Ruby Payne’s book titled A Framework for Understanding Poverty was written to help society understand and react appropriately to the various characteristics and behaviors displayed by people in poverty. Because I teach in a Title I school in an Abbott district, my building principal purchased a copy of this book for every faculty and staff member in the school. We meet periodically during lunch and hold a professional book club to discuss various aspects of the book.
In order to fully understand the praises and criticisms of the book, I think it is important for you to have a basic understanding of what the book is about. To do this, I am going to briefly summarize each of the chapters of the book.
The introduction provides the reader with Payne’s rationale for writing the book, key points about poverty for the reader to remember, and various statistics about poverty that she felt was pertinent. One of the statistics I found astonishing was the fact that in 2006, 26.9% of all children in poverty were Hispanic and 33.4% were African American. In the district that I work for most of the population of my school falls into these two ethnic categories, so that really hit home for me.
In chapter one, Payne defines poverty as “the extent to which an individual does without resources.” These resources are defined as: financial, emotional, mental, spiritual, physical, support systems, relationships/role models, and knowledge of hidden rules. The rest of the chapter presents the reader with various scenarios and asks him/her to say whether each of the resources is present or lacking. A discussion of each scenario follows discussing why each resource is either present or lacking.
Chapter two exposes the reader to each of the registers of language: frozen, formal, consultative, casual, and intimate. Payne explains that most children in poverty speak in the casual register. Teachers present information and skills in the formal register, so it makes it difficult for these children to understand what is being said. At the end of the chapter, the reader is given several ideas and activities that can be implemented to help compensate for the gap between casual and formal registers of language.
In the beginning of chapter three, the reader is asked to participate in a brief survey to see if he/she can survive in poverty. I learned very quickly that I do not know the first thing about being in poverty. The chapter also informs the reader of the hidden rules that exist among each of the social classes. Payne states that in order for a child trapped in poverty to succeed, we need to teach them the hidden rules of the middle and upper classes.
Chapter four defines generational poverty and discusses various traits and characteristics associated with this type of poverty. Payne begins the chapter by briefly explaining the difference between generational poverty and situational poverty. It presents the reader with a case study and analyzes the various aspects of generational poverty that is present in the study. Payne also provides the reader with a list of various behaviors and characteristics that an educator would observe in a child of generational poverty.
Chapter five discusses the importance for a child to have good role models and stable emotional systems for support. It presents a case study that illustrates what happens to a child that is brought up in an environment that lacks strong role models and is very unstable emotionally. It provides a list of things that an educator can do to help promote these two important factors in a child’s life.
In chapter six, Payne describes the seven categories that support systems fall into: coping strategies, options during problem-solving, information and know-how, temporary relief from emotional, mental, financial, and/or time constraints, connections to other people and resources, positive self-talk, and procedural self-talk. The reader is presented with a scenario about a high school girl and is given a list of nine support systems that the school could provide to help the child.
I found chapter seven to be one of the most beneficial chapters of the book. It explains how people in poverty discipline their children and how it is different than what others are used to experiencing. It contains a chart that depicts various behaviors displayed by a child in poverty, the reasoning behind this behavior, and an example of an intervention that an educator can use to help alleviate that behavior. The chapter goes on to explain the different types of voices, or tones, an educator can use with a child and the various reactions that he/she may encounter.
Chapter eight discusses how the education system needs to change the way that skills and information are taught to children in poverty. The reader is exposed to Feuerstein’s instruments that help teach students various cognitive strategies that help promote success in school. It also provides the reader with various activities and questioning strategies that an educator can implement into his/her classroom that will help build the conceptual framework and cognitive strategies in a student.
The last chapter enforces the importance of developing relationships with students. Payne states that the stronger the teacher’s relationship is with his/her students the higher their achievement will be, especially children in poverty. She discusses the various deposits and withdraws that children experience in their lives. She stresses the importance of an educator trying to make as many deposits as he/she can to help develop a strong relationship and bond with the child.
By reading various reviews from educators that have either attended one of Payne’s workshops or read her book, I have found that many of them find her book to be very beneficial and insightful. They say that the book contains many clarifications about poverty that has helped them to improve their instructional strategies and also develop strong, positive relationships with all students in their classroom, no matter what social class they belonged to. This book has also opened their eyes to various aspects of living in poverty and has helped them to better relate to the diverse population of students in their classrooms.
Although there are many praises and support for Payne’s book, there is also some criticism. Among the critics are Paul Gorski and Anita Bohn. Gorski states that Payne’s views on poverty are based on racist and classist stereotypes. He also says that Payne does not truly understand the relationship between the causes and effects of poverty. For example, Payne states that parental employment status and parental educational levels are causes of poverty, but they are actually a result of the impact that poverty has on a society.
Bohn starts out by saying that Payne is self-published through her company, aha! Process Inc., so her research does not have to be verified, validated, or reliable in order to be published. She says that the case studies/scenarios in the book are based on families and children that Payne supposedly encountered, but none of them are substantiated or verified. Bohn also states that Payne makes people believe that poverty can be reduced by helping the people involved learn the rules of the middle class rather than making the reader realize that in order to truly reduce poverty, changes need to be made in people’s everyday lives and in the structure of our society.
Personally, I found this book to be very interesting and enlightening. There were many times throughout the book that I stopped reading and said to myself, “Oh, so that is why Johnny said that!”, or “That is why Mary reacted the way she did today.” It truly opened my eyes to the world of poverty. I used to think that some of the ways that some of the families I deal with behaved were merely their way of playing the system, but after reading this book I now realize that this is the only way that they know how to act. I have found some of the ideas and activities that Payne presents to be very helpful with my instruction. Although I cannot fully implement some of them because I deal with very young children, I have been able to adapt some of them to fit the needs of my students and their families.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Current State of Gifted and Talented
Spring 2010
The federal government’s definition of a gifted and talented student is: students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=548) Interestingly enough, individual states have their own definition for a gifted and talented child, and also are not required to use this definition.
Students who are gifted already know the information and answers presented in the classroom. Many feel as though the class work is not challenging enough. Many also feel as though they just don’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the group. Therefore, we as educators need to help these children understand they are not alone and that they are supported. We want to see them grow and succeed. This is why we need gifted and talented programs which are tailored to meet their needs and interests.
Gifted and talented programs also allow children to express themselves more freely. Many of these children are inhibited in front of their classmates for fear of being called “nerdy” or “weird”. Most gifted kids tend to relate better with adults than their own peers. When group work is assigned, many classmates pick those “smart kids” to be in the group because they know they will do the work well and correctly. Therefore, these children are basically labeled among the class. When we talk about labeling, it usually is referred to when talking about special education. However, not many consider that gifted and talented is a label as well.
Whether the gifted and talented program is a pull-out, push-in, add-on to the classroom teacher, these childrens’ needs are important and should be addressed to help them “fit in” and be challenged. We put forth so much effort into those children who are classified because we want them to succeed. However, it is a double edged sword as well because districts are graded based upon the rate of proficiency on state tests. Hence, the effort placed upon those children who are not working on grade level. The district is not evaluated on how well the gifted kids perform on standardized tests, and that is where the ball drops when considering the value in education for these students.
When looking at the opposition of gifted and talented, there are many factors in play. First, depends upon how the district handles the gifted and talented program. In some districts, money is a contributing factor in which the classroom teacher has to provide enrichment for the gifted kids. Too many times, that includes just an extension of what is being taught in class, rather than different higher level work. Therefore, those kids are not going to get their work done as fast because it is boring just to get more work added onto the work load. Kids look at that as more of a punishment rather than a reward. If the district does have a pull-out program, many teachers argue that they are missing valuable class time. There are some teachers who are just not as willing to work with the gifted and talented teacher in adhering to the program. In addition, schools just may not have the capability to adequately identify all of the various kinds of gifted students that there are, but most districts strive to provide something that can benefit the most students possible.
Parents can also be another problem with gifted and talented. Many parents self-diagnose their kid as gifted and therefore push for it in school. Although parents know their child the best, they are sometimes biased as to the child’s abilities. Tests are administered to determine whether the child should receive gifted and talented services. Once those tests are scored, and the child does not classify for services, the G&T teacher needs to inform the parent. In such a situation, the parent is not happy and usually takes it one step further in contacting the principal or even in some cases the Superintendent.
Gifted and Talented Students, as well as Special Education students truly do not differ much at all. They may be on opposite ends of the spectrum; however, they have some commonalities. Unfortunately, they both feel as though they don’t fit in with the rest of the class. Both tend to be labeled not only among other students, but also from parents and some teachers. Why do we spend so much more time focusing and developing programs on the special education students? Is it mostly because of NCLB? We need to put more effort, money, and time into developing programs for our gifted children. They not have the same rights as those children with special education needs. Are these not the future children who will be engineers and doctors that our country is in need?
The federal government’s definition of a gifted and talented student is: students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=548) Interestingly enough, individual states have their own definition for a gifted and talented child, and also are not required to use this definition.
Students who are gifted already know the information and answers presented in the classroom. Many feel as though the class work is not challenging enough. Many also feel as though they just don’t necessarily fit in with the rest of the group. Therefore, we as educators need to help these children understand they are not alone and that they are supported. We want to see them grow and succeed. This is why we need gifted and talented programs which are tailored to meet their needs and interests.
Gifted and talented programs also allow children to express themselves more freely. Many of these children are inhibited in front of their classmates for fear of being called “nerdy” or “weird”. Most gifted kids tend to relate better with adults than their own peers. When group work is assigned, many classmates pick those “smart kids” to be in the group because they know they will do the work well and correctly. Therefore, these children are basically labeled among the class. When we talk about labeling, it usually is referred to when talking about special education. However, not many consider that gifted and talented is a label as well.
Whether the gifted and talented program is a pull-out, push-in, add-on to the classroom teacher, these childrens’ needs are important and should be addressed to help them “fit in” and be challenged. We put forth so much effort into those children who are classified because we want them to succeed. However, it is a double edged sword as well because districts are graded based upon the rate of proficiency on state tests. Hence, the effort placed upon those children who are not working on grade level. The district is not evaluated on how well the gifted kids perform on standardized tests, and that is where the ball drops when considering the value in education for these students.
When looking at the opposition of gifted and talented, there are many factors in play. First, depends upon how the district handles the gifted and talented program. In some districts, money is a contributing factor in which the classroom teacher has to provide enrichment for the gifted kids. Too many times, that includes just an extension of what is being taught in class, rather than different higher level work. Therefore, those kids are not going to get their work done as fast because it is boring just to get more work added onto the work load. Kids look at that as more of a punishment rather than a reward. If the district does have a pull-out program, many teachers argue that they are missing valuable class time. There are some teachers who are just not as willing to work with the gifted and talented teacher in adhering to the program. In addition, schools just may not have the capability to adequately identify all of the various kinds of gifted students that there are, but most districts strive to provide something that can benefit the most students possible.
Parents can also be another problem with gifted and talented. Many parents self-diagnose their kid as gifted and therefore push for it in school. Although parents know their child the best, they are sometimes biased as to the child’s abilities. Tests are administered to determine whether the child should receive gifted and talented services. Once those tests are scored, and the child does not classify for services, the G&T teacher needs to inform the parent. In such a situation, the parent is not happy and usually takes it one step further in contacting the principal or even in some cases the Superintendent.
Gifted and Talented Students, as well as Special Education students truly do not differ much at all. They may be on opposite ends of the spectrum; however, they have some commonalities. Unfortunately, they both feel as though they don’t fit in with the rest of the class. Both tend to be labeled not only among other students, but also from parents and some teachers. Why do we spend so much more time focusing and developing programs on the special education students? Is it mostly because of NCLB? We need to put more effort, money, and time into developing programs for our gifted children. They not have the same rights as those children with special education needs. Are these not the future children who will be engineers and doctors that our country is in need?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Fixing and Preventing the Dropout Rate
When a student ends their educational pursuits before the attainment of a high school diploma, it can signal the final nail in the coffin of an educational potential never attained. In the United States, that issue has slowly crept back into the focus of educational reform, since countless doors remained closed to an individual hoping to participate and thrive in the 21st century. The impact of students dropping out of high school can have immediate and far-reaching consequences to both the student and society as a whole.
The data for students who drop out before reaching their high school diploma is staggering. First, the data recording the percentage of students who reach high school completion has been calculated by numerous researchers, but the figures all align to roughly seven out of ten students (Stillwell & Hoffman, 2008, Swanson, 2008, Mortenson, 2000).
While that number might be alarming, the estimates based upon urban setting and race display further concern. Elaine Allensworth (2005) completed a study within Chicago schools, noting the following trends for graduation rate by age nineteen:
• Black male students-39%
• Latino male students-51%
• White male students-58%
• Black female students-57%
• Latino female students-65%
• White female students-71%
Concerning age, a trend known as the “9th grade bulge” also shares alarming information. An increasing number of 9th graders are failing to be promoted to the 10th grade. Walt Haney and colleagues (2004) found that in 1998-99, there were 3.86 million ninth grade students, but in the following year, there were 3.42 million tenth grade students enrolled. That difference of 440,000 less students (11.4%) shows a marked “leak in the pipeline”. In essence, there is an association between failing a grade and dropping out, as many of these students did. This study demonstrates simply the impact at one significant age; this doesn’t take into account students dropping out before or after the high school transition year of ninth grade.
So how do these grim statistics impact our country and communities? To begin, high school dropouts earn $250,000 less on average over a lifetime compared to peers who graduate. This sets non-graduates in an early predicament with little chance of catching up. In addition, there are serious implications for how earning power has changed for non-graduates in the past thirty years. For 25 to 34-year-old dropouts who manage to work full-time, the average annual salary of males dropped from $35,087 in 1971 to $22,903 in 2002, a decline of 35% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006). Truly, this is a sign of our changing economy. Finally, those who drop out face the challenge of higher unemployment and incarceration rates (Sum, Khatiwada, McLaughlin and Palma, 2009).
The statistics mentioned help to get a grasp of high school attrition rates, but they can also be misleading. Information such as race, socioeconomic status, and grade level start to paint the picture of high school dropouts, but they do very little to support interventions aimed at keeping students in schools. This leads to finding data that transcends simple demographics, and into strategies aimed at supporting these learners whose future hangs in the balance, ready to go either way.
In the recent study by Eric Sparks, Janet L. Johnson, and Patrick Akos, titled “Dropouts: Finding the Needles in the Haystack”, these researchers were able to identify three major educational risk factors that had a strong correlation towards students that might drop out of school. The first risk factor was identifying students that were retained in any grade, from kindergarten to ninth grade. In this research, 60.9% of ninth graders who had been retained at some point in their schooling became dropouts, compared to only 8.2% of students who hadn’t been retained at any level. This makes finding the “needles” much more manageable because the haystacks have greater focus.
A second risk factor became identifying ninth grade students who scored below grade level on the end-of-grade math test in 8th grade or failing Algebra I. Finally, a third risk factor of students that received a long-term suspension became another evidence point in which to make determinations for students likely to dropout. With these three factors identified schools can focus on interventions aimed at retaining these particular students, to the benefit of individual students, and the school as a whole.
I believe the first step towards supporting these learners comes from narrowing the focus on the attributes above, so that targeted interventions can be applied to this particular part of a school’s population. For example, transition/enrichment programs, aimed at helping ninth graders acclimate to high school can help students during this critical phase of a student’s life. The authors of “Needles” look toward the enrichment programs that support research indicating that having 10 positive contacts with resistant students often changes their attitudes and wins their trust. This is certainly an approachable angle to pursue when welcoming ninth graders into a time and place that can seem daunting for all, let alone students who have a track record of underachievement in their earlier education.
While enrichment programs start the process in a smaller manner, I also believe that big problems sometimes require big solutions. To that degree, I was impressed with the perspective of transforming high school education via alternative schools aimed at curriculum and structures that support drop out students to “drop back in”. Models like Desert Rose High School in Las Vegas, Nevada offer students such opportunities.
Measures such as continuous enrollment and continuous completion design need to be at the center of alternative drop-back-in schools. When a school is open for twelve months on a twelve hours-a-day schedule, there can and should be attendance policies to make sure students are learning, but there should also be flexibility to support students who face two issues that affect some dropout students: child care and part/full time employment necessary to contribute financially to their family.
Other facets to drop-back-in schools include strong support for ESL instruction, as well as citizenship preparation courses. These classes make sense in acclimating high school age learners, particularly immigrants, to American education in a manner that is supportive and not overwhelming. In addition, drop-back-in schools could learn greatly from the technical schools nearby, even forming partnerships in order to pursue careers that can be engaged right after high school, as well as arranging internships and job shadowing.
Ultimately, when addressing high school dropout rates, we are faced with a dilemma of whether, as a society, we should choose to care about these students, and thus take action. Many alternative drop-back-in schools state the same sentiment from students, that no one cares whether they are in school. As a result, counseling and support services need to be the engine that drives these schools, getting to know learners, reinforce their progress, and organize community aid to help these learners, both inside and outside the classroom. These guidance counselors can also construct course schedules and course curriculum that engage and commit learners toward a high school diploma.
As mentioned, we have a choice on whether to help these students, society’s forgotten children, now turning into adults. As the post-education statistics reinforce, we will pay for these individuals later, whether it be low economic contributions, continued near-poverty in future generations, or even worse, incarceration. Our alternative is to pay for these students now, since some of the prescriptions mentioned don’t come cheap. At the heart of this matter is the same challenge that all of public education asks of us: support, fund, and promote the students of today to create a better society tomorrow.
The data for students who drop out before reaching their high school diploma is staggering. First, the data recording the percentage of students who reach high school completion has been calculated by numerous researchers, but the figures all align to roughly seven out of ten students (Stillwell & Hoffman, 2008, Swanson, 2008, Mortenson, 2000).
While that number might be alarming, the estimates based upon urban setting and race display further concern. Elaine Allensworth (2005) completed a study within Chicago schools, noting the following trends for graduation rate by age nineteen:
• Black male students-39%
• Latino male students-51%
• White male students-58%
• Black female students-57%
• Latino female students-65%
• White female students-71%
Concerning age, a trend known as the “9th grade bulge” also shares alarming information. An increasing number of 9th graders are failing to be promoted to the 10th grade. Walt Haney and colleagues (2004) found that in 1998-99, there were 3.86 million ninth grade students, but in the following year, there were 3.42 million tenth grade students enrolled. That difference of 440,000 less students (11.4%) shows a marked “leak in the pipeline”. In essence, there is an association between failing a grade and dropping out, as many of these students did. This study demonstrates simply the impact at one significant age; this doesn’t take into account students dropping out before or after the high school transition year of ninth grade.
So how do these grim statistics impact our country and communities? To begin, high school dropouts earn $250,000 less on average over a lifetime compared to peers who graduate. This sets non-graduates in an early predicament with little chance of catching up. In addition, there are serious implications for how earning power has changed for non-graduates in the past thirty years. For 25 to 34-year-old dropouts who manage to work full-time, the average annual salary of males dropped from $35,087 in 1971 to $22,903 in 2002, a decline of 35% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006). Truly, this is a sign of our changing economy. Finally, those who drop out face the challenge of higher unemployment and incarceration rates (Sum, Khatiwada, McLaughlin and Palma, 2009).
The statistics mentioned help to get a grasp of high school attrition rates, but they can also be misleading. Information such as race, socioeconomic status, and grade level start to paint the picture of high school dropouts, but they do very little to support interventions aimed at keeping students in schools. This leads to finding data that transcends simple demographics, and into strategies aimed at supporting these learners whose future hangs in the balance, ready to go either way.
In the recent study by Eric Sparks, Janet L. Johnson, and Patrick Akos, titled “Dropouts: Finding the Needles in the Haystack”, these researchers were able to identify three major educational risk factors that had a strong correlation towards students that might drop out of school. The first risk factor was identifying students that were retained in any grade, from kindergarten to ninth grade. In this research, 60.9% of ninth graders who had been retained at some point in their schooling became dropouts, compared to only 8.2% of students who hadn’t been retained at any level. This makes finding the “needles” much more manageable because the haystacks have greater focus.
A second risk factor became identifying ninth grade students who scored below grade level on the end-of-grade math test in 8th grade or failing Algebra I. Finally, a third risk factor of students that received a long-term suspension became another evidence point in which to make determinations for students likely to dropout. With these three factors identified schools can focus on interventions aimed at retaining these particular students, to the benefit of individual students, and the school as a whole.
I believe the first step towards supporting these learners comes from narrowing the focus on the attributes above, so that targeted interventions can be applied to this particular part of a school’s population. For example, transition/enrichment programs, aimed at helping ninth graders acclimate to high school can help students during this critical phase of a student’s life. The authors of “Needles” look toward the enrichment programs that support research indicating that having 10 positive contacts with resistant students often changes their attitudes and wins their trust. This is certainly an approachable angle to pursue when welcoming ninth graders into a time and place that can seem daunting for all, let alone students who have a track record of underachievement in their earlier education.
While enrichment programs start the process in a smaller manner, I also believe that big problems sometimes require big solutions. To that degree, I was impressed with the perspective of transforming high school education via alternative schools aimed at curriculum and structures that support drop out students to “drop back in”. Models like Desert Rose High School in Las Vegas, Nevada offer students such opportunities.
Measures such as continuous enrollment and continuous completion design need to be at the center of alternative drop-back-in schools. When a school is open for twelve months on a twelve hours-a-day schedule, there can and should be attendance policies to make sure students are learning, but there should also be flexibility to support students who face two issues that affect some dropout students: child care and part/full time employment necessary to contribute financially to their family.
Other facets to drop-back-in schools include strong support for ESL instruction, as well as citizenship preparation courses. These classes make sense in acclimating high school age learners, particularly immigrants, to American education in a manner that is supportive and not overwhelming. In addition, drop-back-in schools could learn greatly from the technical schools nearby, even forming partnerships in order to pursue careers that can be engaged right after high school, as well as arranging internships and job shadowing.
Ultimately, when addressing high school dropout rates, we are faced with a dilemma of whether, as a society, we should choose to care about these students, and thus take action. Many alternative drop-back-in schools state the same sentiment from students, that no one cares whether they are in school. As a result, counseling and support services need to be the engine that drives these schools, getting to know learners, reinforce their progress, and organize community aid to help these learners, both inside and outside the classroom. These guidance counselors can also construct course schedules and course curriculum that engage and commit learners toward a high school diploma.
As mentioned, we have a choice on whether to help these students, society’s forgotten children, now turning into adults. As the post-education statistics reinforce, we will pay for these individuals later, whether it be low economic contributions, continued near-poverty in future generations, or even worse, incarceration. Our alternative is to pay for these students now, since some of the prescriptions mentioned don’t come cheap. At the heart of this matter is the same challenge that all of public education asks of us: support, fund, and promote the students of today to create a better society tomorrow.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Curriculum and Technology
Elizabeth Bairner
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
As with any trend in education, technology in the classroom has both positives and negatives. When the negatives are taken seriously and fixed, technology can be a powerful tool in any curriculum. In this ever changing society and world, it is important to maintain with or ahead of the times. Global competition will not go away, so as educators and future leaders, people must do everything they can to stay well versed in what is best for students now and in the future.
Over the past two decades, technology has become employed more and more in schools. Billions of dollars have been invested into technology in the United States. This is mostly in response for the need to train 21st century learners and workers. Over the years, a breach has existed between information and aptitude needed for students to compete in the workplace when compared to other countries. No Child Left Behind calls for every student to understand and be able to use technology by the time they graduate from the eighth grade. However, there is no assessment to make students or schools accountable for this knowledge. Schools must take it upon themselves to close the gap that exists in today’s students. They must educate them in a way that brings information and ability together so students can become competitive when they become employees (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005).
Various skills can be developed through the use of technology in curriculum. The competence that can come about from technology is diverse, according to what facets are being used. Communication skills are strengthened through word processing and email correspondence. Organizational skills are fortified with the use of database and spreadsheet programs such as Excel. Science and math concepts can be strengthened through the use of modelling software and various tools such as graphing calculators. Along with the aforementioned abilities that can be reinforced, students can also become competent in the areas listed in Bloom’s Taxonomy such as higher-order skills of critical thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry. This comes about by creating in depth assignments that require the student to work both collaboratively and in a way they would not be able to do simply with pencil and paper (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005).
As was mentioned before, when one takes on a task that is as important as curriculum, both sides must be examined. Although it is quite evident that there are many uses for technology in the classroom, there are many pitfalls as well. When technology is used properly, it can be an asset. However, technology is often abused and this then becomes a problem that does not have much precedence and new solutions must be created.
When a student is assigned a topic to research and is not monitored properly or instructed in where to find valid information, chances are they will find damaging material. At the same time, students must be taught how to properly cite material and the dangers of plagiarism. When a student pulls info off of the Internet, they could simply copy and paste the information without understanding what they are writing about. With so many different types of media such as Face book, blogs, Wikipedia, or MySpace, students could write a paper with little to no factual information involved. Anyone can create one of these forums and write about whatever they want from whatever standpoint they believe. This would simply teach them false lessons and could leave lasting impressions that would leave them ignorant in the end. Students also need reinforcement on how to write properly. Many students use tools, like instant messaging and texting, so often that they forget the basic concepts of the English language and how to write for a formal audience (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
When students are exposed to media in technology or news sources, teachers must ensure that these are reputable. Many companies have begun to censor their material in order to make money. They do not want to offend anyone, so they simply leave out facts, here or there, that would prevent them from being able to be supported fiscally. This could lead to what has been a fear with the upcoming generations. This fear is of desensitization and on the other end a forced naivety. People begin to choose what they read based on how much or how little they truly want to know about the world they live in. Either way, information can be left out or people cannot be fazed by horrific realities. They would never learn in this kind of environment. Students could possibly stay single minded and may perhaps not increase their knowledge base. Educators and leaders must instruct students to a degree that they see fit, so that students are prepared for reality. If this responsibility is taken seriously, students will be prepared for the future, if it is not, it will become detrimental to society as we know it today (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
It may seem extreme, however there is some validity to the argument that the machine could one day take over. When there is too much emphasis on technology, people can become lost. What this means is everything that has been discovered recently about the benefits of multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction could go by the way side to technology. If educators become too reliant on computers and various programs, students will lose their abilities to be creative through other means such as musically or kinaesthetically. Also, when students spend too much time with technology or become too connected, they have no privacy or time to be young. Children do not go outside and play like they used to. They do not make up games or amuse themselves with make believe. There is something to be learned from the skills that arise from these games. Students can become more creative learners if they use that part of their brain on a regular basis. Also, something can be lost if educators and leaders do not expose students to various forms of reality. Learning about growing a plant from a website will never be the same as growing the plant in a classroom in person. Looking up various animal species may give factual information, but there is still the experience of petting a real live animal and understanding what they look and feel like in real life. Students should not become robots; they should become lifelong learners (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
It can be perceived that technology has a major place in the education of students today. This process of using state of the art materials in the classroom obviously can lead to greatness. However, the people that are helping students, use these outlets, must teach them how to be used effectively and properly. They must balance real life with technology and ensure that students do not become so tuned in that they lose experiences that can frame their future. With global competition at the forefront of education, technology must be incorporated; however it should not be just an expensive play toy. It should be used properly and should facilitate future learning. Students should learn the most they can. They should not be simply taught to plug information into a database that will turn out a research paper. They should learn the steps of a research paper and then be taught what research is valid. They should be able to use their creativity to generate a paper that is educationally sound and is worthwhile for an audience. When the drawbacks and benefits of technology in curriculum are well-adjusted, learning can be abundant and worthwhile (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
As with any trend in education, technology in the classroom has both positives and negatives. When the negatives are taken seriously and fixed, technology can be a powerful tool in any curriculum. In this ever changing society and world, it is important to maintain with or ahead of the times. Global competition will not go away, so as educators and future leaders, people must do everything they can to stay well versed in what is best for students now and in the future.
Over the past two decades, technology has become employed more and more in schools. Billions of dollars have been invested into technology in the United States. This is mostly in response for the need to train 21st century learners and workers. Over the years, a breach has existed between information and aptitude needed for students to compete in the workplace when compared to other countries. No Child Left Behind calls for every student to understand and be able to use technology by the time they graduate from the eighth grade. However, there is no assessment to make students or schools accountable for this knowledge. Schools must take it upon themselves to close the gap that exists in today’s students. They must educate them in a way that brings information and ability together so students can become competitive when they become employees (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005).
Various skills can be developed through the use of technology in curriculum. The competence that can come about from technology is diverse, according to what facets are being used. Communication skills are strengthened through word processing and email correspondence. Organizational skills are fortified with the use of database and spreadsheet programs such as Excel. Science and math concepts can be strengthened through the use of modelling software and various tools such as graphing calculators. Along with the aforementioned abilities that can be reinforced, students can also become competent in the areas listed in Bloom’s Taxonomy such as higher-order skills of critical thinking, analysis, and scientific inquiry. This comes about by creating in depth assignments that require the student to work both collaboratively and in a way they would not be able to do simply with pencil and paper (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005).
As was mentioned before, when one takes on a task that is as important as curriculum, both sides must be examined. Although it is quite evident that there are many uses for technology in the classroom, there are many pitfalls as well. When technology is used properly, it can be an asset. However, technology is often abused and this then becomes a problem that does not have much precedence and new solutions must be created.
When a student is assigned a topic to research and is not monitored properly or instructed in where to find valid information, chances are they will find damaging material. At the same time, students must be taught how to properly cite material and the dangers of plagiarism. When a student pulls info off of the Internet, they could simply copy and paste the information without understanding what they are writing about. With so many different types of media such as Face book, blogs, Wikipedia, or MySpace, students could write a paper with little to no factual information involved. Anyone can create one of these forums and write about whatever they want from whatever standpoint they believe. This would simply teach them false lessons and could leave lasting impressions that would leave them ignorant in the end. Students also need reinforcement on how to write properly. Many students use tools, like instant messaging and texting, so often that they forget the basic concepts of the English language and how to write for a formal audience (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
When students are exposed to media in technology or news sources, teachers must ensure that these are reputable. Many companies have begun to censor their material in order to make money. They do not want to offend anyone, so they simply leave out facts, here or there, that would prevent them from being able to be supported fiscally. This could lead to what has been a fear with the upcoming generations. This fear is of desensitization and on the other end a forced naivety. People begin to choose what they read based on how much or how little they truly want to know about the world they live in. Either way, information can be left out or people cannot be fazed by horrific realities. They would never learn in this kind of environment. Students could possibly stay single minded and may perhaps not increase their knowledge base. Educators and leaders must instruct students to a degree that they see fit, so that students are prepared for reality. If this responsibility is taken seriously, students will be prepared for the future, if it is not, it will become detrimental to society as we know it today (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
It may seem extreme, however there is some validity to the argument that the machine could one day take over. When there is too much emphasis on technology, people can become lost. What this means is everything that has been discovered recently about the benefits of multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction could go by the way side to technology. If educators become too reliant on computers and various programs, students will lose their abilities to be creative through other means such as musically or kinaesthetically. Also, when students spend too much time with technology or become too connected, they have no privacy or time to be young. Children do not go outside and play like they used to. They do not make up games or amuse themselves with make believe. There is something to be learned from the skills that arise from these games. Students can become more creative learners if they use that part of their brain on a regular basis. Also, something can be lost if educators and leaders do not expose students to various forms of reality. Learning about growing a plant from a website will never be the same as growing the plant in a classroom in person. Looking up various animal species may give factual information, but there is still the experience of petting a real live animal and understanding what they look and feel like in real life. Students should not become robots; they should become lifelong learners (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
It can be perceived that technology has a major place in the education of students today. This process of using state of the art materials in the classroom obviously can lead to greatness. However, the people that are helping students, use these outlets, must teach them how to be used effectively and properly. They must balance real life with technology and ensure that students do not become so tuned in that they lose experiences that can frame their future. With global competition at the forefront of education, technology must be incorporated; however it should not be just an expensive play toy. It should be used properly and should facilitate future learning. Students should learn the most they can. They should not be simply taught to plug information into a database that will turn out a research paper. They should learn the steps of a research paper and then be taught what research is valid. They should be able to use their creativity to generate a paper that is educationally sound and is worthwhile for an audience. When the drawbacks and benefits of technology in curriculum are well-adjusted, learning can be abundant and worthwhile (Honey, Culp, & Spielvogel, 2005; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009).
Defining and Understanding the Benefits and Drawbacks of Gifted and Talented Education
Ellen Firth
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
March 22, 2010
Defining and Understanding the Benefits and Drawbacks of Gifted and Talented Education
Programs in most institutions, especially those in the public school arena, are painstakingly researched and considered before ever becoming part of the curriculum. Many factors must be considered when attempting to implement a new academic program. These factors include but are not limited to parent input, student need and/or interest, faculty and staff training, and administrative facilitation including curriculum and funding. Academic programs, although initiated for the betterment of students, may sometimes cause controversy and descent. The "Gifted and Talented" program, a staple of many schools in our nation, is one such program that is a source of debate for many.
In order to understand some of the issues on both sides of the gifted and talented debate, it is first necessary to make one's way through the somewhat murky definitions and criteria used to classify a gifted and talented program as such, and to further identify the students that belong in such a program. According to author Miraca Gross in a 2003 article published in the International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, the following definition, attributed to professor and researcher Francoys Gagne of Quebec, is the "most widely used definition of gifted and talented":
Gifted children [are] those who have high levels of innate ability,
in any domain of human ability, that places them within the top
10 percent of their age-peers--even if their high potential is not
yet being demonstrated as high performance. Talented children,
by contrast, are those whose abilities have already been translated
into achievements, and who are currently performing at a level
that places them within the top 10 percent of their age-peers.
Gifts are natural abilities whereas talents are systematically
developed skills.
In this classification, Gagne separates the gifted and talented into two distinct categories within which both groups can dwell in the G&T realm.
Gifted and Talented programs certainly have a lot to offer students. Whether the program is part of a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly schedule or structured as a pull--out or after school program, G&T programs present many positive experiences for students. For example, G&T students are offered materials and curriculum geared to stimulate their natural and developed skills in areas like math, science, literacy, music, photography, geography, technology and so on. G&T programs often extend learning for these students and can cover a breadth and depth that could not be attained in a regular integrated class room. Just as special needs and partially proficient students need programs to support them, gifted and talented students need programs to support their advanced abilities.
Supporting the advancement of academically and naturally gifted and talented students seems reasonable but there are some drawbacks to the gifted and talented philosophy. First of all, even though excellence in the arts and recognition of advanced social skills are weighted along with core academic skills for G&T classification, most schools use a standard IQ test to determine whether or not a child belongs in a G&T setting to begin with. This poses a problem because standard IQ tests end up under serving certain populations due to cultural and/or linguistic differences that may affect a child's score. In other words, a second language learner or a child from a cultural background other than Caucasian American, may not score high enough on the IQ test but may in fact be gifted and/or talented. An IQ test may not be the best indicator for these children when held against the US Department of Education's view in explaining the criteria for identifying G&T students. The USDE states that "outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups across all economic strata and in all areas of human endeavor" (1993). It may be fair to say that a standard academic IQ test may fail to identify a gifted linguist who spoke in his or her native tongue but was given a test in English or to identify a child pursuing a talent that is culturally different. The result of using an IQ test as a main identifier is that gifted and talented programs often lack diversity and this under serves the diverse students that don't make it into the program as well as the members of the G&T program by not affording an authentic environment for either.
There are certainly many issues to consider when deciding on the admittance criteria and the curriculum for a gifted and talented program just as there are many benefits and disadvantages to implementing such a program. As in all matters concerning the education and well being of children, programs like gifted and talented need to be thoughtfully considered and researched.
Fundamentals of Curriculum Development
Dr. Jay Dugan
March 22, 2010
Defining and Understanding the Benefits and Drawbacks of Gifted and Talented Education
Programs in most institutions, especially those in the public school arena, are painstakingly researched and considered before ever becoming part of the curriculum. Many factors must be considered when attempting to implement a new academic program. These factors include but are not limited to parent input, student need and/or interest, faculty and staff training, and administrative facilitation including curriculum and funding. Academic programs, although initiated for the betterment of students, may sometimes cause controversy and descent. The "Gifted and Talented" program, a staple of many schools in our nation, is one such program that is a source of debate for many.
In order to understand some of the issues on both sides of the gifted and talented debate, it is first necessary to make one's way through the somewhat murky definitions and criteria used to classify a gifted and talented program as such, and to further identify the students that belong in such a program. According to author Miraca Gross in a 2003 article published in the International Encyclopedia of Marriage and Family, the following definition, attributed to professor and researcher Francoys Gagne of Quebec, is the "most widely used definition of gifted and talented":
Gifted children [are] those who have high levels of innate ability,
in any domain of human ability, that places them within the top
10 percent of their age-peers--even if their high potential is not
yet being demonstrated as high performance. Talented children,
by contrast, are those whose abilities have already been translated
into achievements, and who are currently performing at a level
that places them within the top 10 percent of their age-peers.
Gifts are natural abilities whereas talents are systematically
developed skills.
In this classification, Gagne separates the gifted and talented into two distinct categories within which both groups can dwell in the G&T realm.
Gifted and Talented programs certainly have a lot to offer students. Whether the program is part of a daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly schedule or structured as a pull--out or after school program, G&T programs present many positive experiences for students. For example, G&T students are offered materials and curriculum geared to stimulate their natural and developed skills in areas like math, science, literacy, music, photography, geography, technology and so on. G&T programs often extend learning for these students and can cover a breadth and depth that could not be attained in a regular integrated class room. Just as special needs and partially proficient students need programs to support them, gifted and talented students need programs to support their advanced abilities.
Supporting the advancement of academically and naturally gifted and talented students seems reasonable but there are some drawbacks to the gifted and talented philosophy. First of all, even though excellence in the arts and recognition of advanced social skills are weighted along with core academic skills for G&T classification, most schools use a standard IQ test to determine whether or not a child belongs in a G&T setting to begin with. This poses a problem because standard IQ tests end up under serving certain populations due to cultural and/or linguistic differences that may affect a child's score. In other words, a second language learner or a child from a cultural background other than Caucasian American, may not score high enough on the IQ test but may in fact be gifted and/or talented. An IQ test may not be the best indicator for these children when held against the US Department of Education's view in explaining the criteria for identifying G&T students. The USDE states that "outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups across all economic strata and in all areas of human endeavor" (1993). It may be fair to say that a standard academic IQ test may fail to identify a gifted linguist who spoke in his or her native tongue but was given a test in English or to identify a child pursuing a talent that is culturally different. The result of using an IQ test as a main identifier is that gifted and talented programs often lack diversity and this under serves the diverse students that don't make it into the program as well as the members of the G&T program by not affording an authentic environment for either.
There are certainly many issues to consider when deciding on the admittance criteria and the curriculum for a gifted and talented program just as there are many benefits and disadvantages to implementing such a program. As in all matters concerning the education and well being of children, programs like gifted and talented need to be thoughtfully considered and researched.
The Emphasis for STEM Education
Liane Ferguson
As our nation continues to face economic struggles, coupled with increasing concerns regarding career readiness and our lack of preparedness for 21st Century Jobs, we are currently faced with a need to make some changes in education if we are to remain in the global competition for jobs.
According to the State Educational Technology Directors Association, SETDA, (2008), the demand for routine manual task skills has decreased significantly since the 1960s, while the demand for non-routine interactive task skills has increased. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics show workforce projections for 2014 as 15 of the 20 fastest growing occupations will require significant science and mathematics training. Research suggests that while the trend for jobs requiring a solid background in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is growing, students continue to choose majors in other areas. As suggested by research and past successes of STEM education, if one is expected to successfully compete for a job there will need to be a stronger emphasis placed on STEM education presently. Past successes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) clearly emphasize how the STEM-educated workforce was capable of generating the knowledge necessary for manned space flight. However, in today’s economy we seem to be preparing fewer individuals ready for the projected jobs in technology and/or the sciences of the 21st Century. According to SETDA (2008), only 8 % of all degrees awarded in the U.S. were in engineering, mathematics, or the physical sciences in 2001. SETDA (2008) reported that the U.S. ranks 20th internationally based on graduate degrees awarded in engineering, computer sciences, and mathematics. Statistics indicate that if this trend were to continue, by 2010 more than 90 % of all scientists and engineers will be living in Asia. Based on these statistics, if our students do not develop a solid foundation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics it will be difficult for the U.S. to compete in the global economy, unable to meet the demands of our future workforce, and perhaps lose our jobs to other nations.
According to SETDA (2008), the initial force behind the STEM education initiatives was to develop future scientists and engineers through the implementation of specialty or magnet schools that focus on STEM. As of 2008 there were a documented 100 schools specializing in mathematics, science, and technology, serving 37,000 students. However, research suggests that the majority of students in most districts do not have STEM school options. Richards (2009), in his article, Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway to Economic Opportunity recommends that we effectively integrate STEM education into our curriculum because it is more important today than ever was anticipated and will have a significant impact on economic opportunity.
According to Dr. Schiavelli (2009), STEM is the universal language of the global marketplace and will increasingly be that. Dr. Schiavelli (2009) suggests that those nations who invest heavily in STEM education, the development of a skilled STEM workforce, and research will be the ones who will be able to enjoy leadership positions.
The significant benefits of STEM education appear apparent and include the following: 1). Prepares all students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century economy, not just for careers as scientists 2). Prepares students to study STEM fields in college 3). Provides the foundation for the STEM workforce 4). Provides advanced study 5). Produces educated citizens and 6). Helps individuals make informed decisions in all parts of their lives.
Barriers to the Successful Implementation of STEM Education
As with any educational initiative, there will be noted barriers to the successful implementation of STEM education into school systems. Developing a curriculum to include STEM as fully integrated requires funding that may presently be unavailable. In order to provide all students with STEM education, monies/funding would be needed not only to develop the curriculum to support STEM, but also to expose students to STEM careers, provide on-going and sustainable STEM professional development, provide STEM pre-service teacher training, provide math- and science-related competitions, include mentoring and internship programs, provide hands-on science activities, and recruit and retain STEM teachers. According to SETDA (2008), states and school districts should begin the development of a plan in kindergarten to implement STEM education and develop specific targets to achieve these goals. Based on past indicators, little emphasis is placed on science as a major subject area, often being taught once or twice a week at the elementary level. If we are to encourage our students to pursue STEM careers should we not place more of an emphasis on the sciences and technology beginning at the elementary levels, starting with kindergarten?
Another area noted as a barrier to the successful implementation of STEM into a school’s curriculum is a lack of the necessary leadership to infuse STEM approaches into a current educational system. Studies of various school curriculums suggest that while curriculum appears to include science and math, all too often, engineering is missing from the curriculum. There may also be school policies around credits and curriculum that may hinder successful implementation of STEM. School systems may feel that the school’s curriculum is already too crowded with classes/studies.
Another factor that hinders the high-quality STEM education in K-12 is the lack of qualified teachers. The most successful implementation of STEM education would require professionals to instruct classes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or at least provide good role models for students to inspire them to pursue careers in STEM. Reports indicate that 60 % of educators who teach mathematics at the middle school and high school levels actually majored in mathematics in college and approximately, 33 % of students in physical sciences are being taught by educators who majored in the physical sciences or are certified to teach the subject.
Beyond educational obstacles there may be barriers that include cultural perceptions on the part of parents and students that may hinder students from becoming involved in science and mathematics. According to Mary Ann Wolf, executive director of SETDA, societal attitudes and perceptions do need to change regarding careers in engineering, science, and mathematics. She emphasizes the need to change the mind-set of people and the stigma attached (often called “geek”) to those excelling in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. We also to need to help girls (some feel they cannot be good in math/science) know that they can excel in STEM education by providing them with good role models. Some continue to emphasize Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences.
Research suggests that a strong emphasis must be placed on STEM education to inspire our students to seek careers in STEM so that we may continue to compete globally for jobs and prepare our students for the 21st Century. In January of 2010, President Obama provided $250 million to public-private efforts to increase the number and the quality of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teachers.
As our nation continues to face economic struggles, coupled with increasing concerns regarding career readiness and our lack of preparedness for 21st Century Jobs, we are currently faced with a need to make some changes in education if we are to remain in the global competition for jobs.
According to the State Educational Technology Directors Association, SETDA, (2008), the demand for routine manual task skills has decreased significantly since the 1960s, while the demand for non-routine interactive task skills has increased. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics show workforce projections for 2014 as 15 of the 20 fastest growing occupations will require significant science and mathematics training. Research suggests that while the trend for jobs requiring a solid background in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is growing, students continue to choose majors in other areas. As suggested by research and past successes of STEM education, if one is expected to successfully compete for a job there will need to be a stronger emphasis placed on STEM education presently. Past successes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) clearly emphasize how the STEM-educated workforce was capable of generating the knowledge necessary for manned space flight. However, in today’s economy we seem to be preparing fewer individuals ready for the projected jobs in technology and/or the sciences of the 21st Century. According to SETDA (2008), only 8 % of all degrees awarded in the U.S. were in engineering, mathematics, or the physical sciences in 2001. SETDA (2008) reported that the U.S. ranks 20th internationally based on graduate degrees awarded in engineering, computer sciences, and mathematics. Statistics indicate that if this trend were to continue, by 2010 more than 90 % of all scientists and engineers will be living in Asia. Based on these statistics, if our students do not develop a solid foundation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics it will be difficult for the U.S. to compete in the global economy, unable to meet the demands of our future workforce, and perhaps lose our jobs to other nations.
According to SETDA (2008), the initial force behind the STEM education initiatives was to develop future scientists and engineers through the implementation of specialty or magnet schools that focus on STEM. As of 2008 there were a documented 100 schools specializing in mathematics, science, and technology, serving 37,000 students. However, research suggests that the majority of students in most districts do not have STEM school options. Richards (2009), in his article, Advocating STEM Education As a Gateway to Economic Opportunity recommends that we effectively integrate STEM education into our curriculum because it is more important today than ever was anticipated and will have a significant impact on economic opportunity.
According to Dr. Schiavelli (2009), STEM is the universal language of the global marketplace and will increasingly be that. Dr. Schiavelli (2009) suggests that those nations who invest heavily in STEM education, the development of a skilled STEM workforce, and research will be the ones who will be able to enjoy leadership positions.
The significant benefits of STEM education appear apparent and include the following: 1). Prepares all students for the challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century economy, not just for careers as scientists 2). Prepares students to study STEM fields in college 3). Provides the foundation for the STEM workforce 4). Provides advanced study 5). Produces educated citizens and 6). Helps individuals make informed decisions in all parts of their lives.
Barriers to the Successful Implementation of STEM Education
As with any educational initiative, there will be noted barriers to the successful implementation of STEM education into school systems. Developing a curriculum to include STEM as fully integrated requires funding that may presently be unavailable. In order to provide all students with STEM education, monies/funding would be needed not only to develop the curriculum to support STEM, but also to expose students to STEM careers, provide on-going and sustainable STEM professional development, provide STEM pre-service teacher training, provide math- and science-related competitions, include mentoring and internship programs, provide hands-on science activities, and recruit and retain STEM teachers. According to SETDA (2008), states and school districts should begin the development of a plan in kindergarten to implement STEM education and develop specific targets to achieve these goals. Based on past indicators, little emphasis is placed on science as a major subject area, often being taught once or twice a week at the elementary level. If we are to encourage our students to pursue STEM careers should we not place more of an emphasis on the sciences and technology beginning at the elementary levels, starting with kindergarten?
Another area noted as a barrier to the successful implementation of STEM into a school’s curriculum is a lack of the necessary leadership to infuse STEM approaches into a current educational system. Studies of various school curriculums suggest that while curriculum appears to include science and math, all too often, engineering is missing from the curriculum. There may also be school policies around credits and curriculum that may hinder successful implementation of STEM. School systems may feel that the school’s curriculum is already too crowded with classes/studies.
Another factor that hinders the high-quality STEM education in K-12 is the lack of qualified teachers. The most successful implementation of STEM education would require professionals to instruct classes in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or at least provide good role models for students to inspire them to pursue careers in STEM. Reports indicate that 60 % of educators who teach mathematics at the middle school and high school levels actually majored in mathematics in college and approximately, 33 % of students in physical sciences are being taught by educators who majored in the physical sciences or are certified to teach the subject.
Beyond educational obstacles there may be barriers that include cultural perceptions on the part of parents and students that may hinder students from becoming involved in science and mathematics. According to Mary Ann Wolf, executive director of SETDA, societal attitudes and perceptions do need to change regarding careers in engineering, science, and mathematics. She emphasizes the need to change the mind-set of people and the stigma attached (often called “geek”) to those excelling in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. We also to need to help girls (some feel they cannot be good in math/science) know that they can excel in STEM education by providing them with good role models. Some continue to emphasize Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences.
Research suggests that a strong emphasis must be placed on STEM education to inspire our students to seek careers in STEM so that we may continue to compete globally for jobs and prepare our students for the 21st Century. In January of 2010, President Obama provided $250 million to public-private efforts to increase the number and the quality of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teachers.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Technology and Curriculum
Jennifer Arcolesse
Throughout the past thirty years there have been many changes in education. One of the largest changes is the implementation of technology. Growing up in the eighties, I saw the integration of computers in schools. Hand-held calculators, computers, and many other forms of technology have grown to be a daily part of our lives. Leaders in the field of technology have spent many years developing goals or standards of which to teach technology.
With the advancements in technology growing so quickly, we must, as educators, include plans to use technology in our curriculum. One goal of our educational system is to produce productive members of society. Since technology has taken over almost every aspect of our lives, we would be remiss if we did not use it and teach it in our schools. There are many ways it can be used , in and out of school, and teachers must decide what will be the most effective way to use it in their class and subject. The State of New Jersey recently published the 2009 Core Curriculum Content Standards, in which they have dedicated an entire standard to technology alone. The mission statement of this standard states: "Technology enables students to solve real world problems, enhance life, and extend human capacity as they meet the challenges of a dynamic global society."
Making the world and its varied knowledge accessible through technology should be a focus of curriculum. Those writing the curriculum should develop ways that teachers can easily integrate the technology into their teaching units. Teaching appropriate use of online content is also a concern. Students must be taught what an acceptable use of online materials is and is not. Teachers need to do prior research as to what is out on the web, and work with a technology instructor, or librarian, to develop a list of acceptable resources.
A few points to consider when trying to decide what to include in a curriculum, would be:
1) What kind of technology would work best for you and your students.
2) How much time can be saved or how much time will be added, by using this technology.
3) What will be the finished outcome or product that the students will have created, and learned from, when using the technology you choose.
Gone are the days when every students' work is created the same and cookie cutter projects or solutions are needed. We must research what is available and what would be most appropriate for the subject and age level we teach.
Using the Internet, for research, blogs, wikis, and podcasts, has become a daily occurrence in most schools. We must continue to strive to find innovative ways to use technology in our daily lessons in order to compete on a global level. Technology needs to be used not only in computer classes and technology classes, but in all aspects of the school curriculum. Students need to learn how to use it and why it needs to be used. It will open up the world of science and mathematics, so that students can see how they can be used to solve critical problems in our society.
Of course I would be remiss if I did not point out a few drawbacks of technology education. One of the biggest would be cost. Keeping up with current technology is an expensive task and trying to find funds in this economy is more that tough. Another drawback is in how educators use the technology available to them. If they only use it to present exciting lessons, this does not help the students to learn the uses of technology and does not reach the full potential of the technology. Educators must provide time for the students to engage in technology themselves to solve problems or create products for class. This leads to another drawback, teacher knowledge. Teachers must find time and districts must provide training in the technology. Without training the teachers will continue to misuse the technology or not use it all.
As we go forth in this global economy, we must better prepare our students for a technologically advanced future. Government leaders need to fund programs for technology and its uses in the classroom. Since children are our future leaders, we must find ways to incorporate technology into our everyday classrooms, as it is already part of our everyday lives.
Throughout the past thirty years there have been many changes in education. One of the largest changes is the implementation of technology. Growing up in the eighties, I saw the integration of computers in schools. Hand-held calculators, computers, and many other forms of technology have grown to be a daily part of our lives. Leaders in the field of technology have spent many years developing goals or standards of which to teach technology.
With the advancements in technology growing so quickly, we must, as educators, include plans to use technology in our curriculum. One goal of our educational system is to produce productive members of society. Since technology has taken over almost every aspect of our lives, we would be remiss if we did not use it and teach it in our schools. There are many ways it can be used , in and out of school, and teachers must decide what will be the most effective way to use it in their class and subject. The State of New Jersey recently published the 2009 Core Curriculum Content Standards, in which they have dedicated an entire standard to technology alone. The mission statement of this standard states: "Technology enables students to solve real world problems, enhance life, and extend human capacity as they meet the challenges of a dynamic global society."
Making the world and its varied knowledge accessible through technology should be a focus of curriculum. Those writing the curriculum should develop ways that teachers can easily integrate the technology into their teaching units. Teaching appropriate use of online content is also a concern. Students must be taught what an acceptable use of online materials is and is not. Teachers need to do prior research as to what is out on the web, and work with a technology instructor, or librarian, to develop a list of acceptable resources.
A few points to consider when trying to decide what to include in a curriculum, would be:
1) What kind of technology would work best for you and your students.
2) How much time can be saved or how much time will be added, by using this technology.
3) What will be the finished outcome or product that the students will have created, and learned from, when using the technology you choose.
Gone are the days when every students' work is created the same and cookie cutter projects or solutions are needed. We must research what is available and what would be most appropriate for the subject and age level we teach.
Using the Internet, for research, blogs, wikis, and podcasts, has become a daily occurrence in most schools. We must continue to strive to find innovative ways to use technology in our daily lessons in order to compete on a global level. Technology needs to be used not only in computer classes and technology classes, but in all aspects of the school curriculum. Students need to learn how to use it and why it needs to be used. It will open up the world of science and mathematics, so that students can see how they can be used to solve critical problems in our society.
Of course I would be remiss if I did not point out a few drawbacks of technology education. One of the biggest would be cost. Keeping up with current technology is an expensive task and trying to find funds in this economy is more that tough. Another drawback is in how educators use the technology available to them. If they only use it to present exciting lessons, this does not help the students to learn the uses of technology and does not reach the full potential of the technology. Educators must provide time for the students to engage in technology themselves to solve problems or create products for class. This leads to another drawback, teacher knowledge. Teachers must find time and districts must provide training in the technology. Without training the teachers will continue to misuse the technology or not use it all.
As we go forth in this global economy, we must better prepare our students for a technologically advanced future. Government leaders need to fund programs for technology and its uses in the classroom. Since children are our future leaders, we must find ways to incorporate technology into our everyday classrooms, as it is already part of our everyday lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)