|
|
This paper attempts to evaluate a selected curriculum against the standards of a typical framework from an educational institution. The curriculum is built in the framework and contains standards for basic traditional subjects that include Sciences, English/Literacy, History, Mathematics, and Art/Design. The evaluation of these standards is not an easy task. In his book, Thomas Armstrong notes that authentic assessment covers a wide range of instruments, measures, and methods (2000, p.88). The structure of the standards in the framework was built similar to the goals of assessing students in a multiple intelligencies environment. Armstrong cites that observing students solving problems or fashioning products in real-life contexts provides the best picture of student competencies in the range of traditional subjects. This framework provides its greatest contribution to assessment in suggesting multiple ways to evaluate students.
The curriculum in the framework introduces significant changes in teaching and learning practices as compared to the traditional way. The students are able to interact with a range of materials and activities representing real-world situations through individual and collaborative work. The primary goal in the selection is to meet individual learning needs, abilities, and learning styles. Teachers can focus on providing background materials and external sources to supplement classroom instruction; providing a broad range of events on controversial issues to help students develop critical analytical skills and problem-solving abilities. The very definition of what it means to be educated has changed. Historically our educational system has been based upon providing students with the basic skills that would prepare them to work in an industrialized manufacturing based economy. Today's students -- tomorrow's work force -- have an entirely different set of requirements than students in the past. These needs must be recognized and addressed if students are to possess the knowledge and skills that will make it possible for them to access information, work harmoniously with those around them, and utilize the higher order thinking skills that are needed in knowledge based economy (Bamburg, 2000).
Understanding the philosophy behind the selection of pure common subjects should help teachers to fully appreciate the need for integration of new pedagogical practices into traditional disciplines. Consequently, before executing the standards of the framework, teachers need to put some time into learning the materials, and adapting their classroom strategies of instruction and assessment. As technology advances and teachers become more proficient in the use of technology, there will be increased opportunities for teachers and administrators to use computer-based techniques (e.g., item banks, electronic grading, computer-adapted testing, computer-based simulations), Internet resources, and more complex, detailed ways of reporting results ( McMillan, 2000).
Parents and other community members want assurance that the standards will improve student learning and can be applied effectively. The curriculum selection process took great consideration to incorporate time to involve these stakeholders as important contributors. Materials must serve both the scope of the curriculum and the needs and interests of individual students. All key players are obligated to provide for a wide range of abilities and to respect the diversity of many differing points of view. To this end, principles must be placed above personal opinion and unbiased reasoning in the selection of materials of the highest quality and appropriateness.
When it comes to creating comprehensive, well-balanced learning experiences, teachers, curriculum specialists and administrators want learning more meaningful, engaged, and sustained. They want to see long-term learning gains if they are to invest a large amount of time and funds designing and implementing curriculum. Many of the standards presented in the framework reflect the range of student learning by putting responsibility on the teachers?methods of delivery to provide high quality learning for all students. However, abandoning students to the whim of teachers who do not like standards but are also unwilling to engage in systematic thinking, reasoning, and writing is neither effective nor fair to students. The plain fact is that competent teachers require frequent thinking, reasoning, and writing from students (Reeves, 2000).
The assessment focuses on a curriculum that is integrated in common general subjects essential throughout a child’s education. The standards offer an open and transparent process which teachers can modify to arouse the students' interest in life-long learning and related learning outcomes. Teachers have green light to align the learning conditions in the best way they fit best to meet learning targets using a variety of strategies. These standards are specific enough to convey what students should learn, but broad enough to allow for a variety of approaches to teaching and assessment.
To better understand the impact of the curriculum on learning, the framework cites the three ways to enhance education:
1) Development of new ways to map student progress and enhance understanding of assessment results by teachers.
2) Improvements in the design of group activities to strengthen teacher understanding of the meaning and practice of assessment.
3) Creation of teacher training and technical support materials, such as the expansion of data gathering techniques to include proper use of technology devices.
Assessment in education has many challenging variables today. The dominant approach to student evaluation is the use of standardized tests. Traditional schools have focused almost entirely on, particularly multiple-choice and other closed-ended questions. While testing experts and testing companies stress that important decisions should not be made on the basis of a single test score, some educators at the local level, and some politicians at the state and national levels, seem determined to violate this principle. There is a need to understand the entire range of assessment techniques and methods, with the realization that each has limitations. Assessment that is fair, leading to valid inferences with a minimum of error, is a series of measures that show student understanding through multiple methods. A complete picture of what students understand and can do is put together in pieces comprised by different approaches to assessment (McMillan, 2000).
However, there are other ways to assess students' progress and learning. Many of the assessment strategies presented in this framework focuses on creating curriculum integrated throughout a child's education. The effort is not to allow standardized testing to influence the determination of what teachers teach and what students learn in the classroom. Therefore, a solid understanding of assessment, evaluation, and curriculum redesign can lead to better student learning.
Schools, teachers, and parents need to focus on students achieving true understanding and real learning to develop skills, and abilities that will build productive citizens. What is most essential about assessment is the understanding of how general, fundamental assessment principles and ideas can be used to enhance student learning and teacher effectiveness. This will be achieved as teachers and administrators learn about conceptual and technical assessment concepts, methods, and procedures, for both large-scale and classroom assessments, and apply these fundamentals to instruction (McMillan, 2000).
No single method of instruction is superior in every discipline or environment for every student. The framework covers a variety of instructional methods and teaching strategies to include work across the academic disciplines. These share a common goal: the development of new approaches to help students and teachers learn to the best of their capacities. However, what often goes unrecognized is that among the biggest obstacles to the adoption of new pedagogy are the current beliefs that one holds about how people learn. One way to think about these "beliefs" has been described by Peter Senge. In The Fifth Discipline (1990) Senge describes these beliefs as mental models--invisible assumptions that determine how we view the world and also how we make decisions. In education such "theories-in-use" not only govern how we view our students ability to learn, they also impact the decisions that we make about the most effective way to instruct them.
Teachers can apply the investigation of interdisciplinary studies across the curriculum. They can explore how to teach for understanding—in other words, to help students learn to use knowledge to solve unexpected problems, rather than simply recite back facts. This creates thinking models in the classroom that encourage students to think critically and creatively.
Versatility in teaching helps making assessment an ongoing and integral part of the curriculum, so that it reinforces instruction and guides students in reflecting upon their work. Pupils can relate classroom instruction to the tasks and experiences they will encounter outside of school and particularly in the world of work. While teachers focus on individual learning styles, they can design learning structures and strategies to facilitate personal and organizational inquiry in the students.
That, along with a complete program of professional development goes a long way. Teachers need time to understand new concepts, learn new skills, develop new attitudes, research, discuss, reflect, assess, try new approaches and integrate them into their practice; and time to plan their own professional development. Teachers, as adult learners, need both set-aside time for learning (e.g., workshops and courses) and time to experience and digest new ideas and ways of working (Abdal-Haqq, 1996).
The learning outcomes are the product of what students are expected to know and do at an indicated grade or stage in the prescribed curriculum. These enable teachers to describe learning achievement and to be clear about the standards or levels of performance required of students throughout the stages of source and continuous. Using these stages, teachers can plan, monitor, assess and report on student performance in relation to the learning outcomes. This information can then be used for making decisions about the progress of students and planning for further improvement. Although standards alone are clearly an insufficient instrument for the improvement of student achievement, the essence of standards-the clear articulation of what students should know and be able to do-forms the basis for the essential transformations necessary for school success (Reeves, 2000).
Teachers?assessments of the students' performance in their individual disciplines gained over time and in a range of situations, serve to provide added opportunities for students to demonstrate outcomes. The outcomes can be refined at different stages by examining the students?level of achievement. Student outcomes should lead to:
- Demonstration of appreciation for educational values.
- Understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and displayed in performance over time.
- Experiences that lead to those outcomes.
- Ongoing, not sporadic.
- Improvement in weak areas.
- Improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change.
- Educators meeting responsibilities to students and to the community.
Despite not specified whether the framework standards should match approved guidelines such as the national standards, the purpose, goals, and objectives of providing opportunities for learning ought to show later in the form of positive learning outcomes. Plato wrote about the use of multiple teaching strategies: “Do not use compulsion, but let early education be a sort of amusement; you will then be better able to find out the natural bent"(1952, p. 399).
|
|
References
Armstrong, T. (2000). Multiple Intelligencies in the Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Bamburg, J.D. (2000). Learning, Learning Organizations, and Leadership: Implications for the year 2050. Center for effective schools, University of Washington. [On-Line]: Available: http://www.newhorizons.org/restr_bamburg1.html
Beyer, L.E. (Mar/Apr 2001) The value of critical perspectives in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education; Washington; Mar/Apr 2001. ERIC Document ED: #00224871.
Ivie, S.D., Roebuck, F., & Short, R. (Spring 2001). Experienced teachers insist that effective teaching is primarily a science. Chula Vista. [On-Line]: Available: https://www.cityu.edu/services/login/sec-contents/lib_redirect1.asp?jump=proquest
McMillan, James H. (2000). Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school administrators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). [On-Line]: Available: http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8
Plato (1952). The dialogues of Plato. Chicago. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Reeves, Douglas B. (Dec 2000). Standards are not enough: Essential transformations for school success. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin; Reston. [On-Line]: Available: http://researchengine.xanedu.com/
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
|
|
|
Open to the UNIVERSE in 2005 and beyond
Cuidese...que de los buenos quedamos pocos...
|
Torpedero de Batey Boricua
|
|
| |
|
