Interviews & Survery Questions

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you?
2. easily do you make friends?
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone?
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions?
5. much do you talk?

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why?

Person #1:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 4
2. easily do you make friends? 4
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 2
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 4
5. much do you talk? 3.5

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? No

Person #2:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 4
2. easily do you make friends? 5
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 1
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 5
5. much do you talk? 4

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? Yes; because if they want to know, I'm open to telling them. Just not the really personal stuff.

Person #3:

On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the lowest), how:

1. open are you? 2
2. easily do you make friends? 5
3. difficult do you find it to approach someone? 3
4. much do you avoid unnecessary interactions? 1
5. much do you talk? 3

6. Do you talk to your acquaintances about your life? If so, why? No

First I needed to determine whether or not the person I interviewed was an extrovert so I stole the first 5 questions from the personality test we took. The way I determined this was, the person had to score a 3 or above on questions 1,2, or 5 or a 3 or lower on questions 2 and 3. If the person fulfilled 3 or more of these criteria, then that person is an extrovert. By looking at my data, all three of them fulfilled 4 of the criteria. Then I wanted to see whether they interacted with their acquaintances and were open enough to tell their acquaintances about their life. To my surprise, only 1 person would. This interview/survey provided evidence to support the claim that being more social does not mean that one needs more attention from the people they see daily. But I think this survey was not enough to determine this; instead of asking whether they talk to their acquaintances about their life, I think I should have made it broader and asked how many times they make conversations with their acquaintances and about what. This way, we get to see why people need other people and how frequently do we ask of our acquaintances.

Survey Question: How often do you talk to your acquaintances about your life?

HW 55

Part 1:

What social and emotional needs can be met by people we see daily?

Part 2:

Jia Min: It seems like you have more questions for your second topic so you would have more to write about and research on. I would go with that one and it sounds pretty interesting. Maybe your EQ can be "What more does a closer friend have to do than just a friend?"

Amber: Interesting question. Are you focusing on family or other people? I think attention is the word; why do people tend to seek attention outside the family. Just a suggestion.

Part 3:

What emotional needs can be met by our acquaintances?

Lewin, Tamar. "Teenage Insults, Scrawled on Web, Not on Walls." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/us/06formspring.html. New York Times. Web. 12 May 2010.

Formspring.me is a website that allows teenagers to write anonymous comments instead of writing on bathroom walls. Since the comments are anonymous, teenagers often insult the user. The user can select comments s/he chooses to post and answer to but most do not filter the nasty ones; they are more tempted to post them. One teenager had stopped wearing a particular clothing because someone had made a comment on it. The website has even caused a suicide of a teenager because of the nasty comments posted about him.

Teenagers take advantage of the nasty and inappropriate comments from other people to attract attention to themselves. Other teenagers that we see daily, but do not consider as friends, serve as a game piece to draw attention. It is the same thing as going to a party and making out with someone so that you have something to tell your friends about, thus drawing attention to yourself. Users are crushed by the critical comments on the website but they still read them. It seems that people who are not that close to you would be the ones telling you the truth and it is the only way you can figure out how to "fix" yourself. People you see daily are there to give you feedback on how you should act or how you should look.

Lloyd, Tracey. "The Process Of Deindividuation." http://social-therapy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_process_of_deindividuation. Suite101.com. Web. 13 May 2010.

Deindividuation "suggests that strong identification with a group culture may lead to decreased personal responsibility." This terminology was created in the 1950s by Festinger. Psychologists believe that individuals behave more aggressively than those who are deindividualized. Deindividualizing one allows the responsibility to be shared among the group so that one does not need to carry all the burden. The article goes on, giving examples of evidence proving the success of deindividuation.

This is not the best article but I think the concept of deindividuation partly answers the question why teachers like to put us in groups and why we are in classrooms as opposed to homeschooling. When we work on projects with a group, we do not have to be responsible for all the requirements because we have others to share the responsibility. As a whole class, we do not have to feel like we need to have all the answers because we have others in class to build ideas off of. Our classmates are there to carry some of the responsibility so that we do not have to take it on by ourselves.

Cherry, Kendra. "Effects of Group Size on Problem Solving." http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologynews/qt/groupsize.htm. About.com. Web. 13 May 2010.

Working in groups of three to five people do better at tasks than just one person alone. A study done with groups of three provided results showing that the group was able to solve more difficult problems. The study also show that just two people is not enough, the group must consist of three to five people; working with just two people is just as bad as one person working alone.

Again, this connects to my students in the classroom; we often work in groups because more heads are better than one. Maybe teachers should consider this study and allow students to work in groups of three to five people to see if any significant changes occur. As students, other students serve as other brains that we can work off of, or better phrase, work together with.

HW 54

Part 1:

I took the Jung test result and I thought the percent breakdowns were pretty accurate but the second box was not. The results show that I am introverted, sensing, feeling, and perceiving. But then it says artist and that I am interested in fine arts, express primarily through art form. In fact, I am no artist, not very interested in fine arts, and rarely express myself through the form of art. I feel like this test does not provide sufficient information to determine whether it is useful. It just breaks the categories down but does not give a description of your personality.

On the other hand, I thought this test was pretty accurate for J.M.H.; she is introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging. She keeps a lot of things to herself, tries to find meaning behind everything, sensitive, and draws conclusions really quickly. The second part of the results was pretty accurate; I think she has some sort of drive to help others and enjoys doing it. She has a very complex personality. I think that the Big Five Test is more accurate and useful because it explains what the results mean. J.M.H. scored low for the extroversion part which suggests that she is reclusive, quiet, unassertive, and secretive which is very true.

Part 2:

I thought that my brother was an ISTP but his results were ISFP. As discussed in class, these personality tests measure how one view one's preferences rather than one's personality. Therefore, I think these test will entertain (like the audience at a magic show) those who were truthful when taking the test. This test did not really do anything for my brother or for me; he just took it and went back to watching videos. The test did not make me stop and think about how he is going to act in the future or change how I will act towards him. Basically, I take these tests for fun to see how accurate the questions being asked are.

Survey Analysis

Part 2:

This survey actually made me think thoroughly about the questions and reflect on them. Those were the questions that made me put myself back into the situation so I could get the full feel from it even if these situations were daily occurrences. They were not that personal (except for one or two) since they were anonymous and I did not feel pressured in answering them.

Part 3:

I was surprised to see that 30 people said that they talk to an adult in their family for more than 5 minutes every day but only 24 have more than 20 minutes of "face time" with a caring adult per day. Do their family not care about them for at least 20 minutes? I also noticed that 32.7% of those who took the survey chose maybe when asked whether friendship is for their own benefit. Do we really not know if we are taking advantage of friendship or we do not want to admit that we are using other people? On the other hand, 39.2% said that people think about themselves only; then why did 32.7% choose maybe when asked if they were thinking about themselves when making friends. The popular vote went to not much when asked if they made others feel bad to make themselves feel good. I had expected the popular vote to go to not at all; are we that selfish or is there an excuse behind it? 21 people said that they were not sure if they were happy about their identities; just shows that the represented population is still creating their identity. I was also surprised that the popular answer was affirmative when asked if people were tired of others in school. Why is this the case; have we been with each other for too long that we want to meet new people?? Why do we want to see new people, can't we just stay with each other? Is it because people change or we know them long enough to see their true self and start to dislike them? The popular vote went to maybe when asked whether people worry what others thought of them. I expected the votes to lean towards the negative side because I always hear people say that they don't care what others thought of them.

Part 3:

In the NYCGOV website survey, survey found that more than 50% of high school students had been sexually active; in our sample size, exactly 50% answered yes. 8% of NYC high school students are having safe sex, much lower than the percentage shown in our survey. One reason for this huge difference is that our sample size was not large enough to represent the whole population, in this case, NYC high school students. Within this small sample size, the number of people who were not truthful when filling out this survey can cause an effect on the results. One thing that was not provided on the website were the questions that were asked in the survey. The questions in the surveys could have been worded differently and this could also cause a change in the answers that will change our results.

Initial Theories of Human Relationships

Parents like to take their anger out on their kids when they are in a bad mood. Like when your brother gets your mom mad and when you come home, your mom starts to yell at you. Not only parents do this, but friends, acquaintances, and strangers do this to us. When your friend is already in a bad mood, you walk up to say hi him/her and s/he gives you the attitude. I believe psychologists call this catharsis. Catharsis is when someone lets out all their emotions so that they can feel better afterward. If a person is having a bad day at work, they could go take it out at the boxing ring. Psychologists would not recommend this method to relieve emotions; catharsis makes one more prone to the emotion. Does that mean we should find other ways to relieve our emotions? What other choices do we have?

I sometimes see people chase after things they cannot get. Like people who are obsessed with the Jonas Brothers or Justin Bieber, they know they cannot marry these people, so why bother saying so? Maybe it gives the people something to long for, to give their life a purpose, to keep them distracted and busy. They know they cannot marry these famous people but they want to experience this obsession, so they chase after these stars. And when they meet the stars or get the chance to spend time with the stars, they would not know what to do because people would not know how to deal with these situations.

Humans are always resetting our reference levels; whether it is the level of happiness, or the level of our metabolism. When we eat a certain amount of food for a long period of time, our body gets used to this amount and expects us to continue eating this much. It is the same thing with our hormones, when we secrete too much epinephrine, our body considers this as the normal amount and therefore our body needs to secrete more to make us happy. Our level of happiness is similar to this concept. When we receive something in life, for example a raise in salary, we get really happy but then we adapt to this change. Our happiness level drops or our body resets the normal level and I think that is why we do not take the time to appreciate what we have; we are constantly looking for other things to cheer us up.

I think understanding people is most important in any relationship; sometimes, the truth or trust is not enough. When interacting with someone, you must understand where this person is coming from; you can look at things from that person's perspective and learn to accept their thinking. By doing so, you can learn what they want and work with it so that you can get what you want, resulting in a win-win situation. Every relationship needs understanding and I think that is what we all look for in a relationship. Whether it is a friend we can talk to about problems, a parent we can talk to about school, or a coworker we can talk to about our boss.

I find it funny sometimes when have to say sorry when you get into someone's way, even though you do not mean it and if you do not say sorry, they think you are rude. Now, it is almost a reflex to say sorry when bumping into someone. This is New York City and we will find ourselves bumping into people one after the other and we will have to say sorry over and over again. Can this be avoided so we can say more meaningful things or is New York City inevitable?

HW 51

Schools are institutions that create a false image for teachers, parents, and students. Teachers believe that they can teach the students life-connected knowledge, parents and students believe that going to school will ensure success in the future. However, the students' savior teacher film, Freire, Sizer, Hirsch, and Ms. D contradicts this claim. All or some of them believe that schools are not teaching students the right information and that schools are just dumbing students down.

Section 1's savior teacher film suggests that students cannot be saved by teachers because the teachers themselves need to be saved. The film portrays the teacher ignoring the papers he was holding, texting on his blackberry, and falling asleep on his desk. He dreams about his "perfect" self teaching a bunch of rude students. The next day, the teacher goes around and insults some of his students after being woken up by a student. He walks around like he was drinking and storms out of the room, leaving the helpless students behind. Some teachers might not know what is best for students and might just teach students that are required from the government. Not all teachers can be a savior, hence the teacher did not do anything to save them; he was actually influencing them in a bad way by drinking.

Freire, in the second chapter of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, uses the analogy of banking to show that schools are not teaching the students as they claim to be. The teachers are depositing information into the students' head while the students obediently sit in classrooms and wait for the information to come. Students are so focused on collecting and storing the information that they forget about critically analyzing the information. Freire describes the students' heads as "containers" and "receptacles" that are ready to be fill by the teachers with information. Because students are being filled with information, they do not process and take the time to understand the information. By just depositing information into students, schools are not allowing students to develop critical thinking skills. Schools need to overcome this education model in order to save students from becoming robots.

Sizer believed that education should be focused primarily during the high school years so students can develop critical thinking. To succeed, one must understand some of the basic knowledge but also set goals for one to achieve. Education should not be shaped by the federal and state administrators but by the students who are getting the education. Test scores do not reflect a student's serious education and in fact proposed to drop the grading system, testing system, and conforming students by age.

Hirsch believed that students should know the basics, i.e., memorizing the presidents of the United States. He emphasizes education more during the early years of school, during elementary school, when students first learn their numbers, how to write, the basic history and sciences. Test scores best reflect how students are doing and how much of the information they memorize; portfolios are too subjective. In order to read college leveled texts, Hirsch recommends knowing basic information because knowing how to tackle college passages are useless; students need to know the basics to connect with the passages. Many schools follow Hirsch's view; they have their students memorize information and then assess their ability to memorize. Only a few has adopted Sizer's ideas and allowed their students to develop critical thinking, allowing them to become more humane than other students.

Ms. D, a teacher at one of Sizer's schools, finds it difficult to connect with every student she teaches. Without this connection with students, she lowers the chances she has to save her students from their problems outside school. Her curriculum consists a mixture of her opinions on what students should know and the standard curriculum. She was required to teach the play Antigone one year but she also decided to teach about world literature to widen her students' knowledge on literature. Although she cannot have that deep connection with students, she tries to save them indirectly by adding in her thoughts on education. She used to assign two essays a week, spent hours grading them, and gave only a few sentences for feedback. To ensure her students were getting the best out of their education, she assigned less essays but spent the same amount of time grading the papers and wrote letters as feedbacks. Ms. D feel obligated to care about her students but she cannot be like a counselor and pass her limit. Her ability to save her students is once again circumscribed. Teachers try to save their students but because they cannot reach out to every student, it makes it harder for them to save the students.

Section 1's film portrays teachers as clueless people who are not teaching the students the right information. Freire describes the classroom as a banking system, in which students do not think about the information they are receiving. Sizer and Hirsch have contradicting views and most schools follow Hirsch's ideas that includes having the students memorize. Ms. D, like any teacher, wants to teach students the important things so the students can use them. However, because of how the schools are set up, schools are not shaping intellectual students and teachers are not really helping the students.

HW 50

"Against School" is about the fact that schools are not helping the students and are in fact harming them. They are boring the students by making the students do meaningless work and if students get bored the teachers cannot get anywhere either. Success is also possible to those who do not go to school and going to school does not guarantee success. Schools are turning students into slaves for the economy by dumbing them down and depressing them. Gatto, in the end, suggests some alternatives that will better educate kids than to send kids to school.

Since schools are dumbing students down for the sake of the economy, students are being compared to the products of a factory. School is like central factory that produces workers to function other factories that run the economy. Schools make things too easy for students, therefore not allowing the students to mature through struggle. This leads to longer years of education which continues to make things easy for students and the students still cannot mature. It is a cycle; an unbreakable cycle created to aid the economy. Parents are advised to have their kids "learn to enjoy their own company;" I feel that this will drive kids to seek company later on in life. Everyone needs attention so if kids do not get it early in life, I think they will seek the attention later. Even if one can stand being alone, one would have difficulty developing social skills; limiting the chance to learn from others.

The second chapter of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire uses the analogy of banking to describe his view on schooling. The teachers deposits information into the students who are sitting there waiting for teachers to deposit something. Students who are so caught up in storing information leaves no room to think critically about the information handed to them. They are like "containers" or "receptacles" ready to be filled with information pouring from teachers. Because they are being "filled" with information, they do not get to process and really understand the information.

Students accept the idea that they are empty ones, thus giving purpose to the teachers so that the teachers think that they are the ones teaching. Teachers do not know everything; there are some things that teachers do not know and that students know. School, beside the fact that it is a place where kids meet and hang out, should be a place where people learn from each other. It should not be just about the teacher teaching because students also have insights to offer. "The more the oppressed can be led to adapt to [a] situation, the more easily they can be dominated." This makes me wonder why colleges and bosses require applicants to be able to adapt to changes. Is it because colleges can better control the students and it is easier for bosses to control the workers? Is being able to adapt a bad thing or do we want to be able to work things out?

Delpit does not fully agree with the progressive approaches to pedagogy but also does not fully agree with the simple "basic skills" approach. The progressive approach worked for some students but not for others and the "basic skills" approach do not encourage critical thinking. Delpit believes that basic knowledge is needed to learn how to pronounce words like "me." Her solution is for teachers to teach materials related to the students' lives and to explicitly explain the purpose of the lesson so students do not feel they are being lied to. In an institution, the ones in power are the ones benefited and everyone else do not matter.

In order to teach the materials related to the students' lives, Delpit suggest that "each classroom incorporate strategies appropriate for all the children." I find this difficult to achieve since everyone live a different lifestyle. For example in Freedom Writers, the teacher was unable to solve everyone's problems in one classroom sitting. The teacher needed to track every student down individually, figure out the problem, and then solve it. For a teacher to develop a curriculum that incorporated materials related to all students is nearly impossible.

Ms. D finds it very difficult to connect with every one of her students. Her curriculum consists of mixture of the standard curriculum and her opinion on the student's education. For example, the standard curriculum required her to teach the play Antigone but she also decided to teach world literature. She used to assign two essays a week and spent hours grading them, providing little feedback for students so she decided to decrease the frequency of essays, allowing her to write her feedbacks in the form of a letter. Ms. D feels obligated to care about her students but there is a limit; it is hard for her to be a counselor because she cannot have that deeper connection with students.

Ms. D is not able to save every one of her students because she cannot connect with all of her students. Even so, she tries to give the same chance of being saved by assigning less essays and analyzing students more. She cannot have that deeper connection with students without it looking like something else. If teachers cannot have that deeper connection with students, the student definitely cannot be saved by teachers. However, her ability to tweak the curriculum so that she can adjust it to fit her ideas will aid her students to save themselves and help them solve their own problems.