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.