Interesting talk last night last night. MU actually has a rather noted scholar (he retired) on the topic of hero making. We discussed this tricky business of judging history. Is Loewen a bad scholar with his rich display of presentism? Or does he have a point regarding who and how we manufacture heroes in our own self interest. Columbus has to fit the grand story of bravery, struggle, and sacrifice in the name of country and faith. Rape has no place in the collective memory. So that's the content...now let's talk about the pedagogical design choices of the presentation. Group 1 had to consider assessment practices. Which types did they utilize? How did they work on you? What were they measuring? Please comment on these aspects of the presentation. Indeed another area worth commenting on is the fusion of technology and assessment.
They had the dirty work of going first...and it can be tough...and I know co-teaching can be tough too but let me ask you to consider a few things:
Watch your language choices..."guys"...and too many, "you knows".... When Chelsea spoke I thought her fluid language helped me understand what she expressing. And you know it is coming but let's be a little more formal with how we craft our responses too. You are professionals.
Consider "wait time"...in other words wait a few seconds (4-5) to let the question soak in and then call on someone in large group questioning. I am not always innocent of doing this myself especially when I am excited about a topic. Indeed I can work on my "Umms" and "you knows" as well. I am the reflective practitioner and proud of it.
Mark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I guess I will go first. Pertaining to Loewen's book, he is in no way a bad scholar; however, it is important to keep in mind that he has an agenda. He has created a piece that describes the ignored negative aspects of certain American heroes. He is not making this up and raises a very important question on the role of history in the classroom. For this, he is a great scholar; nonetheless, his agenda should not guide an entire classroom curriculum. Just like the notion of only presenting celebratory information to students is an agenda that should be rejected. Having the presence of revisionist history to create debate in the classroom is healthy for informed citizens rather than being simply ignored to produce patriotic citizens.
Since I was a part of the presentation I will try not give away too many answers on the types of assessments we utilized. It can be debated that our activites maniested all of them in some way since discussion in our field is a meaningful task. Although we obviously could not incorporate internships, large scale projects, or SAT tests in an hour exercise, we attempted to have multiple types of assessment to show some kind of creativity and effectiveness.
I can take no credit for the wonderful use of Powerpoint since Stew was head of its creation and execution; however, it was a very useful tech tool, especially since we did a great job of not reading slides and instead used them as helpful points for discussion and explanation.
I do want to respond to Professor Zeigler's comments. Obviously it is difficult to catch "guys" and "you knows" while up there, so that is something that needs to be addressed. I have an issue though with the idea that our classes responses were too informal. Since we are Social Studies majors we are bursting with great insights and ideas, some more creative than others. Since our class is comprised of individuals in college level, I feel that it would be unfair to suggest that the students or teachers should censor ideas because they are too informal. I am sure that the four of us would have had completely different deliveries or explanations of the information if we were presenting it to a group of 14 year olds, but we were not. I thought that classroom responses and teacher comments were great for the assignment and kept the lesson on task.
I must agree with Phil- in no way is Loewen a bad scholar. He did not make any statements, at least that I have come across, that were blatantly untrue. Rather, he is trying to counterbalance the heavy load of consensus history that we are encouraged to impart to our students. This would be an excellent teaching tool, especially in higher grade classrooms, to use as a springboard for discussion of the different versions of history. Like all other sources, we as good scholars need to be able to separate fact from bias. Ideally, we should teach our students to do the same.
As far as assessment techniques, Group 1 used quite the variety. I liked the use of a game, especially midway through the presentation. As students, you come to expect some sort of check for understanding at the end of a lesson, but I've found that they are rarely used in the middle. The discussion questions were an excellent method as well, and I must give credit to Group 1 for keeping that under control. With a class of highly opinionated people, especially when their own beloved content is at stake, that could have easily gotten out of hand. There was some traditional assessment (what word best describes Helen Keller, etc.) but authentic assessment was present as well with the discussion questions (hooray, EQs!). It was a good balance of assessment types, and I think the presentation as a whole kept everyone's attention. They managed to measure amount of knowledge absorbed as well as the application of said knowledge, which I'm sure is no small feat in under an hour. I know this is probably irrelevant to assessment, but that powerpoint was absolutely unparalleled!
Just as Amanda says, Loewen is just trying to balance out the past. We as historians do tend to place certain historical figures on a pedestal. We teach about them and tell others to aspire to be like them. However, when we do this they loose their human touch. Loewen is showing that these figures are people, they are Human too! I find nothing wrong with this approach; however, there is a problem with this. There is a place and time for Loewen's approach. There are benefits from the approach we all learned in Elementary school. Most of us have patriotism and nationalism instilled in our blood because of these views, but being a historian and learning about other sides of history (what loewen is showing) helps me be a better scholar. Basically, you cannot teach 1st graders about rape and plunder of native Indians. I'm not saying I know what age its appropriate for, but I know its not 1st graders.
On the topic of Group 1. I thought they did a great job of going first. The directions on this project where rather vague, (I'm glad that I am in group 6 and can *steal* from other groups) Although the conversations were a little...sub-par, it was the students NOT the presenters. So kudos to group 1 for stepping up to the plate and showing us what it looks like.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to agree with Phil, Amanda and Nate in what they said about Loewen. Loewen writes specifically to illuminate large parts of history that have been purposely or unintentionally obscured. Since most of the history written in text books is of the feel-good variety, naturally that means that he writes about all the nasty details that get glossed over. He is not claiming that his history is the only correct way to do history, but simply that these stories should be told along with the other stuff (provided that the other stuff is actually historically correct...). Without bringing up these not-so-pleasant details, history is boring. There's no discussion, no controversy, and no reason to be interested unless you enjoy memorizing facts. I think that's why so many students dislike history. I don't think Loewen is trying to make us all feel bad about our how the United States isn't some angelic savior of the world, he's just trying to bring discussion back to the classroom.
The type of assessment I benefited from most in Monday night's presentation was the T-chart at the end. It brought in previous knowledge (and it was fun to remember back to elementary school) and forced us to connect it to what we had read/learned in the presentation. It helped to provide us with clear, personal examples of some of the distorted history we all were taught, and it was organized nicely. Having the short discussion afterward about what people had written on their T-charts was helpful too because they brought up connections I hadn't made but understood once they shared. I think their presentation was excellent. :-) Great job!
I do not think necessarily that Loewen is a bad scholar. His objective in the book is to discuss the aspects of history which are often lost and the ways in which history has been distorted in classrooms around the United States. Loewen certainly succeeds in these aims. I don’t think Loewen’s techniques could be used in writing a history textbook, though. Loewen almost exclusively focuses on the forgotten aspects of history and only briefly discusses the information which is typically presented in history classes. A more balanced approach would be useful in writing a history textbook in order to ensure that all sides of an event in history are being discussed.
Loewen’s discussion of the manufacturing of heroes is an interesting debate. As a country, we certainly manufacture heroes to serve certain purposes, but we should not allow ourselves to believe that this means that there are no true heroes in our history. We just need to understand that heroes do not necessarily have to be perfect individuals who never made mistakes throughout their lives or careers. Oftentimes, what makes many important historical individuals heroes is how well they learned from their mistakes and how willing they were to take accountability for their mistakes.
I thought that the group did a very good job utilizing assessment practices within their presentation. These assessment practices were sometimes fused with technology. I think that the use of the power point throughout the presentation was very impressive. This was one of the better power point presentations I’ve ever seen. I thought that the “Who wants to be an informed student” game was an effective assessment which employed technology. The assessment was used to determine our understanding of the first portion of the presentation. The group members also used a T-chart to compare what we learned about Columbus in elementary school to Loewen’s discussion of Columbus. I thought this was a good way to highlight the differences between Loewen’s work and the education which Americans tend to receive in schools. They also were able to effectively assess the classes’ prior knowledge on the subject by having the students discuss what they knew about Helen Keller’s life outside of the aspects which are traditionally taught in school. This was an effective way to prepare the students for the rest of the presentation. I also thought that the use of discussion questions by the group was very effective. For me personally, this was the most effective form of assessment. Discussion questions help to ensure that students are learning the material and to ensure that the students are able to elaborate on the material.
I agree with the suggestion about leaving more wait time after asking a question before calling on a student. I think that this is a good way to ensure that all students have the time to digest the question and to volunteer a response. I’d also just like to elaborate on Phil’s discussion of the class responses during the presentation. I understand the argument that the responses were informal at times, but that is often the case when someone has great passion or interest in a subject. I did not feel as though anyone in the class was trying to be disrespectful or unprofessional when giving their responses, but sometimes we (myself being one of the main culprits) can get a bit carried away when me formulate responses to questions of higher-level substance such as those which were put forth during the presentation. This is certainly something I’ll make sure to keep in mind for future presentations, though.
Loewen is a typical historian in the sense that it is very difficult to find a textbook or history text that does not contains some sort of bias. Loewen's book manages to create another side to history that is often not expressed in history books, the darker side of reality. In all of the history books I came across in high school, Columbus was a prolific man who lacked character flaws. However we now know this is not entirely accurate. Now perhaps it is not entirely appropriate to teach a high school class the shocking details depicted within the pages of Loewen's book. However it is also not appropriate to teach students to be satisfied with sugar coated history. The trouble is realizing which boundaries to push and exactly how far. Building upon this I believe we need to remember to teach to the level of the students we are teaching.
I want to reflect on the comments of the class since I already know the assessment that was used in the project, since I was a part of the presentation. I would like to thank Stew for creating a power point that did not make me nauseous. I was excited to see that Lauren enjoyed the T-chart, which was an easy way to test students previous and obtained knowledge through the presentation. Perhaps it would have been better to have the students fill in the previous knowledge before the lesson.
I would like to thank those that participated in the presentation and aided our cause by participating. I realize that some of the topics explained and response do not belong in a classroom full of 15 or 16 years old, however the students in this case were college level students and as I wrote before I believe you should teach to the level of your students. The audience by this point should mature enough to handle such conversations. However if any of the conversation truly did offend someone I am sorry for that. Thanks and good luck to the other groups.
By using such a rich display of presentism, Loewen shows the reader that there is more to history than what is taken in for face value. Loewen is an excellent scholar...the amount of information he gathered to compose Lies speaks for itself. He is a Sociologist however, and that can be indicative of how he presents his arguments. He talks about how social structure and culture can shape our understandings of the world, and we as teachers will need to balance between "the grand story," to quote Mark's question, and the historical truths behind the story. I'm currently taking a class on Colonial Latin American History, and Loewen’s chapter about Columbus synched up rather well with the classes discussion on early colonization. So sorry if I didn't add more to the groups discussion by not making that point during class. Either way, Loewen has a valid point that history needs to be understood from every angle. We manufacture our heroes for a number of reasons. National pride, our nations stature at a given place and time, and issues of convenience all play a huge factor. The result is that this trickles down into the textbooks, and they are then adopted by school districts. I'm not saying it is a bad thing, I'm just saying that myth needs to be separated from reality where it is applicable, useful, appropriate, and finally when it will benefit student's understandings the most.
Group One used a variety of assessment practices. The "who wants to be a social studies teacher," section was creative and it provided for some fun as well as a check for understanding. The T Chart was also helpful, helping us take apart what we had learned in the past and constructing upon what we had just been taught. I think they did the best they could with the amount of time they had, and I will agree with Nate that it was the students not the presenters. I also agree with Phil that censoring ideas in a college classroom because they are too informal is asinine. I'm not saying that’s what took place on Monday night, but that I have witnessed it in other classes. I feel even though we are going to school to be teachers and teachers should behave and speak in a professional way...that college is a place to speak your mind. My word choice for how Columbus interacted with the native women was informal however; and I do apologize.
As many of the posts before mine go, I would also have to agree with the rest of my classmates when stating that Loewen is simply trying to get his point across. I believe that Loewen and other authors like him provide a good service in attempting to shed light on how skewed some perceptions on historical figures are. The group illustrated Loewen's point very well. They hit on Helen Keller, Woodrow Wilson and Christopher Colombus. While all three figures did do great things in history, they also had a darker aspect to them. I think that Loewen does a great job in balancing ideas based around consensus history, in that everything was good and that was it. As teachers, we are going to be caught in the middle. There are figures in history that we should celebrate as if they are heroes because I do believe that we need people to put our hope into. However, this should not be the standard all the time, rather we should try and find a balance between herofication and showing a historical figure for who they truly were.
The assessment techniques that the first group used were very good. They had a variety of forms and styles. My favorite was most definitely the "who wants to be a millionaire" game because it was fun and different. For the last few weeks we have only been discussing issues. This was a good and fun break from the norm. However, the discussions that the group did lead were still effective in assessing our knowledge of the presentation. All in all I think they did a great job.
Where is the rest of the class? There are some really meaningful comments up and I want to hear from the rest of you...
Trust me when I say I am not interested in censorship. That is not the issue. Nor is it elitism . I am interested in reponsible language that communicates ideas in a professional manner (I want our students to learn from such discourse). We can accomplish this and still be understood as authentic. Who would want their doctor or lawyer to use language choices that communicate their message / solution/ or service / in a sub-professional manner? Check out the philosophy of Levis-Strauss. I appreciate the candor and courage Phil exhibited to take this one on.
October 6, 2008 6:23 AM
I believe that Loewen does have a point regarding how hero’s are created. I believe all cultures in general manifest hero’s to fit certain needs in society. Because I pose the question what would are world be like if we had no hero’s. We call some fireman and policemen hero’s for what they’ve done while in service, but what would happen if we looked further and saw some of their darker secrets. This book I believes makes one reflect as well. To contemplate if hero’s are really a necessity for a society or its nothing more then a bunch of rubbish and we are putting certain individuals on a pedestal. The discussion in class about herofication, seemed to match my idea on the subject of heroification. That our society needs hero’s that sometimes its better to leave out some of the facts to let some believe in the greater good. I believe that herofication should also be a subject that should be taught maybe in a senior high-school class to give students a chance to discuss, and interpret what they’ve learned of supposed hero’s. Also to be frank I don’t believe anyone is perfect, that most likely every suppose hero we have ever had in our history as a nation has had some flaws. As for Helen Keller, Wilson, and Columbus as mentioned in class at the time these individuals all did something that was considered heroic at the time and was seen as such. Maybe herofication is more about the time then it is the individual. That any person can do almost anything and if its at the right time it could be considered an act of heroism. Also when firemen or policemen are called hero’s do they truly ever admit it or is it that they were just doing there job and they happen to be there at the right time…who knows all good topics for discussion.
As for our presentation I’ll make it short we used a mixture of assessment and timing of when we gave assessment. We gave traditional assessment in the form of multiple choice with a little twist, and fill in the blank. We did authentic assessment with opionated questions scattered throughout the presentation. We also did the T-chart which helped to show past and previous gained knowledge and let the students see what they just discussed. Overall we mixed the two types of assessment to give an overall assessment and I believe it went pretty well. As for our how we presented our selves as up and coming teachers we need to practice our language style and its going to have to change, and I thought this was good practice for that
I think that Loewen did a good job in pointing out some truths about how our history books are teaching history. While I don't feel that "Lies My Teacher Told Me" will ever be a classroom text book due to its rash honesty, I think that it should be some type of required reading for history majors. One aspect of history is definetly perspective, and looking at both sides of an issue. Loewen did no wrong in pointing out these facts and I think that if someone plans on teaching history, they should know the whole truth about an area in order to teach it fairly. History is not always pretty, and Loewen does a good job of pointing that out. I don't think he is doing it to smear the names of those we find to be heroes, but rather to show the full extent of history. Not everyone is perfect, and heroes also have their flaws. However, that doesn't mean that what they have achieved over the course of their lives were not great or heroic.
I think that the presentation was very good, and the strong use of technology made the lesson easy to follow and interesting. The assessment techniques used seemed to be very effective. The "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" game was one of my favorite part. I also liked the old fashioned T-Chart that was used in the end. It was a good way for students to point out what it was they thought they knew, and compare that knowledge with what they had just learned. Another thing I liked about the assessment techniques was that they were spread out over the lesson. It was a nice way to check for understanding as the lesson went on, rather than to just throw an assessment at a student at the end of the presentation and ask them to recall every detail that was discussed. I think the overall presentation went well for the first group, but I do agree that we all need to construct our answers a little more professional for the next presentation.
To agree with everyone else, I do not think that Loewen is a bad scholar at all. He clearly has an opinion about history and his opinion is as valid as anyone else’s opinion. As for Columbus specifically, I truly see both sides of the story. I don’t believe that he should be honored as this great hero, but I also don’t think that we should teach all the gruesome details of Columbus’ deeds to students. I do, however, believe that this issue would be very interesting to bring up to a senior classroom to have them think about and debate about Columbus’ place in history.
Considering the preparation time for Group 1, I think they did a great job. They used numerous types of assessment, with fun games and check point questions to make sure we were paying attention. These types of assessment measured our attentiveness during the presentation and our previous knowledge. I found the game to be a fun and different form of assessment that would work well in a middle and high school classroom. The PowerPoint was very effective and comprehensive. It flowed very well and helped me follow what they were saying because I could hear and see what they were saying. As for the issue of professionalism, I agree that we need to act as professionals, but at the same time, I’m sure we all act differently in an actual classroom than we do when presenting to our peers in our college classrooms. I know I often have trouble refraining from saying, “you guys” and “like” when presenting in front of my college classmates. When I taught lessons during my field experience, however, I did not have trouble with this at all and I found it very easy to keep my speech professional.
The question as to whether Loewen is a good scholar or not is not a relevant question at all. If he wasn't we wouldn't be spending $30 of our money on his book and reading it in this education class. I believe the real question that needs to be answered individually by every student is: How does his view on history match with what you envision your own son's or daughter's being taught?
This question gets straight to the crux of the issue at hand. I will attempt to explain what my view would be in answering this question.
1) Priorities for our society have to be taken into account when shaping a students understand of this countries history. What our country has been has a lot to do with what it will be. Loewon's work certainly does deserve a place in our teaching of history, but not a place of its own. If it is felt to be so necessary that a country hero be brought down to human level, then I believe it has to be presented in the context that it occurred. It is a major challenge for someone to write about such touchy issues as racism and be able to at the same time put it into the context of the time. It is more often seen as easier to just put in the facts and let that character be judged on those issued based on presentism.
2) Hero's and Heroine's are NEEDED in EVERY society. You can find evidence of this stemming back to Greek times with Achilles, and even biblical times in Judges with Samson. Both characters served as examples for the readers of the Illiad and the Bible. In fact I think we may be able to take a page from these books to help guide us in how we develop our nations hero's. Going back to Achilles and Samson, one can see that both were amazing hero's who in fact suffered from very human problems. These stories were used to teach a lesson to students, NOT just to say "hey look they are human too!"
Anyways, I think I covered that pretty well. As for the groups activity and the class discussion, Good Job Group 1 and I enjoyed the conversation as always. This book will no doubt be a source of some MAJOR contentions as the chapters progress. Frankly, I think the discussion of this material at this level is perfect and makes the class worth the 3 hours.
I think Loewen's book is important for various reasons. I agree with Phil that he does indeed have an agenda but allows us to reflect on the question, who really is a hero? I think his book is excellent for secondary studies. I do not think we need to share the evil deeds of Columbus, Keller and Wilson with elementary children. However, I do think it is imperative to share both sides to an age appropriate class. We are all humnan and certainly make mistakes. I think our students would respect these individuals more if they knew the truth behind them.
As far as the presentation, I felt this group did a fantastic job using different types of assessment to engage the learner. (us) I know many teachers who do not relate well to parents but are phenomenal teachers in the classroom. That being said, it is difficult to teach to peers for the fear of being judged. I did enjoy the creativity and it was obvious a tremendous amount of planning was done. Great job!!!
I'm not sure Loewen is a bad scholar. I think he accomplishes his purpose in Lies My Teacher Told Me. Does this mean that as teachers we should preach this book as the new textbook? Of course not. Historical viewpoints are constantly changing, and his book merely represents his attempt at pushing the pendulum away from perhaps the "traditional" model of American History. As future teachers, it will be our responsibility to take the textbooks for what they are just as we should take Loewen's book for what it is. We are the conduit for this stuff, and we have to make a conscious effort to hear all sides of it. Ultimately, both the writers of textbooks and books like Loewens, are just people. We have to be mindful of this and make the best of what we have.
Agreeing with most others in the class, I do believe that Loewen is a good scholar with a rich, new take on the history that has been force fed to students throughout high school. I think it is very important to understand that just because a historical figure is given their own holiday does not mean that they are without flaws. By simply making all historical figures heroes and not dissecting them, students are made to believe that history is just rote memorization. This is not true, history needs to be discussed and analyzed so students can use these skills in their current, everyday lives. I believe more can be learned from history then just a list of facts and figures. In essence, history trains us to be critically thinking Americans that will never accept a status-quo. This is what I think Loewen is doing by breaking down the barriers of the usual force fed history.
As far as Group 1's presentation, I thought they did great! There was a good amount of discussion mixed with a great power point that checked for understanding in fun and informal ways. This would be a great tool for teaching most high school students as long as it was delivered in a similar fashion. In talking about the small details, there were a few "Ums" and "Guys" but I think these are things that we all will have trouble with in the beginning of our teaching. I know I have trouble with slowing down my speech when I speak so I imagine we all have our vices that needed to be controlled while up in front of the classroom.
I believe that in no way is Loewen a bad scholar. I believe that he researched and provided a good sound supported argument to what he was arguing. It seemed that he was trying to show another image of our American hero's, and how they were only human, however he is not the first to do this especially in our society and how it is shaped today. Every person knows that they have the right to question preconceived notions about what is wrong and right, what is good and bad, and yes if our heroes where in deed heroes.
The one thing that i did not like and would have to say that i was disappointed in was that while he was trying to show the other sides of things which he did very well, he was not objective and did not nor tried to show the other side to his argument. He was very one sided and turned him self into what i believe to be some what of a hypocrite by doing the exact same thing that his peers have done in the American textbooks. Now with this statement i do not know if he assumes that we all know the good or what he calls the false hero, which is what i believe he is doing, but assumption is never a good thing to do. He should have shown at least a glimpse of the other side of the argument if not to only give his argument more credibility.
I feel that Loewen is going so far off the left because in order to make a relevant point he needs to. Everyone that writes has some kind of agenda and it is clear that he is a revisionist that sympathizes heavily with the oppressed people in our country and the world. I don't think there is anything wrong with that and I believe it has a valid place in our classroom.
At the same time, the idea of creating heroes is important. What happens if most students when they leave high school belief that the people we celebrate on holidays and in our national culture are completely flawed? For example, for some reason, everyone know that Gen./ President Grant beat Robert E. Lee and was an alcoholic. Every is told his flaw, knows it, and it takes away from his ability to be a hero. What if we as teachers did that to every single figure in history. The simple fact of the matter is that we could. Is that right thing to do? What would happen if we did? What would happen to our sense of national pride and the identity we cling to as Americans?
As with most issues, I believe the answer is somewhere in between the two viewpoints. We can't teach history as if the leaders were flawless demi-Gods, but at the same time, we can't eliminate heroes. All cultures need symbols and icons to look up to. We can teach that this people were not perfect, but if we focus on their faults and not how they overcame them or the good they actually did in the world, we will create a generation of students that lack a strong national pride.
I believe that Loewen has a point in the fact that yes many textbooks and history teachers do not tell all the facts about historical happenings and individauls, but I am not sure that is completly a bad thing. I believe that while we want history to be accurate we also need to teach appropriate material to our students. I do not believe it is appropriate to teach young children even middle school students about the rape and pilaging that was taking place during Columbus' visits to the Caribean. How will that benifit them? But as students gain age and understanding I believe that it is a good idea to let them know that not all the people we study in textbooks are "saints". But I also believe that students do need individuals from history to look up to and be hero's in their lives. I believe these historical hero's are who spark an interest in the subject and are the reason that many students enjoy history classes. But I do also want to be real. When I got to Millersville I learned so much that I had no idea had taken place, it amazed me that I had not been taught that much history in my 12 years of formal eduaction leading up to college.
I believe that the group that presented first did a very good job at getting the material across to us as students. They used a few different forms of assessment to make the group think about what was being taught. I really thought they did a good job using check for understanding points throughout their presentation. They also asked some pre-assessment questions to gage our prior knowledge before they began their presentation. I do see Professor Ziegler's point in the fact that the group spoke informally but I also know it is difficult to get up there and speak. I also realize that you are not speaking to middle school or high school students but to individuals your own age and that can be confussing. Overall I believe you did a great job during your demonstration and it was very informative.
Group one did a great job of presenting this sensitive topic. Lowen is not a bad scholar, his view is that the story that he is telling is relevant to the study of history. This makes him a great teacher and student.
Group one used informal checks throughout their lesson to check for understanding. They asked essential questions and provoked discussion which reinforced the ideas of the lesson.
I really enjoyed the game used for assessment, or "Who Wants to Be An Informed Student". It was engaging and reiterated key terms and ideas of the lesson. It was very creative and the use of technology was very practical.
Group one did a great job presenting first. That is always a hard place to be. The lesson was well put together and expressed what was necessary in both the Lowen chapters and the workbook pages. I agree with Mark that the formality of the lesson may have been lacking. However, it is very difficult to stand in a room of peers and treat them as your students. Overall, fantastic job group!
As everyone has said already, Loewen is not a bad scholar. He takes a look at historical issues from different points of view. One thing that should be noted is that the points he is talking about in his book are not ment to be the correct view or the only view that should be presented. He is expressing one side of the story that is rarely talked about.
Group 1 did a good job presenting the topic of herofication. The idea they went off of was good. They took the basic conceptions that people had already on the various people and expanded apon them: a very good idea for teachers no matter the topic being discussed. The powerpoint was also very good and incorporated varying styles and activities to keep everything fresh. Another positive aspect to the powerpoint was that the group members did not read off of it to a great extent. That is one of the reasons I hate powerpoints and was glad to see that the group used it properly.
Post a Comment