Our last visit to the boys and girls club was very different from our previous three. First of all, we started the program 30 minutes later than our normal time because the club had an activity already scheduled for 5:15, when we typically ran our program. This change meant that a lot of the kids had already been picked up by their parents, so the group we were working with was much smaller. Another difference was that it was very rainy and cold. This was a problem because we had always run our program outside before. Fortunately, there was a conference room available in the housing authority building big enough for us to use. However we did have to make a few alterations to our plans because we were working on a hard tile floor rather than the soft grass. We ended up only working with a about five or eight kids this last day. It was a little sad not to be able to have one last session with some of the kids we had seen a lot of before, but it was also nice to be able to focus some special attention on the kids that were there. The kids also got to have a bit more influence in what activities we did that day because there were so few participants and they seemed to really enjoy that.
This blog assignment has made me think about the differences between my first and last sessions at the boys and girls club, especially in terms of what I learned and what I found helpful and beneficial in working with the kids. I wanted to make note of those things for members of other groups if they happen to read my blog, but also for myself, so I will be able to look back at it and remember the lessons I learned in the future.
One of the most helpful things we decided on when we first started out was that all of the Paideia scholars would participate with all of the kids from the boys and girls club in each activity we did. This demonstrated that our activities were fun, exciting, and something everyone might want to do. It was also helpful in managing and directing the kids.
We also never tried to get everyone’s attention. Some kids will always be distracted or talking to each other, instead we tried to get the attention of the majority of the group and explained the task at that point. Eventually the kids who were previously distracted would either listen up and catch on if they were really interested or wander off to do something else if they were not really interested.
I also learned not to stress out or worry too much when some of the kids decided they did not like the activities and walked away to find something else to do. This is really important because if the kids are forced to participate in an activity they don’t want to do it is not beneficial for anyone involved.
Probably the most important thing I learned about interacting with the kids had to do with how many of them crave attention and how to give them attention in a constructive way. To do this I would try to focus most of my attention on the kids who were listening well and participating in the activity (much like in the behavior shaping articles we read for class). This drew more children in, as they were provided with reinforcement when they listened to the instructors and followed directions.
Overall, I found the experience of teaching gymnastics, yoga, and tai chi at the boys and girls club a very interesting one. I learned from the experience and I would definitely do some things differently if I were to do this project again. However, I like to think that the kids benefit from the program as well and it was certainly fun and exciting to see their skills grow from week to week.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Week One at Boys and Girls Club
For our civic engagement project I worked with a group of students in our cohort to teach kids at the boys and girls club gymnastics yoga and tai chi. I was specifically in charge of the yoga curriculum. Before our first visit to the club we went through everything we would be doing as if we were doing with the kids to work out any kinks. I think this was very helpful because it allowed us to see what potential problems might be and come up with different solutions for these potential problems. Additionally, this practice helped me to feel less nervous about working with the kids.
We arrived at the boys and girls club about 15 minutes before we planned to start our program (5pm) to be present at the club meeting. During the meeting Daniel introduced us and explained what our activity would be. He said that he wanted at least 5 students to do our activity. We felt that this was probably not the most effective means of introducing our activity, because his request made the program seem less exciting and more like something kid would “have to do”. However, Daniel also pointed out that we had brought a snack for our participants, which immediately seemed to make the activity more appealing to the kids.
When we began our program we had a huge number of kids with us. The group seemed unmanageable in a lot of ways and the situation was, at first, rather over whelming.
We found that Daniel’s advise about a thirty-minute time limit to be very accurate. The kids did seem to have pretty short attention spans and quickly got bored with many of the activities we introduced.
I personally found that being adaptable was the most important thing to making our program work. I had to adapt the way I am used to yoga classes being instructed for the kid to be best able to understand and follow what I was saying. In the yoga classes I attend (and the way I was trained to teach) the instructor simply describes or explains to students what to do for each posture. He or she may demonstrate some aspects, but this is not at all central to the class. This set up allows the instructor to walk around, see how each student is doing, and offer individual help or corrections when necessary. However, when instructing yoga at the boys and girls club I found that it was very important to demonstrate each of the yoga poses and do the poses together with the students. This is in part because the kids aren’t very willing to sit quietly and concentrate on the word you say, when they could be doing something active. Instead, I found the instruction to be most effective when the kids can see what it is they are supposed to be doing. This was a bit of a challenge for me because I had to demonstrate both the posture and breathing while explaining each step and some of the postures leave one a bit short of breath (especially if you are also demonstrating necessary breathing patterns). It seemed to work best if I gave a super-short explanation of the pose, then did my best to describe and demonstrate the pose, and finally if I did each pose and repletion together with the whole group. I found that if I did not do the pose with the students they would not do the pose at all and instead be watching and waiting to follow my lead.
Ultimately what my first session at the boys and girls club taught me was the importance of being flexible when working with kids and, of course, to always have a back up plan or two.
We arrived at the boys and girls club about 15 minutes before we planned to start our program (5pm) to be present at the club meeting. During the meeting Daniel introduced us and explained what our activity would be. He said that he wanted at least 5 students to do our activity. We felt that this was probably not the most effective means of introducing our activity, because his request made the program seem less exciting and more like something kid would “have to do”. However, Daniel also pointed out that we had brought a snack for our participants, which immediately seemed to make the activity more appealing to the kids.
When we began our program we had a huge number of kids with us. The group seemed unmanageable in a lot of ways and the situation was, at first, rather over whelming.
We found that Daniel’s advise about a thirty-minute time limit to be very accurate. The kids did seem to have pretty short attention spans and quickly got bored with many of the activities we introduced.
I personally found that being adaptable was the most important thing to making our program work. I had to adapt the way I am used to yoga classes being instructed for the kid to be best able to understand and follow what I was saying. In the yoga classes I attend (and the way I was trained to teach) the instructor simply describes or explains to students what to do for each posture. He or she may demonstrate some aspects, but this is not at all central to the class. This set up allows the instructor to walk around, see how each student is doing, and offer individual help or corrections when necessary. However, when instructing yoga at the boys and girls club I found that it was very important to demonstrate each of the yoga poses and do the poses together with the students. This is in part because the kids aren’t very willing to sit quietly and concentrate on the word you say, when they could be doing something active. Instead, I found the instruction to be most effective when the kids can see what it is they are supposed to be doing. This was a bit of a challenge for me because I had to demonstrate both the posture and breathing while explaining each step and some of the postures leave one a bit short of breath (especially if you are also demonstrating necessary breathing patterns). It seemed to work best if I gave a super-short explanation of the pose, then did my best to describe and demonstrate the pose, and finally if I did each pose and repletion together with the whole group. I found that if I did not do the pose with the students they would not do the pose at all and instead be watching and waiting to follow my lead.
Ultimately what my first session at the boys and girls club taught me was the importance of being flexible when working with kids and, of course, to always have a back up plan or two.
Monday, February 9, 2009
I Love the Brown Symposium!
I went to all of the lectures of the Brown Symposium, so it is kind of hard for me to choose two lectures to write about. Instead I will write about my three favorite; Christopher Bader and Paul Froese’s “Images of God and Views on Science: Findings from the Baylor Religion Survey, Simon Conway Morris’ “Darwin’s Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Songs of Creation”, and David Sloan Wilson’s “Evolution as the Theory of Choice for the Study of Religion”. I think the reason I found these lectures interesting because some of the information in the lecture (and/or the discussion it prompted) surprised me.
During the Baylor Religion Survey lecture I was particularly interested (although not surprised) to learn that individuals who do not believe in God are more uncomfortable with an interaction or dialogue between science and religion than are individuals who do believe in God. I did not find this fact unusually surprising because my experience suggests that individuals who are not religious tend to have rather negative views of religion. I was also interested to hear that in higher-level education religious people are more likely to be discriminated against than are non-religious people. A third thing that interested me was the audience’s reaction to having their image of god categorized and analyzed. I felt that various individuals felt uncomfortable about the generalizations made about them and other individuals sharing their image of god. I guess it is part of our nature as humans to wish to avoid being categorized, with the hope of instead being able to justify our beliefs and actions. However, the extent to which the audience expressed discomfort with their categorization surprised me. I would like to add here that the thing I personally found most upsetting in their lecture was when they said that the average American has a good chance of not knowing that the earth revolve around the sun!!!
I particularly enjoyed Simon Conway Morris’ lecture from the perspective of (hopefully) a future scientist. I was interested to learn that the ideas Morris lectured on were in fact the exact opposite of those he held earlier in his career. I felt his lecture provided insight to the process of science and how researchers must be open to the feedback provided by their research. (Obviously my field of interest wouldn’t have gotten very far if we listened solely to Freudian thought.) I plan to try to keep Morris in mind during my future study of science as a hint to be open to theories that are new and/or different from my own. I suspect this hint will help me to be a better researcher and student, and maybe in a few years some one will finally convince me and I will believe all human behavior is a result of conditioning. :) One last item from Morris’ lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain. I am not prepared to comment on this presently because I’m not quite sure I understand it and I am still devoting a great deal of thought to the subject. However, this idea certainly had an impact on me.
I was similarly surprised by the reactions of the audience to David Sloan Wilson’s lecture. I particularly enjoyed the lecture because I thought it was extremely thought provoking and raised a number of questions I had never thought to consider. However Dr. Wilson did not hesitate in the slightest to boldly challenge traditional Christian thought. On example of this is the idea that religion is 100% a social construct. This is not a fact that surprised me (I think it is fairly obvious that God did not reach down and hand religion to humanity), however it clearly rattled a number of audience members. While I understand how this could rattle someone (my mother, who has done master level work in religion used to shock me with such statements when I was a little girl) I was surprised by the number of people who took this statement to mean God isn’t real and religion is useless, particularly considering the fact that Wilson made a point of focusing on a number of the social benefits provided by religion. Additionally, comments from the audience indicated a similar reaction to Wilson’s assertion that it is scientifically proven that there is no such thing as an active God. Clearly he meant that a God who (for example) reaches down to earth to prevent a car accident. (I know that is what he meant because he said as much.) Again audience members seemed to take this as no God, divine being, or spiritual force in the universe exists. I think this interpretation may have occurred so that people could simply decide that Wilson was ill informed and simply ignore him. That would surely be easier than reexamining their own spiritual convictions. One last item from Wilson’s lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain
I would like to note at this point that I do not by any means think that all (or even most) of the lectures' audience members share the views of audience members I represented above. I take these representations from both the questions that were asked during the lecture and discussions I have had with friends and acquaintances about their reactions to the lectures.
During the Baylor Religion Survey lecture I was particularly interested (although not surprised) to learn that individuals who do not believe in God are more uncomfortable with an interaction or dialogue between science and religion than are individuals who do believe in God. I did not find this fact unusually surprising because my experience suggests that individuals who are not religious tend to have rather negative views of religion. I was also interested to hear that in higher-level education religious people are more likely to be discriminated against than are non-religious people. A third thing that interested me was the audience’s reaction to having their image of god categorized and analyzed. I felt that various individuals felt uncomfortable about the generalizations made about them and other individuals sharing their image of god. I guess it is part of our nature as humans to wish to avoid being categorized, with the hope of instead being able to justify our beliefs and actions. However, the extent to which the audience expressed discomfort with their categorization surprised me. I would like to add here that the thing I personally found most upsetting in their lecture was when they said that the average American has a good chance of not knowing that the earth revolve around the sun!!!
I particularly enjoyed Simon Conway Morris’ lecture from the perspective of (hopefully) a future scientist. I was interested to learn that the ideas Morris lectured on were in fact the exact opposite of those he held earlier in his career. I felt his lecture provided insight to the process of science and how researchers must be open to the feedback provided by their research. (Obviously my field of interest wouldn’t have gotten very far if we listened solely to Freudian thought.) I plan to try to keep Morris in mind during my future study of science as a hint to be open to theories that are new and/or different from my own. I suspect this hint will help me to be a better researcher and student, and maybe in a few years some one will finally convince me and I will believe all human behavior is a result of conditioning. :) One last item from Morris’ lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain. I am not prepared to comment on this presently because I’m not quite sure I understand it and I am still devoting a great deal of thought to the subject. However, this idea certainly had an impact on me.
I was similarly surprised by the reactions of the audience to David Sloan Wilson’s lecture. I particularly enjoyed the lecture because I thought it was extremely thought provoking and raised a number of questions I had never thought to consider. However Dr. Wilson did not hesitate in the slightest to boldly challenge traditional Christian thought. On example of this is the idea that religion is 100% a social construct. This is not a fact that surprised me (I think it is fairly obvious that God did not reach down and hand religion to humanity), however it clearly rattled a number of audience members. While I understand how this could rattle someone (my mother, who has done master level work in religion used to shock me with such statements when I was a little girl) I was surprised by the number of people who took this statement to mean God isn’t real and religion is useless, particularly considering the fact that Wilson made a point of focusing on a number of the social benefits provided by religion. Additionally, comments from the audience indicated a similar reaction to Wilson’s assertion that it is scientifically proven that there is no such thing as an active God. Clearly he meant that a God who (for example) reaches down to earth to prevent a car accident. (I know that is what he meant because he said as much.) Again audience members seemed to take this as no God, divine being, or spiritual force in the universe exists. I think this interpretation may have occurred so that people could simply decide that Wilson was ill informed and simply ignore him. That would surely be easier than reexamining their own spiritual convictions. One last item from Wilson’s lecture that I found truly fascinating was the idea that one’s consciousness lies (at least partially) somewhere other than the brain
I would like to note at this point that I do not by any means think that all (or even most) of the lectures' audience members share the views of audience members I represented above. I take these representations from both the questions that were asked during the lecture and discussions I have had with friends and acquaintances about their reactions to the lectures.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Tuesdays with Morrie
To be honest I wasn’t super excited about reading Tuesdays with Morrie for this semester when I first got the email about it. I was familiar with the book’s storyline because I had seen both the movie and play that it inspired. The main reason that I wasn’t so interested in reading the book is that I thought it would be the same tired old sermon about how we only have a limited time to live and we should all cherish each moment. Tuesdays with Morrie is about that, but it’s not preachy and it also really does connect into the goals of Paideia and our cohort’s theme.
Being more reflective about experiences
This Paideia goal is very central to Tuesdays with Morrie. In fact, Morrie and Mitch spend a great deal of their time together reflecting on their experiences. This goal is important (both in the memoir and in Paideia) because it allows an opportunity for us to learn from past mistakes and successes, develop a deeper understanding of how we process and function, and examine the direction which our lives have taken. Moreover, in the context of the book Mitch is given the advantage of hearing Morrie reflect on his experiences, thus benefiting from the life experience of someone who has seen and done a great deal. Upon reflecting about his experiences Mitch discovers that he is not as happy as he might be and that he is very much caught up in a vacuous and materialistic life. Mitch’s realization leads him to “be more intentional about [his] choices” another Paideia goal.
Being more intentional in choices
By being more intentional in his choices Mitch regains control of his life, instead of allowing his work to control him. He also rearranges his priorities, placing spending time with a dying friend above work (granted this choice was made easier by a union strike). Mitch also chooses to let go of the things that might normally upset him (such as bad smells, uncomfortable situations, and upsetting episodes of Morrie’s illness) in order to be the best friend that he can be to his dying professor. Mitch reaches out to Morrie in a way that he would have never expected to, because he chooses that learning from, spending time with, and comforting a friend is the most important thing he can do. Morrie teaches Mitch to use intentional choices not only to free himself from the unreasonable burdens Mitch had accepted from his career, but also to build a more fulfilling future for himself (for instance by realigning his priorities and beginning to rebuild his relationship with his brother).
Understanding human behavior
Morrie is first and foremost a student of humanity; consequently Tuesday with Morrie acts much like a textbook on humanity. In fact, one of the first questions Morrie asks Mitch upon seeing him for the first time in about sixteen years is “Are you trying to be as human as you can be?”. In fact during the rest of their time together Mitch and Morrie discuss the most essential, valuable, and frightening things that are a result of being human, such as aging, regrets, love, family, death and forgiveness. I find Tuesday s with Morrie to be an excellent text for a course that seeks to explore and understand human behavior.
Being more reflective about experiences
This Paideia goal is very central to Tuesdays with Morrie. In fact, Morrie and Mitch spend a great deal of their time together reflecting on their experiences. This goal is important (both in the memoir and in Paideia) because it allows an opportunity for us to learn from past mistakes and successes, develop a deeper understanding of how we process and function, and examine the direction which our lives have taken. Moreover, in the context of the book Mitch is given the advantage of hearing Morrie reflect on his experiences, thus benefiting from the life experience of someone who has seen and done a great deal. Upon reflecting about his experiences Mitch discovers that he is not as happy as he might be and that he is very much caught up in a vacuous and materialistic life. Mitch’s realization leads him to “be more intentional about [his] choices” another Paideia goal.
Being more intentional in choices
By being more intentional in his choices Mitch regains control of his life, instead of allowing his work to control him. He also rearranges his priorities, placing spending time with a dying friend above work (granted this choice was made easier by a union strike). Mitch also chooses to let go of the things that might normally upset him (such as bad smells, uncomfortable situations, and upsetting episodes of Morrie’s illness) in order to be the best friend that he can be to his dying professor. Mitch reaches out to Morrie in a way that he would have never expected to, because he chooses that learning from, spending time with, and comforting a friend is the most important thing he can do. Morrie teaches Mitch to use intentional choices not only to free himself from the unreasonable burdens Mitch had accepted from his career, but also to build a more fulfilling future for himself (for instance by realigning his priorities and beginning to rebuild his relationship with his brother).
Understanding human behavior
Morrie is first and foremost a student of humanity; consequently Tuesday with Morrie acts much like a textbook on humanity. In fact, one of the first questions Morrie asks Mitch upon seeing him for the first time in about sixteen years is “Are you trying to be as human as you can be?”. In fact during the rest of their time together Mitch and Morrie discuss the most essential, valuable, and frightening things that are a result of being human, such as aging, regrets, love, family, death and forgiveness. I find Tuesday s with Morrie to be an excellent text for a course that seeks to explore and understand human behavior.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Boys and Girls Club Project (First Blog of 2009)
Although working with the boys and girls club was not my first choice for a civic engagement project I am getting really excited about it. My main goal for this project is to provide help and support to the boys and girls club and the kids that utilize their services. I also hope to be able to develop at least one meaningful relationship with a kid I meet at the club. I expect this relationship to be as beneficial for me (and quite possibly more beneficial for me) as it is for the kid I befriend. I expect to learn a whole lot form all the kids I meet at the club.
I am very open to suggestions as to how our civic engagement should play out, however I do have a couple of possible scenarios in mind. I see a number of advantages to allowing individual or small groups of Paideia students to develop their own activities, projects, programs, etc for the club. The main advantage of this is that it will allow each Paideia student to share with the club the skills that are unique to them. This method of organization is also advantageous because it will help us to engage and meet the needs off all different kids (and consequently a larger number of kids). Some of us may be interacting with students that enjoy sports and physical activities, while others of us may be forging relationships with students who prefer more artistic pursuits. A third advantage to this scenario is that it eliminates the need for us all to agree on a specific area of project that we wish to pursue. As we learned in choosing an agency to work with it is very difficult (if not impossible) for us all to agree on any one thing. I understand that this idea may meet some resistance, as many members of the cohort believe it is important that we all share a common experience for our civic engagement project. However, I feel that the scenario I have proposed is the “best of both worlds” because we will have a common environment in which our experiences take place, but we will all have sufficiently different experiences that we can share these experiences with each other and learn from others’ experiences. I am particularly interested in (and somewhat bias towards) this way of organizing our project, because I have already made some preliminary plans for my own individual project at the club. I plan on tutoring a girl in geometry this semester.
If we choose to utilize the method of organization I’ve proposed most of the parameters of our project are flexible according to what individual or groups of Paideia students choose to do. In other words, some students could organize structured activities while others do non-structured activities; some could work with kids one at a time while others work in groups; some of us could go to the club alone while others go with other cohort members. I think that in order to prevent “social loafing” and so that our efforts remain at least somewhat united we should all present what we plan to do and how it works out to each other at our cohort meetings. As for how often and how long we should do our projects I think one hour every other week might work well. This way students could go on the Tuesdays we don’t have Paideia so our schedules remain fairly consist. Also students could choose if they would rather go every other week or once a week for roughly 30 minutes.
As for questions and concerns, I will be very interested to here from the club representative at our next meeting about what he sees as the primary need of the club, as well as his ideas of how we can meet those needs. I would also be interested to hear the opinions of the kids who use the club. What activities do they like and not like? What are things they do now at the club (and have done in the past) that they really like and want to do more of? What are things that they haven't liked so much? I also wonder what are some mistakes that previous volunteers at the club have made (so we can avoid those mistakes), and what types of projects and programs have had the greatest success (so we can consider incorporating some of those aspects). At this point I am feeling pretty confident and I don't really have too many concerns about the project; I'm excited to begin.
I am very open to suggestions as to how our civic engagement should play out, however I do have a couple of possible scenarios in mind. I see a number of advantages to allowing individual or small groups of Paideia students to develop their own activities, projects, programs, etc for the club. The main advantage of this is that it will allow each Paideia student to share with the club the skills that are unique to them. This method of organization is also advantageous because it will help us to engage and meet the needs off all different kids (and consequently a larger number of kids). Some of us may be interacting with students that enjoy sports and physical activities, while others of us may be forging relationships with students who prefer more artistic pursuits. A third advantage to this scenario is that it eliminates the need for us all to agree on a specific area of project that we wish to pursue. As we learned in choosing an agency to work with it is very difficult (if not impossible) for us all to agree on any one thing. I understand that this idea may meet some resistance, as many members of the cohort believe it is important that we all share a common experience for our civic engagement project. However, I feel that the scenario I have proposed is the “best of both worlds” because we will have a common environment in which our experiences take place, but we will all have sufficiently different experiences that we can share these experiences with each other and learn from others’ experiences. I am particularly interested in (and somewhat bias towards) this way of organizing our project, because I have already made some preliminary plans for my own individual project at the club. I plan on tutoring a girl in geometry this semester.
If we choose to utilize the method of organization I’ve proposed most of the parameters of our project are flexible according to what individual or groups of Paideia students choose to do. In other words, some students could organize structured activities while others do non-structured activities; some could work with kids one at a time while others work in groups; some of us could go to the club alone while others go with other cohort members. I think that in order to prevent “social loafing” and so that our efforts remain at least somewhat united we should all present what we plan to do and how it works out to each other at our cohort meetings. As for how often and how long we should do our projects I think one hour every other week might work well. This way students could go on the Tuesdays we don’t have Paideia so our schedules remain fairly consist. Also students could choose if they would rather go every other week or once a week for roughly 30 minutes.
As for questions and concerns, I will be very interested to here from the club representative at our next meeting about what he sees as the primary need of the club, as well as his ideas of how we can meet those needs. I would also be interested to hear the opinions of the kids who use the club. What activities do they like and not like? What are things they do now at the club (and have done in the past) that they really like and want to do more of? What are things that they haven't liked so much? I also wonder what are some mistakes that previous volunteers at the club have made (so we can avoid those mistakes), and what types of projects and programs have had the greatest success (so we can consider incorporating some of those aspects). At this point I am feeling pretty confident and I don't really have too many concerns about the project; I'm excited to begin.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
End-of-Semester Reflection
It’s really hard to believe that the semester is over already, although the break will be welcome. I feel like so much has happened in our cohort and I’m not quite sure where to start.
I guess I have mixed feelings about a couple of aspects of Paideia so far. I think it has overall been a REALLY beneficial experience (and yes, a stretch too), but there are also things I might wish to see change a bit.
I feel like our cohort operates on two extremes and that makes the meetings kind of difficult to manage and maybe less productive than they could be. It seems to me that about half the group is really opinionated and verbal, while the other half doesn’t voice opinions at all. This dynamic is particularly frustrating for me because I feel that the more verbal half gets into heated debates/discussions (sometimes a fair amount more heated than I would like) while the other half doesn’t seem engaged at all. Although I am guilty for talking way to much I REALLY want to know what the more quiet people think about the issues that we talk about and why they think this. I don’t want anyone to read this to think I’m blaming people who are maybe more shy or quiet by nature for being that way, but I would like to see the more verbal of us (me included of course) to be more welcoming to comments from the less verbal. For anyone who feels like responding (if you all read other's blogs), can you think of other ways we could structure the meeting to facilitate this? I haven’t come up with anything yet, but I’m racking my brain! :)
First, I just want to start out this next point by saying I am as guilty about this critique as anyone and probably guiltier of this it than many. So here’s the critique: I feel that we are not as responsive to one another as we should be some of the time. For instance, I came up with a couple of different I ideas about our civic engagement project and asked for feedback on them that no one ever did discuss with me (or not until they were forced to do so). One of these situations was with ROCK, AI and LSCC. These were agencies I suggest we explore for our civic engagement, but no one ever talked about how they felt about these agencies until we had some one from ROCK come in and talk to us about their program, and I still never heard feedback about the other two. It’s not that I want every one to agree with me, but I would like to have a discussion (that’s why I came up with these ideas in the first place) and I would even LOVE to hear why you think these may be bad ideas, just so I can understand where you are coming from. It is also really frustrating to spend time doing a bit of research on and presenting these ideas in my blog, just to wonder if people even noticed them (even after we were assigned to read each other’s blog entries). I also felt as if my suggestion for a one-time event was ignored as well. The lack of response made me wonder if I even sent the email correctly. I know that every one is pretty busy and I sent it at a less than opportune time in terms how busy we all are, but I sent it because I wanted to hear why you did (or more importantly) did not like that idea. Like I said before I’m sure I am VERY guilty of being non-responsive as well, but these are just the examples that I have been able to come up with.
I feel bad that my blog so far has been so full of complaints and negativity, because I really do think that Paideia is a great program and I think that we as a cohort are off to a really good start. I feel like I have learned a great deal so far from EVERY individual in the cohort. Also, I want you all to know that I would honestly value any criticism you might have as well – I think that is how we can improve the way we function as a group. I’m looking forward to working on our civic engagement project and learning about what skills and knowledge each of us can offer. I’m also going to be very intrigued to see how to group dynamics change as we have group members absent to study abroad programs.
I just wanted to end by thanking everyone for the contributions that they do make, because (although you probably wouldn’t guess it after observing me talk so excessively this semester – sorry about that by the way) I am infinitely more interested in hearing what you have to say than just hearing myself talk.
I hope everyone has an awesome break! Dr. G, thank you for your holiday wishes by the way, the card is lovely!
I guess I have mixed feelings about a couple of aspects of Paideia so far. I think it has overall been a REALLY beneficial experience (and yes, a stretch too), but there are also things I might wish to see change a bit.
I feel like our cohort operates on two extremes and that makes the meetings kind of difficult to manage and maybe less productive than they could be. It seems to me that about half the group is really opinionated and verbal, while the other half doesn’t voice opinions at all. This dynamic is particularly frustrating for me because I feel that the more verbal half gets into heated debates/discussions (sometimes a fair amount more heated than I would like) while the other half doesn’t seem engaged at all. Although I am guilty for talking way to much I REALLY want to know what the more quiet people think about the issues that we talk about and why they think this. I don’t want anyone to read this to think I’m blaming people who are maybe more shy or quiet by nature for being that way, but I would like to see the more verbal of us (me included of course) to be more welcoming to comments from the less verbal. For anyone who feels like responding (if you all read other's blogs), can you think of other ways we could structure the meeting to facilitate this? I haven’t come up with anything yet, but I’m racking my brain! :)
First, I just want to start out this next point by saying I am as guilty about this critique as anyone and probably guiltier of this it than many. So here’s the critique: I feel that we are not as responsive to one another as we should be some of the time. For instance, I came up with a couple of different I ideas about our civic engagement project and asked for feedback on them that no one ever did discuss with me (or not until they were forced to do so). One of these situations was with ROCK, AI and LSCC. These were agencies I suggest we explore for our civic engagement, but no one ever talked about how they felt about these agencies until we had some one from ROCK come in and talk to us about their program, and I still never heard feedback about the other two. It’s not that I want every one to agree with me, but I would like to have a discussion (that’s why I came up with these ideas in the first place) and I would even LOVE to hear why you think these may be bad ideas, just so I can understand where you are coming from. It is also really frustrating to spend time doing a bit of research on and presenting these ideas in my blog, just to wonder if people even noticed them (even after we were assigned to read each other’s blog entries). I also felt as if my suggestion for a one-time event was ignored as well. The lack of response made me wonder if I even sent the email correctly. I know that every one is pretty busy and I sent it at a less than opportune time in terms how busy we all are, but I sent it because I wanted to hear why you did (or more importantly) did not like that idea. Like I said before I’m sure I am VERY guilty of being non-responsive as well, but these are just the examples that I have been able to come up with.
I feel bad that my blog so far has been so full of complaints and negativity, because I really do think that Paideia is a great program and I think that we as a cohort are off to a really good start. I feel like I have learned a great deal so far from EVERY individual in the cohort. Also, I want you all to know that I would honestly value any criticism you might have as well – I think that is how we can improve the way we function as a group. I’m looking forward to working on our civic engagement project and learning about what skills and knowledge each of us can offer. I’m also going to be very intrigued to see how to group dynamics change as we have group members absent to study abroad programs.
I just wanted to end by thanking everyone for the contributions that they do make, because (although you probably wouldn’t guess it after observing me talk so excessively this semester – sorry about that by the way) I am infinitely more interested in hearing what you have to say than just hearing myself talk.
I hope everyone has an awesome break! Dr. G, thank you for your holiday wishes by the way, the card is lovely!
Friday, November 21, 2008
on campus event and off campus event
For my on campus event I chose to go to one of the presidential brown bag lunches. I chose this because I wanted to expose myself to some ideas that were against my political beliefs. I think that I sometimes only talk about politics with the friends that I know will agree with me and only read about the news from sources that advocate a liberal agenda. However, I really do believe that it is important to spend time listening (open-mindedly) to people who have differing opinions because it is a good way to discuss and understand why I feel the way I do. Unfortunately this event was not as much a stretch for me as I would have liked, as all of the speakers strongly supported Obama over McCain and there was little if any discussion of areas in which McCain might be more qualified or reasons why one might wish to vote for him. Because of this disappointing result I chose to watch the election results on November 4 with a group of friends that included a McCain supporter. I found that this experience produced some of the results that I had hoped for when I attended the presidential brown bag lunch discussion. For instance I was reminded about how important I think it is that people of all political orientations work together. I feel that the smugness and superiority that often comes with being a part Washington’s party in power is often very damaging and stands in the way of our government being productive. Additionally, I think that the goals of the American people are in many areas the same for most people, with the real disagreement lying in how to accomplish these goals. During this election I have been rather upset with how much we as a society have been vilifying the members of the parties who oppose our political beliefs. I am as guilty for doing this as anyone else is, however I feel that this is something we should strive to move away from in the future. The conversations that I had while watching election results with friends that have opposing beliefs gave me hope that this is possible.
I don’t really know much about the city of Georgetown, especially in the political realm, I don’t know if we have a mayor, or who that person might be and I don’t know what propositions or ballot initiatives were decided during the election, because I voted by absentee. I feel bad that I am so uninformed about the town in which I live, so I decided to attend a public meeting of some sort in Georgetown for my off campus event. I chose to attend the Georgetown Municipal Airport Advisory Committee meeting. I pick this event because I didn’t even know Georgetown had an airport (also, to be honest, it was at a more convenient time for me than some other meetings). The meeting was held at a firehouse right next to the airport at 7 on a Monday night. The main question under discussion at this meeting was about the lease for the land the airport is on. As I understood the situation the land is leased from Georgetown for the airport to be able to operate. The board members were discussing if they wished to renew the lease with the same terms that they had had before or if they wanted to renegotiate it. I thought that this was particularly interesting because it is not at all how I would have imagined such a decision being made. It was by no means an elaborate legal process including polling about how individuals felt about the decision. Instead each of the members gave their opinions and it was fairly quickly decided that the lease would be renewed as it was before. I really enjoyed seeing the legislative process on such a small scale with just a few people in a room talking about what they thought would work best. It certainly seemed more reasonable and humane than some of the debates that occur between legislators in Washington.
I don’t really know much about the city of Georgetown, especially in the political realm, I don’t know if we have a mayor, or who that person might be and I don’t know what propositions or ballot initiatives were decided during the election, because I voted by absentee. I feel bad that I am so uninformed about the town in which I live, so I decided to attend a public meeting of some sort in Georgetown for my off campus event. I chose to attend the Georgetown Municipal Airport Advisory Committee meeting. I pick this event because I didn’t even know Georgetown had an airport (also, to be honest, it was at a more convenient time for me than some other meetings). The meeting was held at a firehouse right next to the airport at 7 on a Monday night. The main question under discussion at this meeting was about the lease for the land the airport is on. As I understood the situation the land is leased from Georgetown for the airport to be able to operate. The board members were discussing if they wished to renew the lease with the same terms that they had had before or if they wanted to renegotiate it. I thought that this was particularly interesting because it is not at all how I would have imagined such a decision being made. It was by no means an elaborate legal process including polling about how individuals felt about the decision. Instead each of the members gave their opinions and it was fairly quickly decided that the lease would be renewed as it was before. I really enjoyed seeing the legislative process on such a small scale with just a few people in a room talking about what they thought would work best. It certainly seemed more reasonable and humane than some of the debates that occur between legislators in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)