Last night, when I was avoiding doing bar prep - much like now, I came across a blog by a middle school teacher who inadvertently uses the 5E system. I say inadvertently because she apparently didn't even know it existed. In case you don't know what the 5E system is its a teaching method/strategy.
1. Engage - use something to engage student: incite their curiosity
2. Explore - students explore and postulate on what they've engaged in is or how it works etc.
3. Explain - necessary explanation (mostly correcting postulations)
4. Elaborate - discussion
5. Evaluate - self explanatory
Anyway, it got me thinking about my best teachers. My best teachers haven't been teachers at all. In fact, most of them have used the 5E system or the Socratic method in some form. My best professors and teachers in all of the many years of school I've endured have been facilitators of learning, not teachers. Not once have I learned the best when a teacher was shoving information down my throat. I always learned the best when I engaged and had guidance with self-teaching.
I find this even more interesting because my highschool history teacher used to refer to himself as a facilitator and would correct people when they called him a teacher. Looking back, he was right. I was just too stupid to recognize the difference. So, thanks Mr. B. You were awesome.
More people should do it. Come classroom sherpas, help the masses.
Back to work.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
In honor of Presidents Day
In honor of Presidents Day I thought I'd share some links to some interesting facts and a great speach. Enjoy, and God bless the United States of America!
Interesting facts about 5 interesting Presidents - Just something fun.
President Ronald Reagan: "We Must Fight" - While the enemy of his speech is no longer pertinent, the evils he speaks about still is relevant. I don't really care about the video, but the speech is the important part. This is why "we must fight" and not "face the final demand, the ultimatum."
Interesting facts about 5 interesting Presidents - Just something fun.
President Ronald Reagan: "We Must Fight" - While the enemy of his speech is no longer pertinent, the evils he speaks about still is relevant. I don't really care about the video, but the speech is the important part. This is why "we must fight" and not "face the final demand, the ultimatum."
Friday, February 17, 2012
A Bar Prep Rant
So, here we are less than two weeks out from the bar and I'm terrified and excited about it. I mean, lets be serious, who wants to take the bar? I've spent roughly 300hours to date (this is a conservative estimate). When I say hours, I mean billable hours. This doesn't include the bathroom breaks, the facebook stalks, the npr reads, the escapes via tv or pleasure reading. No, this is hard-core studying. I didn't even know I could study this much for 1 exam. Psh. Not to mention that I've done probably over a thousand (yes, 1000+) multiple choice questions and more than 30 practice questions.
In other news, I took the Kaplan Practice Bar, the 3-Day Final Review Course. I scored higher than the average. So, I feel good about my choice of taking Themis.
Ok, so, I'm reaching or getting close to the "goals" set by the respective courses. So, that means I should pass, right? I can only hope.
Anyway, here is my quick (and semi-biased) review thus far between Themis and BarBri.
BarBri vs. Themis show down!
BarBri vs. Themis show down!
In full disclosure, I chose to use Themis for several reasons over BarBri even though the program isn't well known yet in Florida. First, its about half of the price. Second I can live "at home" and do the program. Third, I can do the program when I want to, and since I'm a notorious night owl/have insomnia its perfect. And finally, the program allows for different learning styles because of the integration of practice into the lecture and not just before/after lecture.
Well, the Themis approach has you review material, watch a lecture in a 20-30minute break down do a quick 5-15question assessment of your comprehension and then move on to the next 20-30minute lecture. This proceeds for about 4hours daily for the first five weeks. Its tedious and the pace is slightly slower than BarBri. But, it really does hone in the material and nail it into your mind.
There has only been once where I thought all was lost and I'd never pass. I've only felt overwhelmed by the amount of work assigned on days where I was catching up from taking a day off. Additionally, I did better on the practice MBE than the average BarBri taker. So, after my initial woes and thoughts of doom, I was relieved.
The last few weeks are spent mostly in review, memorization, and a lot of practice. (Although, I've also done BarBri questions and additional essays for my school.) So, all in all, the program is well paced and allows time for you to focus on your needs while still reviewing all of the material. Oh, they also provide you with a coach that calls, grades your essays, and answers (within 24hours) any questions you have. This I've found immensely helpful.
Most, if not all, of my friends are using BarBri. Everyone I talk to talks about how much they hate driving to lecture, about how the people in class are annoying and distracting, about how they hate watching lecture on tv anyway (although, one girl I know is doing a live session), and about how they hate how much material they're being forced to learn. I mean, I understand their plight, but with Themis over half of that stress was taken out of the equation.
One girl I know has cried a few days every week because she is so overwhelmed by BarBri. Another girl I know is a walking monster because the stress of it all. I don't think I handle stress THAT much better than them. I mean, we all made it through law school ok, right?
Ok, BarBri has a coach for their takers, they do a lot of practice questions, and essays too. Their lectures though are about 4hours long with only a lunch (or dinner if you're in the night session) break. Thats great if you're a sponge. I just don't know how anyone can retain that much information in that large of a lump-sum. Although, if you're one of those geniuses or are more conservative, then go ahead, bring on the 4hour lecture.
Other than that, BarBri produces results. Most people that use BarBri pass. But, I've been right on par with their "goals" associated with the MPQs. So, I think that means Themis works and is going to produce results as well. The close to the day I get, the better I feel about it. Maybe I can do this. Maybe Themis worked just as well. Maybe... But, only time will tell.
In other news, I took the Kaplan Practice Bar, the 3-Day Final Review Course. I scored higher than the average. So, I feel good about my choice of taking Themis.
As far as I'm concerned, they both work. They both produce results. Its a personal choice. So, future bar takers, weigh all the factors and try them out for the MPRE. (I used BarBri for the MPRE and got great results)
So, thats my (bias) opinion.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Vietnam vs. Iraq Lesson Plan
October 2008
| Title | Vietnam: Like Iraq? |
| Subject Area: | American History |
| Grade Level: | 11th |
| General Description: | The lesson is a follow up of previous lectures. It will allow the students to engage in a discussion that had been started on the wiki the night before and allow for connections between the past and present. |
| Materials Needed: | Computer with high-speed internet access, a general understanding of the history of Vietnam and its causes (from previous lectures), an general understanding about the war in Iraq and how it was started and what is going on now (wiki discussion), volunteers and participation from the students |
| Time Required: | One class period (50 mins) |
| Special Characteristics: | This is a class discussion in which the teacher acts as the facilitator and proctor. |
| Objectives: | SS.912.A.1.1 Describe the importance of historiography, which includes how historical knowledge is obtained and transmitted, when interpreting events in history. |
| SS.912.A.1.3 Utilize timelines to identify the time sequence of historical data. | |
| SS.912.A.1.5 Evaluate the validity, reliability, bias, and authenticity of current events and Internet resources. | |
| SS.912.A.7.10 Analyze the significance of Vietnam and Watergate on the government and people of the United States. | |
| Technology Performance Standards: | Facilitate and Inspire Student
Learning and Creativity - Teachers use their knowledge of subject matter,
teaching and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance
student learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual
environments. model collaborative
knowledge construction by engaging in learning with students, colleagues, and
others in face-to-face and virtual environments. |
| 5. Engage in Professional Growth
and Leadership - Teachers continuously improve their professional practice,
model lifelong learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and
professional community by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital
tools and resources. participate in
local and global learning communities to explore creative applications of
technology to improve student learning |
|
| Preparation: | In preparation for this discussion class the students would have had to keep up with their readings and homework throughout the week (assuming that this is done on a Friday). Throughout the week the lesson and required homework would have the students read and outline the chapter from the text about Vietnam and Watergate. The students would have been having discussions on the class wiki (http://history4highschool.pbwiki.com/) about what they thought about what they were learning. They would also have been required to brush up on their knowledge of the Iraqi war (assuming some prior knowledge) and cut out an article from the local newspaper about the war and a response about how they felt it effected their community. They would have been asked to post thoughts about it and then comment on at least two of their peers (networking - 21st century skills). Then on Friday they will bring in their outlines of the chapter and be prepared for the discussion. |
| Procedure: | To begin with the teacher will ask the students to hand in their homework from the week. Then they will ask the class to outline some of the main points that they learned about the origins of Vietnam, how it was represented in the media, and how did Watergate play in how the public reacted to it? Then these points will be written on the board so that the students have a visual of what is being said. Then the teacher will step back and ask the class guiding questions in which the class will engage in discussion with each other (teamwork - 21st century skills). |
| 1. How was the beginning of the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq similar? | |
| 1a. How were they different? | |
| 2. Did the media influence the public, in a negative or positive way? | |
| 2a. Why did the public react so strongly? | |
| 2b. How did/does the local community feel about it and what can you do about it? | |
| 2c. Why do you think that the reaction to the Iraq war was the way it was? | |
| 3. Do you think that President Bush will go into history books in a negative or positive light and why? | |
| 3a. How did Watergate effect the way we look at history? | |
| 4. Could these things happen again? | |
| **If the class does not get to all of the questions that is fine because these are just guiding questions to get the students involved and active. Something should spark their interest. | |
| Assessment: | Participation will be assessed and the wiki will be checked to see if they did their homework from Thursday. These will be awarded 5 points each (0 not done and 5 completed). The rest will be informal assessment for the teacher to gage where the understanding of the topic is and where she/he needs to review in depth before the exam. |
| Extension: | The students can bring the discussion from the class into discussions with their friends or family. They might even continue the discussion on the wiki or during lunch or afterschool. |
| Resources: | |
| Rationale | Since the students will have already been taught about the Vietnam war via lectures and readings from the text book and provided journals they will be doing something different. This will utilize different learning strengths. The students would have had to use technology to read the journals and they would have had to use it to discuss and collaborate before they came into the classroom. They could talk online/on the wiki about it later or perhaps take some of their ideas to heart when it came to how they could affect the community. This discussion is important because the students should be able to connect the information that they have learned to be able to make conversation and even arguments. This should help solidify some of the information and concepts that they learned.This lesson is important because it allows students to talk about some of the more current evens in conjunction with an even that we are studying in class. The events have some parallels and in order for the students to make those connections they have to realize the intricacies of Vietnam and Watergate. They have to realize that Nixon was impeached because of Watergate and that if he hadn't recorded what had happened no one may have ever known. This can be applied to the Bush presidency among others. |
| 21st Century Skill | Networking |
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Throwback from High School IB
To What Extent was the Race for Arms and Mutual Assured Destruction Affected by the Creation of the Atomic Bomb?
December 13, 2005
Total Word Count: 1,730
Plan
A - Plan of the Investigation
Subject of Investigation: The Cold War
To What Extent was the Race for Arms
and Mutual Assured Destruction Affected by the Creation of the Atomic Bomb?
In the
summary of evidence, the race for arms, the theory of mutual assured
destruction, and the atomic bomb will be introduced and view points from key
individuals will be brought up. The analysis will evaluate the evidence
presented in plan B as well as further explain what was said in plan B. From this the researcher will determine what
the true extent that the bomb had on the race for arms and MAD. When this is found a conclusion will be
drawn.
Word Count: 109
Plan B - Summary of Evidence
The reason
that the “cold war never turned fully hot was due primarily to the restraints
imposed by the fear of nuclear devastation” (Frankel, 46). Strategists of the 1950s and the 1960s held
theories concerning blackmail, chicken (the child’s game), and escalation”
(Allison, 28). “Both Soviet and American
leaders believed at first that the mere threat of nuclear retaliation sufficed
to deter attack… but they soon learned that the number, style, and accuracy of
nuclear weapons could confer a significant advantage, and this compounded their
fears of an overpowering first strike by their adversary” (Frankel,
46-47). In fact, “the mutual baiting did
not end” and the Soviet propagandists took advantage of this new fear “in some
circumstances we might have to take the initiative” (56). Thus, the “arms race raged on, propelled by
the fears of surprise attack, of being underrated or judged unwilling to push
the nuclear button” (53).
In
retrospect, “the nuclear strategies of the United States and the USSR ranged
from straightforward deterrence to the threat of massive retaliation …include[ing]
the options of aiming nuclear weapons at other nuclear weapons and aiming them
at enemy cities. Behind all of these
approaches is the idea that any nuclear war would involve mutual assured
destruction (MAD) for the principals, possibly for the world as well. As a result, the United States developed a
weapons arsenal large enough to ensure that enough weapons would survive an
enemy first strike to retaliate effectively” (“Nuclear Strategy”, 34658).
USA
“The problem of our satisfactory relations with Russia as
[is] not merely connected with but as [is] virtually dominated by the problem
of the atomic bomb. Except for the
problem of the control of that bomb…”(Stimson).
“…Until such time as the Soviet Union considers that it possesses an
adequate military capability (atomic as well as conventional) as compared to
the United States, it is improbable that the Soviets deliberately will venture
any military action which they might have reason to believe would involve them
in open war with the United States and its Allies… The Soviet Union is now
making and will continue to make aggressive use of time to improve its power
position, particularly now that it has developed an atomic weapon and can build
up a stockpile of bombs with which to aid in equalizing the scales of power” (“A
Report…”). The U.S. policy was going to
unknowingly “stimulate feverish activity on the part of the Soviet toward the
development of [the atom] bomb in what will in effect be a secret armament race
of a rather desperate character. There
is evidence to indicate that such activity may have already commenced”
(Stimson). In response to this “the
United States had a second-strike capability which was as extensive as what the
Soviets could do in a first strike” (Frankel, 54).
USSR
In the beginning of the cold war the USSR would “not hesitate
to abandon UNO” thus they would “replace it with an international weapon more
effective from their viewpoint” (Kennan).
The USSR would try “to undermine general political and strategic
potential of major western powers” (Kennan).
“[Khrushchev] really meant to pursue “peaceful coexistence” with the
capitalist West and went out of his way to disown Stalin’s dictum that war was ‘inevitable’”
(Frankel, 45). [The term “peaceful
coexistence has come to imply a long-term political strategy”] (McCombs,
Maxwell, Shaw, and Weaver, 334).
Khrushchev actually believed that “nuclear weapons made war unwinnable”
(Frankel, 49). However, he continued to
threaten to “hurl nuclear rockets at Western capitals” (45).
Opposing Views
“[The USSR] embarked on a major rearmament effort of their
own in response to that of the United States” (Russett 9). “The United States was slightly behind in
this technology, and there were widespread fears that the Soviet Union would
build so many missiles (ICBMs) that they could threaten rapid destruction of
American bombers, on which the United States still relied for its deterrent“
(11).
Word Count: 631
Plan C - Evaluation of Sources
Max Frankel, one of America’s finest journalists,
worked for The New York Times for fifty years. While working there, he went from a rising
college correspondent and worked his way to being executive editor. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of
Nixon’s trip in 1972 to China. His book,
High Noon in the Cold War, sparks much interest to many that read
it. Frankel shares the real story behind
the critical series of events during the cold war. His goal was to allows the reader to know
what was going on in the hearts and minds of the key decision-makers (Random
House Inc. and History New Network).
This book
was extremely useful to the researcher because it presented not only individual
situations but it also allowed the researcher to read about the overall
effects. The overall effect of the
atomic bomb was what was primarily looked at with this source; however, it was
not extremely useful in giving specific details (information which only a
primary source can give). This book also
had a certain bias against the USSR which makes the researcher decipher truths
from fallacies.
George
Kennan is a diplomat and historian. He
is best known as “the father of containment” and therefore acted as a key
figure in the emergence of the cold war.
His "long telegram" from Moscow in 1946 and the article he
wrote the next year under the pseudonym "X" have rightly been seen as
foundational texts of the cold war, expressing and legitimating Washington's
new and vigorously anti-Soviet policy.
In this telegram (the source used) he was the American chargé d'affaires
in Moscow and he wished to inform the President about certain conditions in the
USSR (Houghton Mifflin).
Obviously,
this primary source was extremely valuable and allowed the researcher to
understand what was being told to the U.S. President to warn about Soviet
nuclear weaponry. It did have a
limitation because it was not useful in seeing the long term effect but only in
seeing a very specific instance.
Word Count: 337
Plan D - Analysis
The effect
that the atomic bomb had on the race for arms and mutual assured destruction
must be studied and considered in history.
If the general society does not look at it then sometime in the future
the information will be lost. This could
allow something like what has happened to repeat itself. For instance, if a new weapon of a greater
mass destruction was created and used in a global war the new technology would
ultimately cause a global shift in power.
The atomic bomb, in the 1940s, was this new weapon and when it was
introduced to the world, world power and foreign politics changed.
As Stimson
stated, the problem with Russia was not merely connected to but virtually was
the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb upset
the balance of world power thus creating a race to “equalize the scales of
power”. The Soviets with their new found
technology of the atomic bomb were enabled to create more atomic weapons, which
in turn caused the Allied powers to fear retaliation from the Soviets. The American atomic bomb was the only thing
that allowed the Allies to have “world power”.
In order to maintain this upper hand in world power and ultimately
politics, the United States had to begin to compete with the Soviet Union. The armament of the Soviets caused fear
amongst the Allies for several reasons, one of which was the eventual
replacement of a peaceful organization for the new weapon, the atomic bomb,
allowing it to essentially dominate their foreign policy.
The theory
of mutual assured destruction spawned form the race for arms and according to
some was a primary cause in what kept the arms race going. This theory assured that both states involved
in the detonation of a nuclear weapon on another’s soil would also perish. For example, if the Soviets made a first
strike then the Americans could have a “second strike” just as effective in
destructing the USSR. Now, the nuclear
age had commenced and the fear of devastation is what effectively kept the USSR
and the USA from having a “hot war” rather then a “cold war”.
The introduction
of the atomic bomb created this new “arms race” and allowed for the creation of
“mutual assured destruction”. Threats
were thrown perpetually from one country to another. According to Frankel, Khrushchev really
wanted to pursue “peaceful coexistence” and did not believe that any war would
be worth it because “nuclear weapons made war unwinnable.” Khrushchev, however, did not actually pursue “peaceful
coexistence” because he continued to threaten nuclear warfare with the United
States. This showed that the USSR was
struggling internally and was contradicting itself in what it showed the people
and what it showed the world.
While the
evidence is overwhelming that the atomic bomb was essential to the race for
arms and ultimately mutual assured destruction, there were others who believe
the contrary. They believed that the
USSR was arming due to the armament of the United States. Which in analysis shows that they were not
racing for political and world power but simply for a feeling of security. This demonstrated that the atomic bomb was
not essential to the race for arms and ultimately the mutual assured
destruction theory.
Word Count: 540
Conclusion - Part E
It is clear
to see that the race for arms was a direct effect of the introduction of the
atomic bomb. The new technology in a
state’s self defense created a shift in global power. The theory of mutual assured destruction came
only after the beginning of the race for arms.
This ensured that the use of nuclear weapons (the atomic bomb and later
on the hydrogen bomb) would essentially be the end of whatever nation decided
to use it because of secondary and tertiary strikes; hence, the atomic bomb was
essential to this theory as well. One
can conclude that without the atomic bomb, there would not have been a cold
war.
Word Count: 113
Plan F - List of Sources
A Report by the Joint
Intelligence Committee on Implications of Soviet Possession of Atomic Weapons.
6 Dec. 2005 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/filmmore/reference/primary/jointintelligenc e.html.
Frankel, Max. High
Noon in the Cold War. New York: The
Random House Pub. Co., 2004.
Hammond, Dr. Thomas T. “A First hand look at the Soviet Union.” The National Geographic Magazine. Sep. 1959: Vol. CXVI No 3.
Houghton Mifflin.
“Kennan, George.” 10 Dec.
2005 http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_049500_kennangeorge.htm.
Kennan, George. George Kennan's Telegram. 28 Nov. 2005
Nixon, Vice President Richard
M. “Russia as I saw it.” The National Geographic Magazine. Dec. 1959: Vol.
CXVI No 6.
Random House Inc. “Max Frankel.” 10 Dec. 2005
Plan F - List of Sources Continued
Russett, Bruce M. Nuclear
Deterrence, the Arms Race, and Arms Control Nuclear Deterrence, the Arms Race, and Arms Control. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1983. Questia.
27 Nov. 2005 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98392935.
Stimson, Henry. Henry Stimson to Harry S. Truman, accompanied
by a memorandum, September 11, 1945. President's Secretary's File, Truman
Papers. 9 Dec. 2005 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/document s/index.php?documentdate=1945-09- 11&documentid=22&studycollectionid=abomb&pagenumber=1
Truman's Statement on
Detection of Soviet Atomic Test. 27 Nov.
2005
Word Count: 311
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)