Menu
close
Anonymous.
AnonymousLast night's class was very interesting and I really enjoyed the debate on the four schools of thought. I am planning to implement the same debate with my Journalism students but applying the concepts to modern day events. They will research each school of thought and then they will be assigned different news events and they will have to discuss the event and what will be the take on it by the different schools using their knowledge of them. It seems like a really good way to have them look at current events, develop background knowledge and use higher thinking skills. Cheers!!!
AnonymousFor starters, the debate was less stress free than some in our group had anticipated (including me). I have tried the debate format in class and with proper guidance and execution it works as well as it did on Tuesday. I was enlightened with the historical connection of China's modern systems. In the readings, I have found that the Chinese struggled with finding a so-called balance, but interestingly enough they seem to point back to the past in order to move forward. What is of interest to our students would be how they think of the Chinese as one ethnic/racial people, and yet are different. In mentioning to my students the Chinese experience in the U.S. and its discriminatory laws they clump the Japanese, and for that matter, all Asian looking people together. I make the equivalent argument that if we follow that logic it is fine to call a Mexican a Cuban or to a greater extent, there is no difference being called a Sonoran or Maya. Students "get it" when using such simple examples. Once they understand that they understand the various (to us) subtleties that make up history.
AnonymousOur Chinese philosophy debate has inspired me to try the same thing in my AP World History class next Fall as an introduction to China. At the start of this school year my students read excerpts from The Classic of the Way and Virtue (Dao Dejing), Analects, and Qin Penal Laws. I assigned the readings with questions to answer for homework. In class, instead of a whole class debate, I chose 6 students to sit in the middle of the room for a Fishbowl discussion. In the center, they discussed the pros and cons while the class acted as the audience. I have one chair at the front of the room that audience members can take if he/she has a question for one of my “fish.” Fishbowls are great, but next year I’m going to try for debate modeled after Tuesday night.
AnonymousI enjoyed the debate on the various schools of thought and plan to use it next year in a new course I am developing a "Topics in World History" class. I think the debate between Daoists, Legalists, and Confucians will fit well at the start of the course and we can draw parallels to classroom rules, norms of behavior, and consequences. To make this work for students, I would create a simple chart (a graphic organizer) where the students could fill in answers to the central question beforehand as a part of (accountable) preparation. I would also select various excerpts and make sure the handout for students were well-spaced so that students can write in the margins as they prepare. I find that little things like this can make a difference for students. I like the fishbowl idea above as well. Another way to help students prepare for the discussion could be what I call a "meet and greet" where they take their character and introduce it to another student's character/viewpoint--students circulate (with their graphic organizer filled out with their viewpoint) and share and gather information from classmates. I do this as a preview so that all students have had a chance to articulate their position in a one-on-one situation before speaking in front of the whole room--it spreads the accountability and build students' confidence.
AnonymousShoot, that didn't work. One of my students spotted a Laotzu quote outside of the CA Science Center after I tried the debate in my classroom. It says "Life on its way returns into a mist, It's quickness is its quietness again."
AnonymousI really enjoyed the debates last session. I was, of course, nervous but found that the professor did a good job of keeping it moving and prompting us to get to ideas. It gave me a more well-rounded perspective of how each philosophy is different but about how they all sort of share some common goals. I also have become very hungry for rabbit. I keep waiting to see one run into a tree.
AnonymousI really enjoyed this past session. The background information on China was overwhelming and interesting. I enjoyed learning about the Qing Dynasty and their perspectives on culture and politics. Moreover, the section on Kangxi, China’s longest ruling emperor was appealing. Moreover, I enjoyed learning more about the Dalai Lama and how the next monk is selected. I was inspired by this lesson that I purchased a book titled, The Wisdom of Compassion by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Victor Chan. I have read the first two chapters and have attained more information about who the Dalai Lama is and what his purpose in life pertains to. Furthermore, the story of the construction of Great Wall of China to keep invaders out is what eventually led to the fall of the Ming Dynasty. The Great Wall of China represents the hard work from the different dynasties that gathered around to reconstruct various sections of it. The dragon-like road has been visited by many people and I hope to be able to be a part of its history one day by setting foot there.
edited by dcoronel on 2/19/2013
AnonymousThe debate was my favorite session. I like being able to think about being the learner and what works for me and what may work or not work for my students. The debate style was fabulous to think about what each group may answer, to watch groups take on personas, and I learned so much. Personally, I think an interactive style works best for my learning.
AnonymousI also enjoyed this past session. I really liked the format of the debate. "we, insert philosophy, believe." I think it could be great to use in the classroom, for many different types of debates. Definitely would push students to develop their critical thinking skills. It really helped me to understand all of the philosophies some more, so I found it very helpful.
AnonymousI stumbled upon this.. Might be interesting to a few of you...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/anonymous-hackers-chinese-army_n_2717352.html
Anonymous[font=Times]No not Paul, another one. John Adams was not alone in recognizing the value of developing trade route with the [/font][font=Times]East Indies[/font][font=Times] (1785). I’ve been reading a mission directive written in 1792 by a certain Sir Henry Dundas, president of the board of the British East India Company and [/font][font=Times]Great Britain[/font][font=Times]’s home minister, to a Lord George Macartney, the first appointed “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China”. In a nutshell, Lord Macartney was charged with the task of meeting with the Emperor to secure favorable trading conditions with the Chinese. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] was already well established with colonial possessions in [/font][font=Times]India[/font][font=Times] and very prominent with shipping and trading throughout in [/font][font=Times]Indian Ocean[/font][font=Times] and the Pacific. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] did recognize in [/font][font=Times]China[/font][font=Times] a huge potential for profitable commerce: importation of tea was increasing and the need for a “vent” to unload manufactured goods (and opium, already a factor). Essentially, Macartney was to obtain secure passage for British traders in the region and if possible a new location to have a territorial outpost from which to operate. Mention was made of inviting the Emperor to consider sending his own ambassador to [/font][font=Times]England[/font] to improve commercial relations.
Unfortunately, after meeting with the British ambassadorial deputation, the Emperor Qianlong was to reject all of His Majesty’s requests. He apparently did not believe that dealing with a minor maritime power from thousands of “lis” away was all that necessary. His Chinese empire was vast enough, self-contained, and had no real need of anything from the outside. Precious gifts having been exchanged, the British mission was allowed to go home.
AnonymousI loved how Clay started the session with the tribute to Zhuang Zedong, the table tennis champ that recently passed away. I love looking at the detente of the 1970s and his approach of American led to "Ping-Pong" diplomacy. I had not heard of the actual story only that table tennis contributed the cutlural changes of the 1970s, really cool to have heard that story. Also like learning about the Dalai Lama and the struggles that go into the selection and the politics involved. Looking forward to Saturday's session. Thanks to aborwn and gsharpe for your ideas. Certainly will use the debate again this year.
AnonymousForgot to mention another note. I knew that were clusters of Muslims in China, but found it interesting that China has acknowledged the Uyghur language and people as almost independent, or as Clay put it, Autonomous region. I am not sure of the name that is was called, but it appeared that the Chinese government has allowed the Uyghur people to live almost seperate. Most certainly have to more research on this and see what I can find. if anyone has more info, I would love to look at it. Thanks everyone
Anonymous[font=Times]No not Paul, another one. John Adams was not alone in recognizing the value of developing trade route with the [/font][font=Times]East Indies[/font][font=Times] (1785). I’ve been reading a mission directive written in 1792 by a certain Sir Henry Dundas, president of the board of the British East India Company and [/font][font=Times]Great Britain[/font][font=Times]’s home minister, to a Lord George Macartney, the first appointed “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China”. In a nutshell, Lord Macartney was charged with the task of meeting with the Emperor to secure favorable trading conditions with the Chinese. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] was already well established with colonial possessions in [/font][font=Times]India[/font][font=Times] and very prominent with shipping and trading throughout in [/font][font=Times]Indian Ocean[/font][font=Times] and the Pacific. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] did recognize in [/font][font=Times]China[/font][font=Times] a huge potential for profitable commerce: importation of tea was increasing and the need for a “vent” to unload manufactured goods (and opium, already a factor). Essentially, Macartney was to obtain secure passage for British traders in the region and if possible a new location to have a territorial outpost from which to operate. Mention was made of inviting the Emperor to consider sending his own ambassador to [/font][font=Times]England[/font] to improve commercial relations.
Unfortunately, after meeting with the British ambassadorial deputation, the Emperor Qianlong was to reject all of His Majesty’s requests. He apparently did not believe that dealing with a minor maritime power from thousands of “lis” away was all that necessary. His Chinese empire was vast enough, self-contained, and had no real need of anything from the outside. Precious gifts having been exchanged, the British mission was allowed to go home.
Anonymous[font=Times]No not Paul, another one. John Adams was not alone in recognizing the value of developing trade route with the [/font][font=Times]East Indies[/font][font=Times] (1785). I’ve been reading a mission directive written in 1792 by a certain Sir Henry Dundas, president of the board of the British East India Company and [/font][font=Times]Great Britain[/font][font=Times]’s home minister, to a Lord George Macartney, the first appointed “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary from the King of Great Britain to the Emperor of China”. In a nutshell, Lord Macartney was charged with the task of meeting with the Emperor to secure favorable trading conditions with the Chinese. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] was already well established with colonial possessions in [/font][font=Times]India[/font][font=Times] and very prominent with shipping and trading throughout in [/font][font=Times]Indian Ocean[/font][font=Times] and the Pacific. [/font][font=Times]Britain[/font][font=Times] did recognize in [/font][font=Times]China[/font][font=Times] a huge potential for profitable commerce: importation of tea was increasing and the need for a “vent” to unload manufactured goods (and opium, already a factor). Essentially, Macartney was to obtain secure passage for British traders in the region and if possible a new location to have a territorial outpost from which to operate. Mention was made of inviting the Emperor to consider sending his own ambassador to [/font][font=Times]England[/font] to improve commercial relations.
Unfortunately, after meeting with the British ambassadorial deputation, the Emperor Qianlong was to reject all of His Majesty’s requests. He apparently did not believe that dealing with a minor maritime power from thousands of “lis” away was all that necessary. His Chinese empire was vast enough, self-contained, and had no real need of anything from the outside. Precious gifts having been exchanged, the British mission was allowed to go home.