My final draft of my Inquiry Project report is now available online:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhfb44p3_17cwptds
and my appendix and bibliography:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dhfb44p3_18vvthkm
I wish I'd had time to talk about The Homework Myth and Einstein Never Used Flashcards, since those were both very interesting in a challenging-assumptions-about-learning sort of way. In the end though, I just didn't have the time or energy to write about them, and have far too many things coming due in the all-too-near-future to even think about adding another 4 or 5 pages to my report. Suffice it to say that both are interesting reads, and contain excellent information about the nature of research on education and the state of the nation regarding culturally ingrained learning assumptions which rarely go challenged.
Oh well. I felt it could have been better, as with every paper I write, but that it turned out ok. As to the future of this blog... well, in an ideal world, I'd keep posting things of interest I learn regarding education and other such topics. As it is, it will probably languish in disuse now that there's no outside force forcing me to use it. Such is life, at least for me at this point. I kind of had fun while it lasted; the experience gave me a lot of respect for people who write serious blogs about issues, as opposed to livejournals about feelings, which is all I'd previously had experience with. That's got to take a lot of motivation, especially if you're not getting paid anything to do it.
A great movie once said that if you can't think of a way to end a paper, steal from someone else and go out strong, because there's always someone who's already said whatever you're trying to say better. So in that spirit:
... i began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. Just once in a while, let us exalt the importance of ideas and information. Let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night, a time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey on the state of American education, and a week or two later, a time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thorough going study of American policy in the Middle East. Would the corporate image of their respective sponsors be damaged? Would the shareholders rise up in their wrath and complain? Would anything happen, other than a few million people would have received illumination on subjects that may well determine the future of this country, and therefore the future of the corporations. To those who say people wouldn't look, they wouldn't be interested they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, i can only reply, there is in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. That even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.
This instrument can teach. It can illuminate and yes it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it towards those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights, in a box.
Good night, and good luck.
- Edward R. Murrow, October 25, 1954.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
getting down to it
I created an excel file with my observations of different hours in my field placement, and uploaded it to Google Documents here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?id=o02618036266631914408.8326339176739564236.00046417125121973341.6541284192680812311
To make the numbers meaningful, it's necessary to know that there are 14 boys and 11 girls in 1st hour, 12 boys and 14 girls in 2nd, and 9 boys and 20 girls in 6th. The numbers for first hour are the only ones that are really meaningful right now, but I'm planning on going back friday and monday to get 2 more observations in. I'm guessing they'll confirm what I already know, that to be frank, I was incorrect to hypothesize that being in the minority gender would deter those in that situation from participating in a voluntary environment. It ended up telling me a lot more about the environment than the gender issues within the environment.
The numbers for first hour technically support my hypothesis. On average, the boys outparticipated the girls by about 2 to 1, which is way above the 14 to 11 they should be averaging. But looking at the individual cases turns out to be more telling and compelling. There is a march of boy dominance for the first 3 class periods I observed, but in the fourth they only outparticpate the girls by a ratio of 11 to 9, which is actually under, not way over, the rate they should be participating at. That was the day I wrote about where Sancho got put out of class, and didn't participate at all for part of the day. Then in the fifth, the girls actually out participate the boys! I couldn't really offer an explanation for it, other than the overhead activity was particularly hard, and was the only chance the students had to participate that day. On a longer timeline, males tended to outparticipate females, yes. But this is meaningless if only one or two students is or are doing all of the participating.
Which is exactly what the environment engenders, to make an awful pun. No one being forced to participate is a great idea in principle, but in practice it encourages extreme apathy in much of the class, who treat it as a time to be idle, silent, and unengaged. This was made all the more clear on 6th observation, when there were an above average 44 chances to participate, 19 of which were seized by females and 25 of which went to males. However, one representative from each camp, Sancho from the males and Andrea from the females, answered 10 questions EACH! It was ridiculous; they were the only two people answering questions from the review sheet for a long period of time. More than one student took the opportunity to grab a quick nap, and were not reprimanded by the teacher. Most settled for slumping back in their seats and looking bored out of their minds.
There are several things this points out that need to change, which I'll get to writing about when I do my paper this weekend. These findings about the classroom environment (and the inadequacy of my research methods) ended up overshadowing anything I initially thought I was going to have to say about gender, and kind of took it over, at least in my mind.
I like how this blog turned out, though. I feel like I have a lot done already that I can draw on during the paperwriting-palooza that will eventually ensue this weekend. It's been a good experience, and I hope I can use it for something in the future!
To make the numbers meaningful, it's necessary to know that there are 14 boys and 11 girls in 1st hour, 12 boys and 14 girls in 2nd, and 9 boys and 20 girls in 6th. The numbers for first hour are the only ones that are really meaningful right now, but I'm planning on going back friday and monday to get 2 more observations in. I'm guessing they'll confirm what I already know, that to be frank, I was incorrect to hypothesize that being in the minority gender would deter those in that situation from participating in a voluntary environment. It ended up telling me a lot more about the environment than the gender issues within the environment.
The numbers for first hour technically support my hypothesis. On average, the boys outparticipated the girls by about 2 to 1, which is way above the 14 to 11 they should be averaging. But looking at the individual cases turns out to be more telling and compelling. There is a march of boy dominance for the first 3 class periods I observed, but in the fourth they only outparticpate the girls by a ratio of 11 to 9, which is actually under, not way over, the rate they should be participating at. That was the day I wrote about where Sancho got put out of class, and didn't participate at all for part of the day. Then in the fifth, the girls actually out participate the boys! I couldn't really offer an explanation for it, other than the overhead activity was particularly hard, and was the only chance the students had to participate that day. On a longer timeline, males tended to outparticipate females, yes. But this is meaningless if only one or two students is or are doing all of the participating.
Which is exactly what the environment engenders, to make an awful pun. No one being forced to participate is a great idea in principle, but in practice it encourages extreme apathy in much of the class, who treat it as a time to be idle, silent, and unengaged. This was made all the more clear on 6th observation, when there were an above average 44 chances to participate, 19 of which were seized by females and 25 of which went to males. However, one representative from each camp, Sancho from the males and Andrea from the females, answered 10 questions EACH! It was ridiculous; they were the only two people answering questions from the review sheet for a long period of time. More than one student took the opportunity to grab a quick nap, and were not reprimanded by the teacher. Most settled for slumping back in their seats and looking bored out of their minds.
There are several things this points out that need to change, which I'll get to writing about when I do my paper this weekend. These findings about the classroom environment (and the inadequacy of my research methods) ended up overshadowing anything I initially thought I was going to have to say about gender, and kind of took it over, at least in my mind.
I like how this blog turned out, though. I feel like I have a lot done already that I can draw on during the paperwriting-palooza that will eventually ensue this weekend. It's been a good experience, and I hope I can use it for something in the future!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
