I am not a supporter of standardized tests which would mean that such a program would not be my cup of tea. I believe that it is extremely important to focus on, especially in the lower grade levels, socialization, creativity, life lessons, and the importance of multiple intelligences and finding out which one of these intelligences applies to you. Standardized testing takes away from all of these aspects with rigorous studying and preparation. Students miss out more on things like music and art because of the rigid structure that these tests put forth onto teachers. This is because with insufficient test scores comes less funding and the potential for people to lose their jobs which no one wants, therefor they put more effort towards these tests, which are fallible ways to assess children, which to me is something that is not okay especially for kids who are just entering school who are trying to adjust to the life as a student and socialize healthily.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Standardized Testing: Expanding the Frontier to Kindergarden
New York City is about to take the standardized tests to a new level. They will be implementing a program in which kindergarden, first and second grade students will be taking standardized assessment tests. This program will encompass close to 12,000 students and the tests will range from multiple choice based, one on one correspondence with the teacher to video game based tests. The supporters of the program state that there has already been assessment based testing and that this is an upgrade to what has already been in place. They relate it towards a thermometer in which the original assessment tests were like a thermometer that told you if you had a fever, where the new program will be like a thermometer that will differentiate a fever of 103 degrees from one that is 104 degrees.
Technology In School: Where Do We Draw The Line?
The article, An iPod Touch for each student? (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/education/story/1191389.html), by Matt Dees, raises some interesting and potentially controversial questions. The article deals with Culbreth Middle School and their Principal Susan Wells' decision to use iPod Touch units in the classroom as an educational tool. Principal Wells believes that in a world that relies so heavily upon technology it is foolish to try and keep it out of the classroom. If the project recieves proper funding, students and teachers alike will recieve iPod Touch units, and curriculum and courses will be developed based around the units. For example, students would be able to recieve art credit for learning guitar by taking online lessons at home.
Now, I'm completely behind introducing technology into the classroom and I feel that Wells is absolutely right when she says that its foolish to attempt to keep technology out of the classroom. However, to what degree will we allow technology to affect education? In my opinion, one of the most important things about education is the interaction and communication between human beings. The introduction of technology such as the iPod touch could potentially hurt the important tie between student and teacher and hamper a students development of healthy communication. So much of communication is based in facial expression and body language and technology eliminates that. And while we're on the subject, let's look to the future. Will technology eventually replace the classroom setting altogether? Is that something we want to replace?
Now, I'm completely behind introducing technology into the classroom and I feel that Wells is absolutely right when she says that its foolish to attempt to keep technology out of the classroom. However, to what degree will we allow technology to affect education? In my opinion, one of the most important things about education is the interaction and communication between human beings. The introduction of technology such as the iPod touch could potentially hurt the important tie between student and teacher and hamper a students development of healthy communication. So much of communication is based in facial expression and body language and technology eliminates that. And while we're on the subject, let's look to the future. Will technology eventually replace the classroom setting altogether? Is that something we want to replace?
Friday, August 29, 2008
When Schools Offer Money As a Motivator
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121928822683759447.html,
I read the NCTE Inbox article entitled "When Schools Offer Money As a Motivator" with great interest. I had previously never heard of such a thing being done, in fact the idea seemed very odd to me. After wrapping my head around it for a while, I decided that the idea has some merit. Basically, students in schools are offered cash incentives to do well on tests or in the classes they are taking.
The chief reason I think that this is a good idea as compared to say, decreasing class sizes, is that the gains are much larger compared to the gains of hiring a new teacher (and slightly cutting the size of certain classes). I think that one of the biggest problems with today's education system in America is the problem of motivating the students, especially those from low income areas and schools. This program is most effective to those who need academic guidance the most, because low income students are more likely to respond enthusiastically to a cash incentive.
For those critics who say that cash incentive will make students have less desire to learn for reasons not tied directly to money, I would then ask them if they are an opponent of scholarships, and further than that, of performance-based pay in the workforce. The idea behind this program is not a new one, it is the same idea that motivates the workers and business people of our nation and the world, it has just never manifested itself so directly in our schools. The direct line of money tied to good academic performance will help students understand the way things work in "the real world", and at the same time motivate them to do better work in their schools.
I read the NCTE Inbox article entitled "When Schools Offer Money As a Motivator" with great interest. I had previously never heard of such a thing being done, in fact the idea seemed very odd to me. After wrapping my head around it for a while, I decided that the idea has some merit. Basically, students in schools are offered cash incentives to do well on tests or in the classes they are taking.
The chief reason I think that this is a good idea as compared to say, decreasing class sizes, is that the gains are much larger compared to the gains of hiring a new teacher (and slightly cutting the size of certain classes). I think that one of the biggest problems with today's education system in America is the problem of motivating the students, especially those from low income areas and schools. This program is most effective to those who need academic guidance the most, because low income students are more likely to respond enthusiastically to a cash incentive.
For those critics who say that cash incentive will make students have less desire to learn for reasons not tied directly to money, I would then ask them if they are an opponent of scholarships, and further than that, of performance-based pay in the workforce. The idea behind this program is not a new one, it is the same idea that motivates the workers and business people of our nation and the world, it has just never manifested itself so directly in our schools. The direct line of money tied to good academic performance will help students understand the way things work in "the real world", and at the same time motivate them to do better work in their schools.
Who needs those old fashioned books anyway?
The article "Computer Time doesn't have to replace Reading Time" by Paula Ebben (http://wbztv.com/watercooler/lighterside/reading.books.online.2.802536.html) addresses a common complaint that you hear amongst educators and parents today. I know that my parents would complain about how much time I spent on the computer, although I spent much more than 7 minutes per day reading--the average time that a child spends reading for pleasure nowadays. Some new websites have been exploiting this by creating online book clubs where kids can read literature and discuss it just like any other book club.
Now I've read complete works online (short stories mostly), but I personally don't think I would have the patience to read whole chunks of books on a computer. When I read for pleasure I always do so leisurely, either laying down or sitting in a recliner, not in my uncomfortable computer chair.
By the tone of the article, the author seems to be making online books out to be the next natural step in the evolution of literature. I disagree with that assumption because I think that nothing will ever replace having a hard-copy of a book. Technology can only go so many places. I can bring a book with me anywhere I go, but I can't lug a computer with me everywhere. Laptops don't cut it either, because one would need internet access to keep reading the book and free public nation-wide wi-fi is still only a pipe-dream.
Not everyone is like me, however, so I can see the benefits for kids who normally wouldn't give a care about books. If online books and online book clubs catch on, I think they'd be the perfect for a generation of kids who spend much more time online than ever before.
Now I've read complete works online (short stories mostly), but I personally don't think I would have the patience to read whole chunks of books on a computer. When I read for pleasure I always do so leisurely, either laying down or sitting in a recliner, not in my uncomfortable computer chair.
By the tone of the article, the author seems to be making online books out to be the next natural step in the evolution of literature. I disagree with that assumption because I think that nothing will ever replace having a hard-copy of a book. Technology can only go so many places. I can bring a book with me anywhere I go, but I can't lug a computer with me everywhere. Laptops don't cut it either, because one would need internet access to keep reading the book and free public nation-wide wi-fi is still only a pipe-dream.
Not everyone is like me, however, so I can see the benefits for kids who normally wouldn't give a care about books. If online books and online book clubs catch on, I think they'd be the perfect for a generation of kids who spend much more time online than ever before.
Computer Time Doesn't Have To Replace Reading Time
Computer Time Doesn't Have To Replace Reading Time was an article recently written by Paula Ebben for WBZTV.com which - as one can clearly see - is about the digital age taking over and distracting children from reading books. What Ms. Ebben says though is that this is not necessarily a negative thing, yes, kids aren't going out and reading the traditional way, but, they are still reading. As Paula Ebbens says in her article new networking sites like the "Myface" and all those social networking sites make it easier for for individuals to connect with a small community to talk about a book. Also, reading has taken a new turn, now a days kids are reading right off their computers. As Georgia Christman says it is nice because "The chapters come out at a certain time and so everyone is reading at the same pace and knows what's going on at the same time." Personally i would never want to go online to read a book, to me nothing can beat curling up with my kitten - Corduroy Tr0nasaurous-Rex Bartlett - and reading a good paper back. But, for kicks and giggles i decided to checked out some of the online resources posted at the bottom of the article. I found they were extremly useful in finding new books to read and actually i think i will use some of these sites to help locate books in the future. But overall, i am still a strong believe of doing things the old fashion way. Sitting and reading some ink and paper
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Slowing Your Speech
Wichita State University did a very interesting study on how children comprehend what another person is saying by the rate of speech that is spoken. Specifically, the study took place at the university's Child Development Center. The study supports the reasoning that if you slow the delivery of your speech down, a child will understand you more clearly. They say that an adult speaks almost 170 words per minute. The 5-to 7-year old processes 120 words per minute. And a high-school student processes 140 to 145 words per minute. This study proves that not all children understand what is being said or asked of them. We should speak slower to younger people so that they can easily interpret what we say.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)