banking vs problem posing education

The discussion that we had on this topic was quite interesting. That is because unless you have a very strong curriculum and lots of ideas, then it is really hard to only conduct a problem posing classroom. It is almost inevitable that a banking method is present in each classroom. Even in our class, though problem posing is strived for, banking is still there. It's especially hard when the principle or whoever is in charge expects you to teach using banking. That is because schools generally teach in that way. If any of us think back, or even now in college, banking is present and that's what we are used to. Plus, it is easier to just spew information out on children and have them take a test than it is to conduct an open discussion, especially on topics that the students aren't so informed on to begin with. Or if there is a lack of participation then problem posing is even more difficult. Usually problem posing forces you to participate, but often times even if they are put in a group and asked to do some sort of job, they don't do that job asked because they don't want to. With banking, all you have to do is have them sit and "listen", it is up to them if they choose to hear you and if they don't they will most likely fail.

Problem posing is great because it evaluates you on your skills and matches you with people of your skill. Where as in banking you are placed in areas based on your grades. Often times though you can still be very disadvantaged and often can struggle in your placement. Then there is the possibility where the teacher does not want to help you or is unable to help you so you keep failing and get no where. It is of course important to try to incorporate both problem posing and banking education into your plan. That way students are still engaged and eager to participate. Also you can keep them alert and have them think about what is being taught instead of just having them sit there and have it go in one ear and out the other. Everyone likes a fun class that is also informative that they can participate in and share their ideas. In this way they feel part of a class and like intellectuals rather than insignificant insects that you can just bounce information off of.

homosexual's can't donate blood

Somehow this was mentioned in class one day and I was surprised. I possibly could have heard of this before but when it was said in class I was just like wow. I wanted to know why this was, what risks could arise from a homosexuals blood? Also, why is it just homosexuals who can't donate blood? What makes blood drives want to stay away from acquiring their blood?

Well basically from what I found is that the reason homosexuals could not donate blood is because the HIV virus is prominent among male homosexuals. They believed that if they were to take blood from a homosexual male then there would be a good chance that they would also be extracting the HIV virus in the blood, therefore putting blood recipients in high risk of acquiring the virus as well.

So in March 2006, the Red Cross came up with a way to detect the HIV virus in blood if it had been up to 10 days since they had acquired it. Therefore it would be possible for a homosexual male to donate blood because they could then detect the HIV virus if it was present. If not then the blood is perfectly good. Though this did not change anything because the FDA still says that until significant evidence is shown that no one would ever get HIV through a blood transfusion again then they would possibly consider this method. They claim that though it is very effective, it is not 100% accurate and they dont want to take the risk.