Writing a scope and sequence has been an interesting experience. As always, there is a lot to say, so let’s get started with interesting factor number one.
1. Foreign language standards in Tennessee closely resemble National standards. They are both based on “The 5 C’s”: communication, cultures, connections, comparisons and community. As a result, alignment between state and nation is not difficult. What is a little more difficult is that, in Tennessee, there are 5 standards and within them are 11 total learning objectives. Whereas some subjects may have their course mapped out for them by standards, the foreign language standards are a bit different. Communication, of course, will be used each and every day. The other 4 standards will be used, but not during any specific chunk of the semester. They are dispersed throughout the communication standard. (If any curriculum supervisors read this, I’m not suggesting that standards should map out the entire semester. Keeping them loose and malleable allows for teacher creativity (Oh my gosh! Did he say creativity?). I mean, we’ve been in school for 4-6 years now studying how to teach. Give us a chance to be professionals instead of cramming scripts down our throats.) Anyways, back to standards working within one another.
For example, connections and comparisons between one’s native language and the target language are made as language is learned. (Sometimes comparisons are actually detrimental because students often spend so much time trying to figure out why the target language isn’t exactly like English that they forget to just accept truth for what it is. I have witnessed many lengthy grammatical explanations that were completely unsuccessful and highly confusing. When I student taught, if a student asked “Why do they do it like that in Spanish?” I would respond in one of two ways: 1. I’d give a culture explanation of language differences (this option is more limited than people think), and 2. I’d just say “When the language gods sat in council creating Spanish, they thought it would be a good idea to do it that way.” Students would always laugh, understand that some things are just different and move on. In the end, my point is that the current standards are great. My daily lesson plans will meet multiple standards, not just one. It takes some effort, but hey, it’s my job (That’s how accountability should sound…)
2. Content pacing has been a little more difficult than I anticipated. For some help, I used a Spanish text book to see how much they taught within the first year. Honestly, it was a joke. The structure was not so conducive to actual language use, rather lists of vocabulary memorization. And when I divided up the chapters within a one year time period, there was too much too fast. So I’m currently planning my first grading period and it’s a bit taxing to think about how much is too much and how much is not enough. I can see how teachers are constantly revising their scope and sequence based on the success or failure of each lesson. I’m trying to be very realistic in my planning, asking myself “How much time is needed to really learn this?” The fact is, moving on without first mastering the present content will only hurt the students.
Currently the focus is to get all students to pass foreign language courses, but honestly there are a few who overachieve, a middle group that hangs in there and a final group who fails. In the end, many students walk out disliking the language. My experience shows me that dissatisfaction with a language, to an extent, affects one’s attitude towards those that speak that language. This is too overlooked and must be considered. The need for understanding is so great that we cannot afford to turn students off of a language and the people that speak it. Anyways, teaching foreign language according to a spiral curriculum design will make it so that all students have the chance to learn the target language easier. The success that it can provide will improve student perceptions and give more motivation to continue learning (Stolle, 2008, not yet published).
3. Last piece, I promise. The standards, being useful at times and a bother at others, did help bring to fruition an idea that I previously had. I figured it that I could teach numbers by using math. The students will already be familiar with the procedures, so all they have to do is learn how to express what they already know and understand (which is the essence of learning a foreign language). This technique of using another subject to teach my own is one of the standards, so my idea is justified. I can collaborate with math teachers within the school to see what the students may need more work on so that they get some extras practice in my class. Ohhhhh, integration. Of course, I will need to use simpler math to make sure that each student can do the problems I offer. Plus I need to teach them vocabulary which will be useful in areas other than math. I don’t imagine ‘parabola’ extends much beyond math, but “add”, “subtract”, “multiply”, divide” and “equals” are used in various other aspects of the language. Pretty cool, huh? (One of my teachers at BYU-Idaho called collaboration with other teachers “job security”. His reasoning: if you can show that you are meeting your own standards and those of others, and if others teachers know it, you’ll always have a spot somewhere at that school. Teachers will speak up for you if your program comes under fire for any reason.)
So now it’s once again time to say goodbye (since I promised). As always, I’ll give a recap of my thoughts, ideas and experiences with curriculum. So, lesson of the day for the foreign language curriculum:
Slow down. Take a deep breath. Let the creative juices start flowing. Be awesome.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Curriculum Creation, Evaluation and Salary Celebration
I’m hoping to touch on two different topics today. A little on instruction and curriculum design here, and a little on curriculum evaluation there. Okay, then I’ll add a third commentary on something that is cooler than all of the above. While I’m here, not into the meat of the discussion yet, I’ve got to say something that has been on my mind in the field of educational research and publishing. I was always taught growing up that when writing a paper one should not write an introduction that says something along the lines of “In this paper I will…” Now that I’ve read hundreds of published papers, I am shocked to see how common it is in the field of education to write that way. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but it’s completely against what I grew up learning. It’s interesting to see how something that has been so ingrained in my mind over the years is so hard to change. Anyways, back to curriculum and instruction.
When I was student teaching I had my first exposure to spiral teaching. I was lucky enough to be paired with a teacher that had many of the same beliefs concerning language learning as I have. The teacher, being the only Spanish/Foreign Language teacher in the school, had full control over the language curriculum. The first time I met with him, 2 months before actually working with him, he explained how he ran his classes. I was excited that someone was willing to slow the pace of information down and teach more for understanding. Not only that, but he had designed the whole first year in such a way as to teach concepts and then revisit them a few units later, building on the information that they had previously constructed. I’ll admit there were a few things that even had me, a proponent of his teaching style, wondering how he could deviate markedly from the classic language learning curriculum. As I taught according to his plan, however, I was able to see how his plan benefitted learning. For instance, when beginning to conjugate verbs, he did not swamp his students with singular and plural conjugations. He taught a normal semesters worth of work using just the singular form, then went back and added plural conjugations. The students, already being familiar with conjugations by this time, were able to easily adapt two new rules and a few more vocabulary words were added to the ones previously used. While it is true that in a traditional foreign language classrooms there are always a handful of students who thrive and are able to continue learning year after year, there are also a majority who are lost and hanging in by the skin of their teeth (which is a really weird phrase). In his class, the majority of the students had a grasp on the language and they were confident moving on to Spanish 2. Their ability to communicate in Spanish was also superior to other classrooms I had observed up to that point, which ironically is a highly overlooked objective in languages courses. So what am I trying to say with all of that? Spiral teaching/curriculum in foreign language courses, in my experience, is better for overall learning and transfer.
Alright, now a bit on evaluation. As I sat thinking about what I had just read about curriculum design and evaluation I thought about what it would be like to be a new curriculum supervisor in a struggling district. That’s got to be a tough job to walk into a new place and start telling people what is wrong with their program. I began to wonder how well liked and appreciated curriculum specialists are. So I thought about all of the possibilities of things that might need fixing: course alignment, alignment to standards, professional development, curriculum budget, extracurricular activities, testing/assessment, etc. What is the priority? Are there some issues that, when fixed, will naturally fix others? I guess my biggest question is, “Where does one start?” Do you work on things one at a time or is it everything at once? What sort of support system is there for a curriculum specialist? I know this isn’t really a commentary directly on evaluation, but these questions come with evaluation. Another question that just came to my mind is concerning the ability to make changes. How much red tape and politics are there? Are changes made relatively quickly, or do changes/enhancements take time like a bill in Congress? These are some things I would love to hear a little more about because they can be answered by the experience of others and not so much by published theories.
The last little bit is a happy note. After reading about curriculum for awhile yesterday, I decided to cruise the World Wide Web and look for open Curriculum positions around the good ole’ U.S. of A. Although not everyone posted it, I was happy to see the salary of Curriculum Directors. Wow! I had no idea that they were paid so much. I honestly assumed it was a position that got paid similar to what a teacher gets paid, but oh how wrong I was. Again being honest, if I had to go and fix a district’s curriculum problems and I was only paid what a starting teacher was paid, I’d turn and run away. A common thread that I noticed was that Curriculum Directors are usually required to have 3-5 years teaching experience and/or/preferable to have curriculum writing experience. Where does one get curriculum writing experience? Do the powers that be accept curriculum writing for one’s own classroom, or are they all looking for a more formal position somewhere? Anyways, these are questions I’d love to have answered so that I know how to plan my next few years after graduation.
We’ve spent a long time together just now, and I’m a bit winded from all of this typing. So, as Truman said as he walked off the “reality” set: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!
When I was student teaching I had my first exposure to spiral teaching. I was lucky enough to be paired with a teacher that had many of the same beliefs concerning language learning as I have. The teacher, being the only Spanish/Foreign Language teacher in the school, had full control over the language curriculum. The first time I met with him, 2 months before actually working with him, he explained how he ran his classes. I was excited that someone was willing to slow the pace of information down and teach more for understanding. Not only that, but he had designed the whole first year in such a way as to teach concepts and then revisit them a few units later, building on the information that they had previously constructed. I’ll admit there were a few things that even had me, a proponent of his teaching style, wondering how he could deviate markedly from the classic language learning curriculum. As I taught according to his plan, however, I was able to see how his plan benefitted learning. For instance, when beginning to conjugate verbs, he did not swamp his students with singular and plural conjugations. He taught a normal semesters worth of work using just the singular form, then went back and added plural conjugations. The students, already being familiar with conjugations by this time, were able to easily adapt two new rules and a few more vocabulary words were added to the ones previously used. While it is true that in a traditional foreign language classrooms there are always a handful of students who thrive and are able to continue learning year after year, there are also a majority who are lost and hanging in by the skin of their teeth (which is a really weird phrase). In his class, the majority of the students had a grasp on the language and they were confident moving on to Spanish 2. Their ability to communicate in Spanish was also superior to other classrooms I had observed up to that point, which ironically is a highly overlooked objective in languages courses. So what am I trying to say with all of that? Spiral teaching/curriculum in foreign language courses, in my experience, is better for overall learning and transfer.
Alright, now a bit on evaluation. As I sat thinking about what I had just read about curriculum design and evaluation I thought about what it would be like to be a new curriculum supervisor in a struggling district. That’s got to be a tough job to walk into a new place and start telling people what is wrong with their program. I began to wonder how well liked and appreciated curriculum specialists are. So I thought about all of the possibilities of things that might need fixing: course alignment, alignment to standards, professional development, curriculum budget, extracurricular activities, testing/assessment, etc. What is the priority? Are there some issues that, when fixed, will naturally fix others? I guess my biggest question is, “Where does one start?” Do you work on things one at a time or is it everything at once? What sort of support system is there for a curriculum specialist? I know this isn’t really a commentary directly on evaluation, but these questions come with evaluation. Another question that just came to my mind is concerning the ability to make changes. How much red tape and politics are there? Are changes made relatively quickly, or do changes/enhancements take time like a bill in Congress? These are some things I would love to hear a little more about because they can be answered by the experience of others and not so much by published theories.
The last little bit is a happy note. After reading about curriculum for awhile yesterday, I decided to cruise the World Wide Web and look for open Curriculum positions around the good ole’ U.S. of A. Although not everyone posted it, I was happy to see the salary of Curriculum Directors. Wow! I had no idea that they were paid so much. I honestly assumed it was a position that got paid similar to what a teacher gets paid, but oh how wrong I was. Again being honest, if I had to go and fix a district’s curriculum problems and I was only paid what a starting teacher was paid, I’d turn and run away. A common thread that I noticed was that Curriculum Directors are usually required to have 3-5 years teaching experience and/or/preferable to have curriculum writing experience. Where does one get curriculum writing experience? Do the powers that be accept curriculum writing for one’s own classroom, or are they all looking for a more formal position somewhere? Anyways, these are questions I’d love to have answered so that I know how to plan my next few years after graduation.
We’ve spent a long time together just now, and I’m a bit winded from all of this typing. So, as Truman said as he walked off the “reality” set: Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!
Friday, March 14, 2008
Curriculum Mapping
Ready for this one? Take a deep breath and hold on. Okay, it won't be that bad. Curriculum mapping is a good idea. Its a great idea. It forces scatter-brained people like me, who are geniouses I might add, to make sense to other people. Its hard for me to map out my thought and plans because i don't always see things in a well-planned and sorted way. I usually have a million ideas zooming through my head at once that are all related but not in any specific order. I guess I have just gotten used to the craziness over the years and learned how to use it all to my advantage. By what about for other people you ask? Thats where concept/curriculum mapping comes in. I'm all for it, even though it scares me for the above mentioned reasons. Its hard for me to organize it all the way that most humanoids do.
There are two key points in my readings about curriculum mapping that I think are essential to the success fo the program. First, it cannot be just another program. Anytime we see something that needs fixing in education we hear, "Oh, lets create a program!" Well if the current program at work has potential, let's just fix it and be on our merry way. Its a lot less work and a lot less complicated to do it that way. The key, however is to make sure everyone is onboard. I think that it is important get input and reactions from each teacher who will be affected by an implementation of curriculum mapping because if even one hinge is facing the wrong way, the door won't open. Teachers should have curriculum mapping presented to them in such a way that they not only know what it is, but they understand its purpose and function (see Bloom's taxonomy). It will be harder to get teachers to buy into something that they don't have ownership of. Implementation without owership could possibly cause discord among faculty and has the potential to frighten away teachers from the school or the profession. That may be part of the reason that new teachers do not last long in the profession (in conjunction with a few other factors that will not be discussed right now).
The second consideration for the adoption of curriculum mapping is the fact that it takes time to work. In a time when Taco Bell has a timer up so that drive-thru customers can see how fast they are being served, we might loose sight of the fact that things that are worth it may take time to achieve (with the exception of the Grilled Stuffed Burrito which is yours in under 80 seconds). Honestly, going back to the "we need a program" thought process, sometimes efficiency and productivity take time to develop. Once the car starts rolling, however, the effort and wait are worth it.
Recap of the main points:
1) Make sure that everyone buys into curriculum mapping before implementing it. Buying on credit won't work, the account owner won't pay up when its time because he/she didn't agree to the terms.
2) Just like novacaine, just give a program time and it always works - maybe differently than planned, that that may be a good thing. Even the Leaning Tower of Pisa was a success despite the fact that its, well, leaning.
3) Grilled Stuffed Burritos are awesome.
There are two key points in my readings about curriculum mapping that I think are essential to the success fo the program. First, it cannot be just another program. Anytime we see something that needs fixing in education we hear, "Oh, lets create a program!" Well if the current program at work has potential, let's just fix it and be on our merry way. Its a lot less work and a lot less complicated to do it that way. The key, however is to make sure everyone is onboard. I think that it is important get input and reactions from each teacher who will be affected by an implementation of curriculum mapping because if even one hinge is facing the wrong way, the door won't open. Teachers should have curriculum mapping presented to them in such a way that they not only know what it is, but they understand its purpose and function (see Bloom's taxonomy). It will be harder to get teachers to buy into something that they don't have ownership of. Implementation without owership could possibly cause discord among faculty and has the potential to frighten away teachers from the school or the profession. That may be part of the reason that new teachers do not last long in the profession (in conjunction with a few other factors that will not be discussed right now).
The second consideration for the adoption of curriculum mapping is the fact that it takes time to work. In a time when Taco Bell has a timer up so that drive-thru customers can see how fast they are being served, we might loose sight of the fact that things that are worth it may take time to achieve (with the exception of the Grilled Stuffed Burrito which is yours in under 80 seconds). Honestly, going back to the "we need a program" thought process, sometimes efficiency and productivity take time to develop. Once the car starts rolling, however, the effort and wait are worth it.
Recap of the main points:
1) Make sure that everyone buys into curriculum mapping before implementing it. Buying on credit won't work, the account owner won't pay up when its time because he/she didn't agree to the terms.
2) Just like novacaine, just give a program time and it always works - maybe differently than planned, that that may be a good thing. Even the Leaning Tower of Pisa was a success despite the fact that its, well, leaning.
3) Grilled Stuffed Burritos are awesome.
Technology
I will always remember growing up in an age when computers began to enter every aspect of life. My first job was a position as a cashier in the concession stands at the local baseball and soccer parks. Back then cashiers actually dealt with cash and only cash. I remember doing all of the math in my head becasue we didn't even have cash registers. I remember when we got cash registers for the first time and how confusing it was to figure them out. I could do the math in my head much faster than I could find the right buttons to push. Now everyone has a register (and as Dr. Yates pointed out, we no longer call them "cash" registers).
I remember my friends at school getting into computers in middle school and always talking about the newest games, etc. I had no idea what megahertz or bytes were, but I heard about them all of the time. In my house we had an Apple IIe with a nice back and green screen. This of course didn't appeal to me, so computers were never my thing.
Getting into school, I remember being taught to type in 4th grade but typewriters were still in use then. it wasn't until 8th grade that I had my first computer course and it was pretty cool. Well, class was boring. We did a lot of data entry and essay writing. Finishing early and playing The Oregon trail made the class worth it. In high school, computers were just there. othing seemed new or special. Microsoft Word was about the only thing we used. That and a little thing called the Internet. (By the way, I remember my first encounter with the Internet. My dad showed it to me at his work one day and told me that you could find anything on it. I asked him to look up the NBA and sure enough they had a website. It took forever to download the site, but it had everything. You could even watch videos on it. I asked my dad to play a video and he tried, but 20 minutes of downloading didn't even have half of the video loaded. Now I can go to Youtube and watch videos that start playing with the click of the mouse... no more double clicking either...why did we ever double-click in the first place?)
College is the first time I really used a computer for all of its capabilities. Internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and e-mail. Okay, so computers could do a lot more, but I didn't need it for any more than just that. By the end of my undergraduate work I was always on the computer, writing a paper here and creating a presentation there.
Now to the meat of the matter. Part of the reason that I never got into computer technology is it didn't seem to have much relevence to me. Then when it did, I used it sparingly because I thought it was boring (yes, PowerPoints are awesome but can kill a class). I was fortune enough to have had technology class at BYU-Idaho with a professor who understood the need to match technology to the assignment at hand. He taught us all sorts of neat tricks of the trade, but would always question our judgement of using certain tools. "Don't use technology just to use it. Use it to meet the needs of the class or the assignment. Sometimes the only technology you need is a #2 pencil and a spiral notebook." I will for ever and always appreciate how he taught us to use technology to enhance learning instead of enhancing the "cool" factor. (Having never seen a Smartboard until 3 semesters before I graduated from college, I thought it was just technology for technology's sake. Now that I know what they can do I think they are great tools. Plus, I hate chalk. Give me a whiteboard any day ... or a Smartboard if you have an extra.)
Much like activities planned for the classroom, I believe that technology must meet the needs of the class. The class should not meet the needs of technology or an assignment. Smartboards, Smartpens, PowerPoint and Internet = awesome. Sometime, however, a book and a pen are even awesomer. Yes , thats right. Awesomer. What people used to say before spell check warped our minds...
I remember my friends at school getting into computers in middle school and always talking about the newest games, etc. I had no idea what megahertz or bytes were, but I heard about them all of the time. In my house we had an Apple IIe with a nice back and green screen. This of course didn't appeal to me, so computers were never my thing.
Getting into school, I remember being taught to type in 4th grade but typewriters were still in use then. it wasn't until 8th grade that I had my first computer course and it was pretty cool. Well, class was boring. We did a lot of data entry and essay writing. Finishing early and playing The Oregon trail made the class worth it. In high school, computers were just there. othing seemed new or special. Microsoft Word was about the only thing we used. That and a little thing called the Internet. (By the way, I remember my first encounter with the Internet. My dad showed it to me at his work one day and told me that you could find anything on it. I asked him to look up the NBA and sure enough they had a website. It took forever to download the site, but it had everything. You could even watch videos on it. I asked my dad to play a video and he tried, but 20 minutes of downloading didn't even have half of the video loaded. Now I can go to Youtube and watch videos that start playing with the click of the mouse... no more double clicking either...why did we ever double-click in the first place?)
College is the first time I really used a computer for all of its capabilities. Internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and e-mail. Okay, so computers could do a lot more, but I didn't need it for any more than just that. By the end of my undergraduate work I was always on the computer, writing a paper here and creating a presentation there.
Now to the meat of the matter. Part of the reason that I never got into computer technology is it didn't seem to have much relevence to me. Then when it did, I used it sparingly because I thought it was boring (yes, PowerPoints are awesome but can kill a class). I was fortune enough to have had technology class at BYU-Idaho with a professor who understood the need to match technology to the assignment at hand. He taught us all sorts of neat tricks of the trade, but would always question our judgement of using certain tools. "Don't use technology just to use it. Use it to meet the needs of the class or the assignment. Sometimes the only technology you need is a #2 pencil and a spiral notebook." I will for ever and always appreciate how he taught us to use technology to enhance learning instead of enhancing the "cool" factor. (Having never seen a Smartboard until 3 semesters before I graduated from college, I thought it was just technology for technology's sake. Now that I know what they can do I think they are great tools. Plus, I hate chalk. Give me a whiteboard any day ... or a Smartboard if you have an extra.)
Much like activities planned for the classroom, I believe that technology must meet the needs of the class. The class should not meet the needs of technology or an assignment. Smartboards, Smartpens, PowerPoint and Internet = awesome. Sometime, however, a book and a pen are even awesomer. Yes , thats right. Awesomer. What people used to say before spell check warped our minds...
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Flexibility
Some time ago a friend of mine wanted to start a business. Not having majored in Business I did not know much of the terminology he was using. He broke certain things down for me which was beneficial to our conversation. At one point he mentioned how we would need to declare what sort of business we were: LLC, Corporation, etc. He gave me a break down of how each type of business was organized and I was reluctant to accept any of the plans. I told him how I thought the business should look but I was quickly informed that companies can’t look like what I had proposed. We would have to fit the previously created mold. I had issues with this but soon realized that my reasoning was not going to change anything. All I could think during that time was that I love educational curriculum and instructional planning because there isn’t one set and defined mode.
Flexibility in how things look and are presented is a wonderful thing, even though there can be some drawbacks. The text chapter mentioned how interchangeable certain terms are (e.g. course of study, syllabi, scope and sequence, etc). Even when things are understood there may be differences (additions or omissions to the outline of the program) which need further explanation, but it isn’t difficult to catch on to. Once the terms are defined by the user, however, clarity is restored. Imagination and creativity are given the leading role in deciding the structure of educational design.
Flexibility in how things look and are presented is a wonderful thing, even though there can be some drawbacks. The text chapter mentioned how interchangeable certain terms are (e.g. course of study, syllabi, scope and sequence, etc). Even when things are understood there may be differences (additions or omissions to the outline of the program) which need further explanation, but it isn’t difficult to catch on to. Once the terms are defined by the user, however, clarity is restored. Imagination and creativity are given the leading role in deciding the structure of educational design.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Assessment - the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
As I read the article and chapter on assessment types and purpose, I reflected back on the assessments I used as a Student Teacher. I tried to be careful and make sure that my assessments matched my instructional techniques. If we focused on oral speech, I administered an oral test. If the focus was writing, I offered a written test. I learned a lot from my cooperating teacher about making sure I was assessing how well students were meeting the course objectives, test design having a lot to do with it all. Our tests were always open-ended. I felt they were too open ended, so much to the dismay of the co-op, I would work in a tiny bit more structure. I felt that as an outsider I could contribute well to his instruction and assessment techniques. After all, he had been using the same method for 20 years. There were bound to be a few bad habits that he had become numb to. Regardless, I felt that our assessment strategy was successful. He chose to focus more on writing, so the majority of our tests involved lengthy writing assignments which were based on student knowledge and creativity. I would have preferred more oral assessments, although we were able to build an atmosphere in which students daily worked with each other offering formative assessments of each other. A solid learning community was built around students assessing each other and offering constructive feedback. Formative assessment interests me the most because I believe we are always learning. I feel that the mindset that accompanies summative assessment is that we are being graded as if all chances for learning that particular set of material is done once the test arrives. Formative assessment, however, offers the opportunity to solidify confidence in what one is learning or redirect learning as needed.
This next blip is related to assessment, but not totally. I have seen in plenty of mission statements and learning goals the word “ensure” or the phrase “not an option”. They are often used referring to student achievement. I have a problem with “ensuring” success and the thought that failure is “not an option”. These phrases either take away accountability from the learner or stupidly assume that all students will do 100% of their part to master every subject. I agree that our goal should be success fir all, but lets not take away a child’s agency. We seem to have done that and instead of penalizing the student we fire the teacher and send the student to the next grade.
Assessments, as I mentioned earlier, must match what students have learned to the situations in which the information may be used. I love the example of the DMV giving strictly written assessments in order to get a driver’s license. It seems foolish, but I remember testing for my license. I drove around in a lot with no cars, only orange cones, and had to pass a computerized test about road rules. The more I think about it (especially when I reflect on some of my friends and their driving habits) it seems that the instruction and assessment weren’t properly aligned. I feel the same about much of my high school experience. I was an A student, but that only means I am an A test-taker/crammer. If I had been placed in positions to use what I “knew” then I would not have skated through school with my eyes closed.
One last thought I had on assessments refers specifically to me as a Spanish teacher. I was thinking about the criteria for oral language assessments when I read a sentence about efficiency and effectiveness. It occurred to me that when assessing language ability there are two key concepts to watch for: Could the person communicate (effectiveness) and how well could they communicate (efficiency)? Usually efficiency is graded in the form of correct grammar, but points are not usually given for overall ability to communicate, which is a big deal.
Much more can and will be said for assessments and testing.
Last Weeks Blog Entry - Oops!
Curriculum development and reform requires an understanding of current unmet needs in the school. The task of designing curriculum becomes more complicated as the needs of various educational stakeholders are assessed (a group consisting of students, society and subject matter). The needs of each stakeholder vary and are multifaceted, and each stakeholder wants priority over another. I question whether the problems in education might stem from one of the following two possibilities: 1) we are trying to accommodate too many “needs” of too many stakeholders, or 2) we are not addressing enough of the “needs” of each stakeholder. (I put quotes around needs because I believe that we live in a day and age when needs are often confused with wants. The types of needs may be real – such as physical, sociopsychological, educational- but the degree to which they are to be met may be unrealistic). The debate of balance in the curriculum is an interest debate: Do societies needs have priority of individual needs? Will individual needs naturally address societal needs? How are subject matter needs discovered and determined? Is it possible to address each type of need equally?
After determining the needs to be met comes the responsibility of determining how to meet and address those needs. The organization and implementation of the curriculum is a whole new battle. (By the way, when we speak we often say “a whole nother”. I mentioned that to someone a few weeks ago, how even the smartest and best educated people say that even though it is wrong. Sure enough, I was told that I was wrong and that “nother is a real word. After convincing them that it is not a real word, I was told that I must misunderstand people because nobody would say “a whole nother”. Within a few minutes the person arguing against me used the phrase naturally and I won the debate. Sorry, that had nothing to do with what I was writing about… but it’s pretty interesting!) Anyways, the issue of coverage creeps up over and over when discussing curriculum. When should content be taught in general terms and when must we dive deep? Can we really separate it out and say that elementary schools are to be taught a mile wide and an inch deep and middle and high schools will deepen our knowledge? Is it possible to have both breadth and deepness in the same course during the same year? In arguments of coverage, I tend to side with the theory of going deep. The question I have had as of late is “What do we consider “deep learning”?” “How deep is too deep?” We can receive the same results from spreading ourselves too wide as we can from diving too deep if we are not careful and mindful of the overall learning experience.
I look forward to the day when I can work with others to address the complications of forming the basis of a curriculum and organizing it. I do wonder, however, how much of the complications could be avoided by a willingness to clarify our needs, distinguish them from wants, and discard that which is not necessary for the overall purposes of student achievement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)