to examine the philosophy of children is to understand their cognitive development. Theories clash from famous developmental psychologists like Chomsky, Skinner, and Vygotsky when it comes to the development of language. Chomsky feels that we have a "LAD" (Language acquisition device) or seed language because children all over the world learn language in the same steps and at the same ages. Skinner believes that we learn language from the reinforcement we receive from others. And Vygotsky agrues that social interaction as well as culture plays a role. Yet the formation of concepts for the most part do not follow skinners theory, the use of "prototypes" as a tool for concepts has been shown as a way to form concepts (SEP). In neuroscience it has been shown that children actually have more neural pathways than adults do. This suggests that they are more able to form concepts. The third aspect that is examined is the theory of moral development. Rousseau and Kolberg have differing moral stages of development which could aid the argument for philosophy in the pre-college classroom. Rousseau suggests that there are five stages of moral development: 1. infancy (birth-2); 2. the age of sensation (3 to 12); 3. the age of ideas(13 to puberty); 4.The age of sentiment (puberty to 20) and 5. The age of marriage and social responsibility (21 and on) (SEP). According to Rousseau's theory children do not fully understand morals until they are 13. Kolberg has a different approach to determine one's moral stage. He believes that there are six stages yet most adults do not reach the sixth or sometimes even the fifth stage. In my high school psychology class we used this model to determine everyone's moral level. The scenario was that your wife (or husband) has cancer and you can not afford the drug to save their life, what do you do? It was not whether you decided to steal the drug or not that determined your moral level, but your reasoning for why. This model can be used in children's classrooms to determine each child's initial level of moral development. When children are young they do not fully understand right from wrong (and that is why they are not treated as adults, government wise). Yet, instead of them figuring it out as they go along why not have philosophical conversations in the classroom about what is right and wrong and why things are wrong and right. Having philosophical conversations of this nature may even lower crime rate. This article went into five other aspects of the philosophy of children concerning: children's rights, childhood agency, the goods of children and more. To wrap it all up, understanding how children learn helps adults understand how to explain things to their level of understanding. Of course children are not going to understand lots of big words and college level writting, but anything even philosophical concepts can be understood by children. We first need to grasp where they are initially, and then explain the concepts simply, starting with the easiest to understand. Using a protype helps, the children must hear an example or senerio of the concept and where it is used to fully understand. Question: How else does understanding the philosophy of childhood and psychological development help teachers?

Re: Brittany 4/14/11

Brittany asked, "Should philosophy be required for all educators?"

I personally think that education classes should be required not only for educators but for everyone. Yet, educators should take these courses especially, because it allows one to see things in a completly different way. Learning logic helps you become a better arguer, and evaluate things you read in every day life. In addition, it teaches you to reevaluate opinions of yours and others and determine if they are sound or not sound. Philosophy in general questions the things that otherwise people just accept, like unfair treatment to people of different races, gender inequality, and many other cultural norms. If it wasn't for people questioning the ethicacy of many problems the world would be in a detrimental state. I may not think that math and science teachers need philosophy but history and English teachers should definitely take philosophy courses. History teachers should be well informed on the "history of ideas" portion of philosophy because well that has a great impact on history. English teachers should be informed in the realm of philosophy because of it's creative and literature based nature is almost inseparable from philosophy.

Question: What can philosophy teach us?

Traits to Success

In the article by Bowles and Gintis they also talk about the traits that are "correlated" with success in school and the work place. The traits they mention that are penalized in the classroom are: Creativity, independence, and aggressiveness. The traits that are disapproved in the work place are creativity and independence.

The traits that are rewarded in the classroom are: perseverant, dependable, consistent, identifies with school, empathizes with others, punctual, defers gratification, externally motivated, predictable, and tactful. The traits that are approved of in the work place are all of these in addition to temperamental.

It makes sense that always trying, being reliable, and being on time is rewarded and approved. Yet, some of these seem a little contradictory to me. If one defers gratification that means that they turn down praise and award, yet that is behavior is said to be rewarded. If one is externally motivated that would mean that they would be always striving towards gratification or some external motivator. Which would mean that they would not necessarily be enjoying what they were doing, because if they enjoyed it then they would be internally motivated.

Question: Do you think that those who enjoy their jobs and school work do better than those who do not?

economics, education, and the self

In the Bowles and Gintis article they discuss the relationship between economics and self-perceptions. Individual needs and self concepts are shaped by social and economic systems. The way the works force is structured guides people’s perceptions and involvement in aspects and activities outside of these systems. When people are younger and developing these self-concepts, consciousness, and personality the family and educational system play a large role. Economics shape how well educated someone is by the town they live in, those who live in a less funded area will not have as good of an education. It also effects students self-perceptions by giving them an idea of where they should lie on the socio-economic spectrum. The types of jobs their parents have, they should too. Yet, with a good education, their predispositions are challenged by the concept of hard work and reassured by knowledge of governmental aid for further education.

Question: what other factors besides economic standing and education contribute to one’s self perceptions?

Re:Shelby classroom seating

What types of seating arrangements are best for learning? What physical changes should be made to the classroom to make them more conducive to learning?

Shelby mentioned how the typical seating in classrooms are rows of uncomfortable seats and how it has always been this way. The typical classrooms are like this, yet I have experienced two different kinds of seating arrangements regularly in classrooms, one is with one or more semi-circle(s) of chairs facing the instructor and the second is large tables (about 3-5) with students at each. I think that like with almost everything, it depends on what is the best.

With discussion based classes it is really annoying to have row seating. It is in our culture to look at people when they are talking, it is a sign of respect, yet, I hate straining my neck every time someone at an odd angle from me is talking. People take that into consideration though, certainly I do not find people disrespectful if they are not looking at me in this set up, yet I probably would if it was a semi-circle.

Row seating is well-suited for the standard talk-and-chalk lectures. That type of teaching is not suitable for semi-circle seating because there is no need to see everyone and when you get stuck on the end it is tough to read the board. I agree with Shelby, this is also my favorite type of seating.

Group seating is efficient for group work and project based classes. This type of seating is not effective when there are lectures because some of the student's backs are towards the front of the class. Most of these classes are art or English classes through my experience.

Anything other than light colors I feel would be distracting or would look bad in the classroom. Neon, or dark colored walls would not benefit the learning environment, yet light and dull colors might benefit learning more than white.

When it comes to lighting, studies have actually shown that bright light is beneficial to learning. It makes sense when you think about it, when there is more light you are more aware, yet I'm not sure if that's the reason.

Question: What would make the classroom more enjoyable?

Motivating the Unmotivated

I found an article online written by Maria Koklanaris published by The Parent Institute titled "7 Proven Ways to Motivate Children to do Better in School." http://asfms.net/parentworkshops/pdfs/SevenProvenWaystoMotivateChildren.pdf

This article, as the title states, gives seven ways that parents can motivate their unmotivated child.

The First step is to set proper expectations. According to Koklanaris, a parent should expect their child to successed, yet they should base their expectations on the child as an individual, incorporating what they know to be their strengths and weaknesses. Communicate to your child that you expect to see them trying their best. Do not look at the goals look at the steps to get there. Re-evaluate them on their efforts and interests about every three months or sooner. Review the expectations and highlight their improvements so far.

The second way to motivate your children is by setting goals. Goal setting involves three steps. One is you writing goals down for your child so that they have a visual reminder. Two is making the goals measurable so that you can see progress. The third is emphasizing a plan on how to achieve the expectations clearly. If the goal is to improve your child’s math grade first make that expectation within reach. For example, instead of saying that you want to get their D to an A, set the expectation of getting it to a C. After that is met you can build from there. Explain how to reach these goals by setting little goals to help them get there, for example practicing math problems for 20 minutes each day and taking the practice test in the back, even though it is not assigned. The article then goes into more detail by giving Five steps that help your child accomplish anything. 1.Have them make a conscious decision to do something. 2. Decide when they will do it. 3. plan how they will do it. 4. commit to someone else that they will do it. 5. Make a specific appointment with a person to report whether they have done it or not.

The third way to motivate your child is by showing them that you think that school is important. Of course if you do not care, neither are they. Koklanaris outlined five ways of showing that you care other than helping them achieve goals and setting expectations. One of them is maintaining a relationship with your child's teacher. Discuss the teachers goals for the curriculum and work together to come up with ways to help your child met those goals. The second way of showing your child that school is important is by supporting school programs. It has been scientifically proven that parental involvement in school is correlated to academic success. These modes of involvement include: back-to-school night, parent teacher conferences, volunteering at school fundraisers, volunteering for field trips, and joining the PTA. A third way is to create a suitable environment to do their work. Make sure that they have a quiet, bright environment and let them know that you will get them whatever supplies that they need. Fourthly, keeping up with your child’s assignments, be aware of their assignment of when big projects are do. And Lastly another ways to let your child know that you feel that school is important is to stay positive, show enthusiasm for what they are learning.

The forth way is to support your child’s learning style. Early this semester we talked about the different learning styles: analytical, global, auditory, kinesthetic, visual, linguistic and musical. In this article they separate children into three groups: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. Children feel more motivated about school when they can incorporate their learning style into it more. Koklanaris explains the attributes each learner has so that a parent can categorize them under the appropriate style, she then gave studying tips for that specific type of learner.

Auditory

· You know your child is an auditory learner if they:

o enjoy listening to music and hearing stories, they follow oral directions well, they are comfortable talking and feel, and they are more comfortable reading spelling words aloud rather than writing them.

· Study tips

o Auditory learners benefit from recording themselves and hearing it back. They also benefit from using pneumonic devices, rhymes, songs, and associated words. Have them play an audio recording of a book while they follow along. Have them talk through their problems “okay and now I carry the one…”. And lastly, give them an oral quiz.

Visual

· You know your child is a visual learner if they:

o learn best by reading or looking at graphs/tables. These students like to have something visual or written to help with oral presentations. They enjoy art, movies, and theater. Prefers studying charts rather than repeating aloud.

· Study tips

o Have your child make a poster or have an erasable whiteboard chart and have them fill in the things that they need to do that week. When they are assigned a textbook reading they should first skim through and look at all of the graphs and tables. When they are studying they should use colors as much as possible. Flashcards are a great medium for students who are visual learners.

Kinesthetic

· You know your child is a kinesthetic learner if they:

o Learn best from building or preparing a chart. These students like to move and would prefer to participate rather than observe. Prefers to create things and do hands-on activities rather than learn theories. When they are trying to remember things they tend to pace or study in a “non-sitting position.”

· Study tips:

o Encourage them to take study breaks where they do a physical activity. You should give them the maximum amount of room to study as possible. Parents should encourage hands-on projects for things like science fairs and also figure out ways to make any assignment a physical activity. You can aid these children with their reading comprehension by acting out passages in their text or be their audience.

The fifth way of motivating your child to do better in school is by giving encouragement. Koklanaris emphasizes that there is a big difference between praise and encouragement. Children unconsciously depend or your assessment of their success when you give praise. Encouragement leads the child to assess themselves. Praise should be used when the child worked as well as you wanted them to. Make sure to use opinion words and discuss the results that they received. This article did not mention this, but it also may be beneficial to let them know that their progress or achievement has positively affected you personally. Encouragement can be given whether or not they met the goals or not. Go over what to do differently if they did not reach the goal and use a positive attitude. It is essential to give encouragement when you notice effort and progress. Make sure to use descriptive words.

The sixth mode of motivating your child is reinforcing learning at home and in the community. Culture them and open their eyes to new points of view. Koklanaris gives the example that if your son or daughter likes basketball, take them to a ballet to show them that athleticism can be seen in all different forms. Culture can be taught in different ways such as a cultural family dinner night. Making cuisine from a different culture gives them a taste of that culture, using a sense that is not usually used for learning.

The seventh and final way to motivate children to do better in school is by encouraging them to be resilient. One neuropsychological study done by the University of Utah, supported that resiliency is developed by creating specific qualities. These qualities are: having a well-built notion that an adult will have unconditional love and support for them, capability to solve their problems without the help of others, understand and can focus on their strengths, and realize that everyone makes mistakes and that we can all learn from them. These qualities allow children to be prepared for whatever comes their way. There are four ways to install these qualities in your children: Empathizing with your child, giving your child practical choices, altering your method when the initial one does not work, and supporting your child’s interests and talents.

Question: What do you feel motivates you to do your work/ be successful?

Re: Mike 3/27/11

Do you think motivation is completely on the teacher or does it depend on the student? If so, what is more effective, positive or negative reinforcement?

Motivation is an internal drive, some people do not need to be pushed because they have it on their own, yet others need to be pressed. If people need to be pushed I feel like it is jointly on their family members, bosses, friends, and teachers to help give them that boost.

If a teacher wants to give their students a lift to cooperate in class, a behavioral intervention is one of the most ethical and easiest ways to go about it. I first want to make clear the differences between positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment, because there seems to be some confusion. Both types of reinforcement strengthen behavior and punishment weakens it. Positive reinforcement is when a stimulus is added in order to increase behavior. It is a common misconception to think of negative reinforcement as a "bad" type of reinforcement; negative does not refer to quality. The key word for negative reinforcement is "escape." When an adverse stimulus is presented, a person engages in the desired behavior in order to escape the undesired stimulus. A general example of negative reinforcement is when your car beeps until you put your seat-belt on. You put your seat belt on in order to escape the beeping. Nagging, complaining, and whining are verbal forms.

Punishment is the process of providing consequences for a behavior that decrease its frequency. Yelling is a type of punishment, more specifically called "reprimand." Punishment has many other forms, one is "response cost" this is when someone has to give up something as a form of punishment, a common example is a parking ticket (you have to give money). Another type of punishment is “overcorrection” this is when you have a person fix what they have done wrong and also repeatedly engage in the correct behavior on top of that. The last two types are "time out", and “physical punishment” which I think are both self-explanatory.

If a teacher wants to go the behaviorist route to motivate students the type of reinforcement or punishment used depends on the situation. If students are talking amongst themselves there are many types of ways to handle it using behaviorist techniques. You could go the punishment route by yelling (reprimand) or giving a detention (response cost). You could also go the negative reinforcement route by having an annoying sound be played every time the students act up. As soon as they are quiet, turn the sound off. After repeated pairings, in theory, they will no longer display that behavior. In order to use positive reinforcement in this situation you would have to wait until they display desirable behavior (being quiet) in order to thank them for shutting up (not in those words, of course). Every form has its place and with any situation you could devise plan behavior interventions and then choose which fits the situation the best.

Question: Behavior analysis is one tool to get students to cooperate in a classroom. Yet, does cooperating and doing what educational society wants of you necessarily mean that you are motivationally driven?

Re: Shelby 3/23/11

Shelby asked, "How can teachers and parents encourage students to be curious?"
Curiosity is an interest, desire, and thirst for knowledge. Curiosity is an instinct that we are born with and it is shown in the form of questions, exploration, wonder, and imagination. If you never question or seek answers how will you learn anything? As soon as babies are able to form questions, they never stop. They are curious about the world and all parents can do is answer those questions. The disappearance or diminishment of curiosity is likely due to external factors.
There are somethings that teachers can do to install the drive of curiosity in their students. The first that comes to mind is a technique that Professor Johnson uses in his teaching style, have students to ask questions. At the end of every Q&A and every blog post we have to end in a question or two. Asking questions enables one to receive answers and further their knowledge and inquiries. Another technique to install curiosity is to explore or research topics that one is interested in. Teachers at times have their students pick from a list of topics for papers or projects, this is important for the activation of curiosity because no one is curious about what they do not care about (yet maybe they are curious to why they do not care). A third method could be making the topic taught interesting. Teachers at times just resort to classic methods of teaching instead of thinking outside of the box. There are many ways to teach geometry or how to read getting students involved in what they are learning will make them want to learn more. A fourth method is having teachers ask the students questions that way they must wonder and formulate an answer. Answering a question involves puzzle piecing and if a student must answer a question, they then understand what is missing in order for them to answer it. By being asked they figure out what they do not know. And the final thing to do, which is a common practice among teachers, is to tell their students that their is no such thing as a dumb question and always leave class time to go over any confusion or further questions.
Question: Have you ever been told that you ask too many questions or has a teacher ever discouraged you to ask questions in a class?

Motivation

In class on Wednesday we talked about the over justification effect -- when giving external rewards for a desired behavior decreases the internal reward. I wanted to make it clear that not all reward giving decreases desired behaviors, infact it is often used and extremly effective in behavioral psychology. When an agent performs a desired behavior and they recieve a reward, it is known as positive reinforcement and you would be suprized on it's success. Tom Byrne, the Chair of the psychology department and behavior anaylst once said, "Teachers scoff because they think that behaviors cannot be influenced by M&Ms and gummy bears because 'it's not that easy'. But it is that easy." So why can gummy bears make someone behave a certin way and eventually cause them to establish an intenal reward, yet in the case of the over justification effect an external reward lowers the internal award? Well, these are behavioral interventions, they work to positivly reinforce a behavior that was not there to begin with. When tangible positive reinforcement occurs for individuals who already have an established internal award, they turn their focus on getting the external reward rather than enjoying the activity. Non tangible, or verbal reinforcement like saying, "good job" is helpful for both children who do not have an already established internal reward or the lack of one.
There was a study conducted that tested the effects of the poistive reinforcement phrases, "you worked hard" and "you are smart". The first group was given a test and after they had finished they were told that they did a good job and that they were worked hard. The second group recieved the same test and after they finished they were told that they did a good job and that they were smart. They both recieved a more difficult test and the group that was told that they worked hard not only did well, but was asking for more! The second group did not do so well. The two groups were then given the same test as they had in the beginning and the "hard working" group did the same or better and the "smart" group did worse. This shows that encouraging students to work hard is more important than being smart.
Question: What can teachers do to motivate their students?

Re: Stephen 3/9/11

What is music's role in education?

Lowell Mason founded the Boston Academy of Music in the early to mid 1800's and then became the superintendent of music for Boston public schools. He persuaded the surrounding towns to add music into their curriculum, which earned him the accreditation for starting music in the American public school system. He published The Manuel of the Boston Academy of Music which stated seven principles of music education. I couldn't find what these seven principles were exactly, but I do know that they did not explain why music is important in our lives, its aesthetic value, or standards for music education.
Music's role in today's curriculum, as it has been for many years is to teach team work, the application of fundamentals, the concept that you have to "keep going", how to approach goals with the right mind set, to use rules and theory to create something of your own, and many others. Team work as I and others have mentioned in previous blogs, is an important aspect of music. Everyone has to listen to each other and follow the conductor. The application of fundamentals is another important aspect of music, people who have been playing for fifty years still practice their scales and long tones prior to playing songs. Just like basketball players still practice their free throws after years of playing.
The most important thing with music that I have learned is the concept of "keep going." In video games you can just press the restart button, but when you make a mistake in a performance you cannot start over again, you have to pretend that you did not do anything wrong and the audience will forget, if they noticed. This can be very difficult especially if you are relying on your muscle memory, one wrong move and your muscles will not know where to go next. This is different than when a mistake is made in a sport game because since you are playing against a team whose reactions are only estimated when designing plays, that aspect of reaction and adjusting is almost programed into a players thinking. Yet with music it has a strict plan, your moves as well as others are known so when they are offset due to a mistake adjusting and knowing how to react may be difficult.
Another role music has in education is knowing how to set goals. Many people set goals that are difficult and high aspirations, yet they do not plan the steps on how to get there. With music you do not just play through a piece and move on to the next (well I suppose you could, but not in an educational setting). A lot of the time they do a quick read through first to work on sight reading abilities, and then they break it down phrase by phrase, slowing down the tempo, making sure the notes are clear and the articulations are correct. When the notes are clear, the right rhythm is played, and the articulations are correct with a slow tempo, the speed is then increased and the process starts over until the right tempo is reached. After that is completed one moves on to the next phrase and starts that process there. Of course there are many ways to approach a piece but all of them involve patience and practice. Patience and practice are extremely important concepts when reaching difficult goals.
Lastly, one of the important roles of music is learning the rules of theory and composition. There are the concepts of voice leading, 4 bars phrases, predictability, and I, IV, V. Yet after one learns these rules and how notes work together they can very well make a good composition using unpredictable 3 bar phrases while only using vii, vi, ii, iii!

Question: What is the most valuable thing you have learned from music? Or, what is the most important thing you have learned from any subject throughout your educational career?

Beautiful Mystery

Before ear training, dictation lessons, and learning a brass instrument, when I listened music I heard it as a whole -- one harmonious work. After, those skills had been developed I not only heard it as a one harmonious work, but also simultaneously heard all of the individual parts by themselves, and was able to understand how they worked together. It’s almost like I can hear a piece of music subjectively and objectively at the same time, when before it was only an objective view that I obtained. It is irreversible now, I cannot listen to a piece of music without seeing it from this perspective. It is almost like a curse because I can no longer just absorb; I must intake, analyze, and define. The lack of mystery to me, even after our discussion in class, does not appear to maximize a work’s beauty. There is beauty in the unknown. Because of this perspective, I understand music, and what I understand feels less intimidating to approach because it seems less of a challenge. Like with a end goal, if you know how to get there, the journey is less anxious. In the article he stated that beautiful things are difficult. After students learn a piece of music they find it beautiful even if they fist did not. This is not because they understand it more and think that it is more beautiful. The beauty is in the hard work it took, not the music itself. The piece of music is therefore a symbol of their dedication. The more difficult the piece, the more work you have to put into it. I would not be quick to say that the more difficult the piece, the more understanding there is obtain. It is the journey of finding understanding not the understanding itself. From an existential point of view would life be as beautiful if we knew why we were here? It's not meaning itself, but finding a purpose in life that give it meaning. Therefore mystery is beautiful because it initiates this curiosity to find an answer.

Question: If a piece of music is more beautiful the second or third time it is heard, than is improvisation less beautiful?

Endless Possibility of Sound (re: Drew 3/4/11)

"Is there a point where music can no longer reinvent itself?"

This is a great question with a definite answer. One of the first things you learn in a music class is that because there are so many different combinations of possible rhythms, articulation, notes, timbres, meter, form, and tempo, that there is no limit to how much music can be created.

For rhythms there are your standard whole notes, half notes, quarter notes, eighth notes and sixteenth notes. Then it gets a bit more complicated with thirty second notes, dotted quarter, dotted half, dotted eighth, dotted sixteenth, triplets, duplets, quintuplets (say the word "un-i-ver-sit-y" or my favorite, "seg-a-gen-es-is" with equal space in between each syllable), and there are more. There is also the concept of poly-rhythms that I will not get into.

Articulation is a component that is extended from rhythm. Slurs connect notes, and the absence of a slur indicates to re-articulate each note. In addition, staccatos cut the note short and legatos give the note its full value making it sound longer, these can be added to any note.

There are 12 different notes across several octaves, if there was only one melodic line in any given piece of music, then yes there would be limited variety. Yet, there is the concept of harmony with the addition of counter melodies which defines the melodic structure of a piece and gives an infinite amount of possibilities. Music of our day is basically all I, V, IV (first note of the scale, fifth note, and fourth note) yet every song sounds different because of different lyrics, harmonies, and keys.

Timbre is the distinct sound each instrument makes, a trumpet sounds different than a piano. There are woodwinds, brass, percussion, and string.

Meter (how many beats and notes are in each measure) also extends the endless possibility in music. a Waltz is in 3/4 time, faster pieces are in 2/2 or cut time, and basically every thing else is in 4/4 or common time.

Form is how the music is structured. In contemporary popular music for our culture the form is: verse, bridge, chorus X 3. Of course there are variations of this. Other forms in classical eras include fugues, rondos (ex: ABA), sonata form, and so on. This component gives music its outline.

Tempo is how fast or slow a piece of music is. You would be surprised how different a song sounds just by speeding in up or slowing it down.

As you can see, with the variables of rhythm, articulation, notes, timbres, meter, form, and tempo the possibility of music created is endless. Just like there are a limited amount of words in a language, but an endless amount of stories to be told.

Question: How does the idea of a right or wrong answer in any scholastic subject change its properties?

Responce to Jessica 3/3/11

"Is music the greatest form of art for everyone or does it depend on the person? If a person is more connected to a different activity can it provoke the same feeling?"

Art is defined as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. " Art is typically thought of as visual arts such as paintings, auditory arts such as music, performing arts such as theatre, and linguistic arts such as poetry. Yet, art is not limited to these subjects. One could argue that many things besides these lie under the category of artistic. What is it that makes something artistic? Anything that emitts emotion through an aesthetic medium is considered art in my book. I've only been horseback riding once in my life, but I can see why one would think it to be artistic. You are one with another creature and I assume it makes you feel closer to nature. Yes, it does depend on the person, if something feels beautiful to you than it is art in a subjective sense. Do what inspires you.

Another definition of art is any specific skill and its application. Anything can be an art if someone is good enough at it. Someone who is funny could be considered a comidic artist. Artistry isn't always a positive thing, an example is a con artist.

Question: What makes something art or an art?

Why music in education is important

In class yesterday Kim asked why should music should be taught in school?

Here are some reasons why:

· Music teaches sequential learning which is important to reading comprehension.

· Middle school and high school students who play instrumental music score significantly higher than non-band peers in standardized tests. University studies conducted in Georgia and Texas found significant positive correlation between the number of years of instrumental music instruction and academic achievement in math, science and language arts.

• Students who were exposed to the music-based lessons scored a full 100 percent higher on fractions tests than those who learned in the conventional manner. Second-grade and third-grade students were taught fractions in a nontraditional manner by teaching them basic music rhythm notation. The group was taught about the relationships between eighth, quarter, half and whole notes. Their peers received traditional fraction instruction.
• A ten-year study, tracking more than 25,000 students, shows that music-making improves test scores. Regardless of socioeconomic background, music-making students get higher marks in standardized tests than those who had no music involvement. The test scores studied were not only standardized tests, such as the SAT, but also in reading proficiency exams. In 2001, SAT takers with coursework/experience in music performance scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the test and 41 points higher on the math portion than students with no coursework/experience in the arts.
• Music majors are the most likely group of college grads to be admitted to medical school. Physician and biologist Lewis Thomas studied the undergraduate majors of medical school applicants. He found that 66 percent of music majors who applied to med school were admitted, the highest percentage of any group. For comparison, (44 percent) of biochemistry majors were admitted.
• A study of 7,500 university students revealed that music majors scored the highest reading scores among all majors including English, biology, chemistry and math.
• A McGill University study found that pattern recognition and mental representation scores improved significantly for students given piano instruction over a three-year period.
• self-esteem and musical skills measures improved for students given piano instruction.
• Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 showed that music participants received more academic honors and awards than non-music students, and that the percentage of music participants receiving As, As/Bs, and Bs was higher than the percentage of non-participants receiving those grades.
• Research shows that piano students are better equipped to comprehend mathematical and scientific concepts. children who received piano/keyboard training performed 34 percent higher on tests measuring spatial-temporal ability than the others even. "Spatial-temporal" is basically proportional reasoning - ratios, fractions, proportions and thinking in space and time. This concept has long been considered a major obstacle in the teaching of elementary math and science.
• Young children with developed rhythm skills perform better academically in early school years. Findings of a recent study showed that there was a significant difference in the academic achievement levels of students classified according to rhythmic competency. Students who were achieving at academic expectation scored high on all rhythmic tasks, while many of those who scored lower on the rhythmic test achieved below academic expectation.
• College-age musicians are emotionally healthier than their non-musician counterparts. A study conducted at the University of Texas looked at 362 students who were in their first semester of college. They were given three tests, measuring performance anxiety, emotional concerns and alcohol related problems. In addition to having fewer battles with the bottle, researchers also noted that the college-aged music students seemed to have surer footing when facing tests.
• The world's top academic countries place a high value on music education. Hungary, Netherlands and Japan stand atop worldwide science achievement and have strong commitment to music education. All three countries have required music training at the elementary and middle school levels, both instrumental and vocal, for several decades. The centrality of music education to learning in the top-ranked countries seems to contradict the United States' focus on math, science, vocabulary, and technology.
• Music training helps under-achievers. In Rhode Island, researchers studied eight public school first grade classes. Half of the classes became "test arts" groups, receiving ongoing music and visual arts training. In kindergarten, this group had lagged behind in scholastic performance. After seven months, the students were given a standardized test. The "test arts" group had caught up to their fellow students in reading and surpassed their classmates in math by 22 percent. In the second year of the project, the arts students widened this margin even further. Students were also evaluated on attitude and behavior. Classroom teachers noted improvement in these areas also.
• "The nation's top business executives agree that arts education programs can help repair weaknesses in American education and better prepare workers for the 21st century."

Facts provided by: http://www.nammfoundation.org/research/research-briefs-did-you-know

These facts clearly support the idea that music should be taught in schools. Music makes you smarter, more motivated, and raises your self-esteem. I realize that music and sports both teach team work, but an ensemble is the biggest team you will ever be in. A basketball team has 10-15 players and 5 players on the court at one time; a football team has 11 on the field; a baseball team has 9; soccer has 11. Do you know how many people are in an instrumental ensemble? 20, 30, 40, even up to 200 players! What other thing in the world involves this many people working together simultaneously towards one common goal? What other thing in the world do this many people work together to make something beautiful? With sports teams you have to be good initially to be on the team from middle school and beyond because you have to try out. Because they only need a limited amount of players, they only pick the best ones. Music never turns anyone down, the only way to be discarded by any ensemble is for having a bad attitude. They accept everyone no matter what your musical background, or how good you are, if you are interested the instructors will teach you. This could be why music raises ones self-esteem. I understand that music isn't for everyone and that not everyone is good at it, but that does not mean it should not be taught in schools. Just like gym class is required for physical health, music should be required for mental and emotional health.

So I end with the question: why shouldn't music be taught in schools?

Response to kim

Could the scientific method still be viable for the constructivist?

I can see why you ask that question. The constructivist relies on subjective experiences to make up their own world and the point of the scientific method is to study things objectively. The scientific method is a way to accurately measure something while cancelling out specific nuisance variables. You have an independent variable, a dependent variable and controls. Yet, one can carry out an objective study and then view it subjectively. The scientific method is important so that those pre-subjective thoughts or predictions do not get in the way of how the results turn out. The article we read a few weeks ago about radical constructivism, argued that radical constructivism should be used in physics classrooms. Physics highly relies on the scientific method to carry out experiments. Just like everyone else, radical constructivists want to discover knowledge and they know that when doing an experiment they cannot let their projections get in their way. The scientific method is viable for the constructivist.

Question: Do radical constructivists face obstacles in daily life that force them to go against their beliefs?

Phenomenology

In class on Wednesday we brought up the idea of social constructivism. I became interested in seeking out another type of philosophy of reality and came across the idea of Phenomenology. It was founded by Edward Husserl (yet he adopted terms and ideas from Kant and Hegel's philosophies.) Phenomenology looks into the conscious experiences of individuals. These experiences include: emotion, imagination, desire, memory, thoughts and most importantly perception.

Phenomenological philosophy terms

1. Lifeworld: the world of lived experience from a person.

2. Intentionality: Consciousness is always conscious of something, that something being whatever a person is focusing on. This can be mental or physical stimuli. Intentionality looks at the aim of consciousness.

3. Evidence: The subjective gathering of truth

4. Noesis and Noema: Noesis is the actual thought and noema is the ideal thought in any act of intentional consciousness.

5. Empathy and intersubjectivity: the phenomenological concept of empathy refers to concentrating on the “subjectivity” of oneself and then applying that to experiencing another’s human body as yours. Intersubjectivity represents objectivity. One must view themselves as a subject among other subjects. At the same time, they must see themselves as existing for the other person.

Phenomenology as an applied pedogological practice allows teachers to discover new meaning in the aspects they teach and allows them to make choices that change personal teaching practices.

In a school reform study sixteen teachers participated in the process of coming up with a shared school pedagogy. This involves teachers sharing their successful experiences with teaching methods so that they may collectively come up with joint pedagogical beliefs. Teachers also shared their personal stories with teaching and this gave other teachers insight to how others perceive things. After these joint beliefs were established they attempted to incorporate them into their everyday teaching.

They used phenomenology as a methodology in addition to these new practices. This implied exploring the knowledge of children: how they perceive, what they think about, and how they view the world. After this incorporation, some, but not all of the teachers felt like they had more insight to the students which helped them teach better. (http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/mos02453.htm)

Question: How would teachers benefit from understanding how their students perceive, imagine, think, and structure their conscious?

What is Knowledge?

The radical constructivist's two main claims are as follows: Knowledge is not received but actively built up by an individual. Mental processes change and work to adjust the experiential world, not to realize ontological reality.

Ontological reality contains what 'really exists', it is a question of metaphysics. The way that radical constructivist theory protects itself from being called solipsistic is by remaining agnostic to any metaphysical claims. Solipsism is based off of Descartes claim: I think therefore I am. (I can only know I exist). Solipsism is philosophical suicide because it is ridiculous to think that you only exist and everything else may very well be a figment of your imagination.

Radical constructivist theory stresses the importance of perception, how an individual perceives reality to be. Reality does not exist independently of its perceivers. Knowledge is not knowledge until someone perceives it as that way. There is no raw knowledge only interpretations of it. This is why in radical constructivist teaching, the teacher must make a cognitive map of how their student interprets information, because they must understand their reality.

In class on Wednesday, Professor Johnson talked about the theories of radical constructivism and realists. He stated that knowledge = justified/ truth/ belief. Our knowledge consists of what we believe is justified and true. For realists, when a new belief matches an already existing belief, the new belief is true. Yet, for the radical constructivist when a new belief matches a previously existing belief, the new belief is viable, not true.

Questions: Are justification, truth, and belief necessary or sufficient conditions for knowledge? Since radical constructivist theory does not believe something can be true, does that mean that they do not have valid knowledge? Can the information in their repertoire only be 2/3 knowledge?

Re: Emily 2/17/11

"Is it valid to reject radical constructivism solely because it makes it very hard (maybe even impossible) to function in society?"

It is not valid to reject RC theory because it makes it difficult to live in society. Yet, that does give reason to adjust the theory and add a missing link. What is it about radical constructivism that makes it very hard or impossible to function in society? In my opinion it is the fact that those living by this theory cannot accept things that they have not experienced. We experiences society, so we should know how to function in it. The missing link may be the addition of societal joint perceptions (that an individual experiences) to an individual's constructed reality.

Carl Rogers, a famous client-centered therapist and humanistic psychologist, believed that experience is the private world of an individual. It is always conscious at some level, yet there are experiences we encounter that are difficult to bring into awareness. The individual is the only one who can know their awareness completely.

For psychological purposes, reality is essentially the inner world of individual perceptions. Yet, for social purposes, reality is made up of perceptions that have a high amount of agreement within a society.

The perceptual field of an individual, how the world appears to them from their specific point-of-view is known as the internal frame of reference. It is based off of the entire span of one’s learning history and experiences in addition to the meanings and feelings attached to them.

Roger’s definitions of experience and reality are very similar. Private world of the individual vs. private world of individual perceptions vs. private world of societal perceptions. Experience is inner awareness, it is all internal because we all have our own set of experiences. Psychological reality is our inner world created by how we perceive external stimuli. Social reality consists of our intake of societal perceptions and projections of our responses to them. The internal frame of reference ties the three theories together by inductively stating that an individual’s view of reality is based off of their experiences. This supports the radical constructivist theory. The missing link in the radical constructivist theory may be the idea of a social reality. In Rodger’s theory it emphasizes the importance of individual experiences and perceptions but also highlights that societal joint perceptions are important too. These joint perceptions and acceptances are needed to function properly in society.

If Ernst von Glasersfeld adopted the theory of social reality would his RC theory still be valid?