Notes on Stand and Deliver

Main character is Jaime Escalante, used to do work with computers but decided he wants to teach instead

He gets to work by driving through the ghetto with music that is stereotypical of movies from the 1980s playing

He was supposed to teach computer science but there aren't computers and there is not computer science course

His class is very attentive

Some of his students do not speak English, but he speaks Spanish

The bell rang several minutes into class and everyone left

Teachers futilely attempting to get people back into class

His radio was stolen during the day

He had another job but wants to teach

He has a wife and a kid

He dresses as a chef, and using a German accent, he slices an apple

Some Mexican students show up late to class, he attempts to teach them multiplication but they threaten him

He later finds them fighting and stops one from joining in

He teaches the students negative numbers

Jaime believes that students will rise to the expectations set

Gives a student extra books so he won't be seen carrying them around

Girl refuses to take the test or do her homework and is made to sit in a chair at the front of the classroom as punishment

Having dinner with the father of one of his students, telling him he should let his daughter continue her education.

Teaching his students algebra

Wants to teach students calculus, requiring them to take prerequisite courses during the summer

Students try to drop a trash can on him, chase ensues, they climb fences to get away

Most students sign up for the calculus class and he begins teaching it

Uses a car analogy to convince one of the students to take calculus instead of dropping out and getting a job in a union

Ignoring most of what Ken Robinson said, I would say that good teaching is teaching for a practical purpose, and a good education is an education that someone can actually make a living out of. Teaching dancing classes to people who enjoy dancing is great but here in the real world, almost everyone who wants to make a career out of dancing is not going to make it. If all your education taught you is basic literacy, mathematics and how to dance, you don't have almost any skills which will earn you a job in a capitalist economy. You can't change education and hope the rest of the world, the system would need to be changed before education could be, and the system isn't going anywhere. The current education system is far from perfect but Ken Robinson's ideas don't help a lot of the issues it faces.

Notes on Ken Robinson's Talk on "How Schools Kill Creativity"

his themes to conference:
extraordinary evidence of human creativity
no idea what is going to happen in the future
a third theme which wasn't mentioned

You can't create anything original if you're afraid to be wrong, and schools make us afraid of being wrong

Kids don't grow into creativity in school, but rather grow out of it

He tells many jokes and stories that are not significant to the purpose of his speech

Every education system on earth has the same subjects

Education systems came into being for industry in the 19th century

Intelligence is dynamic and distinct

Our education system has "mined our minds" the way we mine the earth for a metal

The main thing I wanted readers to understand about my educational experience was how the learning experience affected and shaped me as a person. The learning experience changed the way I think about a lot of things, and how I think about myself, and made me more confident about who I am and what I believe. If I had told the story to someone, and they looked at me and asked "And, so...?" I would finish the sentence "I'm just sayin', all this was significant because..." with "it fundamentally changed how I think about things and who I am." I'd also probably be quite offended at the question because the significance of my learning experience is plainly obvious to me. I don't think anyone I would ever tell that story would question the significance.

Educational Narrative

Everyone has ideas. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone reading this right now, and everyone out there capable of reading this, and even all the people out there who can't read this, they all have their own opinions. For many people, these things are learned - often from their parents, but not always - and once learned, they're seldom changed or altered at all. I used to be like this, but then I learned to think differently, to ask why I believe something instead of what I believe. As a result of this learning experience, I always try to question the reasons behind the way I think about something, and I formulate my beliefs based on logic and rationality rather than emotions or faith.

A few years ago, if someone were to ask me about the way I felt about any topic I had much interest in, I'd probably spit out an answer without much thought. Not that I didn't feel strongly about anything, but rather, I didn't think to question the reason I thought that way. As a result, if someone wanted to argue against my opinion, there often wouldn't be much I had to back it - at least, not rationally. In such an argument, I would most likely use a lot of phrases like "I feel" or "I don't like" instead of something more objective or rational. This way of thinking tends to lead to something called cognitive dissonance, which is where my learning experience really started. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term defined as "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change." Basically, it is discomfort felt from holding two ideas which conflict with each other. I may not have known that term at the time, but it was crucial for me in the process of learning to question my beliefs and think differently.

I hated that feeling. Everyone does, but most people can ignore it - bury it in their mind, and forget about it. I couldn't do that at all. Once I came to the realization that ideas I held were incompatible, I couldn't get it out of my mind. That feeling of cognitive dissonance ate away at me, and with it, the knowledge that I felt strongly about plenty of things but couldn't rationally justify any of it. By far the most significant example in this learning process, for me, was religion. My parents are religious, and that of course was passed down to me. But when confronted about my beliefs, in trying to justify them, I would ultimately be backed into a corner - the only answer I had was faith. Blind, irrational faith. And if I could not rationally defend my beliefs, how could I ever criticize someone else's? For example, if someone truly believes something as crazy as the Harry Potter world being real, or a more realistic example like believing that one race of people is superior to another, I could not argue against that, because any justification they could give for that would be just as legitimate as my faith. Who am I to say that one irrational belief is any more valid than another? If your only rationale for something is "I have faith" then you cannot truly question someone else using the same reasoning. This line of thinking, of questioning my values and ideas based on rationality, is how I learned to change the way I think. Anything I believed in, I questioned - the reasoning for my opinion, the effect of it, the reasoning of people with opposing ideas - everything. I learned to think about "why" I think something, instead of "what" I think of it - and if the reasons why did not add up via rationality and logic, then I formed new ideas and beliefs.

The result of my learning experience is a complete change in how I think and formulate values, ideas and opinions. Anything I believe in, any opinion about an issue I may have, I always strive to question the logic behind it, and what rational justification I have for it. This method of thinking has also made me much more open to considering the opinions and ideas of other people - questioning my own beliefs naturally leads me to question those of others, instead of just considering them to be right or wrong. For example, my father is extremely opinionated when it comes to politics, is constantly watching news or listening to radio broadcasts which are biased towards his side of the issues, and I frequently find myself disagreeing with his social and political stances. However, I also try to understand them - why he thinks that way, and why I might disagree or agree with it. The experience also resulted in me being more confident about my beliefs and ideas, and who I am in general.  I dislike getting into arguments, and especially dislike arguing about common issues, but I am almost always confident and comfortable in being able to state and support my stance on them, whereas before I went through this learning experience, that was simply not the case.

A few years ago, I held many beliefs and opinions which were irrational, and could only be backed by emotional arguments and faith. Through a feeling of cognitive dissonance, and an inability to support my beliefs rationally, I went through a process of learning to question everything, and to base my ideas on rationality and logic. This process was not short, and I cannot point at any particular time, place or event where any of it happened - it was a gradual and entirely cognitive learning process. But as a result of going through it, I'm now capable of rationally defending my beliefs, I'm more confident about them, and I'm much more open to other people's ideas and trying to understand their perspective.

Educational Narrative Rough Draft

Everyone has ideas. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone reading this right now, and everyone out there capable of reading this, and even all the people out there who can't read this, they all have their own opinions. For many people, these things are learned - often from their parents, but not always - and once learned, they're seldom changed or altered at all. I used to be like this, but then I learned to think differently, to ask why I believe something instead of what I believe. As a result of this learning experience, I always try to question the reasons behind the way I think about something, and I formulate my beliefs based on logic and rationality rather than emotions or faith.

A few years ago, if someone were to ask me about the way I felt about any topic I had much interest in, I'd probably spit out an answer without much thought. Not that I didn't feel strongly about anything, but rather, I didn't think to question the reason I thought that way. As a result, if someone wanted to argue against my opinion, there often wouldn't be much I had to back it - at least, not rationally. In such an argument, I would most likely use a lot of phrases like "I feel" or "I don't like" instead of something more objective or rational. This way of thinking tends to lead to something called cognitive dissonance, which is where my learning experience really started. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term defined as "the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change." Basically, it is discomfort felt from holding two ideas which conflict with each other. I may not have known that term at the time, but it was crucial for me in the process of learning to question my beliefs and think differently.

I hated that feeling. Everyone does, but most people can ignore it - bury it in their mind, and forget about it. I couldn't do that at all. Once I came to the realization that ideas I held were incompatible, I couldn't get it out of my mind. That feeling of cognitive dissonance ate away at me, and with it, the knowledge that I felt strongly about plenty of things but couldn't rationally justify any of it. By far the most significant example in this learning process, for me, was religion. My parents are religious, and that of course was passed down to me. But when confronted about my beliefs, in trying to justify them, I would ultimately be backed into a corner - the only answer I had was faith. Blind, irrational faith. And if I could not rationally defend my beliefs, how could I ever criticize someone else's? For example, if someone truly believes something as crazy as the Harry Potter world being real, or a more realistic example like believing that one race of people is superior to another, I could not argue against that, because any justification they could give for that would be just as legitimate as my faith. Who am I to say that one irrational belief is any more valid than another? If your only rationale for something is "I have faith" then you cannot truly question someone else using the same reasoning. This line of thinking, of questioning my values and ideas based on rationality, is how I learned to change the way I think. Anything I believed in, I questioned - the reasoning for my opinion, the effect of it, the reasoning of people with opposing ideas - everything. I learned to think about "why" I think something, instead of "what" I think of it - and if the reasons why did not add up via rationality and logic, then I formed new ideas and beliefs.

The result of my learning experience is a complete change in how I think and formulate values, ideas and opinions. Anything I believe in, any opinion about an issue I may have, I always strive to question the logic behind it, and what rational justification I have for it. This method of thinking has also made me much more open to considering the opinions and ideas of other people - questioning my own beliefs naturally leads me to question those of others, instead of just considering them to be right or wrong. For example, my father is extremely opinionated when it comes to politics, is constantly watching news or listening to radio broadcasts which are biased towards his side of the issues, and I frequently find myself disagreeing with his social and political stances. However, I also try to understand them - why he thinks that way, and why I might disagree or agree with it. The experience also resulted in me being more confident about my beliefs and ideas, and who I am in general.  I dislike getting into arguments, and especially dislike arguing about common issues, but I am almost always confident and comfortable in being able to state and support my stance on them, whereas before I went through this learning experience, that was simply not the case.

A few years ago, I held many beliefs and opinions which were irrational, and could only be backed by emotional arguments and faith. Through a feeling of cognitive dissonance, and an inability to support my beliefs rationally, I went through a process of learning to question everything, and to base my ideas on rationality and logic. This process was not short, and I cannot point at any particular time, place or event where any of it happened - it was a gradual and entirely cognitive learning process. But as a result of going through it, I'm now capable of rationally defending my beliefs, I'm more confident about them, and I'm much more open to other people's ideas and trying to understand their perspective.

Out of the five assigned educational narratives, Malcolm X's "Learning to Read" excerpt was by far my favorite. It's an interesting and inspirational story, and it's written in a clear and to-the-point manner. I simply don't have any bad things to say about it. Compared to this story, all of the other articles had their own flaws which weren't really present in "Learning to Read". To start, Feross Aboukhadiejeh's blog post was definitely a runner-up for being my favorite, the only problem being that his story with learning to program is a lot less inspirational and can't be as relatable to as many people as learning to read. The whole premise of "How I Learned to Live Google-Free" is flawed, in that it is all based on the assumption that relying on Google as a search engine or YouTube as a video streaming website is somehow bad. I don't agree with that at all, and it really invalidates much of what Joshua Romero has to say in his article. That aside, the topic is still very specific and quite meaningless compared to any of the other four narratives, and I would argue that it is unquestionably the worst of the five assigned readings. "How I Learned to Love Traveling Solo" suffers from the same issue: the target audience of people who are both interested in and have the opportunity to travel alone is very small; I could not relate to anything in the article. And finally, we have Mike Rose's excerpt about his early education. The problem here is I don't have any idea who Mike Rose is, so by default I'm already not particularly interested in his education, and when the majority of the excerpt is spent describing in great detail his class mates and teachers instead of anything that is actually pertinent to the reader, I cared even less after finishing the reading. None of these critiques can be applied to Malcolm X's writing, which is why I say it is my favorite of the five.