Irrelevant to Last Monday's Class

Before I begin my last posting, I'd like to clarify that out of the 13 postings that I have published, at least 10 have been submitted by the due date (which is the first Sunday after each Monday's class.) So, under the rubric for this assignment, I don't see why I have not been given any points at all for the category for posting "once a week." The other points are too unreasonable to mention. After writing 12 posts about what I've learned in class, I've decided to write my last posting on experiences that meet the rubric alone. Strangely enough, nothing that we did in class qualifies as learning objectives in this rubric. The only instruction that occurred was when Professor Morales showed us how to download software for our digital story. She gave us a tutorial on how to use the software, which she understood very well.

1. Reflects well on own Teaching and learning, demonstrates a range of meta- cognitive practices and provides many examples.
   
   The last time I gave a class, my students were quiet for 15 minutes. This means that I have good classroom management because they are never quiet for their regular teacher. I noticed that the students were very curious about their work in class, but less than 20% of the students brought their homework. This makes me think that I should emphasis the importance of them bringing their homework. I told the students that those that brought their homework on the due date would get extra credit and that if the name of the student wasn't on the paper, there would be no grade, but of course I looked to see what papers needed a name on it and I talked to that student one-on-one about how it is not right to turn in homework without writing a name on it. The student seemed to understand and because I was careful in phasing it, the student was not insulted by my comment.
   
   
2. Is able to make inferences well and comprehends deeper meaning consistently, demonstrating insight and their relevance to science education.
   
   Science education is as viable as teaching languages, mathematics and language arts. If Science education were as hard to train a person with an extensive background of classes in Chemistry, Biology, Human Physiology, Computer Science, Geology and Psychology, then the problem would either be with the curriculum or the instructor or both. Unfortunately, some instructors have acquired an aire of arrogance which inhibits their brains to propagate the idea that science is not just for a small group or sect.
   
   
3. Analysis conveys extensive evidence of a personal response to the issues raised in the class notes, field experience observations, assignments, and discussions.
   
   My personal response to assignments are as follows: 1) there are assignments that should be worth more points because they demand much time to do such as the philosophy of teaching science; 2) the "big point" assignments such as the thematic unit should have been taught in class and early in the term because the point of Science Methods I is to help the preservice teacher become an efficient teacher, but instead it has been a chaotic source if information 3) the instructor should not have taken six weeks to tell us what science inquiry was; 4) there should have been quizzes on the reading; 5) we should have focused on one or two textbooks for the class not six and ten articles because the information overlaps to a great extent; 6) we should not have been brow beaten neither by the instructor nor the cooperative teachers during observations; 7) the instructor should not have waited for the last week of class to make us revise most of our work in an agitated rush.
   
   Teachers should be treated with decency and teachers should treat their students decently; abuse is a cycle and if teachers are treated like animals they will be sickened to the point that they can't function efficiently especially near defenseless children. We should never be an assailant in this vicious cycle of abuse.
   

Give Me the Keys

On Monday, Professor Morales looked over my Thematic Unit and suggested I look back at some power point presentation files. The realty is that as educators we have to tweak our work here and there in order to give our very best. We have to build our professional development with videos, assemblies and seminars. We have FEAPs to help us. We have to look at educational and government websites. We have to do research for our students sake. Regardless of the hardships, the important thing is that we want the same thing: to give our students the best education. This is a labor of love; whether or not we are treated right we keep doing it.

The first day I met my cooperative teacher, she mentioned how she was given the keys to her classroom; and she was on her own the first day on the job. I think it's sad that not every teacher is given pedagogy classes. There are many things that I have learned in all of my classes. In this class in particular: I learned many pedagogy terms, the significance of the NSES and Sunshine Standards, the expectations of a middle school teacher by their students, the practice of educational science inquiry, the rich ideas of my classmates and instructor, the emotional difference between high school and middle school students, how to write a scope and sequence and thematic unit for a middle school science class. And, I learned how a middle school is run by dedicated individuals.

The point of having the Sunshine Standards, the NSES and the TIMMS if to help all students perform up to par with all the accommodations, instruction, developed curriculum, and remediation until we have the ideal universal design. The problem is that the general public, including the people who develop our curriculum, laws and standards, don't realize how advance we are in technologies. Of course, we could be more advance, but they think we live in the middle ages. Even the some concepts of conduct and the acceptable reinforcements for misconduct are barbarous.

In retrospect, humans have so much in common that we can have ready-to-go curriculum for every students. If McDonald's Restaurants can teach their students to work efficiently, we can too. Like it or not, by 2025, all teachers will be facilitators (it will be a need), computers will make connections as fast as humans and there will be less handicaps from those that condone them. Finally, we will be able to efficiently provide the launching of our children's independence. Our children are the future and they will need to know how to survive in a world more complex than ever before.

Classroom Management

Not every teacher exercises classroom management. That's not a good thing for a science class because in order for the science classroom to engage in the scientific community, they must assume the ethical principles of their role. The Sunshine State Standards' Big Idea 4 concentrates on what is called Science and Society. This concept states the following: "As tomorrows citizens, students should be able to identify issues about which society could provide input, formulate scientifically investigable questions about those issues, construct investigations of their questions, collect and evaluate data from their investigations, and develop scientific recommendations based upon their findings." Thus, the students have to have a well-defined degree of social responsibility. The atmosphere or moral is seriously damaged by lack of respect in a classroom. This leads to tension and conduct issues.

The next semester, I will take an entire course on the subject of Classroom Assessment which I think is fabulous. As a teacher, my rapport with the students must be excellent, nurturing and motivationally effective. Some people like to use the "push" method to motivate their students. Research shows that the push method fails most of the time because it is generally coercive in nature. People who have a coercive nature are very effective, just as Hitler and other dictators whom control the masses like herding cattle. So the question is: Does the cause justify the means? Most communists will say it does.

The Old College Try

Classes are almost over. On Wednesday, Professor Morales spoke to me in private. Her advice was very helpful. My Thematic Unit is worth 20% of the grade which makes me nervous, but ultimately, the experience is worth much more. Inquiry has been our main focus in Science Methods science day one, but I didn't realize how organic the integration of it had to be on my lesson plan. It makes sense. The Florida Sunshine Standards, the NSES and our 4000 level course has the highest regards for the establishment of Science Inquiry in the classroom. The idea is a bit scary for me, since the Thematic Unit has to be just right and gradually created. As we speak, I'm applying my professor's suggestions. Also, I registered my students for a global real-time inquiry activity suggested by Professor Morales. Since, we aren't expected to be very good at giving the lesson, I feel rather sad, but I'll give it the old college try.

Inquiry: Deeper Understanding

Since the beginning of the semester, we have been exposed to Inquiry. At first, I thought Inquiry was a way of studying objects and getting a sense of what scientists do. But, its not as easy as that. As educators, we have to live Inquiry. One definition is not enough. We have been exposed to three definitions for science Inquiry and the general term. These definitions don't just come out of the blue: these definitions come from higher authorities in the science community.

Furthermore, we have gained profound experiences in the realm of Science Inquiry. We have taken pretests on Inquiry for the purpose of comparing preconceived ideas on the term with new insight. This is a great way to dismiss any errors.

On Monday, we did several activities all for the purpose of truly knowing Inquiry. First, we saw a videos on students engaged in Inquiry in their classrooms. Then, as a group, we provided observations and answered questions to what we saw. This experience counts as professional development because we are learning something that is supplemental to our career.

In addition, we have worked in groups on many occasions. Not only have we performed Inquiry models, but we have performed Inquiry itself. We also understand the role of scientific disclosure and Inquiry. We have read to each other and edited each others words.

Presenting to Peers

We had an awesome assignment on Monday. We all paired up and gave a presentation. I was paired with Alejandro. We were given a page with information on "The Student Lens." We read about how a young girl with a green thumb was not accepting new information because it contradicted her gardening experience. The little girl that she needed to use soil, sunlight, water and fertilizer for her plant to grow. So, when her teacher said that a plant makes its own food, the little girl would not accept that to be true. The problem was defining terms. The Student Lens is the perception that a student that has not reach abstract thinking skills uses to accept and reject new knowledge and, thus, subscribes to misconceptions.

My group was the first to present. After presenting, Josh had a question and I tried to answer it without listening to it completely. I felt bad because he didn't get to finish his question. (I sometimes think I can read people's minds, but I can't.) The next two presentations were about "The Scientist's Lens" and we were going to see a video of strategies that teachers can use when presenting. (We will see the film next Monday.) I identified the secret: probing. By asking the right questions, a teacher can test her students' comprehension. Our next critical review is on Scientific Discourse and probing is a key term in the reading.

First Hand Experience at Inquiry

On Monday, we were given a treat. We played junior scientist in an inquiry class. The objective of the inquiry class was hidden because it's like reading a detective story: you have to wait at the end to see "who done it." This made the experience more exciting, because of the element of surprise; the anticipation was rich and because we had to question our observations ourselves, no perspective was wrong.

We were given three stations; grouped in pairs and took on one challenge at a time. Dish detergent, a hand-propelled mixer, bowls, plates and spoons where our material on the first station Alex and me were given. Our instructions were to use the material and make a one foot tower, over a dish, made entirely out of foam. Alex went straight to work. He gave stroke after stroke for over 20 minutes, while I held the bowl in position and brought some water from the pitcher. I don't think any one got to a foot, but we came very close.

The next station had two very sweet looking soda cola bottles (Root Beer & Cream Soda,) a carton of eggs, shaving cream, hardening powder and the same material from station one. If I remember correctly, our job was to test the density of the different kinds of foam we could make. It might have been the stiffness of the dabs of suds. The shaving cream won, bar none. And, the soda came last. The next station was like the first, but the challenge was to see what could make better foam: foam made from 200 strokes or 400 strokes. Alejandro chose the greater one and his gave more soap than mine. Our hypothesis was correct: the more you beat the soapy water the more foam you'll get. We finished off by jolting down some reflective questions and we all departed into the night.