I also make it a point to obtain feedback from the students, because I believe that teaching is not just the teacher delivering content. Teaching is a subtle art; it involves not just the introduction of new concepts, but also facilitation of the students' learning process and meeting their needs. Once the students feel that their learning needs are met, they will feel happy to be in the class, and the lesson will become very effective for learning. it's a positive cycle, so building this right from the start is important.
This brings me to the point of morale. I think it is important to raise the students' morale. I've been to a class whose morale for a particular subject is very low, and I find most of them giving up totally, despite it being their final year. I don't exactly blame them, but I think that it is sad that such a thing is happening. A teacher, as I said, should not be just concerned about teaching content and setting killer papers, it is also encouraging the students and making them confident about themselves.
One last point about independent learning. I think independent learning comes about when students attempt questions or tasks that require application on their own, and then asking when they face difficulties. This is what I mean by teachers facilitating students' learning. However, I believe strongly the foundation should be taught and explained in the simplest manner possible. If they are supposed to read everything on their own at home, then what is the point of going to school and attending class?
To me, the ideal case should be as such: The students get the handout or notes before the lesson proper, and are told to read before the lesson. During the lesson, the teacher explains the concepts in the simplest way possible. Along the way, the teacher can include real life applications and/or little tasks that make the students think, given their knowledge on the subject matter. If possible, approaches to tackling the topic should be taught. Then, independent learning starts. Students are given assignments or tasks to work on their own, and in the process, they learn.
I have met a fellow teacher who believes that the ideal case is for students to learn a theory from the conduct of experiments. While I think this certainly is a good way to learn, especially in the case of science, this may not be the most practical and feasible method. First and foremost, it's time constrain. Let's face it, at the end of secondary 4, there is O Levels staring right at us. There really isn't time to do experiments all the time. And with a rowdy class, the effectiveness of such a method leaves much to be desired. Another important constrain is the lack of background knowledge. A important assumption in such a model of teaching is that the students actually do have a lot of such background knowledge. However, this is not true of the majority of the students. Before we actually start the experiements, it is important to equip the students with the background information, which more often than not involves foundation concepts. And who says such concepts and information will not spark off the inquisitive minds of our students?
There is so much to share, but for today I will stop here. More of this the next time.
10 weeks as a relief teacher, the sense of wanting to teach when i graduate just keeps coming back to me. The sense of satisfaction that you get from seeing that your students learn, not just content knowledge, but about life is not something you get from other careers. You touch people's lifes, and hopefully make a positive impact.
of course there are things i don't agree with, but in life you can never have the best of both worlds. it's good enough that you are doing what you want, not just for the money, but for the interest, and even better, for the passion.
on a side note, i've been looking at vacation destinations. i'm thinking of doing volunteering, would be quite awesome i think. of course there are alot of views on this. what is important is to do what you believe in...and not go against your values and beliefs.
another 10 more weeks as a teacher. hopefully it would be a good one. =)
A Price Too High?
By BOB HERBERT
Published: March 18, 2011
Catastrophes happen.
No one thought the Interstate 35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis would collapse. No one thought the Gulf of Mexico would be fouled to the horrible extent that it was by the BP oil spill. The awful convergence of disasters in Japan — a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami and a devastating nuclear power emergency — seemed almost unimaginable.
Worst-case scenarios unfold more frequently than we’d like to believe, which leads to two major questions regarding nuclear power that Americans have an obligation to answer.
First, can a disaster comparable to the one in Japan happen here? The answer, of course, is yes — whether caused by an earthquake or some other event or series of events. Nature is unpredictable and human beings are fallible. It could happen.
So the second question is whether it makes sense to follow through on plans to increase our reliance on nuclear power, thus heightening the risk of a terrible problem occurring here in the United States. Is that a risk worth taking?
Concern over global warming has increased the appeal of nuclear power, which does not produce the high levels of greenhouse gases that come from fossil fuels. But there has been a persistent tendency to ignore the toughest questions posed by nuclear power: What should be done with the waste? What are the consequences of a catastrophic accident in a populated area? How safe are the plants, really? Why would taxpayers have to shoulder so much of the financial risk of expanding the nation’s nuclear power capacity, an effort that would be wildly expensive?
A big part of the problem at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power station are the highly radioactive spent fuel rods kept in storage pools at the plant. What to do, ultimately, with such dangerous waste material is the nuclear power question without an answer. Nuclear advocates and public officials don’t talk about it much. Denial is the default position when it comes to nuclear waste.
In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo said again this week that the 40-year-old Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County, 35 miles north of New York City, should be closed. Try to imagine the difficulty, in the event of an emergency, of evacuating such an area with its millions of residents. “This plant in this proximity to New York City was never a good risk,” said the governor.
There are, blessedly, very few catastrophic accidents at nuclear power plants. And there have not been many deaths associated with them. The rarity of such accidents provides a comfort zone. We can look at the low probabilities and declare, “It can’t happen here.”
But what if it did happen here? What would the consequences be? If Indian Point blew, how wide an area and how many people would be affected, and what would the cleanup costs be? Rigorously answering such questions is the only way to determine whether the potential risk to life and property is worthwhile.
The 104 commercial nuclear plants in the U.S. are getting old, and many have had serious problems over the years. There have been dozens of instances since 1979, the year of the Three Mile Island accident, in which nuclear reactors have had to be shut down for more than a year for safety reasons.
Building new plants, which the Obama administration favors, can be breathtakingly expensive and requires government loan guarantees. Banks are not lining up to lend money on their own for construction of the newest generation of Indian Points.
In addition to the inherent risks with regard to safety and security, the nuclear industry has long been notorious for sky-high construction costs, feverish cost-overruns and projects that eventually are abandoned. The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a 2009 analysis of the costs associated with nuclear plant construction, said that once a plant came online it usually led to significant rate increases for customers:
“Ratepayers bore well over $200 billion (in today’s dollars) in cost overruns for completed nuclear plants. In the 1990s, legislators and regulators also allowed utilities to recover most ‘stranded costs’ — the difference between utilities’ remaining investments in nuclear plants and the market value of those plants — as states issued billions of dollars in bonds backed by ratepayer charges to pay for utilities’ above-market investments.”
The refrain here is familiar: “The total cost to ratepayers, taxpayers and shareholders stemming from cost overruns, canceled plants and stranded costs exceeded $300 billion in today’s dollars.”
Nuclear power is hardly the pristine, economical, unambiguous answer to the nation’s energy needs and global warming concerns. It offers benefits and big-time shortcomings. Ultimately, the price may be much too high.
A column from the New York Times.
I don't exactly disagree with it, but what struck me is how short-sighted it is. Yes, nuclear power isn't the perfect solution to our energy needs, and probably will never be.
Now, people can say that the costs for using nuclear power may be too high to bear. But what can we say, or do, when there is no longer fossil fuels left for us to burn? Do we even have a choice then?
We need alternatives, and responsible ones for that.
Do something, before it is all too late. Don't seek the easy way out.
A 9.0 magnitude earthquake, and the tsunamis and nuclear meltdown that followed - all these could easily destroy a community.
But the Japanese stood strong. Their preparedness in dealing with the earthquake and the tsunami, and their calmness in dealing with the aftermath have more than just awed the world. There has been virtually no looting despite the shortage of food; some newspapers even reported that some Japanese actually chose not to take everything that was available so that people at the back of the queue would not go home empty-handed.
I think the people who are more concerned with how the earthquake will affect bond prices, interest rates and all should be ashamed of themselves. We have a community who is struggling to survive, and yet some are not a little interested in how we can help them. Has society and capitalism in general turned us into selfish and insensitive people? Probably.
Just a little note on the nuclear meltdown that resulted from the earthquake.
I have never believed in finding the perfect alternative for energy. I think it is extremely naive to believe that we can one day find a main source of energy that has completely no impact on the environment. Everything has its risks and negative impacts. Burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which causes global warming. Harnessing energy from water is never an easy task- never belittle the power of water. The safest may be solar energy, but till today it is nowhere near to replacing fossil fuels as the main source of energy. And nuclear energy, the best alternative thus far - look at what happened in Japan.
Reality is often cruel and harsh. But that does not give us reason to not face the problem, and run away from it. The truth is, fossil fuels are not going to last us forever. We need alternative sources of energy, and preferably cleaner forms, to replace fossil fuels. And nuclear energy is one that has the most potential. Despite the unfortunate incident in Japan, I think countries should not halt their nuclear pojects. Rather, what they could try to do, is to examine the risks of using nuclear energy and try to minimize the possible accidents and impacts of such usage.
Something so simple to understand, yet so difficult to achieve. Vested interests, politics, what else?
Sometimes I wonder, what has the world come to?