

Educative Essays

Volume 4

By

Benjamin L. Stewart
Educative Essays

Volume 4

By

Benjamin L. Stewart

Smashwords Edition

Copyright © 2013 Benjamin L. Stewart

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution

4.0 International License.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

ISBN: 9781301958733
Table of Contents

Dedication

Preface

Educational Testing and Assessment

Validity, Reliability, and Planning

Constructing Objective Test Items

Portfolio Assessments

Grading and Reporting

Final Project

Foundations and Theories of Curriculum

Development and Evaluation of Curriculum

Curricular Processes

Scientific vs. Humanistic Evaluation

Contemporary Philosophical, etc. Issues in Curriculum

Course Research Project

About the Author

# Dedication

This book is dedicated to Beny and Oliver, who have taught me how to truly appreciate my own educative experiences as a father.

# Preface

Why a series of educative essays?

I began studying a doctoral dissertation from Northcentral University (NCU) in September of 2007. NCU is an online university, accredited by the Higher Learning Commission and is a member of the North Central Association. The first two years of the doctoral program consists of graduate courses whereby learners upload essays to the NCU platform for credit. Having completed all of the course work for the program, I realized that I had accumulated quite a few essays over the years, covering a variety of topics within the field of education. So, why a series of educative essays? Here are a few reasons:

  * I realized that I had no personal copies of any of the essays that I had written for NCU - they all resided on the NCU platform for a definite period of time.

  * The essays were all spread out over various courses and quite difficult to find. Having them all in a book format would allow for easier access.

  * I've been blogging for several years and have never gotten into the habit of reading prior posts, even when someone would post a reply. It was just something I hardly ever did, for better or for worse. The same applied to the essays written for my doctoral program. I thought having them as a single collection would force me to look at how I viewed various educational topics in the past as well as my own writing style. It has now been long enough that I feel that I can step back and appreciate them for what they are. Not literary classics, nor excessively profound statements on education written in clear, academic style and tone, but a realization and some satisfaction in reflecting on how my perspective in some cases had changed over the years while in other cases a perspective that continues today.

  * Never having published a book before, I thought pulling these essays together would justify going through the self-publishing process from start to finish. I will leave it up to the reader to judge whether doing so was actually worth it or not.

  * I wanted to offer a book on educational topics under a Creative Commons License so that others could reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute it to give back to the profession of education in some way.

Why order essays by date?

The essays are ordered by date so to respect the order in which I wrote them, spanning a period of about two years. It also provides a way to reflect on how my writing style and ideas developed during this period. Some topics jump around between chapters while others are more aligned. Thus, you may want to skip around to different chapters of the book to read those essays that interest you the most, or you may decide to read them in order, from start to finish.

Yielding to Dewey (1938), the term educative in the title of this book is meant to promote, "the growth of future experience" (p. 13). My sincere hope is that to some small degree that this will be the case for the reader - I know the process of putting these essays together has certainly been educative for me.

Benjamin L. Stewart

July 4, 2013

# Educational Testing and Assessment: Context, Issues, and Trends

March 19, 2009

This essay discusses the current limitation of educational assessment in five TESOL (i.e., teaching English to students of other languages) programs. With the current push towards standardized and high-stakes testing, language educators still tend to treat assessment as a separate process to that of instruction. The alternative is to recognize standardized tests as only one of many tools used to measure a learner's achievement. Formative assessment that merges ongoing information and feedback for learners serves as assessment for learning and less as assessment of learning. That is, assessment and instruction become one of the same as feedback is used to guide learners to achieve the expected understandings, knowledge, skills, and disposition.

In recent years, educational assessment has received a lot of attention from administrators, teachers, students, and parents in how schools remain accountable for student achievement. Since George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on January 8, 2002, standardized testing has become the focus of much debate. Even before NCLB, high-stakes testing (HST) has been highly criticized for its shortcomings in measuring student achievement while having such an impact on the decision-making processes that schools face (i.e., funding, teacher promotions, etc.). With so much focus on standardized testing, it is of little surprise that degree programs often neglect educational assessment as a complement to educational testing. That is, instead of using HST as a single measurement tool for making key educational decisions, schools incorporate a mixture of assessment tools (i.e., formative, summative, and diagnostic assessments) in determining the best option to take in the future in pursuit of improving student achievement.

Before addressing various language programs, some definitions related to testing and assessment might be helpful. In the classroom, assessment can be divided between summative and formative assessment. Fisher and Frey (2007) define formative assessment as a way of improving instruction and providing student feedback whereby students self-monitor their own understandings of concepts throughout a unit in order for teachers to check their level of understanding. In contrast, they define summative assessment as a measure of student competency whereby students gauge their own progress toward course or grade-level goals and benchmarks at the end of a unit or course in order for teachers to grade, promote, and rank students. Put differently, HST and standardized tests implemented per NCLB – by themselves – are summative assessments that rank students and have little-to-nothing to do with the validity of instruction or the level of student understanding.

Language learning programs today often disregard the importance of educational assessment when preparing pre-service and in-service language educators. Considering five different universities in the United States, one can see that educational assessment is typically limited to one method course at the undergraduate level and one assessment course at the graduate level (see table 1).Albeit scarce, these assessment courses do focus on formative assessment as a means for improved student achievement. However, the question becomes whether these programs are allowing enough time for pre-service and in-service language educators to learn not only alternative assessments but why they are assessing in the first place.

Teachers assess students for a variety of reasons. Popham (2008) distinguishes between "yesteryear's" answers to "today's" answers as follows:

"Yesteryear's answers as to why teachers assess students

  * Diagnosing students' strengths and weaknesses

  * Monitoring students' progress

  * Assigning grades

  * Determining one's own instructional effectiveness

Today's answers as to why teachers assess students

  * Influencing public perceptions of educational effectiveness

  * Helping evaluate teachers

  * Clarifying teachers' instructional intentions" (pp. 8-15)

Certainly adding today's reasons for assessing to those from the past has reflected a level of accountability that did not exist before. Thus, formative and summative assessment supplies information to external stakeholders (i.e., parents, community, etc.), administrators, and teachers and students in order to make more informed decisions that best result in improving student achievement. Since TESOL (i.e., teaching English to students of other languages) programs are not allowing for much time in their curriculum dedicated to assessment, many of the reasons teachers assess students are being overlooked. For example, professional development and building common assessments are directly related to classroom assessment being implemented throughout the school. Instead of each teacher assessing and instructing in isolation, assessment results are shared throughout the faculty as a form of community of practice.

Another reason why language programs limit their exposure to assessment is likely due to a more traditional rationale of testing. That is, assessment is planned after instruction as opposed to before it. Instead of assessment and instruction being two separate processes, formative assessment merges the two in a more dynamic and personalized way. Assessment is planned before instruction so that expected performance goals are established allowing learners to have a direction as information and feedback are negotiated between the language learner and educator. The impact that ongoing assessment has on instruction is usually not part of graduate assessment or undergraduate method courses in a significant way.

Standardized testing, high-stakes testing, and traditional rationales for educational assessment has negatively impacted TESOL training programs that today are limited to a single graduate course or undergraduate methods course which fail to provide the pre-service or in-service language educator the means for learning how to best align assessment with curriculum and instruction. Instead, language educators who use standardized testing as one of many assessment tools used to measure student achievement will be better equipped to not only rank language learners with their classmates but also to measure their level of understanding, knowledge, skills, and disposition in a more profound way. Planning assessment before instruction implies an assessment for learning as opposed to an assessment of learning. The ongoing information and feedback that teachers provide language learners is a constant negotiation that takes into account the classroom – and all of its diversity – as a learning community.

References

Anaheim University. (2009). Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.anaheim.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=516&Itemid=187

Cal State LA. (2009). Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.calstatela.edu/academic/aa/dcc/indexgrad.htm

Carroll College. (2009). Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.carroll.edu/academics/education/tesol.cc

Fisher, D. and Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understandings: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Goshen College. (2009). Retrieved March 16, 2009 from http://www.goshen.edu/english/tesol

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

The University of Utah: Department of linguistics. (2009). Retrieved on March 16, 2009 from http://www.hum.utah.edu/index.php?pageId=911

# Validity, Reliability, and Planning Classroom Tests and Assessments

April 1, 2009

This essay presents two types of tests that are seen as complimentary: norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests. The former ranks students to some social norm that is absent of any concrete measurement of any knowledge, skill, or disposition a student might have. It is commonly used for measuring student achievement and predicting future academic success. Criterion-referenced is discussed in terms of measuring a student's performance or product through the use of rubrics. It was determined that validity, reliability, and absence-of-bias in both types of exams is critical if adequate feedback is to provide all stakeholders the information needed to address the specific purposes both exams are intended to set out to accomplish.

Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests as indicators of success in the classroom

Testing students serve a variety of purposes due to the array of educational situations that exist in today's schools. Testing can rank students with each other or some other sociocultural norm, or testing can be based on some performance criteria that focus on assessing certain understandings or skill set. Ideally, a combination of both testing types exists in a way that is valid, reliable, and fair. Thus, given that many classrooms contain students with different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds, testing becomes quite a challenge. Therefore, in order to assure that all students receive the most appropriate feedback, a variety of testing techniques is needed so that proper decisions and actions can be made that best suit the learner.

Virtually all students have taken some kind of standardized test by the time they enter high school or college. Moreover, many standardized tests (i.e., high stakes tests) are used as a condition of graduation, acceptance, or financial aid. Because these tests are used as a way to rank or compare students, they are often referred to as norm-referenced tests (NRT) (Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007). NRTs are commonly used when stakeholders are interested in the central tendency of the results of a group of students, as when descriptive statistics are used to find the average, mean, median, and mode of a particular data set. When using tests to diagnose or to figure the aptitude of a student, inferences are made based on how students compare with each other or some other sample based on a social norm. Since results are "objective" – test items are usually in terms of right and wrong answers – and since many tests can be applied at once, NRTs are typically more appropriate for making decisions that are non-instructional based.

In addition to NRTs being used externally to rank students (e.g., SAT, ACT, etc.), teachers oftentimes use NRTs to test students in the classroom. Multiple-choice, true-false, matching, and essay questions are common testing types that fall under this same category. Test results are gathered, averaged, and ranked in order for teachers to make their best inference as to what level a student has understood, obtained the necessary skill set, or developed the intended disposition based on the goals and objectives of the classroom. Subsequently, instructional decisions are often made based on these results either by reviewing past information that students continue to struggle with or continuing on with new information that makes up part of the curriculum. Having framed NRT first as an external instrument, such as an ACT, then as an internal instrument used by teachers in their classrooms, one can see a noticeable difference in why they are being used in each circumstance. The former is to make decisions regarding achievement while the latter is to make decisions regarding instruction. This distinction is important when talking about a second type of test that is based on criteria.

Instead of ranking students to some certain norm, another testing method aids in basing students performance in terms of meeting certain criteria. Kubiszyn and Borich (2007) define criterion-referenced test (CRT) as tests that "tells us about a student's level of proficiency in or mastery of some skill or set of skills" (p. 66). Wiggins and McTighe (2005) also put forth the notion of promoting the six facets of understanding (e.g., explain, interpret, apply, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge) when testing students regarding what they know and their disposition they possess. In other words, CRTs can provide teachers with greater insight on instructional decision-making adjustments when student performances are assessed in terms of performance criteria. Rubrics are often used in order to qualitatively assess performances and products. Arter and McTighe (2001) distinguish between a holistic and analytical trait rubric as follows:

A holistic rubric gives a single score or rating for an entire product or performance based on an overall impression of a student's work. An analytical trait rubric divides a product or performance into essential traits or dimensions so that they can be judged separately-one analyzes a product or performance for essential traits (p. 18).

Communicating these "essential traits" with students provides the basis for what constitutes a "good" and "bad" performance or product, and is essential in setting the expectations between teacher and student. Indeed, CRTs are specifically suited for assessing understandings, knowledge, skills, and dispositions in terms of subsequent inferences towards instructional decision-making adjustments and adjustments to student learning tactics.

Regardless of the test being administered, reliability, validity, and "absence-of-bias" (Popham, 2008, p. 73) drive the level of predictability an instrument has in making proper inferences on a student's achievement. Reliability in NRTs is of high concern since many versions of the ACT, for example, are expected to contain test items that measure the same content. Similarly, the same ACT should yield similar results (i.e., a high correlation coefficient) if students retake the exam without being exposed to a learning intervention in the interim. The validity of a test pertains to the three Cs: "content, criterion, and construct" (Popham, 2008, p. 53). Content validity addresses how test items represent concepts that are covered in the curriculum. Criterion validity in NRTs deals with how accurate the testing items are in predicting future behavior (e.g., ACT and SAT scores and subsequent academic success or failure). Criterion validity in CRTs deals with rubric traits and how valid they are in terms of a student's future performance. The final C, construct validity, has to do with how a student's performance over time is gauged in terms of meeting criteria that is aligned to the curriculum. And finally, absence-of-bias centers on how test items present information that is fair; that is, does not lean towards a certain group of people based on socioeconomic status, race, ethnic background, gender, or sexual orientation.

NRTs and CRTs should not be considered dichotomous, but are two different approaches to assessing students in a complementary way. Ranking and comparing students has a purpose when the goal is to measure achievement and to predict future academic success. Conversely, testing understandings, knowledge, skills, and disposition through performance and product criteria serves a vital role in making inferences that influence instructional decisions and student tactic adjustments. In order for tests to be valid, reliable, and absent of bias, test designers should conduct a variety of reviews to assure that tests measure curricular aims, are reliable within the same and different versions of an exam, and do not discriminate minority groups based on age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation. Tests are the link between the written and taught curriculum, the ideal and the reality of what schools are for all its stakeholders. Thus, in order to continue the development and improve the feedback that tests provide all of its stakeholders, a collaborative effort is needed in bringing together a community of practice that addresses these important aspects of testing and assessment.

References

Arter, J. and McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Thousand Oaks: CA: Corwin Press.

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

# Constructing Object Test Items and Measuring Complex Achievement

April 13, 2009

This essay looks at how a variety of testing items can align to the desired results put forth in a written curriculum. The educational context of an English as a foreign language classroom fosters the creation of understandings, knowledge, and skill sets as an inclusive set of curricular aims. Norm and criteria-referenced tests are discussed in terms of how each can benefit from assessing English language learners' communicative competency as well as their academic English skills. It was determined that both types of tests are equally important in assessing English language learners and that the best approach to implementing such tests is through a community of practice that promotes shared and reflective teaching practices in a risk-free educational environment.

Language learning an assessment: setting behavioral objectives through the development of understandings

Assessment in language learning often focuses on behavioral objectives that are based on skills (i.e., grammar usage, phonetic distinction, lexical ability, etc.). How English language learners communicate is often measured in terms of fluency, accuracy, and perhaps sociocultural elements to language as well. Limiting assessment on skill-based behavior runs the risk of overshadowing the potential for language learners to achieve higher levels of achievement as Bloom states in his taxonomy as follows: "analysis", "synthesis", and "evaluation" (as cited in Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007, p. 95). Wiggins and Mctighe's put forth a slightly different notion of establishing learning outcomes through their pursuit of "six facets of understandings: a) explain, b) interpret, c) apply, d) perspective, e) empathy, and f) self-knowledge" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005, pp. 85-102). The six facets of understanding contrast Bloom's taxonomy in that the former is not hierarchical and are not limited to only the cognitive domain. Indeed, the affective and psychomotor domain are addressed as well through an emergent, phenomenological perspective (i.e., teachers facilitate learners through various performance verbs that are not specific to only one or two facets of understanding as opposed to being determined prior to instruction). In determining the evidence required to infer what English language learners should understanding, know, and be able to do, a combination of "selected and constructed response" (Popham, 2008, p. 115) test items are needed.

Before planning assessment test items, the desired results, or classroom objectives, must be determined. The desired results can be expressed in terms of understandings, knowledge, and skill sets. In other words, assessing the English language learner (ELL) builds not only on a certain skill set (i.e., pronunciation and grammar usage), but also some cultural knowledge and understanding of sociocultural practice. Taking a typical topic from a level I English course as an example, an understanding might be as follows: The English language learner will understand that the manner and way in which people greet and introduce each other depends greatly on the social context. In order to achieve this understanding, ELLs will need to know under which social contexts speakers use formal and informal register, and they will need to be able to use the present tense form of a variety of verbs and appropriate vocabulary in order to successfully introduce themselves and others as well as greet both friends and strangers. An example of an instructional objective that is based on what an ELL should know and be able to do is as follows: After reflecting on a give social context, the ELL will be able to effectively greet and introduce someone using the appropriate use of language in a way that is understood by a native or near native-like speaker. When assessing these desired results (i.e., understandings, knowledge, and skill set), several types of assessment measures are necessary to assure that the evidence the ELL provides is valid, reliable, and non-bias.

Assessing desired results include both norm and criterion-referenced tests. Norm-referenced tests (NRTs) include in-part multiple-choice, true-false, and matching test items. Continuing with our example, a multiple-choice question that attempts to assess our instructional objective might be the following: When greeting a good friend at a party – one you typically see on a daily basis at school – all of the following are acceptable introductions except: a) Hey, man. What´s up? b) What's going on? c) How´s it going? d) Excuse me, how are you tonight? A true-and-false question measuring the same desired result: When greeting someone, the utterance, "What´s up, man?" is not used to address a female. (T/F). An example of a matching exercise follows:

With NRTs, answers are objective; that is, there is usually only one right answer. Questions are typically reduced to assessing discrete facts and knowledge usually associated with the lower three cognitive objectives: knowledge, comprehension, and application (Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007)Another type of assessing desired results is through constructed-response tests (CRTs), specifically essay writing. Kubiszyn and Borich (2007) make a distinction between two types of essay responses: extended and restricted. An extended essay "can vary from lengthy, open-ended end-of-semester term papers or take-home tests that have flexible page limits (e.g., 10-12 pages or no more than 20 pages)" while a restricted response essay is "restricted to one page or less" (p. 136). An extended essay typically is most appropriate for assessing understandings whereas restricted essays are more appropriate for knowledge or non-contextual, discrete facts. To assess the greeting and introduction example, the following essay could be used to assess an understanding: You were contracted by a tour agency to provide a written guide for foreigners to the United States in order to help them get around a new city. Since the foreigners speak little-to-no English but do read a good amount of English, you must include in your written guide several different social contexts and dialogs in order for the foreigners to have an idea as to which language is most appropriate. They will need to know the different registers (formal or informal language use), non-verbal communication, key vocabulary terms, and other cultural norms for each given social context. Each dialog should have three-to-five turns in order to properly describe the language that is to be used, and standard English should be used when completing the guide, playing close attention to grammar, spelling, and punctuation. The following essay could be used to assess knowledge or non-contextual facts: Imagine you are at a party with friends, but there are a few people who you don´t know. Write out a 10-turn dialog that takes you through a conversation as you introduce yourself, both to friends and to strangers. Formal and informal language as well as side-notes that specify non-verbal communication should be included in your dialog. Your writing should include correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Your entire dialog should not exceed one page. Contrasting NRTs, CRTs allow for a variety of possible answers and provide the ELL a level of choice in the learning process. Although CRTs tend to be more subjective, using "good" rubrics can help make assessing CRTs as objective as possible. A "good" rubric necessitates groups of teachers working together in determining what criteria are most appropriate for a given collection of test items.

Assessment in language learning extends beyond the typical skill-based emphasis seen in the past. Instead of only testing language use (i.e., communicative competency), testing for understanding and knowledge can also be incorporated into the learning process as English language learners acquire higher levels of academic English as well. Norm and criteria-referenced tests provide both objective and subjective testing items respectively, thus achieving higher levels of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development. In order to effectively achieve this higher level of development, assessment must be aligned with the desired results, or curricular aims in a way that promotes a community of practice that promotes a shared and reflective teaching practice in a risk-free educational environment.

References

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

# Portfolios, Assessment Procedures, Administrating, and Appraising Classroom Tests and Assessments

April 27, 2009

This essay looks at designing and understanding the pros and cons of portfolio assessment within the context of evaluating Mexican pre-service English as foreign language teachers (MPEFLTs) in terms of their understandings, skill set, and disposition. Although designs can vary, the following elements are put forth when considering portfolio assessment: a) deciding on the purposes for a portfolio, b) identifying cognitive skills and dispositions, c) deciding who will plan the portfolio, d) deciding which products to put in the portfolio and how many samples of each product, e) building the portfolio rubrics, f) developing a procedure to aggregate all portfolio ratings, and g) determining the logistics. The main strength of portfolio assessment is its adaptability to a learner's particular needs, interests, and disposition while recognizing the time investment and stakeholder collaboration, both of which are required in order to make informed instructional decisions based on sound, assessment-elicited evidence.

Designing and understanding the pros and cons of portfolio assessment for the Mexican pre-service English as a foreign language teacher

Assessing English language learners (ELLs) in Mexico requires an array of assessment methods, ranging from a variety of selected-response tests to different constructed-response tests. Specifically, Mexican pre-service English as foreign language teachers (MPEFLTs) can benefit from portfolio assessments – a type of constructed-response test – if built around a community of practice that involves the investment of all its stakeholders (i.e., administrators, tenured teachers, adjunct teachers, MPEFLTs, and community). Thus, portfolio assessment for MPEFLTs yields an individualized approach to providing feedback and reflection on the particular artifacts and criteria being evaluated. Designing portfolio assessment requires specific planning as well as understanding the pros and cons of this important assessment tool.

In designing portfolio assessment, certain elements should be considered depending on the educational context. Table 1 illustrates how Kubiszyn and Borich (2008) and Popham (2008) view the elements one should consider when planning for portfolio assessment, recognizing these as only suggestions.

Based on Kubiszyn and Borich's "Portfolio Development Checklist" (2007, pp. 194-196), a portfolio assessment design for MPEFLTs follows.

The purpose of having a portfolio for MPEFLTs serves not only the learner but all stakeholders. For the learner, the portfolio can include "best" work or work that shows most improved written and spoken competencies. An essential part of the portfolio will be the self-assessment and peer-review that will be a requirement for each MPEFLT. For the community (i.e., parents, civic leaders, potential employers, etc.), a portfolio will provide the evidence necessary to really get to know the MPELT, see the improvement and skill potential of the MPELT, determine if a MPELT candidate is right for a particular job, and force accountability throughout the degree program. The issue of accountability is an important one when considering the transparency that e-portfolios, for example, provide.

Portfolios allow for a constructed-response, criteria-based test of a MPEFLTs understanding, skill set, and disposition. Understandings are based heavily in sociocultural aspects of language that go beyond simply knowing grammar rules, vocabulary, and phonology. Language production will cover both written and spoken competencies that allow enough evidence in order for stakeholders to make good inferences as to the development level of the MPEFLT. Moreover, a MPEFLT's ability to demonstrate communicative and learning strategies should also be part of the portfolio assessment. Finally, portfolios should exhibit an MPEFLTs ability to work with others, acceptance to feedback, and habits of mind; that is, "knowing how to behave intelligently when you DON'T know the answer" (Costa and Kallick, 2009). An analytical rubric will be used to qualify levels of understanding, skill set, and overall disposition taking into consideration the level of growth an MPEFLT has demonstrated.

An analytical rubric will be used to assess a portfolio, and will be based on a four or five point scale. Depending on the descriptors for each criterion, a percentage will be assigned for each point. For example, using a five-point scale, a score of one could equate to <60%; two 60%-69%, three 70%-79%, four 80%-89%, five 90%-100%. The final rubric would be the result of a collaborative effort, assuring that everyone has a voice as a consensus is made. Practice among teachers using the rubric will also help create a tool that is more reliable as well.

Planning for what to include in the portfolio (i.e., content) should be a group effort among teachers and MPEFLTs. Teachers act as facilitators in guiding MPEFLTs in the production, process, and reflection of their portfolios. Since there is no one class dedicated to portfolios, it is left up to each MPEFLT to decide with artifact to include in the portfolio while having all teachers available to learners for assistance and guidance as necessary. MPEFLTs will provide two samples each semester – one written and one spoken entry – with specific deadlines that all MPEFLTs are to adhere to. MPEFLTs will also be able to decide which technologies to use when presenting portfolios while again teachers assist as necessary. This might imply some professional development workshops to assure that all teachers are familiar with current technologies used in publishing portfolios online (e.g., wiki, blog, etc.). Published portfolios will be made available to the general public so anyone will have access to seeing both the end product as well as the process through insightful MPEFLT reflections.

As with any assessment, portfolio assessment shares certain pros and cons as do any assessments used to measure a MPEFLT's level of understanding, skills, and disposition. Popham (2008) mentions that the "greatest strength [of a portfolio assessment] is that it can be tailored to the individual student's needs, interests, and abilities" (p. 205). However, he states the main "drawbacks" as "genuinely difficult to evaluate" and the time it takes to implement portfolio assessment. Indeed, portfolio assessment requires a collaborate effort among stakeholders in its design, implementation, and assessment. But even though difficult to evaluate, Ozyalcin, Schallies, and Morgil (2008) conclude in their research that "portfolio assessment is an appropriate and reliable assessment method for individual learning, giving more insight into the process of learning rather than being a tool for product assessment". Barbera (2009) takes portfolio assessment one step further by putting forth the notion of "netfolios" whereby learners not only self-assess but also co-assess with classmates thus providing a variety of perspectives on a single product or artifact.

Portfolio assessment requires clear and specific elements when assessing Mexican pre-service English language teachers (MPELTs). Although elements can vary, important decisions must be made pertaining to the purpose of the portfolio; the understandings, skill set, and dispositions to assess; who is to plan the portfolio; which artifacts to include; the criteria and rating system used to evaluate the portfolio; and publishing the final portfolio (i.e., the when, where, and how aspects of publishing). Although portfolio assessment has proven to be a valid and reliable means for evaluating individual learners based on their needs, interests, and disposition, the process is time consuming and requires collaboration among teachers in how portfolios are to be assessed. For MPEFLTs in particular, portfolio assessment provides an excellent complement to other assessment types (i.e., selected and other constructed-response types) by allowing all stakeholders to have access to assessment-elicited evidence in order to make more informed decisions, whether those decisions influence instructional practice within the classroom or influence hiring practices that extend outside the classroom.

References

Barbera, E. (2009). Mutual feedback in e-portfolio assessment: An approach to the netfolio system. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 40 No. 2

Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2009). Habits of mind. Retrieved on April 26, 2009 from http://www.habits-of-mind.net/whatare.htm

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Ozyalcin, O., Schallies, M., and Morgil, I. (2008). Reliability of portfolio: A closer look at findings from recent publications. H.U. Journal of Education.35: 263-272.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

# Grading and Reporting, Achievement and Aptitude Tests, and Interpreting Test Scores and Norms

May 6, 2009

This report presents how to put annual yearly progress reports into perspective when making inferences on how to improve student achievement. The initial claim was to freeze teacher pay and to suggest that parents move their children to a different school – a form of summative assessment that alone should justify making a sound judgment on how to improve student achievement. The report, however, goes on to mention the benefits of formative assessment and the rationale for its inclusion as vital when making inferences that lead to drastic changes to the education environment. It was determined that by implementing formative assessment practices that complement summative assessment practices, all stakeholders thus play a more active role in the decision-making process and therefore pave the way for building a community of practice that better supports an increase in student achievement.

A report on how to better interpret annual yearly progress results when forming an inference on student achievement

May 6, 2009

Dear all educational stakeholders,

Recently, public discussion has made reference to the need to cut teacher pay and suggested that children be given the opportunity to study at other schools based on annual yearly progress (AYP) results (put forth by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law). Although improving AYP results is a worthy and necessary pursuit, there has been some important information that has been left out of the discussion that is vital before implementing changes to salaries or recommending that children change schools. This report seeks to address this issue by offering a perspective of how to interpret AYP results and an alternative as to how all stakeholders can get involved in finding the best solution for the sake of improving student achievement.

The basis for the critique is built around an inference that drastically changes the current educational setting. Freezing teacher pay and recommending that children change schools only seeks to punish teachers with no regard to finding a solution to the real problem of student underachievement.

AYP fails to compare how well students are progressing from state-to-state. Because AYP is established per state, criteria and goals differ as well as how each state chooses to measure student achievement. Hoff (2009) makes this point abundantly clear when he states that "out of 18 elementary schools in Wisconsin, 17 would have made AYP , but just one of those schools would have made AYP under the rules and achievement levels of Massachusetts". Therefore, making a judgment on AYP with no other information to go on is sure to lead to a premature assumption.

AYP also fails to address issues regarding pedagogy. Fisher, Frey, and Lapp (2009) state that AYP is not a pedagogical goal [but] a byproduct of meeting [teachers'] goals. They go on to define success in terms of student progress and not in terms of performance on state tests. They implemented a formative experiment on reading literacies that offers a good example as to how the process of setting institutional goals can be achieved through the involvement of all stakeholders. Involving all stakeholders in developing pedagogical goals shifts the focus on improving instruction and assessment throughout the school first before making an inference on punishment tactics.

Upon reaching a consensus on what goals are most applicable to improving student achievement, measuring instructional effectiveness becomes another important facet. Freezing teacher pay and persuading parents to remove their children from school is what Popham (2008) refers to as a type of "summative assessment" (p. 326). Summative assessment looks at making judgments on past performance thus comparing participants (i.e., students, teachers) and labeling them as being "good" or bad", "pass" or "fail" etc. But Popham (2008) also states that participants can also be evaluated through "formative assessment" which he refers to as "the appraisal of the teacher's instructional program for purposes of improving the program" (p. 325). It is a combination of these two types of assessment that is required when measuring the instructional effectiveness of a school. A practice that promotes authentic assessment (i.e., performance-based tasks, portfolios, etc.) is equally needed among teachers and students alike in order to make inferences that lead to future modifications to teaching and adjustments to learner tactics.

Improving instruction and assessment within a school is of interest to all stakeholders, and thus requires a level of transparency and openness on the part of everyone. It is not about placing blame or being critical of others, but rather finding ways to work together in reaching a viable solution. Instead of freezing teacher pay and suggesting that children be given the option to attend other schools, all based on a standardized test (i.e., summative assessment), why not utilize formative assessment as well in order to collaboratively address more specific issues regarding the written and taught curriculum. Formative assessment allows all stakeholders to play a more active role in the decision-making process and therefore paves the way for building a community of practice that better supports an increase in student achievement.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Stewart, M.Ed.

Title

References

Cronin, J., Dahlin, M., Xiang, Y., and McCahon, D. (2009, February). The Accountability Illusion. Retrieved on May 6, 2009 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/43/c3/29.pdf

Fisher, D., Frey, N., and Lapp, D. (2009). Meeting AYP in a high-need school: a formative experiment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 52.5 (Feb 2009): p386(11). Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Hoff, D. (2009, February 25). AYP Rules Skew Schools' Results, Study Concludes. Education Week, 28(22), 5-5. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

# Final Project

May 24, 2009

This essay looks at the what, why, how, and when of assessment and how assessment is commonly treated in an English as a foreign language classroom. Different types of assessment are defined (i.e., formative assessment, summative assessment, norm and criterion-referenced tests, etc.) by providing the rationale that instruction and assessment are not treated as separate classroom activities, but activities that are intertwined. Sound assessments are those that are reliable, valid, and absent of bias, and are important distinctions that educators should be aware of if inferences on student progress are to lead to appropriate changes to instruction and learner tactics. It was determined that if student achievement were to remain the end goal that English language teachers ought to measure expressive objectives in a way that promotes differentiated instruction, allowing English language learners to take an active part in the learning process. Thus, the educational system becomes a community that works together towards this end.

The what, why, how, and when of assessment

"All assessment is a work in process" (Suske, 2005). This quote sums up the general idea of applying the practice of assessment to English language learning. Although traditional views of assessment typically bring about negative notions of high stakes testing, standards, and the ranking of learners, alternative views of assessment encompass a wider range of applicability destined to foster future change in what a learner understands, knows, and can do. In addressing the what, why, how, and when of assessment, the literature merges the perspective of assessment from a general educational viewpoint to the author's experience working with English language learners at a Mexican university. Thus, the intention is to offer some level of insight to all educators regardless of the educational setting. The opinions put forth are not meant to generalize assessment and English language learning in Mexico as a whole.

Assessment defined

When articulating the way in which feedback is given to learners on their current level of understanding, knowledge, and ability to apply certain skill sets, various terms abound. Testing, grading, evaluating, and assessing are often used interchangeably. But for the purpose if this discussion, these terms are best defined at the onset in order to better understand assessment in English language learning. Popham (2008a) defines formative assessment as describing "the formal and informal [italics added] measurement procedures used by teachers and students [italics added] during instruction to gather information about learning to directly improve that learning" (p. 359) . Comparing this definition of formative assessment to that of Fisher and Frey's (2007) shows how different interpretations can lead to a wide range of varied discussions: "Formative assessments are ongoing assessments, reviews, and observations in a classroom" (p. 4). The latter definition is likely to focus only on informal assessment practices (i.e., excluding quizzes and tests) conducted only by teachers (i.e. excluding the importance of adapting new learning tactics on the part of the student). This distinction will become more evident later on assessment practice and the learning progression is discussed.

Another way of articulating feedback to learners is through summative assessment. Whereas the effects of formative assessment influence future decisions as they pertain to instruction, summative assessment looks at a learner's current attainment of understandings, knowledge, and skill set at a particular point in time and has no influence on instruction itself. Popham (2008a) defines summative assessment as "tests whose purpose is to make a final success/failure decision about a relatively unmodifiable set of instructional activities" (p. 9). Examples include quizzes and exams administered within the classroom as well as standardized tests administered at the state and national level such as achievement and aptitude tests. Notice how aptitude tests are designed to project – although only with an accuracy of about 25% (Popham, 2008a) – how successful a learner will be at the college level, and how the results have no influence on instruction in any formative way. In other words, summative assessment administered outside the school system is used for establishing a judgment that is based on a collection of objective testing items that typically maintain "right" or "wrong" answers, and test results are used to rank or compare learners for admission or advancement purposes with little-to-no regard for assisting the student in the learning process. Summative assessment administered inside the school system will be discussed later in terms of assessment practice and the learning progression.

The term testing also comprises of a variety of meanings depending on the educational context and intention of the educational stakeholders involved. High-stakes testing is a type of summative assessment that leads to either a favorable or non-favorable course of action on the part of the learner. Examples include not passing a test that holds back a learner from progressing to the next course, grade, or institution level (i.e., final and exit exams), or an aptitude test (i.e., ACT, SAT, and institutional entrance exam) that restricts learners from getting into college. Results from standardized tests are also used as a measurement device as individual states develop annual yearly progress (AYP) reports in showing the effects instruction and assessment theoretically have on student achievement. Other terminology related to the summative and formative dichotomy includes norm and criterion-referenced tests (Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007) and selected and constructed-response tests (Popham, 2008a).

Undergraduates studying in Mexico typically take a placement and exit exam in order to meet the foreign language requirement. The placement exam is a selected-response test that is a summative assessment since it virtually has little influence on instruction and assessment, and really serves as a measurement as to what the student learned in high school. Once the English language learner (ELL) is placed in the appropriate course, the ELL continues studying until the minimum English proficiency level is reached. The learner then takes an exit exam that is provided by an independent exam body that measures the ELL's listening, reading, and grammar skills. Like the placement exam, the exit exam is a selected-response exam that is graded through an automated computer system, and is a high-stakes exam since a student's graduation is contingent on how well the individual does. Each English course consists of three exams that measure an ELL's reading, writing, listening, speaking, and grammar skills. The listening, reading, and grammar skill sets are measured using norm-referenced tests and are usually of the summative assessment type. Writing and speaking skills are measured using a criterion-referenced test that is designed to be more of a formative assessment, although a final grade is ultimately given to the ELL; therefore, presenting a gap between the intentionality and practicality of assessment praxis. Indeed, assessment in English language learning has a lot to do with why learners are being assessed in the first place.

The purpose of assessment

The purpose of assessment depends on the perspective of each of its stakeholders. Learners look at assessment as a necessity of advancing their academic careers and for internal motivation. Teachers use assessment to measure student achievement and instructional effectiveness. Administrators, parents, and outside educational stakeholders look at assessment from a macro level in evaluating school-wide effectiveness or accountability and how schools prepare learners to enter the workforce as productive citizens. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) put forth another purpose of assessment, and that is as a means for developing a professional learning community:

"Instead of an individual teacher developing and administering a summative test at the end of a unit, a collaborative team of teachers responsible for the same course or grade level creates a common formative assessment before teaching a unit. Members of the team agree on the standard students much achieve to be deemed proficient and establish when they will give the assessment. They discuss different ways to teach the essential skills, concepts, and strategies; and different ways to check for student understanding in their individual classrooms throughout the unit. On each day of instruction, teachers benefit from having complete clarity regarding what students must learn and an understanding of how students will be called upon to demonstrate their learning. Immediately after administering the assessment, the team analyzes the results. If those results indicate an individual teacher's students are having difficulty with a concept, other members of the team can offer alternative strategies to teach the concept, thereby helping each other expand their repertoire of teaching techniques and skills. This team dialogue and sharing of ideas means the assessment is far more likely to be formative ('This is how we can solve the problem') rather than merely diagnostic ('This is the problem students are experiencing'). If...the team discovers none of its members are able to help students learn an important concept, the team can then turn its attention to the very specific professional development and adult learning that will help resolve the difficulty" (pp. 208-209).

Teachers working together in building common assessments as a professional learning community sets a good example to other educational stakeholders as a way of sharing the responsibility in finding collaborative solutions to academic issues, more specifically student achievement.

In Mexico, the purpose of assessment tends to lean towards a more traditional rationale. Typically, teachers apply assessments for "diagnosing students' strengths and weaknesses, monitoring students' progress, assigning grades, and determining one's own instructional effectiveness" (Popham, 2008a, pp. 8-11). Of these four, monitoring students' progress remains the most predominant as teachers are more accustomed to using grades from selected-response test items as the primary, if not only, measurement used to make inferences on English level proficiency. Since there are not standards set by law, and professional learning communities working on common assessments as mentioned above are rare, assessment seldom is used for "influencing public perceptions of educational effectiveness, helping evaluate teachers, or clarifying teachers' instructional intentions" (pp. 14-15). These last three rationales require the development of a professional learning community that supports and empowers teachers to take risks, share current teaching practices, and take leadership roles that are based more on ability than on position or rank. Making education as transparent as possible shifts problems to the forefront so that all stakeholders are given an opportunity to be part of the solution.

Knowing what to assess and measuring it: Behavioral objectives

Now that assessment and testing have been defined and a variety of reasons for assessing have been suggested, a look at what to assess and how to measure it will shed insight on the complexities of evaluating language proficiency. Behavioral objectives are common in expressing what the desired results of a particular class should look like. Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom and Kathwohl, 1956) is often used to explicitly state what cognitive skills learners should develop over a given time period and include "knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation" (pp. 201–207). Although the taxonomy also includes affective and psychomotor domains, it has been the cognitive domain and the need to move up the hierarchical path (thus to higher levels of thinking) from knowledge to evaluation.

Measuring behavioral objectives depends on what level of higher-order of thinking one wishes their learners to achieve. Performance verbs (i.e., explain, infer, critique, compare, etc.) are typically categorized into the six "levels" of the cognitive domain and are stated explicitly in the behavioral objective the learner is to achieve. For example, the performance verb organize would be under the application category, identify would fall under knowledge, prioritize under analysis, etc. Generally, selected-response tests measure lower cognitive skills (i.e., knowledge and comprehension) while constructed-response tests measure higher-order skills (i.e., application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation). In language learning, lower cognitive skills are common regardless of English proficiency level.

In a similar vein as behavioral objectives, language objectives set out to achieve an explicit outcome within the language-learning classroom. The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (n.d.) state a "formula" for communicating language objectives as follows: "Students will use X (grammatical structure) to Y (communicative function) with Z (words/word groups)", and provide the following three examples:

"Students will use prepositional phrases to identify the relative location of places with phrases such as to the south of, to the west of, to the north of, beside, between, etc.

To identify the relative location of places, students will use prepositional phrases such as to the south of, to the west of, to the north of, beside, between, etc.

Students will use prepositional phrases such as to the south of, to the west of, to the north of, beside, between, etc. to identify the relative location of places."

These objectives use the performance verb identify (i.e., requiring a lower cognitive effort) to articulate the communicative function, and the criteria (i.e., Z-words/word groups) is somewhat limited in scope; therefore, one wonders how many language objectives would be needed for any given period of instructional and learning progression, and what assessments would best serve in measuring an English language learners' achievement of these outcomes.

Continuing with the above language objectives as an example, the teacher's role is to look for evidence provided by the learner that the communicative function (e.g., through written text or spoken dialog) is achieved at the level of knowledge. And since the criteria is stated in very discrete terms (i.e., the south of, to the west of, to the north of, beside, between), most teachers might opt to administer a selected-response test (i.e., multiple choice, true-false, matching, etc.) that more objectively judges whether or not the learner has achieved the intended aim. Selected-response tests are ideal when there are many learners to assess and time is of the essence. Although the argument could be made that behavioral or language objectives could incorporate performance verbs of higher-order thinking with a more comprehensive criteria base, when do behavioral objectives actually serve as an accurate indicator for what each student is to actually learn? How long do behavioral objectives need to be or how many behavioral objectives are needed to cover what all students will learn? An alternative to behavioral objectives, then, is the shift to expressive objectives.

Expressive objectives

Expressive objectives seek to develop the content, process, and product of a given activity or project without assuming or anticipating any specific type of behavior. Eisner (1969) defines expressive outcomes as "what one ends up with, whether intended or not, after being engaged in a learning experience. 'Expressive outcomes are the consequences of curriculum activities that are intentionally planned to provide a fertile ground for personal purposing and experiences' (as cited in Sergiovanni, 1999, p. 115). Whereas behavioral objectives anticipate certain performance acts, expressive objectives allows teachers to facilitate the learner's journey through a variety of performances in the pursuit of differentiated outcomes. Differentiated outcomes might include how learners interact in developing a particular product, exercise their personal choice in what kind of product learners may develop, and obtain, use, and adapt content for a particular purpose. Indeed, measuring expressive objectives becomes quite difficult if not impossible adhering solely to a selected-response test.

Instead of using selected-response tests that rely on learners to select answers from a multiple-choice or true-false test, a constructed-response test and performance and portfolio assessment allow learners to express their understanding through more open communication. Some examples of constructed-response tests include fill-in-the-blank and essay-type questions. More valuable for assessing expressive objectives, performance and portfolio assessment measure not only the product but more importantly the learning process as an end in itself. Measuring expressive outcomes therefore becomes more subjective than measuring behavioral objectives creating a need to designing rubrics for providing descriptive feedback to the learner as opposed to assigning a letter grade or percentage. Creating instruments to measure expressive outcomes becomes an "instructionally oriented assessment" (Popham, 2008a, p. 255) where instructional decisions are not only made in light of assessment but also when assessment is used to guide or influence instructional practice and learning tactics.

English language learning in Mexico tends to favor behavioral objectives over expressive objectives even though a shift is currently in process. Performance tasks and rubrics are not necessarily new concepts but putting these types of assessments and assessment instruments into practice requires distributed leadership. A cultural change in building a community of practice that builds collaborative sharing of teaching practices and experiences requires a bottom-up approach to developing key assessments that reduce the possibility of vague, subjective feedback. The interpretations and techniques needed in order for teachers to provide the most appropriate feedback at the most appropriate times is a group endeavor that is constantly been discussed and reflected upon. Risk-taking and experimentation is the bedrock of developing assessments that measure expressive objectives.

Assessment in practice

Assessment in practice and the notion of differentiating instruction work in tandem. Like instructional planning, assessment planning considers the readiness, interests, and a variety of learning styles when designing appropriate measurement techniques that provide the most reliable basis for inferring the understandings, knowledge, skill set and disposition of the learner. Assessments that are reliable, valid, and absent of bias result in making better inferences on student progress.

Reliability

Test reliability can measure how consistent exams are if taken repeatedly by the same students. The time interval between the test and retest applications is an important factor since a short interval might influence students answers if they have remembered prior test items, while a long time period could give students the chance to gain more knowledge or skills that might influence the retest scores. Another type of reliability test is called the alternative form reliability. Standardized tests like the Test of English as a Foreign Language (i.e., TOEFL) and Cambridge's First Certificate exam are subject to alternative form reliability measures since each maintains various versions of the same exam. Making sure each version of the exam measures the same thing is vital in assuring that inferences and decisions are based on accurate data, many times in high-stakes situations (i.e., conditions for graduation, entrance requirements, employment consideration, etc.). Finally, the internal consistency reliability relates to the consistency of test items of a single test and how these test items measure the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the learner. Thus, test items must all be aligned with the overall purpose of the exam.

Validity

Validity is another aspect of assessment that influences how decisions are made in and outside the classroom. Validity, according to Popham (2008a), is "the most significant concept in assessment" (p. 48) and includes the following aspects: "content-related, criterion-related, and construct-related evidence" (pp. 53-62). Content validity pertains to how a test aligns with the curriculum or standards. In Mexico, working towards common assessments helps assure that content validity is intact since all interested stakeholders have a voice as to what the assessment will be designed and implemented. Subsequent reflection with allow for future assessments to be modified as content validity continually improves over time. Criterion-related evidence of validity can be "concurrent and predictive" (Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007, p. 307) and uses correlation coefficients to calculate the validity of a test to some external criterion. IQ and aptitude tests are examples of concurrent and predictive criterion-related validity respectively. Finally, construct-related evidence to validity relates the test to "its relationship to other information [that] corresponds well with some theory" ((Kubiszyn and Borich, 2007, p. 307). For example, a test designed for an applied linguistics class would measure the level of understanding more appropriately for pre-service English language educators than for physical education majors.

Absent of bias

In addition to reliability and validity-related evidence for testing, absence-of-bias is the final aspect of assessment that should be taken into consideration. Test items should not favor one group of learners over another. For example, a test item that involves technical vocabulary of a car motor might tend to favor males over females and thus would be a biased question –unless the test is specifically testing knowledge as part of a car mechanics course. In Mexico, questions regarding pop culture and geographical locations outside of Mexico have to be chosen carefully so not to create a disadvantage to those not exposed to this information. It is common to have more affluent students know more about pop culture and to have a higher level of English in general since they are oftentimes given more opportunities to travel abroad and to study English privately.

Assessment and the learning progression

Classroom assessment was defined in the beginning of this discussion in terms of the formative and summative type. Assessment can measure behavioral or expressive objectives, and their reliance to make well-informed inferences depends heavily on the test's reliability, validity, and absence-of-bias. And finally, through developing the various reasons for applying assessment, a more practical look at formative assessment and the learning progression will present a practical means for applying assessment in the classroom.

Formative assessment and the learning progression provide a basis for future work in the field of language learning. Popham (2008b) presents "four levels of formative assessment" as follows:

  * "Teachers' instructional adjustments (level 1)

  * Identify adjustment occasions

  * Select assessments

  * Establish adjustment triggers

  * Make instructional adjustments

  * Students' learning tactic adjustments (level 2)

  * Consider adjustment occasions

  * Consider assessments

  * Consider adjustment triggers

  * Adjust learning tactics

  * Classroom climate shift (level 3)

  * Learning expectations

  * Responsibility for learning

  * Role of classroom assessment

  * Schoolwide implementation (level 4)

  * Professional development

  * Teacher learning communities" (p. 141).

In levels one and two, applying adjustments and triggers differentiates other interpretations of formative assessment that rely on simply adjusting instruction on whatever evidence a learner provides, usually on a whim. It is a planned process that involves both instructional adjustments as well as adjustments to a student's learning tactics. This is best explained through an example.

An EFL teacher might decide to apply some form of assessment (i.e., norm or criterion-referenced test) after one week of instruction. The assessments to be applied would vary so to not rely on only quizzes or tests, for example. Depending on the assessment being applied, the teacher would establish the "adjustment trigger" (Popham, 2008b, p. 141) that would allow the teacher to make a sound inference as to whether the learners were ready to continue with new information or if more time was needed to repeat previous information covered in class. Based on this inference, the teacher would modify the instruction accordingly. This form of formative assessment in deferent to how others express formative assessment in that there are pre-determined timeframes where instruction continues without any major adjustment. When formative assessments are defined as "ongoing assessments" (Fisher and Frey, 2007, p. 4), instruction and assessment run the risk of becoming ambiguous as to where one ends and the other begins. Simply giving informal feedback and having conversations with learners provide the basis for determining student progress, both of which occur on a continual basis. But it is less practical to think that instructional and learner tactic adjustments ought to be changed on a continual basis. The idea is to give instruction a chance (i.e., one week, two weeks, etc.), then using the information obtained by informal discussions, observations, or other periodic assessments, the teacher then makes an instructional adjustment and provides a change in learning tactics that students are responsible for.

Assessment is a continual process of using "assessment-elicited evidence" (Popham, 2008b) to make sound inferences on what future instruction and learner tactics should look like. Knowing what the different types of assessments are, why educators apply them, how assessments can be applied, and when to apply them is vital when planning, implementing, and reflecting on the teaching practice as a whole. The key is to provide a wide variety of assessments – assessments that are reliable, valid, and absent of bias – in order for all stakeholders to better articulate how students are progressing and better yet, what can be done to improve the educational experience for them in the future. In English language learning, measuring expressive objectives paves the way for a more differentiated instruction as content, process, and product are a negotiation between the learner and teacher. Thus, the learner plays a more active role in the process of learning including the outcome that is expected. Building key assessments, therefore, should be as a result of establishing a community of practice that distributes leadership in a way that teachers no longer work in isolation, but rather work together with all stakeholders as the entire community continues to find better solutions to improve student achievement.

References

Bloom, B. and Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. White Plains, NY: Longman.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., and Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities and work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Fisher, D. and Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kubiszyn, T. and Borich, G. (2007). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Jossey-Bass Education.

Popham, W. (2008a). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. New York: Pearson.

Popham, W. (2008b). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Suske, L. (May 3, 2005). Retrieved on May 11, 2009 from http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Support/AcadAffairs/CTL/db/quotes/byassess.php

The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Retrieved on May 16, 2009 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/cobaltt/modules/curriculum/obj_write.html

# Foundations and Theories of Curriculum; Curriculum Development and Supervision

June 14, 2009

This essay provides a brief survey of philosophies and their influence on general education as well as on language learning in particular. Idealism, realism, pragmatism, existentialism, and philosophical analysis are discussed while providing examples and perspectives within the language-learning environment for each. A preference to contemporary philosophies prevails, namely existentialism in terms of how it benefits student achievement and empowerment, and philosophical analysis in terms of how the written curriculum is interpreted and implemented through the school. The curriculum is viewed in a variety of perspectives as well, depending on the particular philosophy under discussion.

Philosophical Perspective on the Teaching and Learning of another Language

Language teaching and learning draws on a variety of philosophical possibilities as administrators, teachers, students, parents, and civil leaders work together in contributing to an overall educational system. Indeed, differences in how teachers teach, how students learn, and what responsibility other stakeholders have are all based on philosophical, ideological, and theoretical beliefs that exist within the community. What follows is a discussion about the different philosophical perspectives that exist, their applicability to language learning through a more humanistic approach to education, and their impact on the curriculum as a whole.

Philosophy and the Knowing of another Language

Philosophy plays a critical role in how languages – or anything for that matter – are learned. Philosophy can be broken can into four key subdivisions: "metaphysics [ontology], epistemology, axiology, and logic" (Gutek, 2004, pp. 3-4). Ontology pertains to questions related to reality; epistemology focuses on how one learns something; axiology addresses aesthetics, ethics, and values; and logic relates to the process of learning, either through inductive and deductive means. Although the literature contains slight differences in what constitutes as a main philosophy (Gutek, 2009; Wiles and Bondi, 2007; Ornstein, Pajak, and Ornstein, 2007; Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009), most would agree that they include the following: idealism, realism, pragmatism, existentialism, and philosophical analysis.

Idealism, one of the most traditional philosophies, goes back to Plato. Focusing on the recall of conceptual knowledge and the development of abstract thought, idealism seeks to bring about a set of values and a level of spirituality that are universal over time. The teacher's role is typically thought of as an expert, teaching students who are considered novices that are lead through the learning process in a passive way. Idealism strives to achieve an absolute, a perfect being or situation that drives one to be or do better. Within language learning, an idealistic philosophy is less desirable since learning to be a "perfect" speaker is hardly the goal. Gass and Selinker (2008) state that the interlanguage a language learner creates is "a system of its own with its own structure" (p. 14), thus basing one's ability to communicate of greater importance over any standardized form of written or spoken dialect. In other words, language instruction is more focused on the development of the interlanguage than whether or not a learner achieves a particular ideal performance of a target language (e.g., fluency and accuracy of a language associated with that of a native speaker).

Another traditional philosophy dating back to ancient Greece is realism. In contrast to idealism, realism is a more objective look at the world and its objects; in contrast to pragmatism and existentialism, knowledge is a priori (i.e., objects exist prior to experiencing them). According to Gutek (2004), the realist curriculum depends on the academic level as follows:

  * "Elementary Education: Fundamentals of literacy and numeracy, learning how to find information and do research; introduction of language, literature, history, arts, and science

  * Secondary Education: Study of subjects such as history, language, mathematics, sciences, arts, literature

  * Higher Education: The liberal arts and sciences" (p. 43)

In language learning, realism prevails in classes that contain "show-and-tell" type activities. Objects and their meanings are explained and used in a variety of contexts as particular representative states and propositions. For example, a chair, stool, and seat are objects that contain specific meaning when language learners are learning what these objects are, when to use them, and what morphological forms these words can take. This point is a departure from language learning given an existential philosophy which will be discussed later.

The first of the more contemporary philosophies, pragmatism, is heavily influenced by Dewey. "Dewey identified three stages in curriculum: a) making and doing, b) history and geography, and c) science" (Gutek, 2004, p. 77). Students advance through these three stages from childhood through adolescence where the third-and-final stage includes the incorporation of the scientific method as a tool for solving problems. In contrast to the traditional philosophies of idealism and realism, pragmatism views objects and learning after the experience (i.e., a posteriori). In language learning, pragmatism takes the form of task-based or problem-based learning whereby assessing the process becomes just as important as assessing the product. Time management becomes a special consideration when planning assessment and instruction to include language learners have time to prepare for the language and knowledge needed to complete the task or problem. Inherent in the solving of problems or tasks of this kind is the demand for language learners to apply higher-order thinking skills.

The second of the more contemporary philosophies is existentialism. Existentialism views the person or subject within the world as having a choice as to what kind of individual to be. This subjective view on life includes a paradox that states that even though a person makes no real impact on the world, that each person has the responsibility of making a choice as to what kind of person to be (Gutek, 2004). Determining what is beautify, ethical, and valuable are central to existentialists and knowledge can be obtained by any particular method (i.e., scientific, prayer, intuition, etc.). In language learning, existential learning includes instances where language learners are given the choice to decide what products they can produce, how they wish to produce them (i.e., process), and how they are going to be assessed. The teacher thus plays a more facilitative role in guiding the language learner through the learning process as the learner begins to take "ownership" in the individual's own development. This negotiation between teacher and student does not eliminate the curriculum per se, but rather balances the pursuit of community goals (i.e., written curriculum) with individual goals. Questions that address individual goals within the language-learning classroom might include Why are you studying English? Have you ever lived abroad? What would be your ideal job? Why? These types of questions set the stage for building classroom experiences that provide language learners a level of choice in what they are going to study, how they are going to study it, and how will they be assessed. The language and maturity level of the learners will determine to what degree teachers and learners will negotiate these aforementioned aspects of education.

The final philosophy that is sometimes left out in the literature is philosophical analysis. Philosophical analysis breaks down statements into what can be proven empirically, disregarding those statements that cannot be proven empirically. For example, emotive statements that express opinions or feelings are disregarded as well as analytical statements where the "predicate is contained in the subject" such as "All men are male human beings; All male human beings are men" (Gutek, 2004, p. 111). Statements that are not emotive or analytical (i.e., synthetic) should be verifiable by empirical evidence in order to provide a meaningful discussion about a given topic. Philosophical analysis plays a key role in how the written curriculum is interpreted. When ambiguous language enters the written curriculum, a philosophical analysis breaks down language to the point where it can be verified. In language learning, philosophical analysis can assist language policy and planning in revealing unplanned ideologies that can surface and distract the overall vision of the language program or school.

Curricular Ties

A humanistic approach to the curriculum affords more learning experiences that are based on more progressive educational philosophy. Although standardized tests and accountability have pushed schools to incorporate an essentialism educational philosophy, improved achievement (i.e., in the area of knowledge, skill, and habits of mind) can be reached if students are given a level of choice in what they are to learn, how they are going to learn it, and have some input as to how they will be assessed. As Wiggins and McTighe state, "[The curriculum] is not a list of the 'input' to be taught, but a plan for causing the student 'output' that would reflect successful understanding and habits of mind" (p. 37). This is best achieved by incorporating higher-order thinking that allows learners to interact with the community as well as within the classroom in completing problem-based and performance tasks that provide the means for learners to express their knowledge, demonstrate their skills, and reveal their dispositions in order to better assess whether they exhibit qualities that are likely to be indicative of productive members of society. Encompassing contemporary philosophies will provide meaningful discourse in this regard.

References

Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York: Routledge.

Gutek, G. (2004). Philosophical and ideological voices in education. New York: Pearson.

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

Ornstein, A., Pajak, E., and Ornstein, S. (2007). Contemporary issues in curriculum. New York: Pearson.

Wiles, J. and Bondi, J. (2007). Curriculum development: A guide to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

# Development and Evaluation of Curriculum Goals and Objectives

June 30, 2009

This essay summarizes three views of teaching and learning in terms of traditional and contemporary practices: behaviorism, cognitivism, and phenomenology. Accountability is discussed from the school, teacher, and student's perspective, and technology is seen as promoting lifelong learning skills among both students and teachers. It was determined that although opinions between how learning occurs may differ, the importance of creating a learning community through the development of common assessments is the best approach to improving student achievement.

School reform and the learning approach dichotomy

School reform and the learning approach dichotomy places standardized testing on one end and deep learning that requires critical thinking skills at the other. This dichotomy extends to traditional and contemporary views of teaching and learning whereby teachers and students assume a variety of roles. Additionally, those who like to use technology are often contrasted to those who dislike it. What follows is an overview of three approaches to learning that influence school reform, and how accountability and technology influence teachers and students as lifelong learners.

School reform

With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB), the topic of school reform continues to be a reoccurring theme. Change, improvement, reorganization, transformation, and development are just a few concepts that stakeholders refer to when attempting to ameliorate an educational system. Since stakeholders each has a stake in the educational system (i.e., parents want their children to get good jobs or continue on to higher levels of study, businesses want good job candidates, teachers want their students to achieve academic and social success, administrators want satisfactory school-wide results, etc.), the true meaning of school reform and its implications can at times be ambiguous. Historically, school reform has taken on a dichotomy that puts traditional and contemporary views at distant extremes.

Traditionally, an essentialist view of education has restricted learning to the three Rs: reading, writing, and arithmetic. All other subjects, such as those in the fine arts, are seen as less important which has lead schools to struggle in keeping courses like art and music intact (Williams, 2009). Moreover, standardized testing and annual progress reports (APRs) pushes teachers to limit teaching and learning to a theory based on behaviorism. Thorndike, Tyler, Taba, and Bruner all contributed to behaviorism, but it was Gagné who put forth the notion of arranging the following eight types of learning sets or behaviors in a hierarchical fashion:

  1. "Signal learning (classical conditioning, a response to a given signal). Example: Fear response to a rat.

  2. Stimulus-response (operant conditioning [S-R], a response to a given stimulus). Example: Student's response to the command, "Please sit."

  3. Motor chains (linking together two or more S-R connections to form a more complex skill). Example: Dotting the i and crossing the t to write a word with an i and t.

  4. Verbal association (linking tow or more words or ideas), Example: Translating a foreign word.

  5. Multiple discriminations (responding in different ways to different items of a particular set). Example: Discriminating between grass and trees.

  6. Concepts (reacting to stimuli in an abstract way). Examples: animals, grammar, and so on.

  7. Rules (chaining two or more stimulus situations or concepts), Examples: Animals have offspring, An adjective modifies a noun.

  8. Problem solving (combining known rules or principles into new elements to solve a problem). Example: Finding the area of a triangle given the dimensions of two sides" (as cited in Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, pp. 112-114).

From Gagné's list, one can see the mix of both behavior and cognitive learning types at play, thus leading us to more contemporary views to teaching learning that influence school reform.

A more contemporary view of education that is at times at odds with the traditional view is that of cognitive psychology. Piaget and Vygotsky are two of the main influences of cognitive psychology but differ in significant ways. Piaget believed that development (e.g., age, maturity, etc.) was a precursor to learning whereas Vygotsky believed that learning preceded development. Vygotsky also addressed the potentiality of a student by originating the notion of the Zone of Proximal Development, defined as the difference between what a student can learn with the assistance of one with more knowledge and what a student can learn without the assistance of another person. Vygotsky and his followers are also associated with socio-cultural theory, activity theory, and how learning occurs through the mediation of human and non-human objects. More recently, Garner (2007) created a relationship between cognitive structures (i.e., recognition, memorization, conservation of constancy, classification, spatial orientation, temporal orientation, metaphorical thinking, and spiritual dimensions) and a term she coined "metability", defined as an "ongoing, dynamic, interactive cycle of learning, creating, and changing" (p. xv). In summary, cognitivism addresses learning as an internal process whether it is driven internally by the self or mediated externally through social interaction.

The third and final approach to education is phenomenology. Gestalt theory and Carl Rogers have influenced the phenomenological view which Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) define as "the study of experiences as one's reality" (p. 137). The experience and one's perception of the experience is what leads the interactional processes that develop the student and teacher relationship. This relationship is one of equality, trust, and openness, and is not considered hierarchical (i.e., "expert" teacher and "naïve" student). Indeed, phenomenology is one contemporary view of education that differs greatly from cognitivism and behaviorism in that learning is complex and emergent. Given that stakeholders hold these different opinions on how students learn and how they ought to be taught, accountability too becomes an additional concern when schools as well as students feel pressured to demonstrate results.

Accountability

Accountability relates to how schools, teachers, and students are measured. Schools are accountable to the community, teachers are accountable to administrators and parents, and students are accountable to teachers and parents. The NCLB has created increased pressure throughout schools to meet certain benchmarks in order to demonstrate that progress is being made. But when schools are undergoing school reform where stakeholders have various viewpoints of what learning is and how to measure it (i.e., behaviorism, cognitivism, and phenomenology), cognitive conflict often ensues. Teachers feel pressured to teach directly towards the specific test items that appear on high-stakes tests, and believe that accountability in general "[adversely affects] how [teachers] teach, impacting curriculum, quality of instruction, and instructional time" (Anderson, 2009).

Another implication between traditional and contemporary viewpoints towards education has to deal with technology. Traditional views of education tend to avoid technology and the affordances it brings to the student as a lifelong learner. Moreover, teachers who reject technology or deny its influence on learning and teaching also fail to recognize the benefits of promoting one's own professional development. Finally, technology can assist administrative duties that can save time and allow for more immediate feedback on a student's performance. Accordingly, teachers who are less the technologically savvy need the support and guidance to both operate technological devices and to learn how to teach with new technological devices.

School reform, accountability, technology, and lifelong learning can all take on different meanings when stakeholders have a different opinion on how students learn. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and phenomenology differ in how learning occurs. Behaviorism and its stimulus-and-response influence on learning is a deterministic and simplistic view of how one learns. Cognitivists view learning as an internal process that is either internally driven or brought about by the external environment. And phenomenology is based on the experience and one's perception of that experience. Since all three views are still commonly held by educators, how schools decide to measure academic and social achievement can many times be at odds. Instead of trying to "convert" educators to a single educational philosophy or view of how learning occurs, educators who work on common assessments that are aligned to national standards are better situated to create a learning community that is more conducive to higher academic achievement.

References

Anderson, L. (2009, February). Upper Elementary Grades Bear the Brunt of Accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6), 413-418. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Garner, B. (2007). Getting to got it! Helping struggling students learn how to learn. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

Williams, L. (2009). Lee School district may have found way to keep art, music programs in elementary schools. Retrieved on June 27, 2009 from http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/may/10/lee-school-district-may-have-found-way-keep-art-mu/

# Curricular Processes

July 12, 2009

This essay seeks to bridge the subject-centered approach to curriculum design to that of a more humanistic design. The subject-centered design is presented as a more traditional approach to teaching and learning that was spread through the US recently through the passing of the No Child Left Behind Law. Implementing a more humanistic curricular design shifts the paradigm from exclusively an epistemological view of education to a more ontological one. It was determined that by promoting understandings and the fine arts, learners will learn more about themselves as well as provide the understandings, skill set, and dispositions needed to improve their scores on standardized tests.

Bridging humanistic and subject-centered curricular designs

When ex-First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wrote her book "It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us" in 1996, there was immediate opposition as to the role or roles others actually play in the development and learning of a child. Then-Senator Bob Dole answered back that it "takes a family to raise a child" (PBS be more, 2008), which demonstrated once again the democratic – republican dichotomy as it relates to education. Is education the result of a variety of experiences that include those that occur both inside and outside the school? Or is education better served by adhering to a set of standards that relate to a more subject-centered approach to curricular design? With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Law (henceforth NCLB) in 2002, the pursuit for a more subject-centered approach to curricular design has never been more prevalent – an approach that focuses more on facts and discrete knowledge as opposed to the development of understandings, skills, and habits of mind. A more fruitful alternative is to maintain a curriculum that is more humanistic in nature. One that develops the whole child while at the same time develops the understandings, skill set, and dispositions necessary to perform better on standardized tests.

Research tends to support the importance of family over schooling. The Coleman Report – involving 625,000 children and 4,000 U.S. schools – concluded the following: the effects of home environment far outweighed any effects the school program or teachers had on achievement...and that schools and teachers can do very little to increase student achievement; rather home characteristics and peer group influences are, in that order, the two major variables associated with achievement (as cited in Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p. 161).

The Jencks Study went a step further when it concluded the following:

  1. "Schools do almost nothing to close the gap between rich and poor, the disadvantaged and advantaged learner.

  2. The quality of education has little effect on students' future income.

  3. School achievement depends largely on a single input: the characteristics of the students' families. All other variables are secondary or irrelevant.

  4. About 45 percent of IQ is determined by heredity, 35 percent by environment, and 20 percent by a covariance of interaction factor.

  5. There is no evidence that school reform (such as compensatory spending or school integration) can substantially reduce the cognitive inequality among students" (as cited in Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p. 164).

If schools and teachers then are viewed as having less of an impact on a child's learning than that of family and peers, the question becomes whether a subject-centered design should be the only approach to curricular design.

Comparing a subject-centered curriculum to a humanistic design will shed insight on how teaching the whole child can also help learners do better on standardized tests. A traditional, subject-centered approach to curricular design takes on an essentialist philosophy that centers on a more epistemological viewpoint to education. Reading, writing, and arithmetic take precedent over fine art subjects such as music, art, and drama. In contrast, a humanistic curricular design builds on the notion that cognitive and affective factors to learning are equally important as well. This ontological shift bears the question, What is it to be someone? Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) relate the humanistic design to the notion of confluence when they say that " Confluent education stresses participation; it emphasizes power sharing, negotiation, and joint responsibility. It also stresses the whole person and the integration of thinking, feeling, and acting. It centers on subject matter's relevance to students' needs and lives" (p. 201). Therefore, in order to align a humanistic curriculum to state standards, it becomes the responsibility of the school to create an educational context or experience whereby students see the relevance of what they are doing yet at the same time learn the key concepts that are required in performing well on standardized tests.

Building understandings and promoting the fine arts are key to achieving academic and social success. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) define understandings through the inclusion of six facets: explain, interpret, apply, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge, and stating that the more these six facets were addressed by the learner the greater degree of understanding that would be achieved. Unlike Bloom's taxonomy of learning domains (1956) that include knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, the six facets are not meant to be hierarchical. That is, each facet contains both higher and lower order thinking skills. Although there currently lacks long-term empirical data in support for building understandings, "[high-level users'] own use of understanding by design consistently confirms their perceptions of the framework's close alignment with successful preparation of students to master state standards" (Brown, 2004, p. 60). In addition to building understandings, encouraging learners to participate in the fine arts is equally important.

Playing music, acting in a play, and painting a portrait all promote what it is to be someone and thus has a positive influence on academic performance. Reeves (2009) confirms this notion by stating, "Great classes in the fine arts not only provide rich stimulation for students but also are directly related to improvements in academic success" (p. 111). The interaction and negation of meaning that the fine arts promote is at the heart of a humanistic learning experience. Indeed, a humanistic experience requires a teacher to "value the social, emotional, and spiritual realms above the intellectual realm" (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p. 2003).

Adhering solely to a subject-centered curricular design does little to support learners in improving academic achievement. Instead, building understandings and promoting the fine arts creates a better environment for learners to grow as individuals. The responsibility of learning, thus becomes that of all stakeholders, particularly the learners' families. Open communication and involvement between schools and parents should be the hallmark of change. A bottom-up approach to leading change should take preference over directives that are imposed on the staff from above. In this way, the school as a learning community will be better positioned to address the needs and interests of the learners in terms of their understandings, skill set, and disposition.

References

Brown, J. (2004). Making the most of understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Design (ASCD).

Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

PBS be more. (2008). Retrieved on July 12, 2009 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/convention96/floor_speeches/bob_dole.html

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Design (ASCD).

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Design (ASCD).

# Scientific Versus Humanistic Evaluation Models

July 27, 2009

This essay looks at evaluating the development and implementation stages of a more humanistic curriculum. Instead of the teacher dictating what content and outcomes students are to achieve, both teachers and students negotiate content, processes, and products in a way that fosters a more productive and engaging learning community. Moreover, a curriculum that expresses understandings includes students showing evidence of explaining, interpreting, applying, having perspective, showing empathy, and having self-knowledge. When implementing a humanistic curriculum, a change process occurs that comes from the bottom up. The teachers interests and needs drive how the institution will change as a whole as opposed to imposing directives that force teachers and students to change.

Evaluating the development and implementation stages of a more humanistic curriculum

Schools can do more in preparing today's youth in becoming more productive members of society. According to Ornstein and Hunkins (2009), the "technical-scientific" approach to curriculum development has been around for over 100 years yet the United States still experiences a graduation rate of only 71 percent (IES..., n.d.). To address this serious problem, a more humanistic view to teaching and learning shifts the educational paradigm from a lockstep and didactic approach to one that develops understandings, knowledge, skills, and dispositions among learners. In order to implement a more humanistic perspective to education, all stakeholders play a role in utilizing the knowledge and skills necessary in bringing a new curriculum to fruition.

Developing a curriculum

When developing a curriculum, Ornstein and Hunkins posit that models can take on a variety of perspectives: a) a "technical-scientific approach", b) a "nontechnical-nonscientific approach", or c) some combination of a "technical or nontechnical" approach (p. 212). At a local public university in Mexico (henceforth the university) , its mission statement states that it supports a humanistic perspective to teaching and learning in a way that promotes the development of the whole individual (Ideario..., 2009). However, closer examination of individual syllabi conflicts with the "humanistic" approach in that content is presented in a more linear and explicit behavioral outcome fashion. That is, instead of looking at teaching and learning as a phenomenological set of events, the written curriculum (i.e., the course syllabus), expresses education more in terms of cognitive psychology: "direction instruction, mastery learning, guided instruction, and systematic instruction" (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p. 117), and behaviorism. The first step in implementing a more humanistic curriculum is assuring that syllabi are presented in ways that align to the overall mission of the school.

Teachers and students interpret and implement curriculum in different ways. Instead of stating explicit behavioral objectives that students are to "learn" for a given course, objectives should be more "expressive". Sergiovanni (1999) concurs when he states that although expressive outcomes are unanticipated, they are nevertheless "valued learnings" (p. 115). Similarly, content selection that is negotiated between the teacher and learner is best served when it meets the following criteria: self-sufficient, significant, valid, interesting, useful, learnable, and feasible (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). Therefore, learning is a negotiation whereby students have some say in the content they may use, the process in which they will work through that content, and what the end result or product should look like.

Another view of curricular development that is consistent with a more humanistic approach to education is how understandings are articulated throughout the syllabus. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) define an understanding as follows:

  * "An understanding is an important inference, drawn from the experience of experts, stated as a specific and useful generalization.

  * An understanding refers to transferable, big ideas having enduring value beyond a specific topic.

  * An understanding involves abstract, counterintuitive, and easily misunderstood ideas.

  * An understanding is best acquired by "uncovering" (i.e., it must be developed inductively, coconstructed by learners) and "doing" the subject (i.e., using the ideas in realistic settings and with real-world problems).

  * An understanding summarizes important strategic principles in skill areas" (pp. 128-129).

Wiggins and McTighe (2005) go on to explain that understandings are expressed through six facets: "can explain, can interpret, can apply, have perspective, can empathize, and have self-knowledge" (p. 84). A humanistic view then would include understandings as part of the written curriculum (i.e., in the syllabus) but would be interpreted as an emergent phenomena in terms of its implementation within the classroom. The teacher would facilitate a learners' ability to develop each of these six facets depending on the readiness of the student, the learning process involved, and the end product that students are to complete. Since the facets are not hierarchical, there is equal weight given to each as understandings are viewed in terms of degree based on the ability of the learner to demonstrate the evidence necessary for teachers to make an informed inference on student achievement.

Implementing a curriculum

Implementing a more humanistic curriculum at the university – where current practices typically support a more traditional approach to teaching and learning – requires change initiatives and careful leadership pursuits. Sergiovanni (2005) puts forth the notion that change can be viewed into two "theories of management: clockwork I, and clockwork II" (pp. 33-34). Clockwork I theory states that change and leadership are in the form of directives that are imposed in a top-down fashion. Just as cogs, gears, etc. of a clock are connected and turn as others turn, so too does change as leadership forces change through coercion. Alternatively, clockwork II theory states that change and leadership are through a bottom-up process whereby all stakeholders (i.e., administrators, teachers, students, parents, etc.) work through a community of practice through the change process. In this way, cogs, gears, etc. turn independently of each other but still must work together to achieve a shared vision. The university would benefit from the application of a clockwork II theory of management that incorporated what Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) define as a "concerns-based adoption" model (p. 261). That is, institutional change is a result of individual change that includes the following stages: a) "awareness of innovation, b) awareness of information level, c) concern for self, d) concern for teaching, and e) concern for students (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009, p. 262). In other words, to facilitate change within the university, teachers must be aware and believe in the reason why change is required. After which they determine whether they have the information or readiness to adapt to the innovation. The first concerns are regarding self which later moves on to a concern for teaching and finally to a concern for students. Since each teacher will be at different stages of this model throughout the change process, it is the leader's responsibility to offer the proper support in order to move teachers through these stages.

Adhering to a more humanistic approach to curriculum mirrors how individuals learn in real life. In real life, individuals rarely achieve specific, predetermined outcomes that are the direct result of content presented in a linear fashion. On the contrary, most individuals learn through the experience itself as individuals learn from others (e.g., those who have both more and less knowledge) through a more interactive and negotiating process. The university would better achieve their mission of incorporating a more humanistic approach to curriculum if steps were taken that supported the classroom in terms of a learning community whereby content was determined through a negotiation between student and teacher and that outcomes were more nonbehavioral as opposed to articulated in specific behavioral terms. To implement a more humanistic curriculum, change must occur through the changing of the individuals themselves. A bottom-up approach to change would focus on professional development and teacher goals and thus would attempt to bridge these interests to the school mission that would only be made possible through the successful development of a community of practice – a community of practice that would promote risk-taking and sharing of ideas across disciplines and rank.

References

Ideario... (2009). Retrieved on July 23, 2009 from...

IES National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved on July 23, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/droppub_2001/

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

UNJobs: a Swiss association. (2009). Retrieved on July 20, 2009 from http://www.indianola.k12.ia.us/policies/602.3.pdf

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

# Contemporary Philosophical, Social, Cultural, and Political Issues in Curriculum

August 5, 2009

This essay presents three general issues that currently influence the school curriculum: school choice, multicultural education, and assessment. Charter schools, contract schools, and vouchers are discussed in terms of influencing the administrative aspect of curriculum and less in terms of academic prowess. Multicultural education is viewed in terms of celebrating the customs, traditions, and cultures of the various countries represented within a school along with the language policy a school imposes that dictates the degree a foreign language is to be used within the learning environment. Addressing multicultural education, various forms of assessment – formative and standardized testing – are recommended, emphasizing the necessity of teachers and learners adapting instruction and learning tactics throughout the entire learning progression.

The philosophical and ideological influences on the development and implementation of curriculum vary among stakeholders. From a philosophical base, the curriculum should answer the following questions: "What is the meaning and purpose of education? Why and how do teachers educate people? What difference does education make for individuals and for society?" (Gutek, 2004, p. 2) Taking these same questions from an ideological perspective thus creates more of a varied notion of education and how it is to be implemented, now from the viewpoint of individual groups of a collective society that are bound by time and space. Indeed, stakeholders want the best for learners, but the way in which the learner is to be educated will be influenced by the sociocultural background and political views of a particular group.

Conservatism as an ideology generates strong opinion for school choice. Charter, contract, and distance learning schools, for example, often take on a "business-like" approach to education in giving parents a choice as to where to educate their children. That is, schools compete based on the economic principles of supply and demand. Charter and contract schools receive funds from the government as do public schools although they differ in how they administer these funds (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). To create a comparative advantage, charter and contract schools have more freedom in hiring teachers and investing in infrastructure in ways that create more of a demand for new enrollees. A voucher system is another way that schools use government funding for attracting new students, although there is political debate as to its effectiveness. In a Washington D.C. school, the following occurred: more than 17,000 children...received scholarships [or vouchers] to attend participating private schools...The U.S. Department, based on concerns from Congress that there was little local support, decided – after the students were accepted – to only allow existing scholarship recipients to continue to participate (Alliance for school choice..., 2009). Although voucher or scholarship systems can attract students to certain schools they may not have had the opportunity to attend, it usually is at the expense of public education.

The multicultural school of today contains a wide variety of students that make up a diverse student body. Bian, Wang, and McKinley (2009) state that "as schools in the United States become more diverse and the focus on globalization increases, children need to be provided opportunities that foster an appreciation for and understanding of different cultures". So instead of viewing a multicultural student body as a burden, it is something that is celebrated as Bian, Wang, and McKinley (200) did when creating school-wide activities to celebrate the Chinese New Year. In celebrating diversity, ethnic groups are not marginalized for their beliefs, ideas, and customs, but rather are encouraged to express themselves and participate in the learning process. Instead of imposing a single set of values onto the learner, the goal is to create a classroom as a learning community that recognizes the values of others and more importantly gains a level of appreciation for others who are different. These important life skills create individuals who are better prepared to enter a pluralistic society.

Related to multiculturalism is the notion of language. "A March 2006 Zogby poll found 84% of likely voters agreeing that English must be the official language for government operations. Ironically, that same poll indicated that most Americans mistakenly believed English already is our official language" (McAlpin, 2008). Opinions abound too as to how language is to be used in schools. Bilingual schools, dual language programs, and immersion courses are just a few ways that schools create language policy that is aimed at suit the multicultural, multilingual student body.

The role of culture within the classroom can greatly influence the classroom dynamic. Rothstein-Fisch and Trumbull (2008) contrasted American students who were more individualist versus those who belong to a more collectivists society which includes most global societies. They concluded the following: knowing about all the cultural backgrounds of students even in one class can be daunting..."The children in my class came from so many distinct regions of Mexico and South America, each with differing histories and traditions. I knew that I would never know enough. I had to give up trying" (pp. 166-167)

Learning as much as possible about the cultures represented within a classroom will influence how a teacher approaches the development and implementation of the curriculum. For example, if foreign students who come from a more collectivist culture are trying to learn how to collaborate with students who are more individualistic, teachers may need to adapt their assessment and instruction in such a way that facilitates this type of group dynamic.

Implementing a variety of assessment techniques within the curriculum benefits students in a more holistic manner. The way students are formatively assessed can influence how much students from different cultures learn. Popham (2008) defines formative assessment as "a planned process in which assessment-elicited evidence of students' status is used by teachers to adjust their ongoing instructional procedures or by students to adjust their current learning tactics" (p. 6). This definition points out how learning requires adjustments from both the teacher and the student, and that the ability to reflect on how the beliefs, cultures, and traditions of others can serve in working together in building a community of practice. In addition to formative assessment, schools apply standardized testing and annual progress reports per the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) which marginalizes English language learners as they are at a definite disadvantage when taking these tests (Yoder, 2008).

Three issues that currently affect curriculum involve school choice, multicultural education, and assessment. Charter schools, contract schools, and vouchers provide ways for families to choose which schools are best for their children. Indeed, school choice influences curriculum based on the economics of supply and demand, but the academic integrity school choice has on curriculum is debatable. Multicultural education is another issue that affect curriculum. Incorporating the celebration of foreign customs and traditions can provide the means for learners to gain more appreciation to how others live around the world. Also, the language policy a school adheres to (i.e., monolingual, bilingual, dual lingual, etc.) greatly influences how teachers and learners are to interact. Finally, how learners are to be assessed is of grave importance with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Law and standardized testing. Finding ways to turn assessment into learning opportunities through formative assessment merges assessment and instruction as both teachers and students learn how to make appropriate adjustments throughout the learning progression.

References

Alliance for school choice; D.C. City council supports expanding opportunity scholarship Program. (2009, July). Education Letter,6. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1799044401).

Bian, W., Wang, J., & McKinley, B. (2009). Integrating Multicultural Education: Activities to Celebrate the Chinese New Year. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(5), 40-46. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1716522111).

Gutek, G. (2004). Philosophical and ideological voices in education. Boston: Pearson.

McAlpin, K.. (2008, July). McCain should pledge to Make English Official Language. Human Events, 64(24), 8. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1533084111).

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

Popham, W. (2008). Transformataive assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rothstein-Fisch, C. and Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms: How to build on students' cultural strengths. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Yoder, P.. (2008, October). English learners left behind: standardized testing as language policy. Choice, 46(2), 362. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1585429801).

# Course Research Project

August 23, 2009

This essay addresses the foundations, principles, and issues of curriculum design, development, and evaluation. The literature is presented in a way that compares and contrasts certain relevant issues within the Mexican educational system, primarily at the university level. It was determined that the foundations and principles that make up the taught curriculum in Mexico tend to be locked in a traditional mindset even though the written curriculum leans more towards a more postmodern perspective, specifically a humanistic approach. Therefore, evaluating the curriculum takes rhetoric like teaching the whole child to a new level, and changes it to teaching the entire stakeholder as a learning community works formatively to assure learning at all levels.

Curriculum foundations and principles: perspectives within the Mexican educational system

Presenting the Mexican educational system in terms of curriculum foundations and principles will better address a current problem that exists today: in Mexico education at the collegiate level needs to improve. The quality of a college education in Mexico fares below that of the United States while both countries are among the lowest of "free nations" (Salerno, 2009; Testing the teachers..., 2009). The lag in reading, science, and math skills and its influence on language learning is a shared concerned among English language educators in Mexico as well (Mexico English Teacher's Alliance, 2009). If one accepts Britzman (1991) and Lortie's (1975) notion that teachers teacher as they were taught, then a look at education in general as well as English language learning in Mexico as they relate to the literature on curriculum foundations, principles, and issues is a worthy pursuit. The author, a coordinator for a university foreign language program and an English language educator, thus wishes to place his professional experience within the context of how current literature frames curriculum with regard to its development, implementation, and evaluation. The intention is not to generalize the collegiate educational system within Mexico, but rather to present a particular teaching context as a means for personal reflection that leads to greater professional efficiency and effectiveness both at the individual and faculty level.

Foundations of curriculum

In defining curriculum, definitions abound. Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) provide the following five basic definitions: a) curriculum "as a plan for achieving goals", b) curriculum "as dealing with the learner's experiences", c) curriculum "as a [linear or nonlinear] system for dealing with people", d) curriculum "as a field of study with its own foundations, knowledge domains, research, theory, principles, and specialists", e) and curriculum "in terms of subject matter or content" (pp. 10-11). Anecdotally speaking, when teachers speak of curriculum at a particular university in Mexico (henceforth referred to as the university), it usually is in terms of content, or what Briggs and Sommefeldt (2002) also refer to as a "Baroque" curriculum with "clearly demarcated subjects, classified by content knowledge and by discourse forms specific to each discipline" (p. 3) Certainly experiences, linear or non-linear learning and teaching, and the curriculum as a field of study are hardly discussed when addressing the planning, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum. And although faculty does provide lip service to the curriculum as a plan for setting goals, there is little practical evidence as to what degree individual goals are met versus collective goals. That is, the question remains as to how many goals set by the teacher (or learner at the classroom level) are actually met when the written and taught curriculum are evaluated.

The university boasts a humanistic approach to its curriculum, and indeed it does require courses in world languages, sports, and public service. But more importantly, a humanistic approach to education requires more than simply offering courses that go beyond the typical core courses that rely solely on reading, writing, and arithmetic. What tends to happen in the foreign language department is that these courses – which are designed to promote a more humanistic approach to education – actually are taught differently, through a more behavioral approach. Syllabi for foreign languages typically include specific behavioral objectives that all learners are expected to achieve. Cognitive skills are stressed more than metacognitive (i.e., learning how to learn), affective, and psychomotor skills. Moreover, student choice tends to be limited as to what content is to be covered, the learning process that students are to undertake, and the products learners are expected to be able to complete. So even though the university explicitly states humanistic approach to education, it is equally important to know how individual philosophies that faculty hold in order to compare the taught curriculum to that of the written curriculum.

Philosophical foundations.  The written and taught curriculums are driven by philosophical and ideological foundations. Gutek's (2004) distinction between philosophy, ideology, and theory can be dichotomized into traditional and contemporary categories (see table 1).

Table 1 | Traditional | Contemporary

---|---|---

Philosophies | Idealism, Realism, Theistic realism | Pragmatism, Existentialism, Philosophical Analysis, Postmodernism

Ideologies | Nationalism, Conservatism | Liberalism, Marxism, Liberation Pedagogy

Theories | Essentialism, Perennialism,  | Progressivism, Reconstructionism

This traditional and contemporary dichotomy can lead to an "educational war" (DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2008, p. 51) where conservatives and liberals, or perennialists and progressives are at odds as to how teaching and learning ought to occur. Should schooling focus on past "classics" and certain educational principles that can be generalized across educational contexts, or is education a more emergent or non-linear phenomenon based on chaos theory and adaptive systems? The university experiences a similar dilemma in that educators typically subscribe to one of the following learning theories: behaviorism, cognitivism, or some form of constructivism (i.e., strict constructivism, social constructivism, or socio-cultural theory). More recently, connectivism as a learning theory has been discussed to some degree at the university due to the development of technology and its impact on language learning. With all of these different philosophies, ideologies, and theories at play, then, the goal becomes how to build a community of practice through consensus building as opposed to persuading or coercing faculty to change their beliefs or opinions.

Theoretically, the university subscribes to an existential philosophy. According to Ornstein and Hunkins (2009), existentialism views "reality as subjective, knowledge for personal choice, learning as acts of choosing, and the teacher's role as one who cultivates personal choice and individual self-definition" (p. 37). And although Mexican students are given some choice in the subjects they can take, most teachers still view learning in abstract forms and the teacher as an authority who rationally "transmits" information as an "expert" – all traits that are characteristic of the more traditional philosophies of idealism and realism. When one considers too that there are some educators that do possess a more existential philosophy as well, it becomes clear that the school as a learning community recognize "leadership as power over events and people is redefined to become leadership as power to accomplish shared goals" (Sergiovanni, 1999, p. 170). Thus, the collective goals become the aim while decisions and actions are the result of reaching a consensus through both top-down and bottom-up influences.

Historical foundations.  Historical foundations of curriculum have undergone many transformations over the last 300 years. From a focus on religion and morals, the earlier part of the eighteen century left many educational decisions up to the family (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). They go on to show how over time, the elementary school curriculum gradually expanded their core courses in reading, spelling, math, and bible study by offering additional courses in grammar, conduct, US history, geography, and the fine arts (p. 76). In Mexico, compulsory education extends only to the secondary level, and courses in the fine arts are completely absent from the curriculum. If students in Mexico wish to study music, art, or drama, they must pay to attend special schools in order to receive specialized training. Reading, writing, and arithmetic remain core courses throughout the secondary level.

Once students enter high school, schooling is no longer free. There is a great economic disparity between schools with respect to the amount of tuition schools charge and the opportunities they afford. That is, the more prestigious schools are the ones that only the upper class can afford, yet these same schools are not known for their academic rigor. In a classist society, it is often more about who you know and less about what you know. Therefore, since high school is not free in Mexico, it becomes less of a surprise to see a difference between the high school and secondary completion rates of 17%, or the difference between 78.8% and 61.8% respectively (INEGI, 2009). When compared to US high school completion rate, the difference broadens to 24.2%. Not providing a public education at the high school level in addition to failing to provide a wider curriculum that includes the fine arts is destined to create a different perspective on the curriculum for higher education as compared to other countries around the world, namely the United States.

The curriculum at the university level in the United States typically contains a set of core classes that make up the first two years of study. However, in Mexico, university students typically follow a curriculum that is specific to particular majors from the first year of study. There are no core classes to speak of, or classes that are shared among all majors with the exception of perhaps a language course or physical education course. More specifically, there are no science, history, Spanish, or math course requirements that all students must complete. All courses are specific to a given major which includes students studying to be English language teachers. Pre-service English language teachers enter the workforce with little background knowledge which is fundamental in dealing with the wide range of English students they are likely to encounter. It is as if knowledge at the high school level (which is not free) is enough to provide the basic knowledge needed to succeed in what most would considered a global society.

Psychological foundations.  Psychological foundations within a curriculum include a variety of perspectives that all attempt to explain how people learn (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). Typically, three learning theories are covered: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, each being discussed in turn as they pertain to a particular educational context in Mexico.

Behaviorism is concerned with teaching and learning as a cause-and-effect relationship. The teacher does something in an effort to generate some sort of behavior from the student. Pavlov and Skinner are well known for promoting a stimulus-response metaphor to teaching and learning, whereas Tyler and Taba took it one step further in generalizing teaching and learning through the development of principles (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). Dewey (1938) argued against this more traditional approach to learning in that traditional learning lacked "interaction" between both "internal" and "objective controls"; that is, the stimulus-response approach to education lacked any concern of the needed "internal" controls. He went on to say that "any normal experience is an interplay of these two sets of controls" (p. 42).

A broader view of learning came to be through the emergence of cognitivism. Instead of learning beginning as a direct result of what someone says or does, learning now is looked upon as an internal process. Piaget and Vygotsky are pioneers in this area in that Piaget believed that learning followed development and Vygotsky advocated that development potential followed learning. Concepts such as recognition, memorization, conservation of constancy, classification, spatial orientation, temporal orientation, metaphorical thinking, and spiritual dimensions of learning (Garner, 2007) are just a few examples of how learners use internal processes in order to assist learning. Cognitivism views knowledge as a representation state, a "thing", or something that is acquired or stored for later use. A related notion of this same principle is constructivism.

Constructivism, or more specifically, social constructivism, is the notion that learning is generated from social experience. The focus is more on the learner and the role the learner plays within a given social situation or context. Social constructivism is more in line with Dewey's (1938) notion mentioned earlier regarding "internal" and "objective controls" (p. 42). The school curriculum and its stakeholders (i.e., administrators, curricularists, teachers, parents, and community leaders) drive what kind of educative experiences learners have. A social constructivists perspective is one whereby learners "approach new experiences with a set of pre-established beliefs and naïve theories, [which they later] change only when they cannot reconcile new data with presently held conceptions" (Brooks, 2002, p. 130). Like cognitivism, constructivism still considers knowledge as a representational state, or something that is "built" or "constructed". The final ism to be discussed is in stark contrast with the notion of knowledge as a representational state: connectivism.

With technology now becoming such a presence in the social and educational environments of today, some have put forth the idea that we actually learn differently than we have in the past. Siemens (2005) advocates a new learning theory for the digital age by listing the following principles as they pertain to what he refers to as "connectivism":

  * Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.

  * Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

  * Learning may reside in non-human appliances.

  * _Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known_

  * Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

  * Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

  * Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.

  * _Decision-making is itself a learning process._ Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

_Whether one considers connectivism a learning theory or just a metaphor, the idea of knowledge and learning as a set of connections (i.e., biological, cognitive, and social) certainly has implications for curricularists. The focus on content thus becomes less important as students establishing their own "virtual learning environment" (Wilson, 2005) in such a way that best suits their interests, needs, and learning preferences. This humanistic approach to education indeed pursues more intuitive and critical thinking among students as well as teachers who assume facilitating roles in providing the support needed in connecting the most appropriate nodes (i.e., other people, web sites, communities, etc.) for each learner._

_In Mexico, the psychological foundations that make up a school curriculum tend to be more traditional. In practice, behaviorism and cognitivism are still more commonplace whereas constructivism (i.e., social constructivism, sociocultural theory, etc.) is to a lesser degree. Reflective and creative learning are rare as well in that most students experience a more_ _lock-step approach to education. Educational technology use and the potential it affords are sparse with little time dedicated to communicating its benefits among stakeholders. For example, at most universities, certain websites like YouTube are blocked since some content is viewed as being a possible distracter for students. The use of power among schools in Mexico has resulted in actually deterring and impeding learners from experiencing what some schools claim to promote as a "humanistic" curriculum._

Social foundations

With the diversity within US schools being so prevalent today, social foundations and their impact on education has never been more important. The State of Mississippi has taken up moral education by mandating civil rights instruction for all K-12 students (Byrd, 2009). Teaching students how to respect others and appreciate diversity shifts learning from a focus of epistemology (i.e., What is knowledge?) to one of ontology (i.e., How am I). But when treating the related topic of morality and spirituality in schools, the debate remains. Best (2000) states the following to support this dilemma:

The twin spectres of indoctrination and relativism are much in evidence. As we have seen, the setting-up by SCAA of the National Forum on Values in Education and the Community was an explicit attempt to establish a core of values held by all members of society, such that teachers might reasonably suppose that there could be no objections to their teaching them. However, such an exercise inevitably leads to degrees of generality which require an enormous amount of work if they are to be translated into programs (pp. 7-8). Another view of incorporating morality into the curriculum is to implicitly show learners certain value sets through the development of relationships between teachers and peers.

In Mexico, there is very little in the curriculum that explicitly promotes moral, spiritual, or cultural values per se. In contrast, it is up to each teacher to decide how values and ethics are to be taught in class. What is even rarer are teachers working collaboratively on how to address morals in class. Certainly the expectation is that teachers are to hold high degrees of values and ethics, but discussion of this is usually absent inside faculty meetings. Another factor as to why teachers, students, and administrators fail to openly discuss such matters is likely to be cultural in nature.

In the United States, socialization and cognitive skills acquired in school and at home can be at odds. Rothstein-Fisch and Trumbull (2008) explain: "In the United States, education typically refers to formal education in school settings..., associated with doing well academically and demonstrating that ability through good grades" (p. 13). Valdés (1996) adds that "for immigrant Latino parents, the purpose of educación is much broader: to produce a good and knowledgeable person, one who respects other people and does not place self above others in importance (as cited in Rothstein-Fisch and Trumbull, 2008). For American teachers teaching in Mexico, the opposite is sometimes true. A "typical" American teacher, who is stereotypically viewed as being individualistic, must deal with the majority of a student body who are stereotypically viewed as being collectivists. A classroom dynamic that includes an individualistic and collectivist dynamic between teacher and student than therefore influence how the written curriculum is implemented, as will be discussed later.

Principals of curriculum

Design. Once different philosophical, historical, psychological, and social elements are formulated and articulated, the elements that constitute a curricular design emerge. The main four elements to consider when designing a curriculum include source, scope, sequence, and integration. Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) provide the following curriculum sources: a) "science as a source, b) society as a source, c) moral doctrine as a source, d) knowledge as a source, and e) learner as a source" (pp. 183-185). The degree of how each of these sources influences the end design of the curriculum will certainly be based on the curriculum foundations previously mentioned. Thus, the importance of building a community of practice from the beginning of the design process – and as a byproduct, collegiality and congeniality (Sergiovanni, 2005) – is key to consensus building.

The second element when designing a curriculum is how detailed content is to be covered. What level of understanding should learners have once the curriculum has been implemented? Ornstein and Hunkins (2009) mention that the scope of a curriculum should include cognitive, affective, psychomotor, moral, and spiritual domains. As with curriculum sources, the degree that each of these domains are to be carried out involves collaboration among all stakeholders (i.e., administrators, curricularists, teachers, students, parents, and community leaders). The tendency should be to avoid limiting the curriculum to a single domain.

Sequence and integration address the final elements of curricular design. Sequence design arranges the curriculum in an order that is either based on development (as Piaget would believe) or the learner (as Vygotsky and his followers believe). Posner and Strike (1976) identifies five major types of content sequence: a) "world-related, b) concept-related, c) inquiry-related, d) learning-related, e) utilization-related" (as cited in Glatthorn, Boschee, and Whitehead, 2009). Whereas sequence addresses the vertical curriculum, integration views the horizontal curriculum in an interdisciplinary manner. Instead of courses being offered in isolation, an integrated curriculum intertwines concepts among a variety of courses. For example, foreign language courses that incorporate concepts and processes related to the majors of the learners provide reinforcement of both a foreign language and content-specific principles related to their field of interest.

In designing the university curriculum, a survey was administered to all stakeholders in an effort to build a mission and vision statement that articulated the purpose and goals of the university. Based on the mission and vision statement, each centro, or department, develops their curriculum that must be authorized by the university board, consisting of all the deans of the university. Once approved by the university board, it goes to the university commission with is the higher level authority within the university for final approval. The sources of curriculum design the university most follows are science, society, knowledge, and learner. Morals, values, and spirituality are not expressed to the same degree however. This could be a cultural phenomenon that is based on a collectivist society that assumes that teachers are to take on this role as part of a learner's educación. Scope tends to be limited to the cognitive domain and sequence is mainly based on prerequisites. The "subject-centered" (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009) design of the curriculum is to a degree a deviation to the humanistic mission and vision the university projects.

Development. Along the technical – nontechnical continuum lays some given approach to curriculum development. Wiggins and McTighe (2005) put forth an alternative to Bloom's Taxonomy that as a matter of practice has been limited to the cognitive domain. They express the need to build "understandings" that can be expressed through a variety of six facets: "explain, interpret, apply, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge (p. 84). The six facets of understanding thus reach across the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains, specifically through moral and spiritual learning (e.g., showing empathy, offering different perspectives, and demonstrating self-knowledge). Objectives then are not presented in single performance verbs as they normally are when applying Bloom's Taxonomy, but rather are expressed in terms of understandings that students must work through in terms of the six facets. In other words, learners can demonstrative their understandings on a given idea, concept, or notion in a variety of ways as the teacher acts as a "didactic instructor", "facilitator", and "coach" (Wiggins and McTighe, 2007, p. 129) that leads the learners through the various facets.

The university adheres to a curriculum development approach that is more technical in nature. The university asks the following same four questions Tyler (1949) asked 60 years ago:

  1. "What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?

  2. How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives?

  3. How can learning experiences be organized for effective instruction?

  4. How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated?

In pursuit of these questions, a collaborative team follows a modified "deliberation model" (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009) consisting of the following stages "public sharing" and "adopting a decision". What is typically lacking is the process of expressing diverse opinions and reaching a consensus after hearing members out. Moreover, there is usually more of a concern as to the content of the curriculum and less concern for the experiences and environments necessary for learners to interact with the content.

Implementation.  Implementing a new curriculum requires change. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) state that change requires stakeholders working together as a "professional learning community" which includes the following six characteristics:

  * shared mission, vision, values, and goals – all focused on student learning

  * a collaborative culture with a focus on learning

  * collective inquiry into best practices and current reality

  * action orientation: learning by doing

  * a commitment to continuous improvement

  * results orientation (pp. 15-17).

They go on to advocate the importance of establishing hope as opposed to fear when supporting change processes throughout the school system. However, in the case of the university, dealing with the fear of the teachers who resist change is of considerable concern. For this reason, the "overcoming-resistance-to-change model", or (ORC), is the most viable option. The premise of this model is to gain advocates by addressing people's fears and doubts by convincing individuals that the new program takes their values and perspective into account (Ornstein and Hunkins, 2009). Developing a professional learning community to address change processes is what currently lacking at the university. Granting leadership opportunities to teachers based on ability and will should take precedence over leadership by title only. Working with the strengths of each of the individuals will develop a more productive community of practice that reaches collective goals without marginalizing individual members in the process.

Evaluation. Curriculum evaluation that takes on a humanistic approach guides teachers in a formative way in closing the "unknowing-knowing-doing" gap. The taught curriculum invariably differs from the written curriculum in two ways: a) teachers are unaware of what is expected or unsure as to what to do when working toward a "shared" goal such as a school vision, or b) teachers are aware of what is expected but fail to do so because they do not agree with the "shared" goal or school vision. The way a curriculum is evaluated will depend on which of these two, or combination of the two, apply to the school environment. Evaluation of the curriculum is really an assessment of learning, both for the faculty and the students (DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, 2008). To facilitate ongoing learning, formative assessment helps guide teachers towards an end through collegial interaction. Popham (2008) defines formative assessment as a "planned process in which assessment-elicited evidence of students' [or teachers'] status is used by teachers [or administrators, instructional leaders, etc.] to adjust their ongoing instructional [or leadership] procedures or by students [or teachers] to adjust their current learning tactics". He goes on contrast formative assessment by defining summative assessment as "when a mature, final-version educational program is evaluated in order to make a decision about its continuation or termination" (pp. 3-6). Indeed, formative assessment guides teachers in a nonjudgmental way in order to build a professional learning community that fosters the sharing of ideas, experiences, successes, and failures.

Conclusion

The taught curriculum in Mexico exhibits foundations and principles that adhere to a more traditional, behavioral approach to education while at the same time the written curriculum expresses a more humanistic approach to teaching and learning. With such a wide interpretation of what the term "humanistic" means, teachers must work together as a professional learning community in such a way that builds a community of practice towards a shared school mission and vision. In doing so, learning among all stakeholders thus becomes the end goal, namely improved student achievement. In pursuit of a humanistic approach to curriculum avoids only concentrating on the cognitive domain, but rather it includes the affective and psychomotor domains as well. Specifically, moral, ethical, and spiritual development occurs through implicit means of relationship building between teachers and peers. Undeniably, teaching the whole child becomes teaching the entire stakeholder becomes the result of cultivating the foundations and principles required that ensures successful design, implementation, and evaluation of the curriculum in a way that best prepares learners to be more productive citizens within the global community that is our world today.

References

Best, R. (2000). Education for spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. London: Continuum Wellington House.

Briggs, A. and Sommefeldt, D. (2002). Managing effective learning and teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: State University of New York press.

Brooks, J. (2002). Schooling for life: Reclaiming the essences of learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Byrd, S. (2009, August 20). Miss. making civil rights part of K-12 instruction. The Associated Press. Retrieved on August 20, 2009 from http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/From.kindergarten.to.2.1137108.html

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & Education. New York: Touchtone.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., and Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Garner, B. (2007). Getting to got it! Helping struggling students learn how to learn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Glatthorn, A., Boschee, F., and Whitehead, B. (2009). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation. London: SAGE Publications.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mexico English Teacher's Alliance. (2009). Retrieved on August 15, 2009 from http://metamexico.ning.com/forum/topics/problems-in-english-education

Ornstein, A. and Hunkins, F. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Pearson.

Popham, W. (2008). Transformataive assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Rothstein-Fisch, C. and Trumbull, E. (2008). Managing diverse classrooms: How to build on students' cultural strengths. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Salerno, S. (2009, August 19). American higher education is sliding lower and lower. Daily News. Retrieved on August 15, 2009 from http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/13/2009-08-13_american_higher_education_is_sliding_lower_and_lower.html

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved on August 20, 2009 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Sergiovanni, T. (1999). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Testing the teachers; Education in Mexico. (Mexico's education reform) (Alliance for Educational Quality). May 24, 2008 v387 i8581 p55USThe Economist (US), 387, 8581. p.55US. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from Academic OneFile via Gale:  
http://find.galegroup.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2007). Schooling by design: Mission, action, and achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wiggins, G. and McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wilson, S. (2005). Future VLE – The vision version. Retrieved on August 20, 2009 from http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?entry=20050125170206

#

About the Author

Benjamin L. Stewart holds a PhD in curriculum and instructional leadership and a master's degree in education, curriculum and instruction: technology. He is a full-time EFL teacher educator and researcher at the University of Aguascalientes with an interest in researching personal learning networks and language teaching and learning. To know more, visit http://www.benjaminlstewart.org/
