Final Post - Maslow's Hierarchy

Hello.

See the period up there? Yes it isn't as excited as usual. as this will be the final blog post I make with regards to my Educational Psychology course, as the blog itself is due tonight at midnight. I've had fun ranting over the term, about various things. I mean, I just like to rant. Don't judge. EITHER WAY,

I do feel that the blog has been a valuable part of the course. While it may not always be easy to sit down and write about things rolling around in our head from class, this sort of reflection and expression solidifies the knowledge and helps us really think more deeply about the concepts we're talking about in class, which is good...and will definitely help on our journeys to be teachers.

*wipes eyes while violins play*

Anyways, I think I'll finish with one of my most favourite topics!

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. See below in the awesome triangular diagram.

So, as we can see in the very nicely coloured pyramid, Maslow's theory is actually a rather simple theory to understand, that I agree with. However I feel that this broad idea of motivation and priorities can be applied to such a broad range of life situations, that it is invaluable.

Ive actually applied the pyramidal structure to a variety of my own theories, my favourite being human interpersonal relationships (I love social Psych. Especially relationships, fascinating stuff) HOWEVER, this is an EDUCATION blog, so I will not digress so much as to go into my ideas on relationships at the time, email me if you want to hear that boring rant.

Education, right. As we talked about in class, Maslow's structure can have quite drastic effects on the learning of individual students. *Gets out laser pointer* As we can see, the need to "Know and Understand" or engage in advanced cognition, is actually quite a way up the pyramid. In fact, the two distinct categories discussed in class are the top four tiers being more like "Growth" needs that allow us to further ourselves, whereas the bottom four tiers are "Necessity" needs that must be filled before we can move onto the growth part of things. Now, since the drive to learn and think is above these four "Necessities," Maslow's theories state that this need for cognition and knowledge is not pursued if the bottom four are not satisfied. So if a student is not receiving proper nourishment, has no place to live, or another immediate deprivation of basic needs, there is not a chance he is going to focus on schoolwork, which does not necessarily mean he is not smart. The child could be brilliant, but if his Physiological needs are not met, he will be unable to perform at his potential.

The same can be said for the next three levels, Safety, Belonging, and Esteem needs. If you think about the case of a child being bullied at school, is he going to feel safe, coming to class? Is he going to feel loved and cared about if he is being excluded? And as for his esteem, is he going to believe in himself and have a high level of self esteem if he is being put-down and fed negative messages? No. All of these things "prevent" the child from focusing on his academic goals, by Maslow's theory. This outlines how important making a child comfortable and cared for in a school environment is, or else, how can we expect them to focus on schoolwork if they have to worry about these much more pressing psychological needs?

Even beyond the first four tiers, and once a child has achieved the level of need that allows him to pursue knowledge and higher cognition, then what? Then a child who is understanding, and drinking in this knowledge can move to focus on aesthetic and beauty needs ,which I also see as creativity and generative thinking personally. Don't think it gets better? If the child is still achieving all of his needs up to this point, he can move on to become self-actualized. This used to be regarded as the ULTIMATE form of accomplishing and fulfilling ones need, as self actualization allows the individual to fully realize their identity and become the best they can be. This is best put simply (in my mind) As realizing their potential, and it is one of the best experiences a teacher can have is one of their students self-actualizing. Of course, there is now a new tier called Transcendence.

To be honest Ed Psych was the first time I'd heard of the added tier transcendence as the top of Maslow's pyramid, and I understand it was a newer addition so outdated information in my other psych classes must have missed it. I personally kind of view transcendence as a part of self actualization, almost as if they exist side by side at the top of the pyramid, rather than transcendence being on top. Either way, it implies that now that we have become the best we can be through self actualization, the final step is to begin to selflessly help others become the best they can be as well. People who achieve transcendence believe strongly in helping others and doing things to contribute to society and humanity as a whole. They are the people putting themselves on the line to tirelessly help others, further human knowledge and understanding, and make big contributions to society and humanity as a whole. It sounds pretty grand, but the question is...does this kind of transcendence really exist? I believe so, yes. This opens up the entire "Existence of Altruism" debate from Social Psychology the other day however, and this post is already rather large and wordy, so I'd best not.

I urge you (the reader) to think deeply on Maslow's ideas as I have, and see how you may apply them to your lives and careers in order to maximize not only your teaching, but how you live your own lives as well.

For now, this is Zach signing off for the last time, I wish everyone the best in their teaching careers!

Zach Wanner =)

Working as Groups

Hello!

"Teacher, can I work with my friend(s)?"

You know most people's first thought here is, "No! You just want to talk, and put some of the responsibility of your work on others, and goof off, and be pains in my arse, and generally not work effectively." No? Well it crossed my mind. I remember being in school, everyone loved group work. We ALWAYS wanted to work with our friends, or other classmates (especially the really bright ones). Is that because we want to practice social loafing and slack off? Not entirely. Whether kids realize it or not, I believe we gravitate toward group work because we're social creatures. By that I mean to say, I believe that consulting with peers actually helps people to learn much better, and it is a beneficial technique of learning,

Some argue that group work actually causes children to learn less, due to the fact that they aren't personally responsible for as much work. So, if one child is writing the work out and three are watching him do it attentively (To make sure it is adequate and that they will all get good marks) the only student  that gets much benefit is the one writing the work out, obviously, right?

Wrong.

Our brains contain structures known as Mirror Neurons. When we watch someone performing a task, or observe them doing something, we can learn substantially from this observation. This is called, observational learning (surprise). The really interesting part, is that scans of brain activity indicate that virtually the SAME areas of the brain light up with activity when we are performing a task, as when we are OBSERVING someone perform the task. Neat huh? This means that attentively watching someone else do something actually allows our brains to learn it just as well, simply by watching. That means, with group work in the classroom every single child is benefiting from the work done by even just one member of that group. Students with weaknesses in certain areas can even be paired with students that have exceptional abilities in said area, and through observing the other student excel the weaker student improves his/her own abilities greatly, and actually learns a great deal.

Another benefit of group work brings us back to Gardner's multiple intelligences. While each child having unique styles of learning and presenting information may present certain challenges to teachers, it also opens the doors to great opportunities to mix different skills in groups and allow students to collaborate together and create unique work that reflects multiple different individual perspectives. Even us, as teachers can learn from this as we observe children collaborating in unique and creative ways, surprising as more than once over one's teaching career I would imagine.

Either way, my point is, group work is a positive force in the classroom, and a tool that I believe should certainly be utilized when applicable to create the best learning environment possible!

Zach

Inclusive Education

Hello!

Today we tackle one of the most fiercely debated topics in the education world (At the college) as far as I have noticed, and that thing is

*Drum Roll*

Inclusive Education! *Dramatic horror music*

Right, so I'm kind've over doing it. It happens. Anyways,

My opinion on this matter is that this is an incredibly (wait for it) ...Care-Bear theory and this is something I strongly feel is a step in the wrong direction, at least the way it is being implimented.

IN THEORY, being able to have children with a wide spectrum of learning and mental disabilities, as well as those with a "giftedness" or above average acadaemic skill all together in a classroom with all other students who fall into the "average" range isn't wrong. I mean, it's cool to have more social interaction, especially between students who function in distinctly different ways and can all benifet from eatchother and learn equally in the classroon. If those kids who needed it had extra help such as aides, specialized work tailored to their needs, and an INDIVIDUAL PLAN in which the best way to help them achieving learning is outlined, this would be great. But...realistically? These supports aren't there. A teacher can only be asked to do so much on their own in the way of making their lessons and classroom individual to each students needs. I mean, we can do the little things, but we can drastically alter the classroom for each and every student's needs, its just not possible.

To comment on why I have "INDIVIDUAL PLAN" In all caps up there, its because I am made to beleive that IPP's are being abolished and are not to be used anymore, because they may impart labels on kids. Hold on, we took away Individual Placement Plans? Those things that we created to outline the specific needs of each child? The things that served as tools and helped us deliver the best education possible? Perhaps I heard wrong, but this is insane,

I understand that labels are bad, I really do. Im a Psych-nut, I know all about self-fullfilling prophecy and how much labels and social treatment can affect a child. I get it. But this is NOT how to solve the problem. Labels in the form of IPP's and specialized programs to aid students in succeeding to the best of their abilities are not set with the purpose of demeaning any child, any student. They are there to HELP. Getting rid of these because other children and adults might see these classrooms and programs negatively and think bad things is just... just...Care-Bear, and incredibly illogical. It's like a leap backwards in progress. Im wondering if some of the parents of these kids are more interested in their own image and how their child looks on them than the child themself, or the academic assistance they need to succeed. Like, come on now.

Alright, well, I've made my side abundantly clear. I'd be happy to  listen to arguments, this is a complex idea and I certainly don't think it's black and white, my way or the highway. So what are some other thoughts on this?

I'll leave it at that today!

Zach

Multiple Intelligences

Hello!

First of all, this is NOT, split personality disorder. Yes, I have legitimately had people come up to be and ask "Oh, Howard Gardner and Multiple Intelligences? Like...when someone is just one person, but they think they're like...more than one person, you know....man?"

No.

Perhaps I overemphasized the "like" and "man"'s in that sentence, BUT, my point remains. Totally different.

Gardner's multiple intelligences is a theory that proposed that rather than a single domain of intelligence, or "smart" as exemplified by academic achievement, high IQ, quick cognition, etc. there are many different ways in which people think and learn.

Here is a shiny-colourful picture graphic (For all the non-linguistic favouring learners)

Interesting, no? It shows a variety of the different intelligences people may display, or rather, the different forms their intelligence may take! The diagram is actually missing one of the newer intelligences, Existentialist smart. These guys are the deep thinkers who see the big picture and ponder the big questions about the universe, you know, philosophy types.

Anyways, it just goes to show how many different forms information can take, and could be presented for learning. Huh...that seems like...ah, it is an application to teaching. Yes, there will be kids in your classroom with different preferences as far as learning and creating information. Yes, Gardner's Multiple Intelligences can help you to see this and make the classroom a much more conducive environment to learning for everyone. Yes, it takes a bit more effort and thought on the part of the teacher, but, in my opinion, well worth the results when every student can find something to be engaged and/or interested in from the class material.

Thats about all for now, Can YOU think of any additional Intelligences, or subcategories of the above that could perhaps be considered a separate form of intelligence?

I know I can. I know people who LOVE to write, and keep journals/storybooks/entire drives on their computer just for creative writing. This may fall under the linguistic category. Do you think these people would like to get up in front of the class and demonstrate a complex math problem? Or be tasked with creating a mystery story with math problems woven into it, which must be solved to find the end of the story? Yeah, its obvious. Think about it some more. =)

Zach

Intelligence Quotient

Hello!

I was quite interested in the discussion we had in class pertaining to IQ scores, and their relevance. There were many people arguing that it is incorrect to score people on such a narrow-minded degree of intelligence, and label them with a single number. Then there are those who say that it is NOT a single-sided label, but a useful tool in assessing and mapping individual children's academic needs and abilities. Who is right? Well, I have no place to say that (In my mind I'm right, of course!) But I WILL give my opinion.

I DO agree that students can display intelligence in a variety of diverse formats, as related to Howard Gardner's popular theory of multiple intelligences. (More on that in a later post, I like these!) I fully agree that an IQ score is NOT a sole representation of the intelligence of an individual, and that judging a particular student's wholesome capabilities of off a single score is the incorrect thing to do, and it is inaccurate.

That being said...

IQ tests have been created and altered thousands of times over the years by experts in the field of cognitive and learning psychology. These things aren't just some online poll surrounded by advertisements stating you've just one a free continent! (Cheesy Joke.) Well, okay, LEGITIMATE IQ tests are very complex and useful assessment tools, which have undergone rigorous study to make them as useful as possible. My point is, saying that IQ tests are useless, evil, terrible things that simply set out to label kids and make their lives miserable and underestimate them and be unfair and and and....*Takes breath* Yeah, it sounds pretty ridiculous to hear it put like that, doesn't it?
Look, IQ tests are a VERY ACCURATE measure of a SPECIFIC kind of intelligence, that being the Math, Science, Social, English language core subject academic-type prowess. You know, classic "Nerdy". It has been shown that IQ scores are EXCELLENT predictors of academic success in a traditional classroom. Why? Because they are testing the core skills that go into academic work in a traditional classroom environment, NOT intelligence as a whole. This means they are STILL very useful tools in gauging a child's abilities, and can be very good at predicting the early signs of a learning disability or subject specific weakness that can be addressed to HELP the child.

Amid all of that ranting and caps lock, the message I'd like you to take away from all this is that IQ tests are NOT a final measure of some sort of overarching smarts or intelligence, and should not be treated as such. IQ tests ARE, however, very useful assessment tools for rating a child in specific areas of intelligence, and should not by any means be minimalized or dismissed as without value. To do so is just care-bear and would be detrimental rather than useful in the long run.

NOTE: Care-bear - A word Zach uses to describe theories, practices, ideas, statements, policies, etc, etc that are based on people acting in a way that is completely illogical and unproductive due to a vastly over-exaggerated value invested in trying to make everything "nicer," more "pretty," and perfectly "ideal" for everyone, to the point it ends up being unrealistic and not practical for application the real world at all.

Zach

Gender

Hello!

Gender. Yup, Gender. As in Male, or Female. Or is it?

The debate about gender, and how pervasive it might be in our lives from childhood has been burning up in recent times. Who are we to say a boy should be a boy? A girl a girl? Well, I mean there IS biology. Needless to say, it IS relevant to the education system, and it IS a big deal.

I remember reading an article in ENGL 219, about raising gender neutral children. I read it, and I thought about it. I mean the point made by this couple was that as a human being, their child had the right to decide his (her?) own gender, and not be influenced by the bias of society and perceptions of others. I mean, fair enough...let the kid do what he/she wants. BUT. I mean come on now, the child has hardware, you know? I mean it's either a guy under the hood, or a girl. There ARE two sexes. I don't want to oversimplify, I know that they get this and that they re simply arguing that society shouldn't emphasize gender roles and expectations...well at all. It's all fine and dandy, when you say it...it sounds nice, doesn't it? Well...this is the real world, frankly. We have, males and females. I personally think all of this effort going into neutralizing gender is just wrong.

ANYWAYS, to tie it back into the conversation. Yeah, there are A LOT of gender stereotypes, and a lot of norms, and these things DO influence our students. I mean, yeah, some of them aren't gonna be all positive, that's unfortunate, but really, A LOT of things influence us in life, and if we hide from all influence, we might as well live in boxes. As teachers, we can be objective and do our best to let go of societies stereotypes and gender bias, and not let it into our classroom. That doesn't mean we should be for abolishing gender, or fighting to eliminate all gender influences on our students, its part of life. I strongly believe that there are just as many positive gender concepts as their are negative, and they both exist, its simple fact. Either way, as much as I agree that gender is an important issue, lets try not to kill it, and keep it in perspective, shall we?

Zach

A Digital Nation - Video

Hello!

The video shown in class titled "A Digital Nation" (I believe!) was full of interesting ideas. It is somewhat alarming, if we think about it, just how reliant we are on our technology in contemporary society. I mean, I have an 11 year old sister, and her same-age friend recently received and Iphone, on contract. Are you kidding? What does an 11 year old need an apple smart phone with calling, texting, and browsing for. I mean, REALLY? I don't even have an Iphone, I can't afford one!

BUT, I digress (That happens FAR too often). My point is, we really are obsessed with technology and digital devices in our everyday lives, and the video really shows how this might be affecting us. It really looked at our ability to multitask, not even while using the device, but just in general! What they found? We were getting much WORSE. Yup, I said worse. Many people thought that this practice of using electronics so regularly in everyday life alongside other processes would enable us to vastly grow our ability to multitask, but as it turns out it actually seems to be detrimental to our abilities. Huh. So texting, driving, eating, AND applying eyeliner is PROBABLY not a great idea.

Look, I'll admit, if my phone rings and I'm driving, Ill look at it. If I'm at a red light? Ill check a text. It's so bad even I'm doing it, but we really ARE wrapped about the digital age. In classrooms this has had an impact, what with students texting during class rather than absorbing information. Of course the benefits are there too, where kids have the capability to browse the Internet and communicate digitally right from their phones or other devices, it's amazing really. But are kids using them for this? Probably not.

The fact is, technology is great, but sometimes it isn't always going to be beneficial to our brains, especially if we don't use it correctly. In fact, the warning message (at least I saw it) in digital nation speaks to the fact that we really need to think critically about our use of, and addiction to technology.

EDIT: Leap year blog post? Awww yeah! One for the ages...well...for four years anyways.
Zach