Archive for May, 2004
FilmWise.com
By Karen | Saturday, May 29th, 2004 | No Comments »
A few months ago, Nicole sent us an Excel spreadsheet of movie trivia, consisting of a bunch of film scenes with the persons (but not clothing) digitally erased. You had to guess the movie title from the scene.
Unfortunately, some of the answers were frustratingly mispelled and the answer list was password protected by the spreadsheet creator (though there are various ways to crack it). I Googled this topic (what a great company) under “movie trivia spreadsheet” and found the answers! Also discovered that the source of the film scenes (called Invisibles) are from the site FilmWise, and that this site publishes regular quizzes with newly created film scenes. Check it out if you need something to while away the time. Or if you are one of those self-proclaimed movie buffs (you know who you are!).
Assignment 4.
By Karen | Wednesday, May 26th, 2004 | No Comments »
Copyright Karen Clement, May 2004. Submitted 10:00pm CST.
Despite the leaps made in gender equity over the past few decades, sexual discrimination continues to hinder female achievement in school and work. In the workplace, female degree-holders still earn $20,000 less than their male counterparts (Sadker, 1999). This workforce inequity can be traced to gender bias in university and high school (Sadker; Woolfolk, Winne & Perry, 2003). Unsurprisingly, some parents believe that single-sex education provides their daughters with more post-secondary opportunities. Research on gender equity seems to support this growing public sentiment (Sadker; Cowley & Easton, 2004; Woolfolk et al). While reduced gender bias contributes to the success of female-only schools, gender equity is not the sole factor behind its effectiveness. Other influences include personalized instruction, high academic standards, and smaller class size. By exploring these factors and reviewing the results of some Lower Mainland schools, this paper demonstrates how female-only environments deliver a more equitable education than their coed counterparts.
Studies on class interaction show strong male dominance in the classroom (Sadker; Woolfolk et al). A 1996 study by Stumpf & Stanley indicates a positive correlation between academic performance in males and the male-female participation ratio. In areas like Computer Science, where male participation is high, female performance suffers. In fact, Stumpf & Stanley observed that female performance decreased as female participation decreased, contrary to their expectations of high achievement. One proposed rationale is that schools perpetuate gender stereotyping, resulting in learned helplessness and stereotype threat in females, especially in male-dominant subjects (Stumpf & Stanley; Woolfolk et al). In a female-only environment, gender bias would be one less concern in cultivating female interest in math, science, and technology.
Minimal gender bias is not the only reason why all-girl schools are highly lauded. It also seems that the size of single-sex schools make them better equipped to deliver cultural relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, cited in Woolfolk et al). As an indirect result of gender restriction, single-sex schools maintain smaller class sizes and larger teacher-student ratios. Smaller student populations facilitate personalized instruction and teacher attention, which have been shown to enhance student performance (Sadker). In addition, preselection vehicles such as entrance exams help administrators identify candidates with demonstrated academic ability. The high academic standard of the school is introduced through the entrance exam, and is reinforced throughout student life, resulting in more academically focussed graduates.
Local secondary school results also offer compelling evidence for the effectiveness of female-only environments. From the Fraser Institute’s 2004 provincial ranking of 279 BC high schools (Cowley & Easton), of the five receiving the maximum score of 10/10, three are all-girl schools with longstanding records of academic achievement: Crofton House, York House, and Little Flower Academy (LFA). LFA’s 2003 senior class achieved a 100% graduation rate with 91% of students attaining Provincial Honours (Cowley & Easton; Little Flower Academy, 2004). At York House, graduates are often accepted into their choice of university, with almost 100% of graduates pursuing post-secondary studies (York House School, n.d.). Crofton House students consistently obtain above-average scores in provincial examinations (Cowley & Easton; Crofton House School, 2004), with more than 50% of graduating students obtaining Provincial scholarships. In light of these statistics, it is hard to dismiss the effectiveness of single-sex education.
Although all-girl schools seem to prepare female students better than a coed education, Sadker still described segregated schools as a bandaid solution. For Sadker, and for the rest of us, the goal of educational reform should be the creation of inclusive coed schools that discourage gender stereotyping.
REFERENCES
Cowley, Peter and Easton, Steven T. (March 2004). Report Card on British Columbia’s Secondary Schools: 2004 Edition. PDF file, retrieved March 19, 2004 from http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/ shared/ readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=639.
Crofton House School (2004). Crofton House Prospectus. PDF file, retrieved March 21, 2004 from http://www.croftonhouse.bc.ca/ croftonhouse/ admissn/Prospectus.pdf.
Little Flower Academy (2004). Little Flower Academy Website. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from http://www.lfabc.org.
Sadker, David (1999). Gender Equity: Still knocking at the classroom door. Educational Leadership (April 1999, pp 22-26).
Stumpf, Heinrich & Stanley, Julian C. (1996). Gender-related differences on the College Board’s Advanced Placement and Achievement Tests, 1982-1992. Journal of Educational Psychology (88, 2, pp 353-364).
Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2003). Educational psychology (2nd. Canadian ed.). Scarborough: Allyn and Bacon Canada.
York House School. York House School Quick Facts. Retrieved May 21, 2004 from http://www.yorkhouse.bc.ca/ index.cfm?fuseaction=whyChoose. quickFacts.
I hate having writer’s block!
By Karen | Tuesday, May 25th, 2004 | No Comments »
Can’t finish my ed psych assignment. All I have is the introductory paragraph. It is sooooo frustrating to know it in your mind but to not be able to lay it out on paper/screen. Bah.
Back to work…
Househunting begins.
By Karen | Monday, May 24th, 2004 | 1 Comment »
Tonight, I started to look around the web for our future Vancouver home. We plan on living in the West End, which is in my opinion the most beautiful area of downtown Vancouver. Check out the photos and description on this page, if you haven’t been in the West End before.
Found a really good website with a $20 paid subscription to Downtown listings. Why did we put down money?
- downtown Vancouver properties go like hot potatoes
- high demand means downtown properties don’t advertise
- the most properties do is put up a Vacancy sign and a phone number
- this website will go around downtown, snapping shots of buildings with vacancy, and follow up with their management to get more info, which is then posted on their “Hot List”. numbers where they weren’t able to contact management are still posted as “unconfirmed” listings, and they give us all that they know, a photo, and the phone number.
Here are the places that look interesting. Vancouverites–if you pass by any of these properties, let me know if they look good or not. Non-Vancouverites–requesting feedback. Which ones look good to you?
TOP PICKS
Columbia Place Apts, 1150 Jervis St
Carmen Manor, 1516 Davie St
CONSIDERATIONS
Comox Manor, 1235 Comox St
Logan Villa, 1275 Haro St
Knightsbridge, 1933 Robson St
Pacific Beach Apts, 1380 Jervis St
The Baltic, 1250 Comox St
Camelot, 1875 Robson St
Harbour View Apts, 1920 Alberni
1228 Nicola St
The Oceanic, 1337 Harwood St
When did Fantasia cry?
By Karen | Thursday, May 20th, 2004 | No Comments »
I’ve searching for two hours for a video of the song Fantasia Barrino sang, crying at the end. I only caught the last few notes and the judges called it spectacular, but argh! No audio/video references online that will let me see the performance.
I think I’ll have to sit down tomorrow and watch everything on this site.
Assignment 3.
By Karen | Wednesday, May 19th, 2004 | No Comments »
Copyright Karen Clement, May 2004. Submitted at 6:30pm.
The nature of intelligence has been extensively debated in the 20th century, separating theorists into two contrasting schools of thought (Paik, 1998). One camp states that intelligence stems from a single general factor. The other camp argues that an individual possesses multiple intelligences. By comparing the theories proffered by Charles Spearman, R.J. Sternberg, and Howard Gardner, we analyze each school of thought and comment on society’s current acceptance of their notions of intelligence.
Charles Spearman was one of the early advocates of a single factor for intelligence. Through his work on intelligence testing, he observed positive correlations between cognitive test scores for a given student (Paik, 1998). For example, if a student obtained a high score on a verbal cognitive task, the student would similarly obtain a high score on a mathematical cognitive task (Paik). Further research on this positive manifold (Spearman, 1904, cited in Paik) led Spearman to develop his Two-Factor Theory of Intelligence (Plucker, 2003), which states that a student’s ability to perform a mental task can be predicted from the student’s level of general ability, or g (Plucker). While Spearman acknowledges that other factors, called specific abilities or s (Plucker), can influence performance on specific cognitive tasks, Spearman maintains that g is a much more significant indicator of intelligence than s (Plucker).
Howard Gardner’s views on intelligence contrast those of Spearman. His theory on Multiple Intelligences states that individuals possess at least eight distinct types of intelligence (Gilman, 2001; Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E., 2003).
Evidence for Gardner’s claims are drawn from his work with gifted and brain-damaged students (Paik, 1998; Woolfolk et al, 2003; Gardner, quoted in President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1996-2003). In one finding, students with brain damage in one area demonstrated substandard performance on certain mental tasks, but did not display performance deterioration in tasks requiring other mental abilities (Gardner; Woolfolk et al). In fact, performance requiring other mental abilities did not seem to be hindered (Woolfolk et al). In his work on gifted students, Gardner observed students with genius-level talent in one cognitive area but mediocre ability in other areas (Woolfolk et al).
From his studies on the cultural impact on learner differences (Paik, 1998), Gardner proposed that intelligence is subjective and defined by cultural norms (Paik; Woolfolk et al, 2003). A culture that values logical-mathematical ability above others, as in Western societies, would classify “intelligent” persons differently than a culture that prizes naturalist ability. While Gardner acknowledges the existence of Spearman’s g, Gardner does not see it as a viable tool in tailoring teaching methods (Woolfolk et al).
In 1985 (Paik, 1998), R.J. Sternberg published a theory combining Spearman’s concept of g and Gardner’s views on multiple intelligence. Like Gardner’s theory, Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence is a proponent of multiple intelligences. Unlike Gardner, Sternberg named only three categories of intelligence (Woolfolk et al, 2003). In agreement with Spearman, Sternberg further explained that general ability is still a relevant predictor of performance, so much that the cognitive relationship of these abilities is hierarchical, with general ability of topmost significance and specific abilities underneath (Woolfolk et al).
Many agree that Sternberg’s work is currently the prevailing theory on intelligence (Paik 1998; Woolfolk et al, 2003). Standardized intelligence tests which utilize a general intelligence factor, like Spearman’s g, are still commonly seen in Canadian schools. Today’s society is becoming more culturally diverse, with all-inclusive, personalized schooling becoming more in demand. One can expect educational administrators to look to Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences approach for ways to create curricula that tailors to students’ varied cultural and learning mindsets.
REFERENCES
Gilman, Lynn (2001). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved May 18, 2004 from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell, using search word “Gardner”.
Paik, Han S (August 1998). One Intelligence or Many?–Alternative Approaches to Cognitive Abilities. Retrieved May 18, 2004 from http://www.personalityresearch.org/ papers/paik.html.
Plucker, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). Human intelligence: Historical influences, current controversies, teaching resources. Retrieved May 16, 2004 from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell, using search words “Gardner” and “Spearman”.
President and Fellows of Harvard College (1996-2003). Howard Gardner. Retrieved May 16, 2004, from http://pzweb.harvard.edu/PIs/HG.htm.
Woolfolk, A. E., Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2003). Educational psychology (2nd. Canadian ed.). Scarborough: Allyn and Bacon Canada.
Assignment 3 done, Assignment 4 here I come.
By Karen | Wednesday, May 19th, 2004 | No Comments »
It’s the day of the deadline and my paper has been sent to my TA. Yippee!
I’ll be working on Assignment 4 after a brief but important NAP.
It’s a miracle!
By Karen | Tuesday, May 18th, 2004 | 4 Comments »
Kurt has a WHAT?! A blog?! What a loser! Only geeks have blogs, pfft!
Say hi to Kurt, his angry rants always amuse me.
BTW…I have been online since 7pm. To my credit, I’ve been working on my paper for the majority of the time. Stupid online courses. Bah.
I need a break…posted this on FirstClass.
By Karen | Tuesday, May 18th, 2004 | No Comments »
I’ve been in front of this computer too long. I stopped my drafting for a bit to post this on FirstClass, which is the online forum where students in my course meet to discuss and submit assignments.
Is anyone else finding this course as relevant as I am? My application of the theory is slightly different (skill training in the work force), but I’ve already found the chapters on learner differences, cognitive development, and culture VERY useful in my job.
I work in a production environment (think assembly line), trying to train “new” employees on a bunch of different workstations. By new, I mean existing employees that have transferred from a different department. There is a lot to teach them, and they all have drastically different skill sets and come from very different cultural backgrounds. Some are quiet, fast learners who don’t ask questions if they are confused. Others ask questions all the time but find it difficult to work without supervision. The one thing they have in common is that they are all over 40 and have difficulty with learning computer skills.
Anyhow, I’ve tried some of the techniques from chapter 4 and 5 to overcome some of the learning barriers. Their feedback shows that they work! This is keeping me motivated in learning more in this class and finding new ways to apply this theory to a business/human resources environment.
Just my two cents!
Help me!
By Karen | Tuesday, May 18th, 2004 | 3 Comments »
If you have keen eyes, you may have already noticed my other blog. Tonight, I’m polishing up a little paper due by tomorrow midnight. If you have the chance, and if psychology doesn’t bore you to tears, please take a look at my most recent draft (whichever you see, there’ll be a few) and post a critique?
I’m looking for thoughts on a) idea presentation, b) grammer/spelling, c) logic, and d) correct use of the APA reference format.
Thanks a million!
PS: If you see a draft but no Comments link available, that means I’m editing that post or creating a newer draft. In other words, there will be another post soon to comment on.