I thought that the discussion about charter schools was pretty good. I don't really like to debate at all so I didn't like that part at all, but the pros and cons for charter schools were interesting. I personally think that the USA has given every child in the nation the best possible opportunity for success through the public school system. I don't think that should change at all. But, if enough parents want to be that involved in their child's education, then I think they should be able to start a charter school. I think that charters are something that groups of parents want for their kids because they think its better than public schools. If this is what parents want for their child then I think they should pay for it as well. I don't think any money that a state has allocated for education should go to a school that is set up because of parents personal preferences. There are parents that home school their kids because they think its a better education but the state doesn't pay for that, the parents do. I think its the same thing with charter schools, parents should have to pay for it. Would this make charter schools only available to the extremely wealthy? At the start yes, because of the cost to build the school. After that the only cost would be the money for the students supplies. If the state didn't pay at all for charters then that would only make our public schools that much better. All in all if people want something different than what the public is giving them, then they should have to pay for it. 

I thought teaching at Foothill Elementary was pretty fun today. The things that I was most impressed with was that the kids were smarter than I thought they would be. The designs they came up with were pretty good for 6th graders. The other thing that I thought was really good was the way Mr. Larsen tied in what we taught the kids to what he was teaching them. They had recently learned about World War II, and he used the design principles we taught them to expound on all the propaganda that went around at that time. I thought that was really cool.

I thought the end of the book had a really good fact in it. In the study the teachers said they only thought they were asking about 25-40 questions per hour in their class but in the end it turned out to be they were asking over 100 questions in the hour. It made me think about questions and cues. We are suppose to use this tool as a way to spark the minds of the students to think and reason, but how many questions should we ask? These seasoned teachers are asking over 100 questions per hour, is that too little or too much? Could it be possible for a teacher to ask only a handful of questions to their class in one day and have just as much growth in the students learning? I think over 100 questions an hour shows that teachers are asking low end questions. They are not questions that are making the students think too much, they are more like yes/no or true/false questions. I think in the lesson outlines there should be a section where the teacher must write a few high end questions that are going to make the students think. The questions we ask our students need to be more of posing a problem for them to solve than just a yes/no question. 

I really was impressed with Chapter 7 of this book. I really believe in the nonlinguistical representions. I heard somewhere that 80% of communication is not with your words, but with the way you portray yourself (i.e. posture, facial expressions). I know that this chapter was talking a lot about making pictures and graphs for the students to look at. But I think another part of this is the way we act in front of them. If we act bored and tired so will they. If we treat a subject like it doesn't mean much so will they. If we treat the student like we dont believe they can learn the subject then they will start to believe it too. I think that once you are in the classroom or in front of students you need to act in such a way that you wont hinder their excitement to learn a subject even if its not something that you yourself are interested in.

classroom instruction that works

The thing that I found to be the most interesting in this book so far was the way analogies should be used in teaching a principle. The one they used was killing a tumor in the stomach by shooting radiation at it from all different angles. I thought it was very interesting that when the problem came up most people had no idea what to do about it but after the analogy of the army attacking a fort everyone knew what to do. I think analogies and metaphors are the most powerful way we can teach people because analogies help us form a connection with our audience on a personal level. If we can influence the people we teach on a personal level then the things we teach in the classroom will stay with them beyond it.

reading

I thought it was very interesting that this book started off with a statistic that says that schools pretty much do nothing for children and then goes on to try and prove that stat wrong. I'm sure it is wrong but still...I guess it did do the job of capturing my attention. 

I also wanted to write about the school I went to today. I went to Mr. Jorgensen's class at Timpanogos High School. Although all the students were doing was catching up on their work before the quarter ended I was really impressed with his organization skills. He has created lesson plans that are so thought out and structured perfectly that he doesn't have to spend his time scrambling around for something to teach or show the kids. The one thing I didn't like about his class was the fact that lots of the students finished the assignments and spent most of the period playing games. I really wouldn't care if my students played computer games if they finished their work and it was the last 10 min. of class or something. This was about 5 kids playing computer games for 45 min. of the class. I think if you have a few students that are catching on really well that is great and you should have something extra for them to do or send them on to the next assignment and give them a challenge.

I thought that the STL teaching was pretty good. I think that for the most part I dont know that will specifically remember the lessons for each grade. I will just remember that general thing. But I think through learning these STL's we have defined "technology" better. I think because we have really thought about technology as more than just electronics, our views have changed on that front.

I went to Timpview High School last week. I thought Mr. Valora was pretty good. The thing I liked most about him was the way he treated not the students that were listening to class but how he treated the one who wasn't. He had a student that was doing horrible in his class and he told me that he took him aside and he made a plan with him to get him back on track. He didn't just decide to fail him which the kid probably deserved, but he decided to give him a second chance and try to help him get a passing grade.

gong book

I really like this book. The part I was most impressed with is the part where they break down the Declaration of Independence and uses this fourfold path the learn what it was really about. I can really see that this method of learning really can help you learn faster and more that you can now.

The Gong book

Well this book is really interesting. I liked the chinese story at the very beginning of the book. Just by understanding that story, it really sets to tone for the rest of the book. I think that this idea of exponential learning is very interesting. From what I have read in the book about it and also drawing on some of my own knowledge I would say that this idea of exponential learning will not happen while in this life. I think that it is a God-like quality that we should strive for but I dont think we can fully grasp it while in this life. I equate it to trying to become perfect like God is. We should try our absolute hardest to do so, and there may be times when we seem to be there, but in the long run we still fall short and make a lot of mistakes. I think that learning exponentially is going to be a life long thing to strive for and while some may seem to be close to attaining that ability I think in the end we will all have to wait for the resurrection before we truly can attain it.

"First Days of School" Section 4

The last section I read in this book was pretty inspirational. The point that I liked the most was when Wong defined a job and a career. I have heard this more than once in my life and I like it. A job is just something you do to make some money, it is a means to some sort of end. This is not always a bad thing. I think there are a lot of college students who have a job. 

But a career is something that you do not just to make money, but it is something you do as  a way to have a fulfilling life. It is some sort of cause that makes you feel like you are making a difference in the world. 

"First Days of School" section 3

The book to me is starting to get a little bit repetitive. There is one thing that I really cant ever agree with. He says in the book that if you want your students to maximize their learning time you need to add more hours to their learning time. 

I do not really agree with that because I think students will have a breaking point. They will reach a point where they will just shut their brains off and not work. I also do not agree with this because I think you need to maximize your teaching efficiency to help students learn the most. If you are able to reach all your students and teach them a difficult principle in a quick manner than it didn't take them spending more hours to learn it.

2nd reflection

The second section of the book that I read was pretty redundant but also full of plenty of good insights and hints. The thing that I really agreed with was the part that talked about always posting your assignments in the same spot every single day. This made me remember an english teacher I had my sophomore and junior year in high school. I can say that I didn't really like english class that much. The reason I decided to stay in her class after my sophomore year was the fact that I knew the exact schedule of all our assignments and when they were due. They were all on a chalkboard on the left of the class. The chalkboard was made to look like a big month long calender. I always knew what was going to happen every single time I walked into her classroom. 

This also made the class run a lot more smoothly. There was no question what we were going to learn or do that day because everyone could see it in big letters on one side of the classroom. This made our so called "wasted time" go way down. Everything seemed to work out a lot more efficiently. 

Reflection 1

The first section of the book I read was sections A and B. The most interesting thing that I read about was on pages 38-39. It was the small section where Robert Rosenthal in the 1960's did a test on the teachers of a San Francisco elementary school. I found it extremely interesting that just because the teachers were made to believe that some of there students were extremely gifted that they suddenly became better teachers and there students did better in class as well.
This makes me think of Doctrine and Covenants 18:10, "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God." I think this is true not only because we are His children but because we have within us great potential to succeed in the challenges of life. Although that is probably not the conclusion that Dr. Rosenthal came up with, that is a conclusion that we can draw from it.
I think as teachers it is important to not let the actions of the students who choose not to try affect the way we teach those who are willing to give effort. I think it is also important to note that we as teachers should put forth the most effort everyday. Quitting one day could mean a lot in the long run.

wow I created a blog...and I have to say it feels phenomenal!