Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Child Psychology: A Bird's Eye View

     I would like to share about what child psychology is all about. This is just an overview so I hope that you at least learn from this post. I am also planning to discuss a series of posts on elementary school children so I hope you will read them as well.


      Child Psychology is the study of psychological processes of children, specifically how these processes differ from those adults, how they develop from birth to the end of adolescence, and how the differ from one child to the next.
      From the early times, philosophers have speculated and studied about children. According to Plato, children are born with special talents and that their learning should stress those talents. Aristotle on the other hand proposed methods for observing behavior that were forerunners of modern method.
     The modern era of studying children has a history that spans only a little more than a century. A number of major theories along with elegant techniques and methods of study help organize the study about children. New knowledge about children based on observation and testing is accumulating at a breathtaking pace.
     In the first half of the twentieth century, a number of theories presented influential view about children. Gessel theorized that certain characteristics of children simply "bloom" with the age because of biological blueprint. To systemically observe children's behavior without interrupting them, he created a photographic dome.
      Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory believed that children are rarely aware of the motive and reasons of their behavior and that the rules of their mental life are unconscious. Furthermore, John Watson's behaviorism argues that children can be shaped into whatever society wishes by examining and changing their environment. Later in the twentieth century, Jean Piaget they that children pass through a series of cognitive or thought stages from infancy through adolescence. According to Piaget, children think in a qualitative different manner than adults do.
      Despite the attempts to unify the various theories, the field remains dynamic, developing as human understanding of physiology and psychology changes.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Advance Organizers part 2

     This is the second part of the list of possible Advance Organizers again retrieved from National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. Hope these will help teachers and students alike.


    Uses: Effective for organizing events in terms of a chain of action and reaction (especially useful in social sciences and humanities)

    Uses: When cause-effect relationships are complex and non-redundant

    Uses: Help students to compare and contrast two concepts according to their features.

      Uses: Compare concepts' attributes

    Uses: Effective for organizing information along a dimension such as less to more, low to high, and few to many

    Uses: Help students organize information according to various steps or stage

    Uses: Useful for organizing information that is circular or cyclical, with no absolute beginning or ending

   I hope this is enough for all of you. Again, special thanks for  National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. You can visit this site to learn more about advance organizers.

Advance Organizers part 1

    This post will list all possible advance organizers that teachers can use in presenting their lessons.  Remember that these organizers don't work by themselves, rather it is still crucial for the teacher to explain what these organizers present to make learning more efficient.


      Uses: mapping generic information, mapping hierarchical relationships. 

     Uses: organizing a hierarchical set of information, reflecting superordinate or subordinate elements

 
     Uses: When the information relating to a main idea or theme does not fit into a hierarchy

     Uses: When information contains cause and effect problems and solutions

     Uses: helps students to compare different solutions to a problem

      Uses: useful for mapping cause and effect

These are retrieved from  National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. (If you are the owner of this site and if you want your contents to be removed from this blog, kindly inform me immediately. Thank you.)

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Banghay-Aralin sa Filipino 6 (Pagsulat ng Reaksyon)

Banghay-Aralin sa Filipino 6
                                                                                         
I. Layunin
a. Nakasusulat ng isang maikling reaksyon tungkol sa napapanahong paksa
b. Naipapahayag ang saloobin sa kapwa mag-aaral
c. Naibabangit ang mga paraan sa pangangalaga ng kapiligiran

II. Paksang-Aralin
A. Pagsulat ng Reaksyon
B. BEC Handbook in Filipino pp. 42-48; Landas ng Pagbasa p. 152
C. batayang aklat, larawan, flashcard
D. Pangangalaga ng kapaligiran

III. Pamaraan
A. Panimulang Gawain
1. Pagganyak/Balik-Aral
Mini-Game: Pangkatin ang klase sa lalake at babae. Paunahan ang dalawang grupo sa pagtukoy sa mga salitang nasa flashcard kung ang mga ito ay salitang may kaugnay sa pandama o damdamin.
1. matamis
2. nakakatakot
3. taas
4. berde
5. kaguluhan
6. tuwa
7. gitara
8. masalimuoyt
9. mainit
10. pagkagulat

B. Panlinang na Gawain
1. Mga Gawain (Activity)
a. Paglalahad ng Aralin
            Itanong: May pakinabang ba ng basura? Bakit meron? Bakit wala?
b. Pag-alis ng Sagabal
            Hayaan ang mga mag-aaral na alamin ang kahulugan ng mga sumusunod na salita:
            1. bio-gas
            2. anaerobic
            3. generator
            4. planta
            5. polusyon
c. Pagbasa nang Tahimik
            Ipabasa sa mga mag-aaral ang akdang “Pakinabang sa Basura p. 152.
            Ipaalala ang batayan ng wastong tahimik na pagbasa.
d. Talasalitaan
Ihanay ang Hanay A sa Hanay B upang matukoy ang kahulugan ngmga salita.
A
B
1. bio-gas
a. isang lugar kung saan ipinoproseso ang mga panggatong upang gawing enerhiya
2. planta
b. isang uri ng panggatong na nanggaling sa mga nabubulok na bagay tulad ng gulay, prutas, dumi at iba pa
3. generator
c. pagdumi ng paligid dulot ng kapabayaan ng tao
4. anaerobic
d. mga mikrobyong nabubuhay kahit walang hangin
5. polusyon
e. ginagamit upang makagawa ng kuryente galling sa panggatong

2. Pagsusuri (Analysis)
Talakayin: 
a.       Paano nagging kapaki-pakinabang ang basura ayon sa binasang seleksyon?
b.      Ano ang  tinatawag na bio-gas?
c.       Paano nagkakaroon ng bio-gas?
d.      Saan-saan nagagamit  ang bio-gas?
e.       Anu-ano ang mga naitulong ng paggamit ng bio-gas sa kompanya ni G. Maramba?

3. Paghahalaw at Paghahambing (Abstraction and Comparison)
            Magpakita nga dalawang larawan: isang malinis at isang maruming kapaligiran.
            Itanong: Alin sa larawan ang nais niyong mamuhay?
                         Anu-ano ang epekto ng polusyo o pagkawasak ng kapaligiran?

4. Paglalapat (Application)
Pangkatang-Gawain: (Photo Analysis)
            Pangkatin ang mga mag-aaral sa limang grupo. Bawat grupo ay may isang larawan na magiging paksa ng talakayan at pagbibigay reaksyon ng mga miyembro.
Pangkat I- Polusyon
Pangkat II- Kahirapan
Pangkat III- Kriminalidaad
Pangkat IV- Droga
Pangkat V- Edukasyon
            Ang napiling taga-ulat ang maglalahad sa klase ng reaksyon ng bawat grupo.

5. Paglalahat (Generalization)
            Bilang mag-aaral, anu-ano ang maari mong gawin upang makatulong sa pagsugpo ng mga suliranin sa ating kapaligiran?

IV. Pagtataya
            Sumulat ng isang talata na may di bababa sa limang pangungusap tungkol sa mga sumusumnod na paksa. Pumili lamang ng isa.
a. Yolanda
b. Selfie
c. Climate Change
d. Pope Francis

V. Takdang-Aralin

            Manuod ng balita sa telebisyon o magbasa ng isang pahayagan. Isulat ang pamagat ng balita at sumulat ng reaksyon na di bababa sa limang pangungusap. Isulat ito sa kalahating pad paper.

Monday, April 15, 2013

Lesson Plan in Math 6 (Addition of Similar Fractions)

Lesson Plan in Math 6 (Integrated with Science)

I. Objectives
a. Add similar fractions in simple and mixed form
b. Write the correct solution to the problem
c. Persevere in one’s endeavor

II. Subject Matter
A. Addition of Similar Fractions
B. BEC PELC II.H.4
C. chart, paper strips, chalkboard
D. Perseverance

III. Procedure
A. Preparatory Activities
1. Drill/Review
            Who invented the electric bulb? Match the fraction to its simplest form to know the answer.
1) 8/12 ___      2) 4/10 ___      3) 2/5___         4) 15/30 ___    5) 2/18 ___      6) 12/24 ___
I- 2/5                E- 2/3               N- 1/2              O-1/9               D- 2/5              S-1/2

2. Motivation
             Ask: Who is Thomas Edison? What are the thing that he invented?

B. Developmental Activities
1. Presentation
Present the following problem:
             Thomas Alva Edison is an inventor.  He spends 3 1/8 hours in the morning, 2 3/8 hours in the afternoon and 5 5/8 hours at night working in his laboratory. How many hours does Thomas Edison spend in his laboratory?

Discuss the problem to the pupils using guide questions.
Guide the pupils in arriving to the correct answer.
Let pupils discover the process of adding similar fractions.

Ask: Do you know that Thomas Edison invented a lot of things that we use today? What attitude do you think did he have to invent new things? Do you think he was always successful?
Share Edison’s famous quote: “A genius is 10% made of inspiration and 90% made of perspiration.”

2. Exercise
Pair-Share Activity. Find a partner and add the series of fractions.
a) 2/9 + 3 + 4/9 + 1/9 + 2 1/9 + 1 + 3/9
b) 2 + 4 + 1/10 + 3/10 + 5/10 + 3 2/10 + 2 + 4/10
c) 1 + 4/7 + 3 + 0 + 1 2/7 + 3/7 + 2 + 8/7
d) 8 + 2/6 + 1/6 + 3 + 2/6 + 2 + 4/6 + 1/6

3. Generalization
            How do we add similar fractions in simple form? in mixed form?

C. Application  
            Thomas Edison wanted to invent a new machine. Help him ass the materials he needed:
1) 2/4 m + 3/4 m of rope
2) 1 1/14 ml + 3 3/14 ml + 8 9/14 ml of He
3) 2/5 kg + 3 3/5 kg + 5 5/5 kg of nails
4) 1/10 tsp + 2/10 tsp + 12/10 tsp + 1 3/10 tsp of sand
5) 3/15 cup + 8/15 cup + 2 cups of acetic acid

IV. Evaluation
Give the sum of the following fractions:
1) 2/5 + 2 + 4/5
2) 6/11 + 7/11 + 8/11 + 9/11
3) 2 + 3/15 + 3 + 4/15
Read and write the correct solution
4) Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone needed the 1/8 m of copper wire; 3 4/8 m of silver wire and 5 m of tin wire. How many meters of wire did he need in all?
5)  The Wright brothers used fuel to test their newly-made air vehicle. They used 9 3/7 liters of fuel in the first try, 11 6/7 liters in the second try and 8 1/7 liters in the third try. How many liters of fuel did the brothers use in all?

V. Assignment

             What is the sum of 1/15, 2/15, 3/15, 4/15 … 15/15?

Friday, April 12, 2013

Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale


This scale was developed by Lindsay Gething, a professor in the Nursing Research Centre in the Faculty of Science at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Australian Psychological Society. Gething developed the IDP for Australian setting to assess discomfort in social interaction which is suggested to reflect reactions associated with non-accepting or negative attitudes towards people with disabilities (Gething, 1994).
Though IDP was developed and primarily tested in Australia, the scale has been translated into four languages and tested in nine different countries. It has also been tested as part of a battery of research scales designed to assess attitudes towards people with disabilities (Daruwalla and Darcy, 2005).
Gething (1994) defined Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale as paper-and-pencil report measure stated in the first person. It asks respondents to rate how much of each of a series of twenty statements fit their own reactions when meeting a person with disability. It is an instrument comprising 20 items that are rated on a six point scale (ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with no midpoint or neutral point).   
IDP measures attitudes at a personal level and is based on the assumption that negative attitudes are reflections of the subjects’ lack of association with the object and that this lack of information or strangeness engenders feelings of uncertainty and anxiety (Gething 1993). This was developed to address criticism that the ATDP is written at the societal level and was designed specifically as a unidimensional measure of the overall attitude toward individuals with disabilities. IDP was instead developed to measure attitudes at the individual level of analysis. It describes how a given rater feels about a particular person with disability in a certain situation (Haskell,2010).  
The majority of statements in IDP are constructed in such a way that an agreement response reflects relative discomfort in social interaction. A higher Total Score indicates more discomfort in social interaction toward persons with disabilities, thus reflect negative attitudes toward them.

Moreover, as both the ATDP and IDP scales are intended to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, Gething (1994) predicted that significant associations exist between the their scores. Since the direction of the scoring is reversed for the two scales, significant negative relationships could be revealed.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale


The Attitudes Toward Disabled Person Scale (ATDP) was developed following the need for an objective and reliable instrument to measure attitudes toward disabled persons as a group (Yuker et al, 1970). This is the most widely used research tool developed by Yuker, Block and Young (1970) in measuring attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Lyons, 1990; Alghazo, 2002; Yuker and Block, 1986, in Kitchen, 2007). The ATDP measures attitudes at the societal level and extent of perceived differences between disabled and nondisabled people, with a positive attitude reflected in perception of few differences (Gething, 1994). On the ATDP form O, the preferred version which includes 20 items in a Likert format, reliability is .83 on a test-retest within 5 weeks, 4 – 16 month test-retest is .68; split-half is .80, and alpha is .76 (White et al., 2006). Validity of the ATDP is acceptably high, using several approaches including content, predictive, concurrent, and construct validity (White et al., 2006). The instrument published by the Human Resources Center can be accessed free through Education Resources Information Center website (http://www.eric.ed.gov).
The ATDP may be administered as either an individual or a group test. The test covers items to which the subject responds by indicating the extent of his agreement or disagreement to each according to the following scale: (+3=I agree very much; +2=I agree pretty much; +1=I agree a little; 1=I disagree a little; -2=I disagree pretty much; and -3=I disagree very much).
ATDP scores may be interpreted as reflecting either the subject's perceiving persons with disabilities as basically the same as or different from persons without disability. A high score indicates the idea that persons with disabilities are similar to persons without disabilities; while a low score indicates the view of difference between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities. The view of differences in characteristics and treatment of persons with disabilities might be interpreted as rejection or prejudice, considering them "inferior" or "disadvantaged”. At the same time, the scale may show the degree of positive and negative stereotypy in the attitudes of persons without disabilities toward those who have disabilities (Yuker et al, 1970).

ATDP, like most attitude scales, is thought to measure the affective and cognitive aspects of attitudes. One of the many strengths of this instrument however, is that it also appears to be capable of measuring behavioral tendencies, since it inquires how people should act toward persons with disabilities (Haskell, 2010).

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Measurement of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities

     Over the years, the techniques used to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities have been mainly varied (Yuker et al, 1970). In general, Antonak and Livneh (1995) grouped attitude measurement methods into two: direct and indirect attitude measurement methods.

     Direct methods include respondents that are made aware that their attitudes are being measured by the nature of the measurement technique. These include opinion surveys, interviews, sociometrics, rankings, adjective checklists, paired comparison scales, semantic differential scales, summated rating scales, and social distance scales. Although there is a significant variation among these methods, all are prone to certain systematic errors that threaten the validity of the resulting data; namely, respondent sensitization, response styles, and reactivity (Antonak & Livneh, 1988, as cited in Antonak and Livneh, 1995). Indirect attitude measurement methods on the other hand are utilized to address these threats. Examples of indirect method include physiological methods, nonobtrusive behavioral observations, projective techniques, and disguised procedures (Livneh & Antonak, 1994). Unlike direct methods, the respondent's responses on an indirect measure are thought to expose latent psychosocial constructs that are inferred as attitude. Moreover, indirect methods have not often been used in disability attitude research (Livneh & Antonak, 1994).

     Gething (1994) identified widely-used instruments and methodologies in measuring attitudes specifically toward persons with disabilities. These measures are most of the time in paper-and-pencil test format such as self-report measures, report about others, social distance scales, sociometric techniques, open-ended techniques and survey methodology.

Self-report measures. This is considered as the most direct type of attitude assessment. These include instruments which involves individual reporting his/her own attitudes, feelings and reactions. These can be collected verbally through interviews, survey and polls, or on paper through attitudinal rating scales, logs, journals or diaries. These measures are most useful if the subjects of attitude assessment can understand the questions asked of them. They must as well have adequate awareness to share important information and are expected to give honest answers and not purposively falsify their responses.

Report about others. These entail one person to describe another person or concept, either orally or in writing. Techniques include interviews, questionnaires, logs, journals, report and observational procedures.

Social distance scales. These are measures that require a person to make a series of decisions on how closely s/he is willing to mingle and interact with persons such as those with disabilities.

Sociometric techniques. These techniques ask the person to make decisions (e.g. Who do you like best/least?) about other members of a group to which s/he belongs. These explore patterns of interaction in a group to investigate matters such as acceptance and isolation. These are most often used with children and adolescents, or in a group having members with disabilities.

Open-ended technique. This technique uses oral or written open-ended questions that are content-analyzed using a predetermined set of criteria. This requires a considerable amount of time but is less susceptible to faking and social desirability bias than questionnaires.

Survey methodology. This has the advantage of permitting a large body of data to be gathered in a relatively short period of time.
    
      
     Another manner of classification relay to the psychometric properties of the instrument (e.g. direct and indirect methods). The more commonly used are direct methods, wherein respondents are knowledgeable that their attitudes are being measured, while indirect methods involves subjects being unaware of what is being measured. 
     The instruments can also be categorized in psychometric terms by the dimensionality of the scale. For example, the Attitude Toward Disabled Person Scale (Yuker et al., 1970) utilizes a unidimensional single-score method to measure generalized attitude. On the other hand, multidimensional measurement is employed in six factor Interaction With Disabled Persons Scale (Gething, 1994).