After spending almost a month back in the US, I've returned to London to continue my studies here until the end of June. I had a great time in MI and IL, but I am happy to be back in London too.
I didn't quite reach my Term 1 essay goals before I left for break, but I planned to devote some time to working on the essays while I was home. However, I wasn't very successful in that area. Attempts to get down to business on several occasions resulted in nothing of consequence. It quickly became apparent to me that I have a problem with self-discipline. So, it is better for me to be in London right now because there are fewer distractions. I've already been more productive here in less than 48 hours than I was in weeks at home. (This is not to discredit the value of home--no offence intended!)

I have started two new modules (courses) this term which again meet in the evenings. One of the modules is on using digital technology in the mathematics classroom. In preparation for the first class on Tuesday evening, we were asked to read an essay. Here is the first paragraph of the essay (sorry to bore you, but you have to see this):

'In the literature on microworlds, the writing that is closest to the "macro-educological" intent of this essay is Celia Hoyles' Microworlds/Schoolworlds: The Transformation of an Innovation. By loose analogy with the usage of the terms macro-economics and micro-economics my neologism recognizes as a field worthy of serious theoretical attention the study of phenomena such as microworlds on the level of the functioning of the system of education or, as I should rather say, the learning environment. I use the opposing term "micro-educological" to encompass the kind of work most of us who care about microworlds do most of the time: typically work focused on the learning process or on the invention and study of specific means of learning. These macro and micro domains are not intended to be exclusive; for example, I shall be looking at epistemological questions that straggle between them and serve as a basis for a unified approach, which differentiates what I have in mind from typical writing by sociologists and historians of education.'

WHAT?!?!? What does this even mean? Why do people write like this? Seriously. I think there are some people out there who get some sick pleasure in confusing others by using big (made-up?) words to make themselves appear more intelligent.
This essay was the first impression I had of my Tuesday night module, so you can see how I was a bit apprehensive as I entered the classroom. Thankfully, my professor is great--funny and quirky in an endearing, British-old-man sort of way. (But I don't think he's very old really.) His hair cracks me up--full head of gray, very curly hair--like he just got a perm; looks more like old woman hair. Anyway, He even admitted that the first reading was a challenging way to start, so I was happy my sentiments were validated.
We spent some class time exploring LOGO. Do any of you remember this computer program? You write instructions for a 'turtle' (triangle) and it makes shapes on the screen. I remember first using LOGO in middle school math classes. Apparently it's been around since the early 80s and is still considered a fabulous mathematics tool for all levels. I had no idea--it always seemed more like a game to me.
So, I am back into the swing of things here and so far it's been a seamless transition. Well, seamless might not be the right word--there is a bit of jetlag to deal with. But since I brought my pillow from home with me this time, precious sleep will solve that issue in no time.

Hooray for cushy pillows!