EDC Blogging

There are many things which I have been made aware of taking this class. I think a lot of it I kind of knew already but this helped to solidify it. One of the biggest things I got from this class and from the blogging experience is that curriculum is much more than just a book outlining a direction for teachers to take in their instruction. There have been many topics discussed all having to do with the way curriculum is viewed, implemented, and changed. The main aspect to all of this I think is the approach. We are teaching in an evolving world where the structures of our society are changing and so must the education system. One of the other aspects I feel is a big part of what we have discussed and talked about is the content that needs to be included with these changes. How we incorporate those changes, taking out the dated and incorporating the new essentials, will be a defining aspect of our success. There has been a lot of information shared which has been helpful in understanding how "curriculum" is being used in different scenerios. I have certainly taken a lot from this class which I am and will continue to be using in my own situation(s). These "new" technology pieces have been very good to use and learn about. They are quickly becoming mainstream and now understanding them better I feel more comfortable using them. I have enjoyed the blogging process and the feedback from everyone. It is nice to know we are not alone in our quests to improve education. It has certainly been a rewarding experience. I don't know if I will immediately "continue" blogging, but it is something I would certainly like to incorporate into my teaching practice. It is definitely a good way to connect with other educators to get information and feedback.

In progress

There are several things I have been working on around curriculum. Some of the things I have been looking at include scope and sequence, material being covered, and approach. These are all things I am trying to address in my inquiry project as well. I have been put in the position to determine what the curriculum or content should be for art at the elementary level. This is nice because I get to decide what I am going to teach. It is also overwhelming because I have the responsibility to prepare the students for future education and need to make sure I am including the right content at the right time the right way. I have been able to create many interesting lessons, which engage the students and teach them different aspects of art. I am now in the process of organizing the lessons to be sequential and build upon each other without being too repetitive. This is where the scope and sequence come into play. I am reading an interesting book for my inquiry project called “Art and Cognition” by Arthur D. Efland which talks a little bit about the developmental stages. I am hoping this, along with the PEI’s and other sequential material will help me in this process. Where I work at an elementary level the material being covered touches on much of the basics. Taking those basic art concepts and presenting them in a sequential, engaging way is something I am constantly trying to improve. Throughout this course we have been learning the importance of technology to our 21st century learners. I think really reinforces the necessity for a strong art program to help students interpret, understand, and express through visual imagery, which bombards their everyday life.
Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way. One of the things I would like to change which is not in my power is scheduling. While this may not seem like part of the curriculum I think it affects it greatly. Without the right setting of adequate space and time we are extremely limited to what type of learning environment we can create. This learning environment is something that needs to be adapted to our 21st century learners. I believe I have the right content here but without adequate time and space we are limited in the process application, which we need to focus on. Giving students a chance to problem solve and think critically is such an important part of this subject that we need to give it the appropriate time and focus it needs. Something I find fascinating is that even though art is acknowledged as a core subject by the NCLB Act along with the many studies about the importance of the arts, they are still usually only taught once a week compared to the other “core” subjects which are taught everyday. Although art for art’s sake may not be taught everyday, it would be nice to have more collaboration between subjects to incorporate art into them and vise versa. It is such a big part of how students perceive the world today attention should be given to it’s aspects as it’s involved with any of the other subjects. Until art is on the standardized test though it will constantly be trying to advocate for its place in schools.

Tests as the primary indicator of learning

To indicate whether someone has learned something there has to be some kind of test. The type of test is determined by what we want to see for learning. For example, if we wanted to see if a person had memorized an event=outcome then we would give them the events and have them display the outcome. Similarly, if we wanted to see if a person could figure out a problem, which uses information that was taught, we would give them a problem and see if they could figure it out. The results of the test indicate whether the learner recalled the information need to figure out an answer. To solve a problem they have already been shown requires memorization. To solve a problem they have not seen requires creative problem solving. This I believe is where using “tests” as primary indicators of learning have been failing. If we are creating learners prepared for the 21st century then we need to be using tests that require more than memorization. If that is the only type of learning produced, it will be quickly replaced by technology in the work field. An interesting aspect about testing and technology is that when taking a test we are not allowed to use technology to help us, but in the real world we are almost never without those tools to help us. Therefore, understanding how to use the tools may be more important than understanding a specific content area.
When talking about tests there is a lot of negative input on the use of standardized tests in schools. Even more controversial is the whole notion of teaching to the “test”. “Pressure to teach to the test distorts and narrows education” –Fairtest. While these tests are indicators of memorization and rational thought processing, they do not accurately define intelligence as also problem solving. “The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination”- Albert Einstein. Therefore, even though these tests may be good indicators of future success as used by college admissions, they have their shortfalls which need to be addressed. Changing the test to include creative problem solving though would completely change the dynamic. “In order for standardized tests to fulfill their role, they have to do three things: 1) They must measure the same skill-set every time, which means using questions that are designed according to certain standards, patterns, and rules. 2) They must include questions with correct answers that are beyond dispute, and they must be able to apply exactly the same grading standards to a potentially infinite number of test-takers. 3) They must make use of “norm-referenced” scoring algorithms (we don’t care too much about this one from a strategy standpoint, so don’t worry about it).” “…they’re literally the only objective indicator that’s common to all applicants;”-Testing Is Easy
Therefore, throwing in subjective testing would defeat the purpose of these types of tests. There has been the development of alternative tests, which measure some of the more subjective areas, but it is not objective enough to be used by most college admissions. This new type of test in addition to the standardized tests in place should more accurately measure ability and may close the gaps which the standardized tests have in gender, race, and social economic status, which have long since been discriminated by these inaccurate measurement of intelligence.
How does this effect how we teach? First of all, “teaching to the test”, indicates memorizing the answers, which will be asked. This is precisely the type of information required to do well on a standardized test. Another interesting point is that “…we never say a teacher is "teaching to the test" if she's using a test she wrote it herself.”-Jay Matthews. This is the area I think there is the most controversy. The “test” we are “teaching to” is really a set of standards provided by the state. The problem is not with the standards but with the way the test is set up. It is meant for those students who have high memorization capabilities. This is the 21st century though and the value of factual memorization has decreased with the incorporation of technology. So to clear the air about “teaching to the test”, it is not the information but rather the process, which is creating a negative result for many test takers and teachers.
With the “No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB), there has been a focus on the standardized tests as they ultimately determine whether students are achieving the standards. While the standards are good in preparing students for the future, again, the processes of these tests is not an adequate measurement of those standards. Unfortunately, this not only affects the students who struggle with this test type but also the teachers who are responsible for teaching the information. The students may have learned how to figure something out but if they do not recall a specific answer then they would get punished for it. This ultimately reflects on the teacher and they are held accountable for their students doing poorly. Teachers should be accountable for what they teach, but this is a double standard because they are supposed to teach the standards and are also expected to be spending their time memorizing facts that would be on a standardized test, which does not accurately test for the standards. Therefore, I think the alignment of the tests and the standards need to be reevaluated to make sure they correlate. If we are going to have standards, which require “creative problem solving”, then we should have creative problem solving a section of the test. This doesn’t mean memorize aspects of creative problem solving, it means being able to creatively problem solve. Tests are meant to measure what one has learned, not memorized. Standardized tests are not meant to have these subjective answers.
To prepare our students for the future, we need them to be something other than factual encyclopedias; they need to be creative problem solvers. Therefore, the standardized tests are not appropriate for this 21st century learning. If we are to teach the standards expected, than the tests students are taking need to be properly aligned with those standards. Testing is essential to show learning, progress, and areas to work on for students and teachers alike. That is what testing should be.

Jacobs, Hiedi Hayes. (2010). Curriculum 21Essential Education for a Changing World. Alexandria, VA. ASCD

Deubel, Patricia. (April 10th, 2008) Accountability, Yes. Teaching to the Test, No. t|h|e| Journal. Retrieved April 4th 2011 from http://thejournal.com/articles/2008/04/10/accountability-yes-teaching-to-the-test-no.aspx

FairTest. (August 20th, 2007). How Standardized Testing Damages Education. Retrieved April 4th, 2011 from http://fairtest.org/facts/howharm.htm

Matthews, Jay. (February 20th 2006) Let’s Teach to the Test. The Washington Post. Retrieved April 4th, 2011 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021900976.html

White, Deborah. Pros & Cons of the No Child Left Behind Act. About.com. Retrieved April 4th 2011 from http://usliberals.about.com/od/education/i/NCLBProsCons_2.htm
http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/400-teaching-to-the-test.gs

http://www.testingiseasy.com/standardized-test-purpose/

Control

Other than inexperience, it seems the overriding aspect preventing us from the incorporation of more technology into our teaching practices is control. It is a big world out there and now there is access to it by the touch of a button through the use of the internet. This is a wonderful but also dangerous situation. While being able to access information like never before, not all of that information is good or appropriate for our students. There are many tools, which have been developed allowing for more peace of mind. There are ways to block access to most inappropriate sites (the ones we can find), history can be looked at to see where you’ve been on the internet, and you can even use split screens to view what people are looking at. While all of these help, there are still ways for students to get around these. Therefore, we need to redefine what control is in relationship to these new tools.
I think the MLTI program here in Maine has proven to work well. One of the advantages of providing students with computers is that we can set them up to block inappropriate use for the most part. It also allows us to confiscate them in the event they are being used inappropriately. The only problem with that though is it is usually after the damage has been done. I guess that is all we can really do in that case, at least prevent it from happening again. There is also a lot more education based on the use of these tools as well. Cyber-bullying has received a lot of attention because of the drastic results, which have come from it. With students and parents being aware of this there is a better sense of responsibility with these tools.
There is certainly no way to completely control the information students receive. However, we can protect them from what we do know and work to protect them from what will come. These tools are essential for the 21st century workforce, so there is no question we need to include them in our education systems.