You are Wash (Ship Pilot)
| You are a pilot with a good if not silly sense of humor. You take pride in your collection of toys. You love your significant other.  |
Click here to take the Serenity Personality Quiz
Monday, September 29, 2008
Serenity/Firefly character...buggy display but fun!
Your results:
You are Wash (Ship Pilot)
Click here to take the Serenity Personality Quiz
You are Wash (Ship Pilot)
Click here to take the Serenity Personality Quiz
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Second Life -- who says you can't have a do-over?
I am referring here, of course, to the immersive, 3-D, first-person "player" online presence known as Second Life. A great deal of educational theory is being tested in-world these days, and I'm happy to become a part of secondary ed's toe-dip into that environment.
I am too lazy to provide extensive links right here/now for my 3 readers, but I will suggest this one 'portal' to so many more: Pathfinder Linden (John Lester)'s Education Bookmarks
I know it is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I do think some students will find a home there, take classes w/n Second Life, etc. I hope to offer at least office hours if not whole courses w/n SL sometime in the near future.
My most public avatar is Gawain Grut.
Come into Second Life and look me up.
I am too lazy to provide extensive links right here/now for my 3 readers, but I will suggest this one 'portal' to so many more: Pathfinder Linden (John Lester)'s Education Bookmarks
I know it is not going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I do think some students will find a home there, take classes w/n Second Life, etc. I hope to offer at least office hours if not whole courses w/n SL sometime in the near future.
My most public avatar is Gawain Grut.
Come into Second Life and look me up.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Blended Learning
I am involved in yet another academic experiment, blended learning. Truly, this is only a buzz word, like "active learning" or "experiential learning" or any number of other phrases for common sense pedagogy...or more importantly, andragogy. All that jazz has to do with making learning engaging, memorable, fun, etc...and that's what I'd be doing even if I were sans computer. I always have made efforts to make learning palatable for all comers. (I do not always succeed, but I do try.)
Blended Learning is the practice of integrating tools of distance learning and face-to-face technique. I'm sure there are better definitions out there. For me, it is something I've practiced since I first started teaching online and via tele-courses and interactive television. Students are responsible for book-learnin' and for all manner of content absorption outside of/in advance of class. (I made a big deal of this during the first week this term, and a guy asked, "Mr. J, aren't you talking about...homework?" ...and yes I am.) When together in person, we then have the opportunity to share, digest, practice, work together, etc. in any variety of exercises, etc. to enhance, reinforce, restate, etc. what should be happening outside the classroom.
Leave it to my sick, twisted way of thinking. The first thing coming to mind when blended anything is mentioned is the classic bass-o-matic commercial.
Recently, I have had two sections of class that has "gone blended" and I hope never to go back. While students have been slow taking hold of it, those who do seem thrilled. The strategy reminds me of a format my old history prof used, lectures twice weekly (in which he had masses of students and he did not know/care who was there) and then a recitation/discussion break out every other week. The accountability was high in those small sessions, and I would say my learning was far accelerated via that venue than any other in my college experience. (It was over twenty years ago, so no high-tech distance learning technology allowed him to do anything but lecture to drive out content, back then. Now we have online learning management systems, like ANGEL, WebCT, Blackboard, etc. Now we have podcasting, TeacherTube, etc...what Dr. Linder could have done with all that!)
I, too, hope to amp up the accountability and learning curve in those face-to-face sessions. I hope that they will learn to come loaded for bear. I hope they will stump me daily. I, as stated all over this blog, hope to be their coach, and if they show up to practice all hot for English, well then, we can get something accomplished.
Getting folks there, primed, is the trick.
I hope to post more on this in the future as my adventures in Blended Learning continue.
Blended Learning is the practice of integrating tools of distance learning and face-to-face technique. I'm sure there are better definitions out there. For me, it is something I've practiced since I first started teaching online and via tele-courses and interactive television. Students are responsible for book-learnin' and for all manner of content absorption outside of/in advance of class. (I made a big deal of this during the first week this term, and a guy asked, "Mr. J, aren't you talking about...homework?" ...and yes I am.) When together in person, we then have the opportunity to share, digest, practice, work together, etc. in any variety of exercises, etc. to enhance, reinforce, restate, etc. what should be happening outside the classroom.
Leave it to my sick, twisted way of thinking. The first thing coming to mind when blended anything is mentioned is the classic bass-o-matic commercial.
Recently, I have had two sections of class that has "gone blended" and I hope never to go back. While students have been slow taking hold of it, those who do seem thrilled. The strategy reminds me of a format my old history prof used, lectures twice weekly (in which he had masses of students and he did not know/care who was there) and then a recitation/discussion break out every other week. The accountability was high in those small sessions, and I would say my learning was far accelerated via that venue than any other in my college experience. (It was over twenty years ago, so no high-tech distance learning technology allowed him to do anything but lecture to drive out content, back then. Now we have online learning management systems, like ANGEL, WebCT, Blackboard, etc. Now we have podcasting, TeacherTube, etc...what Dr. Linder could have done with all that!)
I, too, hope to amp up the accountability and learning curve in those face-to-face sessions. I hope that they will learn to come loaded for bear. I hope they will stump me daily. I, as stated all over this blog, hope to be their coach, and if they show up to practice all hot for English, well then, we can get something accomplished.
Getting folks there, primed, is the trick.
I hope to post more on this in the future as my adventures in Blended Learning continue.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Birth Order
I've not done any research on this, yet, but I am intrigued by birth order and personality development. Seems I remember somewhere that first-borns are often the Alpha type, and that would hold true from my personal experience and that which I'm seeing in my boys.
I know historically the first born would be first-entitled to inherit the wealth and responsibilities of an estate. I know (generally...often) first-borns are expected to shoulder the load, escort their younger siblings, set the example.
I could whine about this, that first-borns have so much put upon them. How could it be fair that we, simply by being first down the chute are thus expected to do more, be more, bear more?!
On the other hand, it must suck being second in line, second fiddle, always on the back burner. It must really bite hard being the kid foisted off on the older sibling when mom/dad has no time to manage whatever crisis that second one brings up.
I know my second born is struggling for his position in the pecking order, becoming ever-more vocal to compete with the non-stop stream of consciousness think-speak of his older brother.
My third in line uses his brawn rather than his bawl to assert himself.
Makes me wonder how it will all shake down as they grow up.
Anyway, I'm going to give this birth order issue more attention. Any suggestions are appreciated.
I know historically the first born would be first-entitled to inherit the wealth and responsibilities of an estate. I know (generally...often) first-borns are expected to shoulder the load, escort their younger siblings, set the example.
I could whine about this, that first-borns have so much put upon them. How could it be fair that we, simply by being first down the chute are thus expected to do more, be more, bear more?!
On the other hand, it must suck being second in line, second fiddle, always on the back burner. It must really bite hard being the kid foisted off on the older sibling when mom/dad has no time to manage whatever crisis that second one brings up.
I know my second born is struggling for his position in the pecking order, becoming ever-more vocal to compete with the non-stop stream of consciousness think-speak of his older brother.
My third in line uses his brawn rather than his bawl to assert himself.
Makes me wonder how it will all shake down as they grow up.
Anyway, I'm going to give this birth order issue more attention. Any suggestions are appreciated.
Monday, September 08, 2008
FRT's
Go here for the story on fish farts, then come back for more. So little that we know! I am fascinated by nature, and I'm happy to keep company with biologists that can enlighten me on a regular basis. I ask them questions like a 5 year old, and like a kind parent, they are always happy to lift the veil and make me smart.
The story linked above is not new news, but it's new to me. I guess I did not think much about fish flatulence prior to reading that piece. Now, considering how many fish are in the ocean, I wonder why it is not always churning like a bubbling jacuzzi. (I also thought fish, if they did fart, would contribute to the methane problem, but it turns out they fart nitrogen. I wonder what it would be like to fart nitrogen instead of propane? I'll have to ask a biologist.)
The article discusses a form of communication that routs from the fish's swim bladder out their south pole. I find it curious that the sound is almost an exclusive for that species, that other fish cannot hear their farting communication. That would be interesting. I wonder if my beagle can hear it when I pass gas on one of our walks. I wonder if fish make profound speeches in fart talk....state of the union addresses? proposals for marriage? polite conversation? water cooler--oh, well, their world's a water cooler, I guess...
I also wonder, as I do whenever I read such articles, just who has the time to listen to fish fart? Who's paying these jokers for their troubles? What potential application might this revelation have for our life/times? The article made me think that perhaps one might hone in on various kinds of fish and lure them in (or at least find them grouped, a shoal.) If we learn to communicate with them, maybe we can learn something new from their kind.
I was also taken aback by the potential problem of human-generated noise pollution. The scientists speculated it may have some adverse affect on fish communication. How often does one think about noise pollution to begin with...and then to think of it underwater? (!) I'll confess my ignorance--I'd never given it much thought. I figured a speed boat roaring over a lake might cause some annoyance for those below the water line, just as it does for those of us shore-side. I've always thought deep sea tests of nuclear bombs would not likely be well-received by marine life. But I've not often (well, maybe when swimming underwater) thought of noise pollution under the sea.
The story linked above is not new news, but it's new to me. I guess I did not think much about fish flatulence prior to reading that piece. Now, considering how many fish are in the ocean, I wonder why it is not always churning like a bubbling jacuzzi. (I also thought fish, if they did fart, would contribute to the methane problem, but it turns out they fart nitrogen. I wonder what it would be like to fart nitrogen instead of propane? I'll have to ask a biologist.)
The article discusses a form of communication that routs from the fish's swim bladder out their south pole. I find it curious that the sound is almost an exclusive for that species, that other fish cannot hear their farting communication. That would be interesting. I wonder if my beagle can hear it when I pass gas on one of our walks. I wonder if fish make profound speeches in fart talk....state of the union addresses? proposals for marriage? polite conversation? water cooler--oh, well, their world's a water cooler, I guess...
I also wonder, as I do whenever I read such articles, just who has the time to listen to fish fart? Who's paying these jokers for their troubles? What potential application might this revelation have for our life/times? The article made me think that perhaps one might hone in on various kinds of fish and lure them in (or at least find them grouped, a shoal.) If we learn to communicate with them, maybe we can learn something new from their kind.
I was also taken aback by the potential problem of human-generated noise pollution. The scientists speculated it may have some adverse affect on fish communication. How often does one think about noise pollution to begin with...and then to think of it underwater? (!) I'll confess my ignorance--I'd never given it much thought. I figured a speed boat roaring over a lake might cause some annoyance for those below the water line, just as it does for those of us shore-side. I've always thought deep sea tests of nuclear bombs would not likely be well-received by marine life. But I've not often (well, maybe when swimming underwater) thought of noise pollution under the sea.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
The "Family Bed"
The very idea of a “family bed” used to give me the willies. When I thought of kids sharing a bed with parents, my mind was drawn to Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred.”
When I heard the phrase, “the family bed,” I envisioned the scene from Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, in which Charlie has conversations with all four of his grandparents, who share what must be a filthy bed.
These sentiments were, of course, before parenthood. My wife introduced me to the idea just as our first child was born, and it was not long before we were debating what most parents must—do we let the kid cry it out in a crib or comfort him between us? Young parents are always on edge, eager to do What’s Right. The practice of sharing a family bed, also known as “co-sleeping” in the literature, or as night parenting among the Attachment Parenting crowd is an increasingly-common point of discussion.
According to James J. McKenna, Ph.D., an anthropologist and internationally-known expert on infant sleep, the parental urge to take junior aboard may stem from the thousands of years of human evolution during which family co-sleeping was the standard. In a winter, 1996 article in Mothering magazine, McKenna summarizes his views on the anthropological relevance of family sleep sharing, noting that "nighttime parent-infant co-sleeping during at least the first year of life is the universal, species-wide normative context for infant sleep, to which both parents and infants are biologically and psychosocially adapted...Solitary infant sleep is an exceedingly recent, novel and alien experience for the human infant."
Sources claim that what is taken as the norm now--solitary infant sleep and separate bedrooms for parents and children—truly is a phenomena of western culture and only about 150 years old. Most families of the developing world still share beds today. (93% of families in India co-sleep, while only 2% of American families regularly do.) Family beds (or at least bedrooms) are not so far removed from our common culture that terms like “sleeping lofts” or porches are alien to many of us. Back when warmth was hard to come by at night, families snuggled together under one quilt in one bed.
Some theorize that the move to pull apart families at night was one that advanced with affluence; as we could more readily afford more rooms, we did. Others claim a largely patriarchal psychological platform took nighttime parenting in a perverse direction. Consider this advice from the standard American baby handbook, What to Expect the First Year: "If you can tolerate an hour or more of vigorous crying and screaming, don't go to the baby, soothe him, feed him, or talk to him when he wakes up in the middle of the night. Just let him cry until he's exhausted himself-and the possibility, in his mind, that he's going to get anywhere, or anyone, by crying-and has fallen back to sleep.” Rationale for this behavior often returns to Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose book ''Baby and Child Care'' is considered the parental bible, warns against taking children into bed, because it fosters dependency and insecurity. There are also those who argue both ways as to the safety of a baby between two adults in bed.
The Family Bed is not something that bachelors really ever hear much about, and few men are eager to share their nuptial bed with a squirming, squalling reminder of birth control. There is little to be said in favor of sharing a wet family bed, and a new father need only be christened in spit up breast milk once—it’s enough to make any self-respecting man picket against the very idea of sharing a bed with a baby!
No, it’s not really an issue that gets much air time. Usually proponents of the Family bed are also those same individuals who “wear” their baby, grinding their own baby food, milk goats for fun and profit and candle ears for whatever ails ya. Naysayers might be the building trades (why have a 5 bedroom house if one room will do?), bachelors (see above) or the baby industry. I do not mean, here, the parents accused of being baby factories, but instead the commerce that has blossomed around babies, from shower gifts to furniture, accessories, and, of course, the ubiquitous: toys.
The industry has even come up with a device (look it up!) called Nature’s Cradle.” Katie Allison Granju, in her (1996) book, “Attachment Parenting: Instinctive Care for Your Baby and Young Child” shared some ad copy from a recent edition of the OneStepAhead baby catalog:
Nature's Cradle -- the most natural place for your new baby to sleep! This truly revolutionary sleeping and nurturing environment gives baby the familiar, comforting, soothing sensations of the womb, and even includes a maternal heartbeat. Nature's Cradle: Is it magic? Or just a brilliant new way to love your baby? The basic Nature's Cradle looks and feels like...a crib mattress. But it holds a unique secret -- a sophisticated system that simulates a pregnant mother's natural walking motion and rhythm, as well as her internal sounds and the gentle cushioning pressure of the last trimester...the mattress moves in a smooth, rhythmic rocking motion, accompanied by soft "whooshing" similar to the sounds of amniotic fluid and the beat of mother's heart...proven to be the most nurturing, calming place for your new baby to sleep. The Baby Bolster is an essential part of the system...three foam-filled positioning cushions properly swaddle your infant to keep him sleeping safely.
Reminds me of the old adage: “you can’t buy love.”
When I heard the phrase, “the family bed,” I envisioned the scene from Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, in which Charlie has conversations with all four of his grandparents, who share what must be a filthy bed.
These sentiments were, of course, before parenthood. My wife introduced me to the idea just as our first child was born, and it was not long before we were debating what most parents must—do we let the kid cry it out in a crib or comfort him between us? Young parents are always on edge, eager to do What’s Right. The practice of sharing a family bed, also known as “co-sleeping” in the literature, or as night parenting among the Attachment Parenting crowd is an increasingly-common point of discussion.
According to James J. McKenna, Ph.D., an anthropologist and internationally-known expert on infant sleep, the parental urge to take junior aboard may stem from the thousands of years of human evolution during which family co-sleeping was the standard. In a winter, 1996 article in Mothering magazine, McKenna summarizes his views on the anthropological relevance of family sleep sharing, noting that "nighttime parent-infant co-sleeping during at least the first year of life is the universal, species-wide normative context for infant sleep, to which both parents and infants are biologically and psychosocially adapted...Solitary infant sleep is an exceedingly recent, novel and alien experience for the human infant."
Sources claim that what is taken as the norm now--solitary infant sleep and separate bedrooms for parents and children—truly is a phenomena of western culture and only about 150 years old. Most families of the developing world still share beds today. (93% of families in India co-sleep, while only 2% of American families regularly do.) Family beds (or at least bedrooms) are not so far removed from our common culture that terms like “sleeping lofts” or porches are alien to many of us. Back when warmth was hard to come by at night, families snuggled together under one quilt in one bed.
Some theorize that the move to pull apart families at night was one that advanced with affluence; as we could more readily afford more rooms, we did. Others claim a largely patriarchal psychological platform took nighttime parenting in a perverse direction. Consider this advice from the standard American baby handbook, What to Expect the First Year: "If you can tolerate an hour or more of vigorous crying and screaming, don't go to the baby, soothe him, feed him, or talk to him when he wakes up in the middle of the night. Just let him cry until he's exhausted himself-and the possibility, in his mind, that he's going to get anywhere, or anyone, by crying-and has fallen back to sleep.” Rationale for this behavior often returns to Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose book ''Baby and Child Care'' is considered the parental bible, warns against taking children into bed, because it fosters dependency and insecurity. There are also those who argue both ways as to the safety of a baby between two adults in bed.
The Family Bed is not something that bachelors really ever hear much about, and few men are eager to share their nuptial bed with a squirming, squalling reminder of birth control. There is little to be said in favor of sharing a wet family bed, and a new father need only be christened in spit up breast milk once—it’s enough to make any self-respecting man picket against the very idea of sharing a bed with a baby!
No, it’s not really an issue that gets much air time. Usually proponents of the Family bed are also those same individuals who “wear” their baby, grinding their own baby food, milk goats for fun and profit and candle ears for whatever ails ya. Naysayers might be the building trades (why have a 5 bedroom house if one room will do?), bachelors (see above) or the baby industry. I do not mean, here, the parents accused of being baby factories, but instead the commerce that has blossomed around babies, from shower gifts to furniture, accessories, and, of course, the ubiquitous: toys.
The industry has even come up with a device (look it up!) called Nature’s Cradle.” Katie Allison Granju, in her (1996) book, “Attachment Parenting: Instinctive Care for Your Baby and Young Child” shared some ad copy from a recent edition of the OneStepAhead baby catalog:
Nature's Cradle -- the most natural place for your new baby to sleep! This truly revolutionary sleeping and nurturing environment gives baby the familiar, comforting, soothing sensations of the womb, and even includes a maternal heartbeat. Nature's Cradle: Is it magic? Or just a brilliant new way to love your baby? The basic Nature's Cradle looks and feels like...a crib mattress. But it holds a unique secret -- a sophisticated system that simulates a pregnant mother's natural walking motion and rhythm, as well as her internal sounds and the gentle cushioning pressure of the last trimester...the mattress moves in a smooth, rhythmic rocking motion, accompanied by soft "whooshing" similar to the sounds of amniotic fluid and the beat of mother's heart...proven to be the most nurturing, calming place for your new baby to sleep. The Baby Bolster is an essential part of the system...three foam-filled positioning cushions properly swaddle your infant to keep him sleeping safely.
Reminds me of the old adage: “you can’t buy love.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
