Army Navy Game Live Blog

A for Effort?

I'm wondering about the theory of rewarding effort vs. ability. The application of this theory plays out something like this: everyone has innate abilities that they bring to a given class. We want all students to strive so we reward some portion of the grade based on individual effort, not relative ability to master the subject.

While I understand the desire to reward students who are working hard but struggle to achieve, are we really helping them by only rewarding effort? Likewise, if a student fully understands a lesson, should they be punished for not spending any more time on it? Maybe this is a place for balance between different types of assignments. After trying to work with this new theory, I find myself leaning back toward traditional reward for performance.

Video Games in the Classroom

I would probably be the last person to ever advocate using video games in the classroom, but I can see some similarities and things teachers could use to improve student engagement. The games provide challenges, require problem solving, offer skill-based competition, and then reward effort by achieving new levels. These ideas seem like pretty good strategies to include in teaching. I am still leery of the flashing light, moving-action-game hypnosis that seems to enrapture especially boys playing games, but I think we could use these other reward strategies to hold student interest in difficult subjects.

Facebook is doing a great job increasing traffic at their site by offering lots of game applications. Some of them are puzzle oriented brain teasers, but many are social games where players invite neighbors into the gamespace. I see opportunity here.

More Curriculum Questions

Since the state of Michigan has decided to increase "college prep" requirements in the curriculum, what were the expected benefits? I am hearing of schools trying to get math credit for drafting work done in autoshop class. Hmmm. That might be a better idea for those students who are not planning to go to college, so why is the state involved at this level? Is it just a good political sound byte gone bad when implemented?

Another curriculum question: How does a teacher decide how much material to cover in a given course? For a science class, the whole list of state subject learning objectives is clearly out of reach for a two-semester class, but how much is right? I have noticed a couple of large segments of students. One segment is bored because the pace is too slow and another segment seems to be struggling just to keep a positive interest in learning. So far I have not found the ideal middle students. I will look closer for this middle group that is learning and engaged and for whom the pace seems just about right.

Who Decides What's in the Curriculum

I thoroughly enjoyed a humbling experience in class this week. In our review of the history of the Silk Road trade routes, we also learned about the more recent Chinese Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. First of all, I thought the revolution was over in 1949 when China became Communist and the Nationalists fled to Formosa. But what really shocked me was my total ignorance of what was happening in China in the 60's and 70's. They sent everyone back to the farms and burned all their books to rid the country of all intellectualism!!! Mao attempted to purify the country of all "reactionary" literature and practices by sending everyone back to agriculture.

So how do we as a society choose what we teach our children? I was surprised by my complete ignorance of this modern history, but I realize we can't teach everything to everyone. As a student teacher of Physics, I am wondering if all of these learners really need so much science. Some of them are really struggling. Maybe their strengths are in the arts. I love science, but writing is hard for me. I am unsure of the efficacy of recent state decisions to increase core high school graduation requirements. These requirements seem to disregard the great beauty inherent in each individual's uniqueness. One size fits all doesn't seem to fit.

Physics and Horses on My First Day of School

Returning to the world of public high school was a strange experience this week. After graduating from high school almost 25 years ago, it seems that most things have stayed the same. Students still act like students (and wear silly clothing although I still wear my belt above my hips, the old-fashioned way); teachers still work hard to teach within the chaos. But my perspective has changed. After only one day in class, I am questioning the effectiveness of the whole framework of our public high schools. Specifically, does it make sense to ask a teacher to teach Physics to 133 students each day in 5 large classroom groups meeting just one hour per day? That seems overwhelming to me right now.

Maybe even more important than this teacher to student ratio is difficulty in overcoming some student's lack of motivation. If the student doesn't want to learn Physics, does it make sense to have a system that requires this subject? My high school is struggling with a high drop-out rate. The teachers are highly motivated to fix the problems, but it seems to me that the students also need to bring at least a modicum of their own motivation. The adage, "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," seems to apply here. Some things don't change.

Ethics in Education

While looking for articles on Religion Literacy in public schools, I came across a study of excellence in independent schools. The author listed ten traits of these excellent schools that they discovered in extensive interviews with students and administration at highly acclaimed private schools. The traits are so foreign to what I remember from my public high school, but they really make sense. These traits are deep human values like trust, integrity, ethics, and a leader that imbues the whole school with a character of integrity. To me, these are the real goals that we need to aim at before we start discussing the 4 R's (with Religious Literacy as the 4th).