Okay I know it has been a very long time, but sometimes life gets in the way. On the upside I have been teaching and teaching a lot more than I expected I would be at this stage in my career.
So why am I back? Well, I'm using technology a lot in my classes. I have my own wiki going and I am starting a class blog for Social Justice which will focus on the topic of bullying. That, and George Takei and Grammar Girl are awesome. I have been following both of them and I do enjoy the bad puns and the quick and dirty tips. So much so that I am going to try to share my own and keep this blog alive.
We'll see what happens. Life may get in the way again but for now I shall leave you with some tearable puns. (If I can figure out how to post them from my phone that is)
So today were asked to review a colleague's video and post the review in the form of a podcast. Overall this was a fun exercise and there were lots of great videos to choose from. My only gripe is that my microphone is not great, so there is a lot of grain in my audio and this annoys me to no end.
So the question now is, would I use this in the class? I would definitely let students submit a project this way. I think it would make an excellent alternative for presenting. I imagine this would be a great way to have students give an oral presentation without cutting into class time if you are falling behind. The only downside is that of course it requires time to show students how to do this if they do not already know and it also requires that they have access to the technology at home unless they have free time at school.
Alternatively, it would be kind of funny to pull and Andy Kaufman using a podcast, where you would tell students "Okay I am sure you are tired of me standing at the front of the class lecturing you. So today we are going to do something different." And then you would hit play on the podcast which would continue your lecture.
Using video in the classroom is not a new idea.I remember making movies for my senior year in high school; however, editing was a lot different back then.We used to do all of our editing right on the camera so every take had to be perfect or else you had to do the whole scene all over again.
After high school I enjoyed filming and acting so much that I went to two different acting schools: The Gulf Island Film and Television School (GIFTS) and the Victoria Motion Picture School.Both programs were great and I learned a lot about the process on either side of the camera.
The other day in technology class the experience I have behind the camera got a chance to show itself for the first time in a long time. We were presented the task of basically proving we could compile and edit a video.I decided to take some footage I have from my other hobby, racing cars, and to make a short video out of it.This is something I have been doing for years so I found it rather easy.I also decided to apply “the Benny Hill Theory.”The idea being that if you take any video, speed it up and add the Benny Hill theme song then that video instantly becomes funny.I thought that this would make an excellent project for students when talking about tone.
What struck me today while I was making the video was how much fun everyone was having and it reminded me how much fun I had back in high school doing the same thing.Some friends and I made a video on Hamlet where we re-enacted the whole play.By the time our project was finished all of us knew that play inside and out.Making the film let us explore much more than plot, we also got to know each character’s motivations as well.The best part was, the day we spent making the film was a laugh fest from start to finish and we were so proud that we could not wait to show it to the class.
So while this assignment might have been a bit “redundant” for me, I am still very glad I did it because it was a great example providing students with the room for creativity and allowing them to understand their work while still having fun.
So I have had a few people ask me what the heck L2Grammar means. I guess this one falls under the "don't take anything for granted category" because I thought it was self evident for younger people. Oh well.
We have been talking about Gardner’s theories of multiple intelligences in our psychology class and this made me think about a lot of the negativity I have noticed from some teachers. First off, being realistic is just a euphemism that pessimists use. No one wants to admit to being a pessimist but let’s be realistic shall we? Second, I am not a genius. If we are to describe learners as having a thirst for knowledge and smart people as a fountain of knowledge then I am, at best, a leaky faucet which is probably more annoying than elucidating.
The theory of multiple intelligences, however, states that a person might not be universally smart but rather that, they can excel in one area and need a lot of help in another. For example you might have a student who is on the road to becoming the next Shakespeare but when faced with a math problem they start sweating like a dyslexic in a spelling bee. The problem I have with this is how we label students as certain types of learners. Oh I am a visual learner so if you don’t give me a diagram I am not going to figure it out. Guess what, diagrams help everyone. I would much rather it be viewed as the theory of multiple aptitudes meaning that you are not dumb everywhere except your field but rather that you possess a strong aptitude towards something.
With that being said it might take some students longer to figure out a certain concept than others but with effort most will get there. The key is that effort is required. If you are reading this you are most likely in the education program and you have had success in your schooling. Now imagine if your teacher wrote you off as being dumb simply because a concept did not come naturally for you. Maybe someone told you that you weren’t smart in that field but don’t worry everyone has something they are good at. Truth is maybe you would have figured it out in two minutes or even two months but you would have eventually figured it out. Unfortunately, now you write yourself off in that subject area because it is not your field. If you want the practical application of this then try working in the trades industry with an English and history degree and see what kind of respect you are afforded for your accomplishments. The moment you write someone off as an English person or a math person is the same moment that you cater towards the English people in your English classes and let the math people slide, whereby they could potentially be missing out on something that they might find truly rewarding.
The point is that there is nothing inside my head which is so complex that it cannot be explained to someone who wants to learn it. I enjoy teaching not only because I love the random analogies that I come up with to explain concepts (like me being an idiot jumping out and scaring someone at a certain corner everyday as an example of classical conditioning) but also because I love to share the knowledge that I have. This is how my mind works. Yes I am being self deprecating when I call myself a leaky faucet of knowledge but what benefit does it serve anyone to stand up all high and mighty on a degree claiming to be the source of all knowledge. Is it not better to be on the same level as your students learning with them as they go along? The best teachers I have seen are the ones who know their material, know their students, and can make fun of themselves.
So yeah I am going to keep calling myself an English dork… and I will do it with enthusiasm.
This is the most important picture you will ever analyze.No seriously.For those who don’t speak French ceci n’est pas une pipe translates to, this is not a pipe.If you are anything like me the first time you faced this picture you’re thinking “um no actually it is a pipe but thanks for trying.”So here’s the deal.This is a painting by Rene Magritte and that is the key.No, not the Magritte part, the painting part.That is a picture of a pipe not a pipe itself.Famously when asked Magritte said, “Of course it is not a pipe.Just try to put tobacco in it.”
Alright so why is that idea so important?Well as a future English teacher this directly relates to language.All language is metaphor.By this I mean, when I say pipe we both know what I am implying but, the word pipe is not the thing pipe, and second, my idea of a pipe could be drastically different from your idea of a pipe.Enter exhibit b: A parody of the work by Magritte but still totally fitting.(I am sure students will love this one)
Our world is based upon language and communication.Everything you can touch, taste, see, or smell is a derivative of language.The very way in which we process information is based upon this concept.We think in language and yet these very building blocks for the foundation of all cultures are subjective.When it comes down to it why is it that we have this communal agreement that the thing pipe should be called a pipe and be spelled with characters pipe.Why can it not be a florgydorfal or a trug.It is an interesting concept to say that everything we know is not only relative but essentially arbitrary.It is really amazing to see what the human species has accomplished based upon random noises.
So the Times Colonist posted a link talking about a poll on the foundation of Canada. The question simply asked “Who do you think founded Canada” and the poll revealed that the response depends on who you ask. Essentially, if you live in Quebec or are French speaking you are more likely to say the French; otherwise you will most likely say English. Funny that no one mentioned the Vikings who arrived in Canada long before other Europeans. Oh but wait.. what about the First Nations? They have existed here for thousands of years and well before European explorers ever set foot on Canadian soil. There was some backlash when this was talked about on a local radio station. Feelings were hurt even though that was not the intent.
The truth is all of those answers are correct; the answer really depends upon perspective. The question is very open ended. What constitutes the founding of Canada? Is it the first people to set foot on the territory? Is it the first people to map the area and label it as Canada? Is it the people who established Canadian confederation? None of this is asked in the question and yet all of these factors must be addressed as they key to tempering one’s response.
I bring this up because it brings up the issue of what makes a good question and a bad question. Had this question been “Who do you think founded Canada and why?” there would have been the opportunity to explain what one implies in the term found, but as it stands now that is not what the question is asking. It is a good question in that it allows wide interpretation but if one is looking for a specific answer it is rather horrible. This brings up the necessity for precision of language even though language is not very precise.
