Reflection on Teaching Essay Example for Free

Reflection on Teaching Essay In order to challenge my theory of teaching I first need very briefly to define it. When I was taught science it was mostly through direct teaching. Any experiments performed were deductive in nature with very little input from me. When I got to college and I started performing experiments then I suddenly started having little epiphanies where facts I had learned off by heart were unexpectedly connected in ways I hadn’t understood before. So I came to think that this was what was lacking at secondary level, the experimental experience that allowed people to physically test the ‘how’ of the world around them. To put it simply people are innately curious and that exploiting this curiosity is the way to teach. From the moment they learn to talk, children constantly ask questions about everything, from â€Å"where eyebrows come from?† to â€Å"what do worms eat?† Asking questions is the way they find things out and this really is just one small step away from learning. From personal experience of teaching I think that Arnstine (1967) was correct when he said â€Å"the arousal of curiosity can lead to learning†¦for learning to occur, curiosity must be guided†. Designing lessons in such a way as to tap into the natural curiosity of students and to connect the topics on the curriculum with their everyday experiences is surely the best way to teach science. I find enquiry / constructivism extremely interesting as it encapsulates the whole get their attention approach but I think it’s misused by an awful lot of people. I think that analogies and real world examples need to be reflective of the scientific concept yet simple enough that the student can grasp it. Also it requires that the student be actively involved, activities must provide the opportunity to demonstrate learning.  Ã¢â‚¬Å"To instruct someone is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to teach him to participate in the process that makes po ssible the establishment of knowledge. We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is a process not a product.† (Bruner. J, The Process of Education: Towards a theory of instruction 1966: 72) So in approaching this assignment I realise that I am an ardent supporter of teaching through enquiry. I agree with Bruners theoretical framework of building on pre-existing knowledge by presenting new material in a logical manner at a level the student can understand, revisiting topic in stages and building layers of ever increasing complexity. I find the concept of a spiral curriculum to be a sensible one, but also to be at odds with the way in which individual schools plan the teaching of science. There is far too much relience on the text book, with strict adherence to the material inside. I prefer to leave the text book at home, for the student to be assigned reading and questions from it for homework so that it is new and different and provides a slightly different aspect to the same topic. At the very least it will provide the same information as was covered in class in a slightly different manner and provoke recall instead of boredom. A consequence of supporting enquiry is an aversion to direct teaching. Those who support direct teaching say that it is a highly effective method of teaching. The basic components are careful content analysis, sequencing of information and use of appropriate examples, specific instructional formats where both teacher and student responses are scripted and testing to mastery. The part that receives the most criticism is the scripted responses. Here is an example I found at Brainsarefun.com http://brainsarefun.com/Teachtk.html EXAMPLE 1. All: Teacher and students touch the answer to be learned. 2. Teacher: The answer to this question is, 1492. 3. Teacher: When I signal I want you to answer, 1492. 4. Teacher: The answer is 1492. 5. Teacher: What year did Columbus discover America? 6. Teacher: Get ready. Watch the students to make sure all participate. 7. Teacher: Signal by pointing or snapping fingers. 8. All: 1492. 9. Teacher: Thats right, Columbus discovered America in 1492. 10. Teacher: Reward. Good job saying 1492. Make eye contact with individuals. Smile. 11. Teacher: Next answer, or repeat until everyone is participating and firm. If any student is unable to participate or answer correctly, start at the top of the sequence again. Most teachers believe that this type of teaching is too restrictive and prevents the students from developing critical thinking skills. I have to say that on my first reading of this example of direct teaching I was horrified at the way the students were indoctrinated. I knew that this method of teaching was not for me and I continued to develop my lesson plans along the constructivist enquiry model. I researched guided discovery and found that discovery learning is described as an inquiry-based, constructivist learning theory that occurs in situations where the learner draws on their existing knowledge to discover facts and comprehend relationships. Students interact with the world by manipulating objects, wrestling with questions or performing experiments. As a result, students are more likely to remember concepts and knowledge discovered on their own (in contrast to a transmission / direct teaching model). Proponents of discovery learning say it has many advantages, including encouraging active engagement, promoting motivation, autonomy, responsibility, independence, aiding the development of creativity and problem solving skills and is a tailored learning experience that helps minimize classroom management problems. Detractors point out the amount of time needed to teach a topic and that students do not always achieve the intended outcome of the lesson. That is they may draw erroneous conclusions about the investigation they are engaged in. My action research Now that I have explored my theories on teaching I need to test those theories by comparing the outcomes of direct versus enquiry teaching. Ideally in order to compare the two methods I should keep the conditions of the lessons the same and only change the method of instruction. Rigor would  dictate that I teach two groups of students that have been randomly segregated. The students would be in the same year of secondary school and assumed to be at the same academic level. Ability within each group would be expected to mimic normal distribution with some students excelling and some struggling with the curriculum content. Unfortunately in my teaching practice placement I have one class of first years and one class of second years. I am also following a subject plan laid down by the science department in the placement school, which further restricts my research topic. Hence rather than directly compare and contrast two sets of lesson plans that differ in instruction but not content, I shall attempt to make my methods of instruction the subject of the action research. My intention is to design a number of lesson plans along the guidelines of both approaches and to deliver these lessons as independent of personal bias as possible. I shall assess the success of each lesson plan as a measure of student value and under a number of points such as participation, motivation to learn, interest of students, as well as proficiency in summative tests. Bearing in mind my own learning, I will also be critically examining something about my ability to deliver a constructivist lesson; do I do as I say? In assessing participation of students I will make reference to number, frequency and relevance of questions asked. Time spent on-task will be used to measure motivation and interest as will content of questions asked. In line with standard research methods I established a baseline of knowledge on the topic of energy by giving the students a questionnaire which was designed to probe existing conceptions. (more here on the results of the questionnaire) From my understanding of enquiry teaching there seems to be a number of activities that should feature in my lesson plans and I have tried to incorporate these in the enquiry based lesson plans. I have included a list of these activities here and have also identified them in the appropriate lesson plans. Enquiry activities †¢ Think about scientifically orientated questions that are at an appropriate level and ask ‘how’ rather than ‘why’ (teacher provides questions at first) †¢ Gather and consider evidence using the tools of science †¢ Make explanations based on prior gain fact and ‘new’ knowledge gained through the process of enquiry / evidence gathering †¢ Compare  conclusions to currently scientific understanding and account for differences †¢ Communicate and negotiate their findings and explanations with others After the brainstorming session I jotted down as many of the words and phrases as I could during class. Light, wave, geothermal, heat, renewable, sun, plants, photosynthesis, comes from food, plants make it, atomic bombs, it keeps you moving, you are tired without it, it can change, there’s energy in batteries, joules, oil. Then I asked a series of questions designed to clarify facts that they needed to know (3A6 Energy, 3A7 Energy conversion: Junior Certificate Science Syllabus). From the answers it was clear to me that the students could not distinguish between forms of energy and sources of energy. Because the discussion section of the enquiry lesson plan is open-ended I was able to direct questions and highlight information on the board that students could use to ‘discover facts’. I tried to give minimum guidance but I found that the students were floundering and unsure of what they were trying to accomplish. This was a recurring theme during the discovery lesson plans and it seems to me from my readings that this is the main detracting feature of enquiry instruction. Those who oppose constructivist / enquiry instruction such as Kisherner, Sweller and Clark (2006) argue that minimum guidance during instruction does not work and Clark (1989) goes further to suggest that his data shows that ‘lower aptitude students’ show a loss of learning on post instructional testing. My Conclusion It is essential that the teacher do research work, i.e., he should comb the subject of chemistry from end to end for facts and for methods of exposition that will make such facts live and real to his students. (Patrick, W. A. (1924) What kind of research is essential to good teaching? J. Chemical Education, Volume 1, Issue 1, p16.) I have come to the conclusion that there is a need for direct teaching in the classroom in order to build up foundation of facts in long term memory to provide wellspring of knowledge which can be used to provide data when needed. Enquiry or discovery learning encourages the use of this knowledge so that students can put facts together to think critically. Dewey supported inductive teaching as the way to improve scientific teaching for a better educated society and said science lessons should include learning the process of science not just the facts, (Dewey, 1903). By this I believe he meant that the two methods complement each other and need to be used in tandem. But direct teaching cannot be taken as an excuse for unimaginative lessons recycled every year with minimal input from the teacher needed in the delivery. If investigatory activities are designed deductively, ie have only one conclusion, need more here about factors to consider when designing lesson activities.

A separate piece :: essays research papers

A. Title and Author - A Separate Peace by John Knowles B. Story Setting - The story starts off at the Devon school, which is a prep school in New England at 1958. But the rest of the story takes place through a flashback of his days when he was a student at Devon during 1943. C. Main Characters - Gene Forrester - Gene is the narrator of the novel and appears at two different time periods: as a middle-aged man re-visiting Devon fifteen years after being a student there, and, for the majority of the novel, as a sixteen and seventeen-year-old student during World War II. The novel is written in the past tense, and we assume that Gene's narration is triggered by his re-visitation of his old school when he is thirty-two. And although the older narrator seems long past the emotional turmoil that marked his schoolboy days, the events of his years at Devon are told as if they were occurring in the present, as if our narrator were still sixteen years old. The Gene that we encounter for the bulk of the novel is, like many of his classmates, at a liminal stage in his life-the adolescence between boyhood and manhood. This transition is further emphasized by the war, Gene being in the final years of freedom before the ravages of a world war can legally claim him. Outwardly Gene is one of the top students in his class and a talented athlete. These traits earn him respect on campus and, most importantly, the friendship of Phineas, whom Gene respects more than any of his fellow classmates. But inwardly, Gene is plagued by the darker forces of human nature, forces that prey upon the turbulence of adolescence. Gene's admiration and love for Finny is balanced and marred by his fierce jealousy of him, by a deep insecurity in himself, and, because of his insecurity, a need to compete with and "defeat" his friend at all costs. Gene's internal emotional battles are the major source of conflict and tension in the novel. Phineas - Called Finny by his classmates, Phineas is Gene's closest companion at Devon and, for our narrator, the central focus of the novel. Finny is five feet eight and a half inches tall and weighs one hundred fifty pounds. Indeed, Finny is the superhuman wonder of athletics and physical harmony at Devon, far surpassing any competition from his classmates, Gene included. What is more, Finny's physical prowess matches that of his personality-he is a charismatic, good-natured, and persuasive young man.

Structuralism

Structuralism originated in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the subsequent Prague and Moscow schools of linguistics. [1] Just as structural linguistics was facing serious challenges from the likes of Noam Chomsky and thus fading in importance in linguistics, structuralism appeared in academia in the second half of the 20th century and grew to become one of the most popular approaches in academic fields concerned with the analysis of language, culture, and society. The structuralist mode of reasoning has been applied in a diverse range of fields, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, and architecture. The most famous thinkers associated with structuralism include the linguist Roman Jakobson, the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, the philosopher and historian Michel Foucault, the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, and the literary critic Roland Barthes. 1] As an intellectual movement, structuralism came to take existentialism's pedestal in 1960s France. [2] Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure—modelled on language—that is distinct both from the organisations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination—the â€Å"third order†. In Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, for example, the structural order of â€Å"the Symbolic† is distinguished both from â€Å"the Real† and â€Å"the Imaginary†; similarly, in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood. According to Alison Assiter, four ideas are common to the various forms of structuralism. First, that a structure determines the position of each element of a whole. Second, that every system has a structure. Third, structural laws deal with co-existence rather than change. Fourth, structures are the â€Å"real things† that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning. [4] In the 1970s, structuralism was criticised for its rigidity and ahistoricism. Despite this, many of structuralism's proponents, such as Jacques Lacan, continue to assert an influence on continental philosophy and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's critics (who have been associated with â€Å"post-structuralism†) are a continuation of structuralism. [2]

Maia Szalavitz, Author Of Unbroken Brain, Points Out In

Maia Szalavitz, author of Unbroken Brain, points out in an article about our finger-pointing mentality on drug abuse, â€Å"Addiction is one of the most serious health problems we face today, and as of 2010, more than 23 million people have an addiction to drugs, and according to the National Institutes of Health, these addictions contribute to more than 100,000 deaths per year.† Drug abuse is a major problem in the United States and throughout the world as more and more people become addicted every day. When you hear the words drug addict you think of desensitizing terms, like â€Å"junkie† or â€Å"crack head,† and when you see someone panhandling for money on the street, passed out, or swaying in a doorway you likely wonder, â€Å"why don’t they just get†¦show more content†¦They are often people who were issued pain medication by a doctor, which resulted in dependence on the drug. According to results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 2.4 million Americans used prescription drugs non-medically for the first time within the past year, which averages to approximately 6,600 initiates per day. This population would seek help if not for the fear and shame they feel about being labeled as a drug addict. These stigmas perpetuated by people believing that addiction is a character flaw or a sign of weakness can create such fear in a person that they won’t ever reach out for the help they need. They worry about losing their jobs and family, so they opt to go without treatment despite the consequences to their health, which could eventually lead to death. In the â€Å"Addiction† article published by the Gale group, it states that â€Å"According to the CDC, in 2013 more than sixteen thousand people died from prescription opioids, an increase of 50 percent in three years.† Addiction does not discriminate; it makes no distinction between a person’s age, sex, color, or financial circumstance. However, the stigma surrounding addiction and drug use leaves many Americans unwilling to help fund better treatment. Health insurance is also a major component in whether a person can pursue treatment for addiction. Even when health insurance does cover treatment, there might not be an available treatment center orShow MoreRelatedIs There Anybody Out There?. Maia Szalavitz, Author Of1484 Words   |  6 Pages Is There Anybody Out There? Maia Szalavitz, author of Unbroken Brain, points out in an article about our finger-pointing mentality on drug abuse, â€Å"Addiction is one of the most serious health problems we face today, and as of 2010, more than 23 million people have an addiction to drugs, and according to the National Institutes of Health, these addictions contribute to more than 100,000 deaths per year.† Drug abuse is a major problem in the United States and throughout the world as more and moreRead MoreWhen You Hear The Words Drug Addict You Think Of Desensitizing1369 Words   |  6 PagesWhen you hear the words drug addict you think of desensitizing terms, like â€Å"junkie† or â€Å"crack head† and when you see someone panhandling for money on the street, passed out, or swaying in a doorway you likely wonder, â€Å"why don’t they just get help?† Maia Szalavitz, author of Unbroken Brain, points out an article about our finger-pointing mentality on drug abuse, â€Å"A ddiction is one of the most serious health problems we face today and as of 2010, more than 23 million people have an addiction to drugs