Raising Emotionally Intelligent Children 7 July 2008

In too many of the more advanced societies today, individuals are increasingly manifesting dysfunctional behaviors that strain not only interpersonal relationships but these countries’ coffers. Such irascible behavior—often considered by psychology professionals as manifestations of a challenged EQ—are exhibited by some of Hollywood’s celebrities who are today’s young people’s heroes and heroines. Although their situations are more extraordinarily stressful than most common people, they perhaps emphasize the tolls of a low emotional intelligence quotient (EQ) on society.

So what is EQ?

Emotional intelligence quotient (EQ), according to Wikipedia, describes an ability, capacity or skill to perceive, assess, and manage the emotions of one’s self, of others, and of groups. A high EQ spells success in coping with the challenges and stresses that life throw our way. In the early 50s, researchers in the field of psychology undertook what is now called the Marshmallow challenge. They left toddlers alone in a room, with a marshmallow on the table, and told them that if they did not eat the sweeties until the tester came back into the room, they will be rewarded with more. These researchers followed these toddlers into adulthood and discovered that those who refrained from eating the marshmallows tended to be more successful in life; the converse was true for those who weren’t able to resist.

All told, according to Ms. Grace Koo, associate professor of educational psychology at the University of the Philippines, EQ enabled children to have more control over their selves. She emphasized the importance of providing early parental emotional support to their kids, particularly as this is the primary source of developing the child’s sense of self worth and self esteem. Later in life, such support translates to healthy social relationships, high self esteem, great motivation and an overall well-being—socially, psychologically, physically, financially and spiritually.

Two of the more important, happy by-product of an emotionally stable individual is their sense of optimism and a highly developed empathetic skill. An optimistic child is able to persist in the face of setbacks, a perspective that is valuable particularly in contemporary, dog-eat-dog societies. Too many individuals who are unable to cope with difficulties find themselves in the “loony bins”—the mental institutions and rehabilitation centers—for treatment of such ills as nervous breakdowns, substance addictions, depressions, and the like.

An empathetic individual, on the other hand, is one who understands the weaknesses of other individuals and is able to adjust accordingly. Such compassion exhibited in relation to others would allow for more harmonious relationships across the board. A socially active individual have more coping mechanisms and support in times of hardship and thus, fare well in life.

Positive learnings

During the seminar, the lecturer taught prospective teachers how to inventory their students’ emotional quotient through these 5 important questions:

1. How well does my child verbalize feelings?
2. How does my child show empathy?
3. Can my child wait to get what s/he wants?
4. What goals does my child have?
5. How does my child resolve conflicts?

Answering these questions, one of the vital skills that a parent must teach a child is self-awareness as it is the basis for defining who the self is and what its preferences are in relation to others. Self-awareness is closely related to the Theory of the Mind which, in education psychology, is the “ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretensions, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one’s own.”¹ It is perspective thinking, which is what children with autism lack.

In the seminar, too, teachers were taught how to coach their wards emotionally:

1. Be aware of the child’s emotions.
2. See opportunity for intimacy and teaching.
3. Listen empathetically, validate feelings.
4. Help child find words to label emotion.
5. Set limits, explore solutions.

All these can be done through storytelling. Parents and teachers are encouraged to use stories as ways to teaching children in identifying emotions, behaviors, motivations and goals in self and others through the same being exhibited by the main characters in these tales. By processing the story and its characters, the child is taught how to think of others in relation to self, how to handle inter-relational conflict and how to resolve them.

Focusing too much on feelings

In teaching self-awareness, there is the emphasis on feelings however. It is true that feelings, whatever they may be, are real and can never be countenanced. However, feelings are never always right or appropriate. The seminar, perhaps, put too much emphasis on feelings and its expression. Perhaps, the lecturer did not realize it but throughout the whole activity, there might have been an over-emphasis of the importance of feelings that might have led to the rest of the audience misinterpreting this focus.

This is understandable as self-awareness requires an identification of emotions and an awareness of their presence at any point in any situation. However, focusing too much on feelings may lead one to end their response mechanisms on the feelings alone, failing to progress to a successful resolution that is fair and acceptable to all concerned. Although the lecturer provided inputs on how to deal with feelings and their irrational expression, there was not enough time to transfer the skills necessary to the teachers and parents on how to discourage inappropriate behavior.

The lecturer, however, emphasized the importance of exercising the base of power of a parent or teacher when dealing with children and their feelings. There must be an awareness that children could be very manipulative and teaching them that all feelings are okay, without the concomitant caveat that not all behavior are permissible. Although it was said that parent-child or teacher-child relationships vis-à-vis discipline are not a democracy, it was not taught how to enforce the fact that parents determine what behaviors are permissible. The key may be in trust, which was said was important in these relationships. The child must be able to trust that their parents and teachers are always looking out for their best interests to make emotion coaching possible.

Over all

Given the dearth of local training in emotional coaching, however, the seminar more or less provided valuable insights on EQ. I am sure that the parents, teachers and other interested professionals have a better appreciation of emotions, their management and their impact on an individual’s success rate later on in life. The training in inventorying a child’s emotional quotient, how to emotion coach them, and facilitating the identification and control of emotions are very valuable, particularly for teachers with whom children spend most of their waking hours and formative years. If we want a better society and more conscientious, successful and productive citizens for this nation, anyone involved with the education of our children should consider teaching them in developing and improving their emotional intelligence.

¹Wikipedia. Theory of mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind.

Reaction paper submitted in my Measurement and Evaluation course at St. Paul University, on the seminar-workshop entitled “High EQ makes the difference” held on 24 November 2007 at the University of Asia and the Pacific.

Debating Origins: Science vs. God. Or, should it be like that? 7 July 2008

The debate over the origin of the species has long raged. As long as religion and scientific inquiry has existed, both had stood at loggerheads when it specifically came to the origins of man.

With the origin of other things and beings, evolutionists and creationists do not argue much. There is more or less an uneasy, albeit tacit, agreement over the theory of common descent, especially as most living things are anatomically similar in some ways. It is with the origin of man that science and religion does not agree.

The scientific community, consistent with the theory of evolution and common descent, posits that man is cousin to ape, with 98% of our DNA sequences identical to that of the chimpanzees. It is amazing and at the same time puzzling, however, that the remaining 2% difference represents at least 15 million changes in the human genome since – as science would argue – the time we shared it with a “common ancestor” roughly 6 million years ago.¹ That 2% difference, to my way of thinking, is open to a lot of interpretations; particularly as one change has dictated the marked difference between human brains and that of its closest relative.

However, my position on the creationism vs. evolution debate is not an absolute one. On the one hand, I believe in the theory of evolution in so far as it explains a lot of the mysteries of the natural world. On the other hand, there are a lot of mysteries in the natural world that science alone cannot explain, despite the many discoveries that it has uncovered so far.

The National Academy of Sciences itself admits that the explanations made by science are limited to observable phenomena; those explanations that do not have empirical substance are not part of science.² There are a lot of unexplained phenomena in this world that even science cannot wholly discredit, especially that of man and its difference with the rest of the creatures in the universe.

For one, science cannot fully explain the connection between the mind and the body. Scientists have discovered that the body can heal itself, in an event called the placebo effect, just by the mind believing that it has taken a curative even though it actually has not. There’s also the question of intuition and extra-sensory perception which science is still struggling to explain. These phenomena are observable yet are unexplainable. Clearly, science does not have all the answers to naturally-occurring marvels so we look towards other sources to account for these ambiguities.
It is in these grey areas that the spiritual realm has had much success. Men and women have explained these phenomena through the lenses of faith; which more pragmatic scientists have disputed because of the lack of empirical evidence,

Still and all, I believe that in the creation of man, scientific and spiritual explanations go hand in hand. The mere fact that man’s ignorance exceeds its knowledge shows that science still has a lot to answer for and faith a lot of legroom in terms of explaining unexplainable phenomena.

My stand on the Science vs. God debate, however, veers toward God designing the universe in a purposeful manner and not wholly the species evolving in a random manner. I believe that, before the Big Bang which triggered the rest of creation, God has purposely designed how creation will come to be – its patterns, systems, processes. God has also designed, more importantly, the evolution of the universe and set forth the laws that it will obey throughout its existence. With man however, He pulled out all the stops and designed a totally unique creature premeditated to rule the rest of creation. Much of God’s creatures, man included, share the same building blocks; after all, they came from only one source. Despite these similarities, however, man is still God’s best creation.

1. The missing link and intelligent design

Science argues that evolution can be a very slow or a very quick process. The differences between man and chimp point out that somewhere along the way, man’s evolution took on a shortcut; that this shortcut was so quick, the chimp was left so far behind and so upright man came to be. The creationists argue that the lack of transitional fossils³ underline the fact that man could not have shared common ancestry with the apes. On the other hand, the evolutionists argue that having a missing link in man’s evolution does not totally discount the common-lineage and the leaps-and-bounds evolution theory vis-à-vis man. Man’s evolution may have been quicker than that of its chimp cousin.

So far, the leaps-and-bounds theory in evolution has not been disputed. If science can manipulate the genes in frogs to make it transparent⁴, then nature can directly influence the sequencing of genes for adaptive generation. In humans, this can be seen in the difference between the body hair on people living in temperate climates as opposed to tropical zones. Of course, this is a simplistic argument.

Which brings us to the intelligent design argument. Most atheistic scientists would subscribe to the worldview that the Universe, the Earth and all it contains, were caused by an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design, on the other hand, asserts that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause⁵; this intelligent cause, though largely unnamed, alludes to God as the consummate artiste behind the wonder of creation.

The scientific community has discounted intelligent design in that it is not a science. It cannot be tested through experimentation, which is the hallmark of scientific inquiry. Neither does intelligent design generate any predictions or proposes new hypotheses.

Science or not, the complexity of nature, and the balance it has achieved as evidenced through ecological systems, indicate the existence of a purposeful Mind behind it. The mere existence of delicate ecosystems, within the human body and the outside world, indicate an invisible design, a balancing act that cannot be left to chance alone. Despite the seeming chaos in the universe, there is an underlying pattern in nature: the changing of the seasons, the falling down of things that went up, the precise timing and swing of a pendulum, the rhythmic rising and setting of the sun… All these point to the simple fact that an overarching pattern, a Something or a Someone is orchestrating all these.

The universe obeys the law of mathematics, an abstract creation of the human mind. Abstraction denotes careful thought and purposeful deliberations. I refuse to believe that abstraction is a chaotic activity. I also refuse to believe that something as chaotic and as directionless as the Big Bang could spawn a ready made pattern of operating amidst total turmoil. Chaos reminds one of unpredictable events and random accidents. Contemplating the amazing, intricate design of the human body and the world, evolution notwithstanding, one can categorically say that it is nigh impossible that all of the universe were not purposefully created. There is intelligence behind it; an intelligence that is outside it, that is not subject to the laws governing the universe. The mere fact that the mind cannot comprehend something so omnipotent does not mean it does not exist.

2. The use of language

Language is the one, distinguishing characteristic that separates man from beast. Of course, speech is possible for both beast and man; parrots can imitate man after all. However, the latter is mere mimicking of sounds. Modern human language shows that there is required correlation between the development of the anatomical apparatus and neurological changes in the brain⁶. The voice box articulates what the mind has formed.

Research validates that animals do communicate with each other, but this kind of communication cannot be classified as language. A few animals do have attributes in their speech that are similar with modern human language. Dolphins, for example, are able to communicate like humans by calling each other by name.⁷

One other attribute of language is a well developed grammar and syntax, a kind of organization that reflects purposeful thought. The great apes, one of man’s supposed “closest relative”, have exhibited the ability to communicate using sign language, and consequently, the ability to think in a rudimentary manner; but the latter interaction is primarily with other human beings. Their communication also lack grammar or syntax, which are inherent attributes of man’s modern language. Apes have been known to have learned several hundred words, but nowhere is it near the complexity and variability of modern human language.

Linguists agree that there are no existing primitive languages, and all modern human populations speak languages of comparable complexity. While existing languages differ in the size of and subjects covered in their lexicons, all possess the grammar and syntax needed, and can invent, translate, or borrow the vocabulary necessary to express the full range of their speakers’ concepts. All humans possess similar linguistic abilities, and no child is born with a biological predisposition favoring any one language or type of language.⁸

3. The ability for abstraction

The story of the creation of man in Genesis points to man being made “in the image and likeness of God.”⁹ Although scientists dispute its veracity, the Book of Genesis wasn’t meant to be literally taken; it was meant to introduce God and tell believers something about this Person.

The biblical account of creation argues that man was made in God’s “image and likeness”, hence it also argues that man has God’s attributes in his being. One of these attributes is, as has been mentioned, abstraction – careful, purposeful thought. This can be exhibited in God’s command to Adam to give names to the animals, plants and the rest of creation in the Garden of Eden. Adam would need, and did exhibit careful thought when he “named” creation – a command which man obeys to date with his discovery of new and subsequent naming of species.

Careful, purposeful thought – or abstraction – is what perhaps separates man from animals, and gives credence to the God-using-evolution-in-creation argument. God designed the universe through abstraction: the action of deliberate, purposeful thinking. It is also abstraction which allows man to articulate his thoughts through language and translates these thoughts into plans and finally, into actions.

Inherent and implicit in abstraction is free will – the ability of rational agents to exercise control over their actions and decisions.¹⁰ Man has the freedom to do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say, and think what he wants to think because of free will. He can go anywhere and be anything he wants to be, even with no apparent purpose at all. The rest of creation, on the other hand, obeys the laws of instinct and nature: when to procreate, when to migrate, when to hibernate.

Some of creation does exhibit some kind of thinking. For apes and some birds, it has been discovered that they exhibit forward thinking.¹¹ It has been found, however, that this behavior is connected to hoarding or protecting food from scavengers, a behavior which is totally instinctive or acquired through associative learning. This is radically different from man’s ability for purposeful thought which is so sophisticated and complex it is light years away from the thinking capabilities of its closest cousin. Man’s thinking processes allows him to discover, invent, explore, design, protect, create, and a hundreds of other actions that marks him as man rather than beast.

Free will also points to another totally human attribute – morality, which is the sense of right and wrong – and altruism, the sense of unselfishness and philanthropy that puts the needs of others above self. Altruism is in fact humanity that exhibits kindness, charity, compassion, sympathy and mercy towards man and beast alike.

Morality is behind the Ten Commandments. Man has, throughout his history, evolved his sense of right and wrong to such a complex and sophisticated level that conscience now dictates his choices. Most often, the harm-or-not-to-harm dilemmas frequent his options; ordinary human beings have marked altruism in his preferences. Although often man would ignore the conscience, it is also man who has evolved the concept of forgiveness and repentance, which is making up for wrongs done to others. Nowhere is there such a characteristic exhibited in the animal kingdom than in the homo sapiens species. More often than not, the animal kingdom is ruled by the instinct of self-preservation; in such a case, right may be sacrificed at the altar of life and wrongs done to achieve such end.

Altruism, on the other hand, is a more sophisticated expression of the sense of right or wrong. Some men have evolved the ability to put the concerns of others above and before their own. In most cultures, these are the heroes and the saints, men who have died for such notions as freedom, liberty, principles and faith. There have been reports in the animal kingdom for such self-sacrificing acts as a dog dying for a master but so far, science has been unable to explain the reason behind this phenomenon.

4. Faith that moves mountains

One last point in the argument that man, although he evolved throughout history but was differently made by God, is the fact that man exhibits such a highly developed faith in a Higher Being. Although there are exceptions, such as the atheists and the agnostics, majority of humankind believe in God. Man may call this Higher Being by different names and attributes different characteristics to Him, yet man still believes.

This is closely tied to man’s eternal search for meaning and purpose behind his ordinary life. Stories of lives transformed, particularly in spiritual communities, abound in mainstream media. Former murderers, prostitutes, substance abusers, the terminally ill, and even the atheist, have attested to radical changes in their lives because of “meeting” this God. There are also accounts of near-death experiences and going through life-and-death crises, with miracles spelling the difference between life and death for them. In all the stories in the latter events, there were accounts of calling out to an unknown and unseen God who helped out.

So far, science has been unable to explain such miraculous phenomena. They allude to the metaphysical, rather than the spiritual, realm but that is merely splitting hairs. Metaphysical or spiritual, both are the same, and have so far been unexplained. Faith is transcendent of the physical, and anything off the empirical realm, science can never explicate.

With man’s closest relative, faith is non-existent. The cause of any exhibited altruism is anyone’s guess; whereas with man, morality and altruism is closely tied to the belief or faith in a Higher Being, and an eventual Heaven. Perhaps, the latter may just be a self-alluding exercise to comfort one’s self that there is more to life than the Earth. As atheists and agnostics say, Heaven is a futile exercise for the believer; that it is man’s way of confronting annihilation brought on by Death. Still, science has never disputed Heaven and its converse, Hell. The lack of evidence for its existence does not mean it does not exist.

With proof or without, many unexplained phenomena in nature does not dispute the spiritual realm. God, for me, is an Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient Being. Before creation, God is. The lack of empirical evidence does not dispute His Being; equally, science cannot disprove that He does not exist. The Bible, which is so steeped in God, is replete with stories that have been archeologically confirmed and established. Even the Genesis account of a Great Flood that ruined the Earth is contained in the legends and stories of a number of cultures worldwide.

My argument is that God, in keeping with His omniscience and omnipotence, predetermined the creation and all it entailed. He set forth the laws and patterns, the processes and the systems, that will rule the universe, even how it shall evolve. The laws of evolution do not counter that of faith. Yet others would insist on defining the divide between creationism and evolution.

However, evolution alone is not enough to explain man’s uniqueness. Of all the creatures, Man is the only one that has succeeded in puzzling his own peers when it came to determining how he came to be. Evolution alone cannot explain him, nor can creationism explicate the apparent evidence that science has submitted in its defense. But even faith cannot dispute that God obeys the laws He himself set forth. He works in and through nature. Sometimes, though, and in accord with His sovereign will, He chooses to rise above the ordinary and wreak extraordinary events and miracles. Only He knows the purpose of these.

It is possible that, having designed man as the lord of creation, God meant him to be different from the rest of creation. Man, in conformity to God’s laws, evolved from the same material as all the things and beings in creation. However, somewhere along the way, God directly intervened and specified the aspects and attributes that made him much more complex and sophisticated than his closest relative, the chimp; thus the radical changes in his physiology and psychology.

The theory of evolution has largely ignored divine intervention; equally, the theory of creationism has hugely disregarded the blatant evidences in evolution. With all the evidence at hand – both scientific and spiritual – the conflation of science and religion may well be the most logical explanation behind man’s distinctive humanity.

More than the debate over creationism versus evolution, however, is the debate over the reality of God. Which is something I will not go into, because it is such a highly philosophical one. Suffice it to say that God is in nature, but is transcendent over it. And so, man being in the image and likeness of God, is also part of nature but is so much more above it.

 

End Notes

¹Biello, David. Scientists Identify Gene Difference Between Humans and Chimps. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00023D61-9116-14E3-911683414B7F0000. 17 August 2006.
²Wikipedia. Creation-evolution controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy.
³Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition.
⁴Japanese scientists have created a unique kind of transparent frogs. http://www.lifeisbusiness.com/article/208. 1 October 2007
⁵Wikipedia. Intelligent design. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
⁶Wikipedia. The origin of language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language.
⁷Ibid.
⁸Ibid.
⁹Although this argument is moving into the realm of the supernatural – one which existence science has so far not yet proved or disproved – one cannot totally discount it, on the other hand. As has been previously mentioned, God stands outside of the natural world although the majesty of His existence can be seen in it.
¹⁰Wikipedia. Free will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will.
¹¹Helen Carter. Apes prove to be forward thinking. Science Online. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/05/19/1642599.htm. 19 May 2006.

Paper submitted in TCP 101 at the St. Paul University, Quezon City.

3 things I learned from 31 smart, little, seven-year-olds 7 July 2008

The idea of teaching to pre-school children has always terrified me.  My career is confined to the world of actively thinking though sometimes irrational adults.  They may be childlike and childish at the worst of times, but even at their nastiest, the rules of conventions controlled them. 

To my mind, children can be quite unreasonable.  They march to their own drummers to symphonies only known to them.  Although I was armed with the conceptual tools given by the giants of developmental and learning psychology, putting these concepts into practice was another matter entirely.

And therein lies my fears.  I have never had any experience teaching very young children.  Yet, there I was on 20 May 2008, standing before 31 young, impressionable seven-year-olds.  The community teaching service was part of our practicum and all I could do was comply.  I stood to deliver my lesson plan, the instinct to turn tail and run was very powerful.  It was a toss up between “stand up and deliver”, or “shut up and fold”. 

Community teaching

Welfareville Compound was the object of our service.  It is a 101-hectare property in Mandaluyong City owned by the DSWD.  Besides playing host to the Population Commission, and the Correctional Institute for Women, it was also a haven for informal settlers.  The depressed community was the beneficiary of St. Paul’s outreach program on early childhood education.

Panatag Health Center where we were to teach was a two-storey, relatively-new concrete structure in the midst of a busy urban poor community.  In a cramped second-floor room, 31 young children and an assortment of parents and teachers were confined to an 18-square-meter room. 

Despite the limited legroom, a hum of excitement buzzed through the entire place.  A sense of anticipation permeated the room, the people eagerly waiting for the program to unfold.  The small gathering seemed to be telling the team: “Surpise us!”

Lessons learned from smart minds

I am certain that the children we taught at Welfareville Compound brought with them unseen baggage much heavier than the ones I carried with me.  Poverty and its deprivations was a specter they confronted daily.  The mere fact that they were beneficiaries of an outreach program spoke volumes of their families’ scant capability in giving them the education they needed to transcend their indigence.

Yet, as we taught them, their faces were awash with the characteristic carefree countenance of young children.  They were as curious as their more-privileged counterparts in posh preschool learning centers.  There were a touch of inappropriate behavior exhibited now and then but overall, the children were attentive, responsive, and participative. They answered intelligently when called on to recite.  They played smartly in the learning activities.  Overall, they responded positively to the instructional overtures of our teaching team.

It was a baptism of fire for me, unsuspectingly thrust into the world of precocious minds.  But the experienced provided me a rich lode of learnings which I know will frame my future teaching career.  From those 31 young minds, I learned three huge, important lessons:

1. Preparation = confidence.  One of the reasons why new teachers are scared stiff of the prospect of teaching is the lack of mastery of the subject matter.  The simplest solution is still good, ol’ preparation.  This necessitates a healthy dose of curiosity, in the teacher, on the subjects that s/he has to teach. Writers are always admonished to read, read, and read so they will sound authoritative in their articles.  The same is true with the teacher.

But merely knowing the theories and concepts defining a lesson can bore students and stunt discovery.  The teacher must learn how to ask herself deliberate questions to expand her knowledge base. 

A teacher whose curiosity constantly drives her to search for new knowledge to answer questions her students may pose makes sure that she does not short-change the learners in her care.  She must be able to match her students’ curiosity with eureka experiences so that learning becomes a satisfying, not disappointing, experience.

The Lesson Plan (and consequently, the content standards, curricula, and syllabi) is still the ultimate standard of preparation for a master or a neophyte teacher.  What enabled me to stand before those preschoolers at Panatag Health Center despite my terror is my familiarity with my lesson for the day.

I researched, designed, drafted and edited the Lesson Plan.  I had a plan.  I knew when to start and where to end the lesson, and I knew what would happen in between.  I had benchmarks that guided me while I delivered my lesson to minimize surprises along the way.  In effect, I was controlling 90% of the proceedings; and that is the best confidence booster ever for a new teacher. 
 
2. Creativity = deeper understanding.  There is that rule-of-thumb in teaching children, and people in general, that says the attention span of an individual is equal in minutes to his/her age in years up to thirty years old.  Beyond thirty years old, the attention span reverses in increments of one minute.  A six-year-old child will have a six-minute attention span.  A thirty-year-old can concentrate on a lecture for thirty minutes.  A thirty-one-year-old will have twenty-nine minutes or so of focus at a given time.

Given this, a grade school teacher will have to break up her lesson presentation in increments, employing creativity and innovativeness in her choice of techniques and strategies to capture and sustain interest and consequently foster understanding.

A one-hour session therefore may look like this: (a) a lecture for fifteen minutes, (b) a mini-workshop integrating the multiple intelligences for twenty-minutes, (c) a reinforcing/processing synthesis for fifteen minutes, and (d) a short quiz for five minutes.  By breaking up a lesson into student-centered activities, the teacher can grab the curiosity and concentration of her students.  In the community teaching, I saw that I retained the children’s attention with the varying ways I presented the lesson despite the distraction that two hours of sitting through different lecturers had created.

I also realized that colorful, varied, and vibrant visual aids extend students’ interest and attention longer.  Children are largely visual rather than abstract in their learning before age eleven, something that a pre- or grade-school teacher must optimize in lesson delivery.

3. Regard = respect.  The teacher has that frightening power to make or unmake a person.  Nowhere was this more evident to me than in my Welfareville experience. 

These children came to school with hidden baggage on their shoulders.  Theirs are fragile egos, not only owing to their age but to the perceived (in)capacities of their families.  For a teacher who is familiar with, and actually lives in the community, there is the danger of being equally frank and familiar in her language, or in the teaching strategies she utilizes.

However, there is that demand on the teacher to be respectful of her students, whatever their background or capabilities.  The tenets of judicious regard demand that she treat them with fairness: in the lessons she delivers, in her relationship and language with them, in managing behaviors, and with a host of other considerations.  For example, the speech she employs must not only give regard to the self-esteem of each student but must also be uniform across individuals in that it does not denigrate one and build up another.  Another sign of respect of her students is the measure of forbearance she displays in dealing with the learners’ mistakes, difficulties, and (in)abilities.

The Welfareville experience has made me realize that teaching is not for the faint of heart. It is a noble profession that requires hours and hours of preparation, a bottomless well of creativity, and great respect for the students not only as learners but as individuals with burdens to carry.  Awareness of these realities, I believe, will go a long way to helping others transcend the incapacities they were born with, whether they are residents of Welfareville or of Forbes Park.

For publication in the St. Paul University-Quezon City newsletter. Reflective journal submitted to my Practicum Supervisor on 05 July 2008.