Common Core Standards

Hey, I just realized that I have this blog missing. So here it is. I watched the Common Core Standards video for secondary education, and I have to say I am very enthusiastic about its prospects and potential. Even though I know how beneficial it can be to allow states to manage their own education, I always thought it was kind of weird that they didn't have a very specific central curriculum. This makes it difficult, for example, for educational training gained in one state to apply in another state. Often even different parts of a single state may have vastly different goals. Applying a common core standard to every state, that they can build on further but that demands a certain minimum level across the nation, can do a lot to help students get a more global education and ameliorate many of the debates raging around the content of individual state curriculum. This could even have immediate practical benefits in the form of centralizing instruction materials and making things more efficient and cost-effective for schools and teachers. Though it is always important to let the individual community have its own say in the education of its children, I think these Common Core Standards is a good first step on the road to reform.

Are Teachers Even Necessary?

This article provides two contrasting viewpoints on the question of whether teacher-student interaction is truly necessary for the education of every single student. Though some students enter school ready to learn and engage with their teachers, there are always some students who are not as enthusiastic about their schooling, and there are many different ideas about why this is or how to counter it.

The first perspective is in favor of teachers. Bloggers Pernille Ripp and John Spencer say that the human touch of a teacher's instruction can never be replaced by technology, because only humans are able to truly understand other humans. The other perspective takes a Mark Twain-esque "never let school get in the way of education" approach - the author says that, despite graduating early with honors and being interested in education, her teachers weighed her down more than they helped her, which disrupted her passion for learning. She also suggests a variety of technological tools that can be used in place of standard face-to-face instruction to guide students learning more independently.

Personally I think the second view, that teachers are not necessarily a mandatory component of education, is right on. First of all, the first bloggers have no real basis in saying that the human touch is so important. I mean humans are great, and we have relied on human instruction since that was really the only way to do it up until now, but now that we have the opportunity to explore other methods of teaching due to incredible breakthroughs in technology, you have no real way of determining that these new methods won't perhaps prove just as useful.

Second, in the other class I'm taking, about multiculturalism in education, one of the big concepts is that as teachers we need to provide each student with whatever mode of instruction fits them the best, whatever will personally aid in their learning the most. If some students learn better from a more independent instruction that utilizes technology, who are we to say "No, you aren't learning right, you have to learn this from a teacher while sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day?"


Fingal, D. (2012, March). Are Teachers Even Necessary? ISTE Learning and Leading Digital Edition. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/learn/publications/learning-and-leading/DigitalEditionMarch-April2012.aspx

From Degrading to De-Grading

This article offers an argument towards shifting our assessment system away from a rigorous grading metric and moving towards a system based more on teacher-student feedback, collaboration, and holistic assessment. Studies have shown that emphasizing the importance of letter grades can reduce student interest in learning in favor of achieving high marks, reducing students' preference for challenging tasks, and lowering the quality of student output. The author argues that grading is already pretty arbitrary, each grade just a function of an individual teacher's choices in assessing a student. He also argues that grades are not necessarily correlated with learning, and that the focus on grade takes attention away from actual learning. Grades also encourage cheating and contribute to a negative social atmosphere within schools. The author then attempts to counter some common objections, positing that the practical difficulties of making such a change should be viewed as problems to solve. Some of these problems or objections include that students are driven to succeed by grades, or that assessment for the rigors of higher learning necessitates the use of some quantitative metric due to the sheer amount of people that exist. The author acknowledges these difficulties and offers some ways, if not to abolish grades, to at least de-emphasize them within your classroom or school, such as not grading on a curve, not ranking students, or using an assessment system based primarily on teacher-student collaboration and feedback. Though it seems like there is no other way for one teacher to accurately assess their many students in the traditional educational environment, the author challenges the very structure of this environment and asks how we can radically reshape education to focus more on learning than grades.

I think the author provides a pretty good argument, all things considered. Grades aren't the end-all be-all, and its undeniable that on a basic level they distract from learning. I found the author's argument that grades are ultimately arbitrary inventions of an individual teacher to be most compelling; in this sense, the more holistic system isn't so different, in that they're both abstractions of a singular teacher's choices. While grades serve a purpose for colleges to judge applicants, it's arguable whether they offer any benefit to lower grade levels, especially in light of studies that discourage retention as a practice for its ineffectiveness in promoting achievement. However, in response to the question "Is there value in a grade? Are they still important?", I have to say yes. The arguments presented in this essay are good, but very idealistic. Such changes would require a radical overhaul of the structure of education and educational assessment, and perhaps even society itself. However, I believe that the further integration of technology into the educational environment will go a long way towards asserting this goal. Many of the changes needed for our system to become less dependent on a rigorous grading metric can be proportionally solved through the intelligent application of technological advances. The argument for getting rid of grades is one of many in a larger argument towards becoming a more global, connected, and democratic society through technology.

Kohn, A. (1999, March). From Degrading to De-Grading. High School Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/fdtd-g.htm

Bringing Computational Thinking to K12

This article provides an introduction to computational thinking and offers some insights as to its history and development as a conceptual and pedagogical practice. The article attempts to provide an overview of computational thinking by investigating the relationship between computer science and computational thinking, exploring how to define computational thinking in a way that is useful and relevant for educators, developing some strategies to bring computational thinking into the classroom for a wide range of subject matters, and assessing the necessary requirements and guidelines to integrating computational thinking within the K12 system. From what I understand, computational thinking generally appears to be a conceptual framework of thought in which logical thinking typical of use in computer science is emphasized. It also engenders a variety of other computer-related concepts for educational practice such as the increased use of computers in instruction or the integration of computational terminology into pedagogical language.

In response to the question, "Do you believe that learning should tap into computational thinking for students today; why or why not?" I offer a guarded yes and no. I think, in general, that it would be a good idea to update our educational system to acknowledge the ongoing technological revolution - some sort of reexamination of our basic institutions that addresses the potential of computers in education. But, as described in the article, I think computational thinking is too broadly defined to be of use in its current state. In its effort to stretch its relevancy to cover every facet of education, it has become too vague to distinguish itself from preestablished modes of thought. I agree with certain parts of computational thinking, such as the effort to rework the school system to integrate technology and technological understanding. But then they have all this other stuff about tying this to some ambiguously defined system of thought that encourages students to think like programmers or something. I don't think this approach is relevant or desirable for every single subject matter or mode of instruction. In addition many of their proposed changes seem pointless, such as the introduction of programming jargon into the classroom environment, or even not really different from current educational guidelines and strategies. In short, while I agree with some of the goals and methods of and reasons for computational thinking, I think it is too broad to be very relevant to teachers in its current state.

Barr, V. and Stephenson, C. (2011, March) Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is Involved 
and What is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community? ACM Inroads. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/Libraries/NETS_Refresh_Toolkit/Bringing_CT_to_K-12.sflb.ashx