Tarea para las vacaciones de Cívica

Para nuestras vacaciones tuvimos una tarea muy divertida de Formación Ética y Ciudadana, tuvimos que hacer 3 cosas. La primera fue ver una película que nos dejara una enseñanza, la segunda dormir hasta muy tarde y la tercera conocer un lugar nuevo.

La película que yo vi se llama «Mente indomable» y trata sobre un chico que trabajaba en la universidad de Harvard limpiando pisos. El era sumamente inteligente pero no tenía dinero para recibir educación.  Un profesor de Matemática de la universidad un día decide hacer una competencia para su alumnos, el primero en descifrar una teoría que a el le había tomado dos años en descifrar ganaba. El chico ve en la pizarra de la clase mientras limpiaba que faltaba una parte de la teoría y logra completarla fácilmente. Cuando estaba terminando de escribirla en la pizarra de la clase aparece el profesor y ve como la había resuelto.  El lo ayuda a conseguir su sueño y el chico termina cumpliendolo, trabajando para la N.A.S.A. Esta película me enseñó que siempre hay que tener fe en nuestras capacidades. No importa de donde vengamos ni la gente que nos rodea que cree que no somos capaces de lograr nuestros sueños, tenemos que esforzarnos para cumplirlos y demostrar lo que podemos lograr superando los obstáculos.

Para la tarea de conocer a un lugar nuevo fui al rosedal con una amiga de otro colegio, Milagros López Márquez. Siempre escuchaba que todos decían que era un lugar muy lindo y cómo no lo conocía aproveché la oportunidad y lo conocí, me pareció muy lindo.

En mis vacaciones en realidad la tarea de dormir hasta muy tarde la cumplí varias veces pero la vez que más dormí fue desde las 12 de la noche hasta las 4 de la tarde.

Esta tarea me encantó porque me divertí mucho haciéndola, aprendí nuevas cosas, descansé y conocí lugares nuevos.


The big three-the conference of Versailles conversation

In our History class we have been working in the ending of World War 1 and the treaty the peacemakers would agree to do after the ending of it taking into account what each of them wanted and the consquences of that. Our teacher, Lenny Ambrosini, has posted in her blog some possible conversations between them that some students in 2016 did.

My favourite conversation was the one between Abril Teran Frias, Anouk De La Ferrare and Juana Elias. The conversation first gave an introduction of the ending of the war and also some important details about the peacemakers of each country. This reminded me better what each of the representatives of the countries would want according to what they had been through. Something that I liked a lot was that in the conversation the complete name of each peacemaker was written when it was their turn to talk. This helped me because in most of the other conversations only the initials of the names of the peacemakers were written and sometimes I got confused or lost when reading. I think that the ideas were very organized, first they started talking about the compensations for the war that each country would receive, then they continued with the Fourteen Points of Peace that Woodrow Wilson made, and finally they talked about the punishments for Germany. To finish the conversation they added a kind of «sum up» said by Wilson that summerized what the conversation had been about. This was great because if you had not understand something just by reading the end you could have a good idea of what had happened in the part you didn´t understand because of this conclusion. The conversation is very complete and clear.


History Questions

In our last History class we watched a video and answered some questions that are in the blog of our teacher.

Here are the answers:

1. arguments for the term of «war guilt for Germany»

-In early August 1914 it didnt take much for Germany to declare war and to invade territory, only a few days.

arguments against «war guilt for Germany»:

-The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in which she wasn’t involved.

2. The term that followed war guilt for Germany was reparations. In 2013 they were $400 billion dollars aproximately that Germany spent on reparations. Nowadays it would be a total of $60 billion dollars. This was not only payed with money but also with resources (gold,gas,petroleum, etc.) This had an impact on the German economy as it was so much money. The reparations also humilliated many germans.

3. To prevent another war Germany was left with only 100.000 soldiers in her army and without battleships. The peacemakers were trying to prevent Germany from starting another war as they knew she would possibly seek for revenge.

4. Germany lost a lot of colonies because of the Treaty, they were Alsace-Loraine, Poland, colonies in Africa, in China and in the Pacific Ocean. All of them were given to the allies. Wilson disliked this because he wanted self-determination and by giving the colonies to the allies what he wanted wouldn’t happen.

5) This were the new nations created after WW1:

  • Poland
  • Czechoslovakia
  • Croatia
  • Austria
  • Yugoslavia
  • Hungary
  • Bosnia
  • Serbia
  • Slovenia



Educación Tecnológica 5/7

En nuestra última clase de Educación Tecnológica nos dedicamos a hablar sobre lo que hicimos en el workshop del Viernes pasado. También, como había algunas ideas que teníamos cambiar si queríamos que nuestros proyectos fueran exitosos, nos pusimos con la persona con la que hicimos el juego de mesa anterior para cambiarlo o hacer uno nuevo. Para el Jueves que viene ya tendremos listas las ideas de juegos que cada grupo va a hacer teniendo en cuenta los criterios de los chicos de primaria que son para los que principalmente estamos haciendo estos juegos.

«One art» (poem) questions

In our Literature class we have read the poem «One art» and now we have to answer in pairs the following questions:

1. What do you think the poet means by «the art of losing» and how serious is she about this idea?

2. How important is the poem’s form to your reading of it?

3. What effect does the refrain have upon your understanding of the poem’s tone? How does the meaning of this single line change throughout the piece?

4. What are we actually meant to believe about the poet’s reaction to her losses?

5. How honest is the poet with herself? With her readers?

This is the poem:

One Art
By Elizabeth Bishop

The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.

Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

Then practice losing farther, losing faster:
places, and names, and where it was you meant
to travel. None of these will bring disaster.

I lost my mother’s watch. And look! my last, or
next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.

I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster,
some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn’t a disaster.

—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture
I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident
the art of losing’s not too hard to master
though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.

Elizabeth Bishop, “One Art” from The Complete Poems 1926-1979

This are the answers:

1. The poet by saying «the art of losing» means that losing is something that is inevitable so she says that learning how to deal with it is not difficult. That moving on after losing someone or something is not a disaster, that it is an art we all can do as it isn’t hard to master.

2. The poem’s form is very useful to understand the message as it has a lot of repetition. It is always reminding us that «the art of losing is not hard to master» and puts different examples to prove it so that we can see how what she says is right. Also when she changes her mind instead of putting three lines per stanza she puts four in the last one, she changes her opinion and changes the format.

3. At the end of each stanza the poet always goes back to the idea that «the art of losing is not hard to master» and that «none of this will bring disaster» but when she starts explaining her point with examples we can see that she is wrong because it depends on what you lose. She starts by keys, losing a key is not a disaster, this can be solved. Then places and names. Well, this is more important than objects but it is not the end of the world. But by the time we reach the end she talks about «my mother’s watch», probably the fact of losing it does not make you feel sad because of the object but because of the value you give to it. And finally a person. Losing a person is something difficult and she realizes this and when she says this she doesn’t say «the art of losing isn’t hard to master», instead she says «the art of loosing isn’t TOO hard to master» and this makes a big difference.

4. We can notice that she thinks that losing material things is nothing serious and that this is not a disaster for us, that it is not important. But when she talks about losing things with a value that can’t be replaced she changes her mind and says it is not «too» difficult when she knows it is.

5. The poet is not honest with herself or with us. She wants to convince herself and us about something that is not real. «The art of losing isn’t hard to master». Well no, it is. Losing something or someone is difficult because you can never get exactly what you had. Sometimes things are not important for us for what they arw but for what they mean for us.

Here there is a presentation that our Literature tacher showed us in class and that we have analyzed.