Thursday, September 28, 2006
Addition to Previous Post on Testing
While skimming around NY Times online, I came across an article about testing procedures used to determine if a child is "gifted". Ironically, these tests are offered in Spanish, Urdu, Haitian Creole, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, Bengali and Korean! So, we will judge if a student is gifted in their native tongue, but not if it is a federally mandated exam that will determine their progression in school and affect the score the school receives under NCLB?!?
Federal ESL ELA Exam Changes
I don't know if any of you saw this brief article on News 10 Now last night...but I was deeply troubled (again) by what the federal government is doing regarding standardized testing.
Quick recap of the article - Now instead of having 2-3 years of ELA instruction before taking ELA exams in English without extra time or assistance, ESL students are being required by the federal government to take these tests after just one year of instruction and immersion! To check out the article yourself, go to News10Now.com
I cannot believe that anyone would think that this is a good idea. English is a very large and difficult language to study. I think that all of us can agree that in Masselink's class we were learning things that we had never encountered before (or taken seriously). And we felt this way after growing up in the English language and being surrounded by it for 25+ years. How could a child from another country, who has never spoken English before, possibly succeed on a formal, standardized test after just one year of instruction!?!
How many children are we going to traumatize by forcing them to take a serious test in a language with which they are just learning? And how are we going to allow these test results to affect their progression/placement in school? Does our government read any research?
Below is a copy of the NYS ESL Learning Standards:
ESL Standard 1: Students will listen, speak, read and write in English for information and understanding.
I do not see how a child who has only been receiving instruction for one year prior to examination will be able to prove any of the above standards...especially in the nerve-wracking environment of a standardized testing room. Are things just getting crazier and crazier?
Quick recap of the article - Now instead of having 2-3 years of ELA instruction before taking ELA exams in English without extra time or assistance, ESL students are being required by the federal government to take these tests after just one year of instruction and immersion! To check out the article yourself, go to News10Now.com
I cannot believe that anyone would think that this is a good idea. English is a very large and difficult language to study. I think that all of us can agree that in Masselink's class we were learning things that we had never encountered before (or taken seriously). And we felt this way after growing up in the English language and being surrounded by it for 25+ years. How could a child from another country, who has never spoken English before, possibly succeed on a formal, standardized test after just one year of instruction!?!
How many children are we going to traumatize by forcing them to take a serious test in a language with which they are just learning? And how are we going to allow these test results to affect their progression/placement in school? Does our government read any research?
Below is a copy of the NYS ESL Learning Standards:
ESL Standard 1: Students will listen, speak, read and write in English for information and understanding.
ESL Standard 2: Students will listen, speak, read and write in English for literary response, enjoyment and expression.
ESL Standard 3: Students will listen, speak, read and write in English for critical analysis and evaluation.
ESL Standard 4: Students will listen, speak, read and write in English for classroom and social interaction.
ESL Standard 5: Students will demonstrate cross-cultural knowledge and understanding.
I do not see how a child who has only been receiving instruction for one year prior to examination will be able to prove any of the above standards...especially in the nerve-wracking environment of a standardized testing room. Are things just getting crazier and crazier?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Standards & Class Warfare
I have been reading Class Warefare by J. Martin Rochester for my foundations class and have been deeply troubled by the light in which he is evaluating national standards for English established by the NCTE. Maybe I am just used to and supportive of the standards as they are today, but it seems like Rochester believes that what matters most in education is rote memorization and ability to regurgitate facts. I would be interested to find out what standards, if any, were in place 20, 30 or even 40 years ago.
Obviously this type of pedagogy differs greatly from our discussions in 506. In spirit of embracing the Flat World Platform, we are trying to make our subject as enlivened and as far from rote memorization as possible. As an English teacher, I do not believe it is our job to make sure that students can list off definitions and examples of literary devices. They do need to be familiar and comfortable with using these terms to discuss and analyze texts, but knowledge of these facts is not the end all purpose of the study of English. With this basic knowledge base, students can then move beyond the surface structure of literature and delve into deeper areas of discussion. I feel that we need to use the study of English and the language as a way to expand their horizons and see the universality of the human experience, all while providing them a forum to improve their writing and communicating abilty. In a Flat World, knowing literary devices will have very little functionality, so if we want to make sure that the study of English and literature continues well beyond the 21st century we need to make it as 'real world' applicable as possible.
Is this disparity stemming from the fact that our education at Cortland has thoroughly endorsed Constructivism as its learning pedagogy and Rochester seems to prefer a more 'teacher-centric' Behaviorist classroom? This type of pedagogy might (?) help students perform well on standardized tests, but how useful is a good SAT score in this ever flattening world? Do the abilities that this type of teaching enstills enable one to function and perform in this new era? I do not believe so. I am having trouble understanding why anyone would subscribe to this line of thought (the book isn't that old...it was published in 2002).
Thoughts, anyone?
Obviously this type of pedagogy differs greatly from our discussions in 506. In spirit of embracing the Flat World Platform, we are trying to make our subject as enlivened and as far from rote memorization as possible. As an English teacher, I do not believe it is our job to make sure that students can list off definitions and examples of literary devices. They do need to be familiar and comfortable with using these terms to discuss and analyze texts, but knowledge of these facts is not the end all purpose of the study of English. With this basic knowledge base, students can then move beyond the surface structure of literature and delve into deeper areas of discussion. I feel that we need to use the study of English and the language as a way to expand their horizons and see the universality of the human experience, all while providing them a forum to improve their writing and communicating abilty. In a Flat World, knowing literary devices will have very little functionality, so if we want to make sure that the study of English and literature continues well beyond the 21st century we need to make it as 'real world' applicable as possible.
Is this disparity stemming from the fact that our education at Cortland has thoroughly endorsed Constructivism as its learning pedagogy and Rochester seems to prefer a more 'teacher-centric' Behaviorist classroom? This type of pedagogy might (?) help students perform well on standardized tests, but how useful is a good SAT score in this ever flattening world? Do the abilities that this type of teaching enstills enable one to function and perform in this new era? I do not believe so. I am having trouble understanding why anyone would subscribe to this line of thought (the book isn't that old...it was published in 2002).
Thoughts, anyone?
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Speaking with "Digital Natives"
I am invigorated and excited after reading both of Prensky's articles (Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants and Listening to the Natives). I have long believed that we can and should learn from our students. Cooperative learning fosters a open, comfortable, and respectful learning atmosphere.
These articles immediately reminded me of a specific experience I had while observing at Dewitt Middle School in Ithaca. My host teacher had assigned the students to create a short iMovie as a culminating project. She was vaguely familiar with the program but wanted to experiment with what this new technology could offer. She did a tutorial herself and then instructed the class on how to use the program. The kids that didn't' know already how to use the program learned very quickly and those who already knew how to use it were more than eager to share what they knew. The environment was wonderful - everyone sharing and learning together...both students and teachers. These kids were so excited and proud of their final products that I called out of work to watch their movies with them (the viewing happened to be on a day I didn't regularly observe). It was so important to them and I was so honored to be part of it all!
If we can find ways to incorporate all that technology has to offer in our ELA classrooms, I believe that we can reach those students who never seem excited about learning (i.e. reading a bunch of old white guys stuff). We can meet them on their (higher) level and see how much we can accomplish!
This iMovie project was a great culminating project, but I am still mulling it over in my head how we, as ELA teachers, can incorporate these tools and techniques at every level of the learning process. Could we work to create a "choose-your-own-adventure" kind of program for books like The Odyssey or Gulliver's Travels? This way we could get the kids engaged with the technology while still imparting the basics of these classic, interesting, and I believe, essential stories. I do not believe that we should abandon all of the classics, but simply need to find ways to see that these works are fun and useful for our modern, digital students.
That's all for now, my mind is bubbling over with the excitement of this opportunity and trying to express how we can work at every level to incorporate all that technology has to offer us and our students in an ELA classroom.
Spinning with excitement,
Charm
These articles immediately reminded me of a specific experience I had while observing at Dewitt Middle School in Ithaca. My host teacher had assigned the students to create a short iMovie as a culminating project. She was vaguely familiar with the program but wanted to experiment with what this new technology could offer. She did a tutorial herself and then instructed the class on how to use the program. The kids that didn't' know already how to use the program learned very quickly and those who already knew how to use it were more than eager to share what they knew. The environment was wonderful - everyone sharing and learning together...both students and teachers. These kids were so excited and proud of their final products that I called out of work to watch their movies with them (the viewing happened to be on a day I didn't regularly observe). It was so important to them and I was so honored to be part of it all!
If we can find ways to incorporate all that technology has to offer in our ELA classrooms, I believe that we can reach those students who never seem excited about learning (i.e. reading a bunch of old white guys stuff). We can meet them on their (higher) level and see how much we can accomplish!
This iMovie project was a great culminating project, but I am still mulling it over in my head how we, as ELA teachers, can incorporate these tools and techniques at every level of the learning process. Could we work to create a "choose-your-own-adventure" kind of program for books like The Odyssey or Gulliver's Travels? This way we could get the kids engaged with the technology while still imparting the basics of these classic, interesting, and I believe, essential stories. I do not believe that we should abandon all of the classics, but simply need to find ways to see that these works are fun and useful for our modern, digital students.
That's all for now, my mind is bubbling over with the excitement of this opportunity and trying to express how we can work at every level to incorporate all that technology has to offer us and our students in an ELA classroom.
Spinning with excitement,
Charm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)