Dialectics: letter/point grade-based education and non letter/point-grade-based education

Letter/point grade-based education: Letter grades and points help students keep track of their success in class because each assignment or test has points. However well the student does on each assignment is reflected in their final grade.

Non letter/point-grade-based education: But what determines how many points an assignment gets? Or how points are awarded?

L: the more important assignments are worth more points. They can also be weighted (let's say that tests make up 40% of a grade, homework 10%, quizzes 20% and other 30%). Points are awarded on how accurate and/or detailed the product is (rubrics are used a lot of the time). It is very fair and a set system. Students know what to expect and how doing well in every area of class pays off in the end for that higher letter grade.

N: If weighted, tests are always more important than homework. I can see how that's good because tests are cumulative information applied to questions, but homework is just as important. Every part of the education is necessary to understand and be able to apply the material. Weighting and giving a wide variation of point values could lead some students to think they only have to focus on the assignments that are worth more

L: All of the assignments lead up to each other, though. I see where weighting could become a problem, but points are points. If a student got 5/15 points for homework, they would know they have to study that certain material more. Seeing their level of understanding the material reflected in how many problems or questions they missed gives targeted areas for improvement.

N: What if a student gets so caught up into how many points they are getting that they put learning on hold? They might rush to finish an assignment for the full points (if late, points would be taken off) and not really understand it. If they took their time to go through the assignment slowly and ask questions about it, then they would learn and understand the material better. When points aren't an issue, learning at students' own paces is a result.

L: There does need to be some structure; what if a student thinks that they don't have to complete an assignment at all because it "doesn't matter". If not everything is counted, then the final outcome (grade or pass or whatnot) a student could not do any assignment (or at least think they don't have to) and still pass etc. the class. I am a bit confused as to how success is measured in your system.

N: The whole point of this system is to learn without the stress or constraints of points or grades. Students would come into the class or course with the desire to learn. If the motivation is there, students will try and absorb and "get" the material in ways set up by the teacher (exercises, projects, etc. ) that are there to expand the course material or apply it to the outside world. If a student chooses not to try, then that's their loss. They shouldn't have come into class in the first place to be reluctant. Having an open mind and want to learn is key in this system.

L: Having the drive and desire to learn is important in this system too; if students have the drive to be successful in the course, then they will strive for the highest grade. They will put in effort into their assignments etc. They wouldn't be able to complete them without learning. The more structure in the points gives those students who try a positive outcome from their effort. Why reward students who do not work or even try? The points show who's actually trying to learn the material.

N: Okay, I see the aspects of your system and how our systems aren't all that different from each other. The goal in both is for learning and education. Yours would work better for students who prefer or need more structure, and mine would work better for those who want a more flexible and self-paced education.

Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay

While writing my Kite Runner Essay, I found it incredibly hard to just start writing. Even though I had the thesis, evidences, and what the topics of each paragraph were going to be; it took me a while to fit it together in the introductory paragraph. Introductions are crucial when writing essays because they set the tone and interest for the whole paper. I knew I had to make the introduction based on blood (part of the topic of my essay), so I thought of some specifics and general ideas about blood. I then compiled a list of specific imagery and ideas of blood that also related to topics covered in the rest of the essay. From there, I could finally connect to the thesis and forecast the body paragraphs.

With the body paragraphs, my mind followed a pretty set format. First the topic sentence, a little expansion on the topic, evidence, explaining the evidence,  and ending with a sentence that links to the next paragraph.

With the conclusion, I tried to take one important idea from each body paragraph and tie them together with my thesis. While doing this, I also had to incorporate a new thought-provoking idea. That idea was like the bow to my conclusion. It stuck out, but was still connected. 

I would have liked my body paragraphs to be a little bit more unique from the others, but with this essay format, I could not figure out how to do that and still meet requirements. I could have added something extra to each that was different in each one (such as an additional quote for one and two different viewpoints for another). Next time I write a paper, I would like to try writing the body paragraphs first and then the introduction. Once I actually know what my body paragraphs say, I don't have to keep modifying the introduction to fit with the body paragraphs. I felt more constricted with what to write in my body paragraphs to make them fit my introduction. 

I like how my thinking while writing my essay was linear in terms of the beginning, body, and end; but I think my essay would have turned out better if I started from the middle and worked backwards. Thinking from specific to broad, much like my introduction, would have kept my thoughts on track and organized, but also more free to flow outwards into insightful big-pictures.

Blogging Around

Kuba,

I found your post about how vehicles are connected to power in both The Kite Runner and in issues today to be very interesting and insightful. When I was reading The Kite Runner, I didn’t pay much attention to any possible symbolism the cars could have. I agree with you in that cars can show wealth, power, and political status, but going a little deeper as to interpret that cars can show culture. I think you were starting to get to that idea, but I’ll expand a bit. 

An example in the book that I found of this point was on page 136, “My face pressed against the fence, I’d try to count the blinking red taillights inching along, stretching as far as my eyes could see. BMWs. Saabs. Porsches. Cars I’d never seen in Kabul, where most people drove Russian Volgas, old Opels, or Iranian Paikans.” The many different types of internationally made cars found in America shows how connected we are in the world (specifically imports). We also are a large cultural melting pot. Especially in California, many immigrants came into the U.S. and more are still coming in. Our diverse and broad collection of cars is similar to our population.
    

Afghanistan at this time was a more internal society. I got the sense that many people never left their immediate area of surrounding towns or even own villages because there was no real need to. The few European cars found reflects the attitude of how people drive their cars because they need a car. Not because they want to show off their wealth in purchasing the newest model.

Your original point of vehicles being symbolic in The Kite Runner expanded to real world applications that can show a lot of insight to other cultures.

---

Jordan,

Your post connecting post-modernism and Stephen Colbert’s testimony before Congress expressed many points that I found myself agreeing with. I’ve also heard about how Stephen Colbert testified on the migratory workers getting agricultural jobs, people getting upset about how they were taking jobs, the jobs opening up to anyone, and almost no Americans actually taking the jobs. Colbert’s famous status certainly did catch the media’s attention to this subject. By the entertainer and newscaster taking on the post-modernistic multiple roles by taking his more entertaining news and viewpoints to a serious congressional meeting. 

Colbert’s multiple post-modern roles were for the positive towards his points on the agricultural jobs, but could be seen as negative towards the seriousness of politics. Much like the news, will politics become synonymous with entertainment? Will stations like C-SPAN be watched by many more people and even for fun? Less serious and fact-concentrated news is bad enough, politics like that could become catastrophic. The way our country is run should be decided in serious, uniform processes. It’s just too risky for successful control of our own country and our reputation as seen by others. 

Your original connection showed the possible positives and negatives of a post-modern society.

Connection: Postmodernism and Donnie Darko (movie)

After I was introduced to the concept of Postmodernism, I've noticed many examples of it in my day-to-day life. I found it very interesting that this concept came about society after WWII. The fact that at any moment during the war a bomb could go off and obliterate entire populations made philosophers question reality. The movie Donnie Darko puts the main character (fittingly, Donnie Darko) into an entire alternate (tangent) universe where he has to figure out how to close it before the primary universe collapses. Donnie doesn't know that he's in the tangent universe until much later in the movie.

The tangent universe is very complex . Donnie needs the help from many different viewpoints. In Postmodernism complexity and multiplicity relate to this: no single person can explain/understand something entirely and having to see multiple points of view to get the picture. The tangent universe also relates to Postmodernism in that it is corrupted space. The true or real space is the primary universe.

The first viewpoint he gets is from Frank; his messenger and savior. The night that Donnie was supposed to die, Frank communicated with him somehow mentally to come away from his house. He also tells Donnie when the world will end (when the primary universe will collapse). Donnie would have died by being crushed by a jet engine falling from the sky. This relates to a bomb in WWII- a sudden and unexpected death from new technology. Because Donnie doesn't die from the engine, he gets put into the tangent universe and is destined to bring the engine back to the primary universe (the engine is the artifact that Donnie, the receiver, has to get killed by before the primary universe collapses). 

The second viewpoint is from the seemingly senile old lady Roberta Sparrow and the book she wrote. The "seemingly" relates to Postmodernism in that it's impossible to have (historical) authenticity. Her book explains the workings of the tangent universe. When discussed about with Donnie's parents, his dad dismisses the book as nothing more than something written by a crazy old lady. Donnie's general being in the primary universe was even questioned as  mentally unstable. This is shown by him being in therapy sessions and having to take pills. His visions of Frank in the tangent universe are dismissed as part of his "schizophrenia" and taken to be dealt with by the therapist. 

When Donnie returns the artifact (jet engine) into the primary universe by letting himself be killed by it when it falls, all of the people he interacted with in the tangent universe have a feeling that something major happened at the time Donnie dies. They don't know anything that happened in the tangent universe because Donnie technically went back in time when he returned the artifact. The goals of the people were to guide him back to the primary universe (saving it from collapsing). Going between the future and present makes us within memory, which is another aspect of Postmodernism. The people somehow remember Donnie subconsciously, but can't make the connection out of that. 

Connecting the movie Donnie Darko to Postmodernism gave me insight into how reality cannot be truly defined. For all that I know, we could be living in some sort of tangent universe that could suddenly collapse another universe. The concepts of Postmodernism became less implausible and radical after I realized how often they show up in our society today. I wasn't expecting one of my favorite movies to have the possibility of being real according to Postmodernism.

Best of Week: Form is Content

How something is presented, organized, or looks like changes what message or feeling it creates. I found this to definitely be true with many things besides writing. In advertising, how information is presented is key. For example, if advertising a vitamin-rich juice, there could be two completely different ads geared to two completely different groups of people. One could show a happy kid drinking the juice smiling at a kitchen table with his or her mom in the background saying, "My son/daughter loves the fruity taste and is getting essential vitamins to grow up big and strong." Another could show a tough biker drinking the juice stopped on the side of the road with text saying, "Finally, a drink as tough as you are: loaded with all the good stuff to keep you going." Even though the actual juice isn't changing, the way it's presented makes it appeal to and bought by completely different people. 

In the more literal sense, this idea is contradictory. The phrase "never judge a book by its cover" is basically saying that form does not connect with content. Just because the cover could be beaten up or have a silly picture on it, it doesn't mean that the book is uninteresting or poorly written. Also, in chemistry, the state or form of matter does not affect the molecule composition. When water turns into steam, it's still made of H2O molecules (content), the form of the molecules (more spread out) are just different.

Even thought this idea doesn't apply to everything, it still applies very well to writing (as originally discussed this week in class). To name a few: poetry, narratives, and tense changes all have different forms that modify the content. When I'm writing in the future, I'll take into consideration that how my writing is presented and organized can make what I'm writing a lot stronger.

iMedia: Brahms Piano Trio op.8 mvt.1

Brahms Piano Trio in B major op. 8 I. Allegro con brio

Part 2

I am obsessed with this piece. I could listen to it on an infinite loop and never get tired of it. Whenever I get stressed out, angry, or in any way emotionally unstable, I can just play this and immediately calm down. I close my eyes and let the music play. It flows throughout my body, soaking every cell. With my closed eyes, I can't see. I can't think. I can't hear anything but the soaring melodies. Nothing else matters or even exists when I'm enveloped in the sound.

This piece alone makes my extremely jealous of synesthetes who can see sounds. When I try to imagine what I would see, it would be the lines of the cello, violin, and piano winding and blending together to paint a beautiful picture of the Alps peaking behind lake surrounded by green trees in Germany (Brahms is German and I always associate his music with Germany).

While looking for an acceptable recording to post, I heard a myriad of different interpretations. iTunes alone has over 30 recordings of this movement to choose from. I liked something different about each one. From something as simple as tempo or recording quality, to specifics like the phrasing, dynamic contrast, or the cellist's vibrato. It blew my mind on how a piece that appears on the paper the same to everyone, can be played and sound so differently from group to group. In the end, I still found that I prefer the first recording that my friend burned on a CD for me. There's something special and unique about listening to a piece for the first time and having no idea to expect. With all of the recordings I listened to, I found myself comparing them to the first one. The same notes and rhythms are heard and played differently by each person, each time they're played, and most likely sound a little different to everyone. That's the amazing thing about music- it's universal and at the same time, unique.