Running head: SCHOOLING DISCUSSION 1
SCHOOLING DISCUSSION 2
A. Improvisation is a great skill that helps in real life as it lets answer the unexpected questions more easily and improves the declamatory skills. Improvisation abilities can be improved by means of various creative tasks that make students act spontaneously. Such exercises depend on the subject and should be focused on the necessary skills. These can be drawing a picture representing the mood, making dialogues, presenting some unprepared performances and retelling the texts on the basis of the key words instead of learning it by heart. The main idea is to offer to do these tasks without any preparation. To my mind, each of the life situations that happen unexpectedly teaches people to improvise. Invitation of a stranger asking his own questions for a class discussion is an efficient mean. Meeting a person, who asks for help in a street, taught me to make quick decisions.
B. 1. Ladder learning is mostly better if it is necessary to learn something quickly, especially if there is no need to get involved into the topic too deeply. Furthermore, it contributes greatly to the competitiveness and motivation.
Read more about Research Paper Writing Help for Any Student. Feel free to order your paper from Essays-Services and forget about your worries.
2. The ladder-like learning is beneficial for students, who need to grasp information quickly. Moreover, such approach is obviously effective to teach quick work and ability to perform multiple tasks.
3. I believe it is possible and necessary to integrate these learning styles. Probably, one should re-consider the tasks and the methods of assessment according to subjects and create the system that would include the better grades for the deeper critical understanding.
4. The ability to think critically and apply the knowledge is the most important skill that should be taught for the persons mental development. Therefore, the leaf education sounds to me as more deep. However, the integrated methods would be the perfect way to teach.
C. I agree that the leaf method encourages better remembering of information as the information that is critically analyzed is always understood and memorized better. However, short remembering of the information in case with the ladder method is far not always a disadvantage. Sometimes, the new information is really of small necessity and should be forgotten. However, I do not agree that students forget everything afterwards. Even if a person does not remember something in details, he/she keeps in mind some superficial information. In case, there appears a necessity to recollect the information, it is possible to recall some general facts and later investigate them more deeply. In addition, even if one needs to remember the information for a long time and in more details, it is always possible to pay particular attention to the areas that are essential and learn them attentively.
D. The ladder system is presented in the society quite widely. Starting with education and growing up, the existence of the lower and higher stages on the way to the aim is commonly found as normal. Any opportunity is really presented as a ladder and means that the victory or the final stage is of the highest priority, sometimes even regardless the means used to reach the aim. Though it is not always bad, the final result accelerates the process of learning and makes the knowledge not very profound. A good example of the negative influence of such system on the final outcome is also related to the fact that the students get a lower level of knowledge when being tested with multiple-choice questions. Such tests do not show the real level of knowledge and can present equal level for those, who are not equally well educated in the topic.
E. The effects of the leaf or ladder education methods for a child have their own pros and cons depending on the aims that are set for the childs future. Ladder method is quite good for motivation of a person to move forward. At the same time, leaf method is helpful in developing creativeness, critical thinking and deeper understanding of the issues. Ladder education is likely to make students aware mostly in one narrow sphere can be good for a person, who would not have to work much with people, but mostly with machines. Furthermore, it can be suitable for the scientists, who make some researches on the basis of the previous results. However, for those, who regard full life as constant communication and cooperation with the society, it is important to be educated in many spheres, be able to improvise and analyze.
F. I agree that the ladder system of teaching creates an unfair hierarchy of intelligence according to higher or lower subjects. The reason is that objectively all topics and spheres of life are equally important and interconnected. The differentiation according to more important or more difficult subjects is subjective. For one, physics is easy, but languages are difficult, for someone else it is comprehended in an opposite way. The aptitude of a person predetermines his/her attitude to various spheres. However, if one would consider chemistry, math, history or literature, they all have definite systems even though they are different. Hence, each subject demands some specific level of intelligence. In reality, it is impossible to define that one level is higher and the other one is lower as they are judged according to different criteria.
G. Lack of critical skills makes students narrow and deprives them of the ability to discuss various issues with others in class or in their spare time. Such characteristics can hardly have a good influence on a person from a psychological perspective. Moreover, compartmentalization does not prove deep understanding of the issues. Although the focus on only one sphere often contributes to good awareness in it, good work or wise decisions always demand the outside perspective. As well as the subject consists of a set of rules, the profound knowledge consists of a set of subjects. To my mind, the approach presented in the article is favorable. It emphasizes strong connections between all subjects and all spheres of life regardless their peculiarities. The ability to find these liaisons is a crucial evidence of human enlightenment.
H. To my mind, any workshop is an education, but it implies a relatively narrow field of training. I mean it has the limits of the knowledge that can be got and does not evoke further development in other spheres. The workshop demands the workers to have skills that are systematically supported. At the same time education in general should lead to development and evoke interest in other spheres as well. Cremin regarded education as transmission across generations. Therefore, it is analyzed from a more global perspective. On some level, any education is only systematic and deliberate, but if one would analyze the workshop training with regard to the previous experiences that offer much information that was already tested and future development, it would be defined as sustained.
I. The situation with the teachers, who prefer strict rules, is widely spread. In some occasions, when it deals with some strict formulas or laws, such position is not so bad. However, encouraging students to express their own ideas is obviously a better way to let them reveal their strong and weak sides. Exploration instead of a strict set structure of studies prepares pupils to the real life much better. Considering the way children react on the method of teaching, one should mark out the connection with the family upbringing. To my mind, feeling uncomfortable when being allowed to explore is the evidence that a student is not interested in the subject or treated very strictly at home. I prefer to have more freedom in the class, but only if the area of studies is interesting.