Moore, Kenneth D. Chapter 3: Setting Goals and Objectives. Effective Instructional Strategies. Sage: Los Angeles, 2009. Pages 60-91
This chapter outlines the importance of setting goals and objectives for your teaching and being able to appropriately discern the two terms. An educational goal can be somewhat vague and abstract. (Example given: The student will develop computer literacy.) The goal serves as the overarching idea behind informational and instructional objectives. Both types of objectives are concrete and actionable (examples given: The student will be able to use a word-processing software program./Given a set of specific requirements, the student will be able to use a word-processing program to write a one-pare paper with no errors). They each focus on the specifics of what needs to get done to meet the standards. Moore underscores the value in breaking up benchmarks and course content as a way to achieve success and to hold oneself accountable for shortcomings.
In my experience with the I Can math curriculum, the alignment of goals and objectives to benchmarks has been the highlight. The system is controversial on many fronts, but in terms of laying out a clear course map with goals and objectives, it is spot-on. Each “I can” statement lays out an informational objective and the corresponding quizzes and tests are a pragmatic version of instructional objectives.
Four elements of instructional objectives are laid out: performance, product, conditions, and criterion. (page 74-75) Each one is met clearly by the “I can” quiz for that objective. The quizzes lock in the performance and product components easily. There is some room for teacher discretion in the conditions and criterion, but the overall expectations have been communicated throughout the department to limit variation. I found in reading this chapter that the I Can system, while frustrating, does have a great deal of merit with respect to alignment of goals and objective.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Ableism
Hehir, Thomas. Improving Instruction for Students with Learning Needs: Confronting Ableism Educational Leadership. Feb 2007. Volume 64, No. 5, pg 8-14.
In his article, "Improving Instruction for Students with Learning Needs: Confronting Ableism," Thomas Hehir discusses the results of negative stereotypes and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities on their ability to succeed in the academic setting. He laments the push to force students with disabilities to adhere to the identical standards of able peers while emphasizing that effective accommodations can be made when done correctly. Drawing attention to the disparity in the severity of disabilities, he outlines various groups of learners and the effect that ableism has had on them.
Reading this article, I found that the confusion amongst his conclusions to be a very accurate reflection of reality. Students run the gamut of mild to severely disabled and correspondingly varied approaches must be taken. In particular, Hehir dances around both sides of the issue when it comes to whether or not the typical societal goal of wanting students with disabilities to be like “normal” kids is progressive or heinous. He applauds the NCLB regulation that students should be in the least intensive environment possible, but also sneered at the idea that disabled students should be encouraged to hang out with non-disabled students. Both ideas have good reasoning behind them, but do not give a clear dictate to educators for how to reconcile the current situation with the ideal situation.
The term ableism opens the floor to a many areas of debate but it seems to me that individuality is really the crux of the argument. The driving force behind ableism is that students, with or without disabilities AND with or without extraordinary abilities, deserve to be treated as the unique individuals that they are. Students who can move past their disabilities should be afforded the tools to make that transition. Students who cannot leave their ability limitations in the dust must be accommodated and supported until they have reached their true full potential.
In his article, "Improving Instruction for Students with Learning Needs: Confronting Ableism," Thomas Hehir discusses the results of negative stereotypes and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities on their ability to succeed in the academic setting. He laments the push to force students with disabilities to adhere to the identical standards of able peers while emphasizing that effective accommodations can be made when done correctly. Drawing attention to the disparity in the severity of disabilities, he outlines various groups of learners and the effect that ableism has had on them.
Reading this article, I found that the confusion amongst his conclusions to be a very accurate reflection of reality. Students run the gamut of mild to severely disabled and correspondingly varied approaches must be taken. In particular, Hehir dances around both sides of the issue when it comes to whether or not the typical societal goal of wanting students with disabilities to be like “normal” kids is progressive or heinous. He applauds the NCLB regulation that students should be in the least intensive environment possible, but also sneered at the idea that disabled students should be encouraged to hang out with non-disabled students. Both ideas have good reasoning behind them, but do not give a clear dictate to educators for how to reconcile the current situation with the ideal situation.
The term ableism opens the floor to a many areas of debate but it seems to me that individuality is really the crux of the argument. The driving force behind ableism is that students, with or without disabilities AND with or without extraordinary abilities, deserve to be treated as the unique individuals that they are. Students who can move past their disabilities should be afforded the tools to make that transition. Students who cannot leave their ability limitations in the dust must be accommodated and supported until they have reached their true full potential.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
ELL and Early Intervention
Gyovai, Lisa Klett, Lefki Kourea, Amanda Yurick, and Lenwood Gibson. “Early reading intervention: responding to the learning needs of young at-risk English language learners.” Learning Disability Quarterly; Summer2009, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p143-162, 20p.
This study researched the benefits of the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) designed by Simmons and Kame’enui on the literacy skills of 12 kindergarten/first-grade English language learners (ELLs) in an urban setting. Students were evaluated on their phoneme segmentation fluency (PSF) and nonsense word fluency (NWF). The study showed that this intervention at such a young age was effective in improving students’ ability to segment phonemes and to pronounce letter sounds correctly. It also showed that the time spent on the program correlated to the gains made.
The article detailed many motivators for the investing in such a program. One pair of statistics was particularly staggering: nearly 75% of ELL students are below grade level of reading and 56% of ELLs being served in Special Ed were referred because of reading. Additionally, about 50% of ELL students were below grade level in math.
While the scope of the study was fairly limited, the success rate was impressive and raised a powerful issue: is there something that can be done to keep students out of special education with programs like this one? While special educations are and should be an important part of the public education system, it does not behoove students to spend years in special education when the root of the problem is a lack of English proficiency. I have a number of ELL students and while there are a couple that may also legitimately need special education services, the lack of language proficiency puts a heavy fog over their problems that makes it difficult to ascertain exactly where they lie.
This study researched the benefits of the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) designed by Simmons and Kame’enui on the literacy skills of 12 kindergarten/first-grade English language learners (ELLs) in an urban setting. Students were evaluated on their phoneme segmentation fluency (PSF) and nonsense word fluency (NWF). The study showed that this intervention at such a young age was effective in improving students’ ability to segment phonemes and to pronounce letter sounds correctly. It also showed that the time spent on the program correlated to the gains made.
The article detailed many motivators for the investing in such a program. One pair of statistics was particularly staggering: nearly 75% of ELL students are below grade level of reading and 56% of ELLs being served in Special Ed were referred because of reading. Additionally, about 50% of ELL students were below grade level in math.
While the scope of the study was fairly limited, the success rate was impressive and raised a powerful issue: is there something that can be done to keep students out of special education with programs like this one? While special educations are and should be an important part of the public education system, it does not behoove students to spend years in special education when the root of the problem is a lack of English proficiency. I have a number of ELL students and while there are a couple that may also legitimately need special education services, the lack of language proficiency puts a heavy fog over their problems that makes it difficult to ascertain exactly where they lie.
Cultural Capital Flow Analysis
Collier, Peter and David Morgan. “’Is That Paper Really Due Today?’: Differences in First-Generation and Traditional College Students’ Understandings of Faculty Expectations”. Higher Education; Apr. 2008, Vol. 55 Issue 4, p425-446, 22p, 1 diagram.
The concept of cultural capital is an critical idea can be examined in a variety of academic contexts. This particular study explored the effects of cultural capital by investigating the success of first-generation and traditional college students. The comparisons drawn between the two groups were used to illustrate the academic value that individuals’ backgrounds contributed throughout college. While it has been well documented that first-generation students have significantly lower retention rate, this study looked at to a particular cause: the ability to “play the role of college students”.
Based on panel research of professors and students, it became clear that there was a link between the ability to meet professors’ expectations and the familial background of students. Researchers concluded that because of the cultural capital that traditional college students brought with them, they were often more capable of navigating the world of tertiary education. They more easily picked up on the “implicit expectations and other tacit understandings” communicated by professors. Thus, traditional students were more successful because they were able to demonstrate their abilities better than their first-generation peers with similar academic ability. The reality of assessed ability, as opposed to actual ability, was a major cause of the perceived disparity in the two groups.
Using the information from this study, even taking into account its limitations are a purely qualitative study; I can see a major connection to my students and my school. The school spends a great deal of time working to send more of our graduates to college despite the reality that many of our students are not successful at the collegiate level. While this article focuses on the role that parents traditionally play in developing cultural capital, I see potential to contribute personally to my students’ cultural capital. If the essential conclusion is that a steady supply of cultural capital will facilitate success, why should their only resource be their families? Holding my students to high standards and adding enrichment opportunities that open their eyes to the beaux-arts and politics could easily increase the amount of cultural capital with which they graduate. Rather than simply aiming to get our students into college, we need to focus on getting them there with the tools to be successful.
The concept of cultural capital is an critical idea can be examined in a variety of academic contexts. This particular study explored the effects of cultural capital by investigating the success of first-generation and traditional college students. The comparisons drawn between the two groups were used to illustrate the academic value that individuals’ backgrounds contributed throughout college. While it has been well documented that first-generation students have significantly lower retention rate, this study looked at to a particular cause: the ability to “play the role of college students”.
Based on panel research of professors and students, it became clear that there was a link between the ability to meet professors’ expectations and the familial background of students. Researchers concluded that because of the cultural capital that traditional college students brought with them, they were often more capable of navigating the world of tertiary education. They more easily picked up on the “implicit expectations and other tacit understandings” communicated by professors. Thus, traditional students were more successful because they were able to demonstrate their abilities better than their first-generation peers with similar academic ability. The reality of assessed ability, as opposed to actual ability, was a major cause of the perceived disparity in the two groups.
Using the information from this study, even taking into account its limitations are a purely qualitative study; I can see a major connection to my students and my school. The school spends a great deal of time working to send more of our graduates to college despite the reality that many of our students are not successful at the collegiate level. While this article focuses on the role that parents traditionally play in developing cultural capital, I see potential to contribute personally to my students’ cultural capital. If the essential conclusion is that a steady supply of cultural capital will facilitate success, why should their only resource be their families? Holding my students to high standards and adding enrichment opportunities that open their eyes to the beaux-arts and politics could easily increase the amount of cultural capital with which they graduate. Rather than simply aiming to get our students into college, we need to focus on getting them there with the tools to be successful.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
