Category: Classroom

Introduction

According to statistical results, in a typical college classroom of approximately 30 students, there are 5 or 6 of them to avoid or otherwise resist doing something that the teacher wants them to do (Burroughs, 1990). At first glance, a resistance rate of only 16%-20% may not seem particularly alarming; it may not even appear particularly troublesome. And yet, we all know that it only takes one or two students to ruin an entire class for all involved. Rather than remain helpless to such resistance attempts, rather than “wait them out” and hope for a better group of students next time, teachers chose instead to try to understand how and why students resist to take a more preventative or proactive stance. The literature identifies two methods of resistance: passive and active. Findings (Alpert, 1991) suggest that college students would rather avoid open and aggressive confrontations with their teachers. Active, more public resistance, on the other hand, may force the teacher to engage in abrupt and definitive desist attempts. Second, passive strategies conform to student role expectancies. Passive techniques are less likely to disrupt the entire class, result in contagion effects, and engage the teacher/student in some sort of “power” struggle.

Psychological problems and lack of communication

The major layer of literature underlines that student resistance in the classroom is caused by psychological problems and lack of communication (Miles 2007; Sekayi, 2001). Resistance is endemic to the college classroom. Sekayi (2001) claims that observations of classroom resistance or student misbehavior may obscure the actual number and kinds of oppositional behaviors that normally transpire in the typical college classroom. That is, students may perform as “good subjects” (or good students) under the scrutiny of an outsider. Similarly, teachers themselves may underestimate the actual number and kinds of resistance responses by selectively recalling only their “best” or “ideal” class, or perhaps, these same teachers are oblivious or insensitive to the resistance that does occur in their classrooms.

Following Miles (2007) students themselves, not the teacher, own the problem or reasons for their resistance. Students who select specific strategies are likely to resist by saying, “I forgot,” “I have kids (or other responsibilities). These statements and others suggest that students justify their resistance by holding themselves primarily responsible for their behavior. Students assign blame to themselves. A student may resist if they have a conflict with a teacher or school (college) administration. In reverse, students are likely to perceive their nonimmediate teacher as behaving inappropriately or inconsistently with their expectations of what professors should or should not do. As a result, they feel justified in their resistance to nonimmediate teacher demands and select strategies that place the blame directly on the teacher.

Teacher influence attempts

Another layer of literature states that college students can and will resist teacher influence attempts (Paulsel and Chory-Assad, 2004). These factors lead to silence, anger, avoidance, guilt related to content or subject matter. By the time these students become adult learners, they have learned and practiced a variety of sophisticated resistance techniques. To some extent, teachers themselves can control whether students decide to comply or resist. Moreover, teachers themselves can control how students choose to resist. In this way, teachers can assume a preventative, proactive stance to student control. College students perceive their teachers as responsible for some of their resistance. The results of the research reveal that teachers themselves “misbehave” (Kearney, Plax & Burroughs 1991). College students identified a number of their teachers as incompetent, offensive, and/or indolent. Students reported that some teachers lacked basic teaching skills; others humiliated students and tried to intimidate them; still, others showed up late for class, returned graded papers and exams late, and “underwhelmed” students by making their classes too easy. Following Sekayi (2001) “much of this resistant behavior manifests itself through student-teacher relationships. I observed a variety of behavior from blatant disrespect to indifference. These relationships seemed to depend largely upon the day, the activity and/or the moods of students and/or teachers” (p. 414). In some cases, student resistance is caused by students’ problems and include those in which the students’ needs or includes are interrupted by other students or events (e.g., the student cannot concentrate because others around her or him are talking) (Kearney et al 1988). Silence, anger, and avoidance can be caused by poor emotional climate in the classroom and lack of motivation, lack of communication, and discrimination. And, shared problems are those in which the teacher and student interfere with each other’s needs (e.g., the teacher continues to call on a student who is so apprehensive about communicating that she or he cannot respond, even though she or he knows the correct answer). Students may want to see the teachers become more self-aware of their basic inadequacies as instructors. Some students prefer to confront the teacher directly (active) in their efforts to change the instructor (Paulsel and Chory-Assad 2004).

Conclusion

The results of that investigation suggest that students may have legitimate cause for assigning blame to teachers for some of their resistance. Importantly, teachers should consider carefully the validity of students’ resistance, particularly when the strategies employed define the teacher as the problem source.

References

Alpert, B. (1991). Students’ Resistance in the Classroom. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 22 (4), 350-366.

Burroughs N. F. (1990). The relationship of teacher Immediacy and student compliance/resistance with learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Kearney P., Plax T. G., Smith V. R., & Sorensen G. (1988). Effects of teacher immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task demands. Communication Education 37 (2), 54-67.

Kearney P., Plax T. G., & Burroughs N. F. (1991). “An attributional analysis of college students’ resistance decisions”. Communication Education 40 (4), 325-342.

Miles, R.D. (2007). Student Resistance in the Classroom. YouthLight, Inc..

Paulsel, M. L., Chory-Assad, R.M. (2004). The Relationships among Instructors’ Antisocial Behavior Alteration Techniques and Student Resistance. Communication Reports 17 (2), 103.

Sekayi, D.N.R. (2001). Intellectual Indignation: Getting at the Roots of Student Resistance in an Alternative High School Program. Education 122 (2), 414-415.

Basic Principles

Assessment is the overall analysis of the performance of individuals based on the skill and knowledge one has acquired through the learning process. The process of assessing the learner’s development throughout the learning activity is often emphasized. Accordingly, there are several types of assessments which aim at measuring and improving the standards of the learner’s learning activity.

In other words, assessment is important for the evaluation of the learner’s achievement or learning as well as for the presentation of more effective instruction in the learning process. Therefore, there are several basic principles which help in the large scale as well as classroom based assessment. The principles which are fundamental for effective understanding and application through assessment include the principles of reliability, validity, relevance and transferability etc.

There are also other principles which guide the quality of assessment. Thus, an effective assessment, which is inclusive of all learners, offers means for the learners to utilize feedback from the evaluation and prepares them to take up the responsibility for their own learning. Further, such an effective assessment “emphasizes the interactions between learning and manageable assessment strategies that promote learning… clearly expresses for the student and teacher the goals of the learning activity… reflects a view of learning in which assessment helps students learn better, rather than just achieve a better mark.” (Principles of Assessment for Learning).

The chief principles that are fundamental in assessment are the principle of reliability, validity, and relevance and transferability. These are common criteria which make an assessment process effective and useful to the learner.

When an assessment is reliable, valid, and relevant, it can be immensely useful to the learner in his future improvement. Through a reliable assessment, same judgment and evaluation about the learning content will be arrived at by the different assessors acting autonomously using the same criteria and mark scheme. The question of validity is also considered to be crucial in assessment and it is measured in terms of the extent to which the assessment values the content of learning. Similarly, the principle of relevance and transferability is also significant.

Thus, it is important that the assessment task “addresses the skills you want the student to develop and, as much as possible, it puts them into a recognizable context with a sense of ‘real purpose’ behind why the task would be undertaken and a sense of a ‘real audience’, beyond the tutor, for whom the task would be done.” (Principles of Assessment). To conclude, the principles of reliability, validity, and relevance and transferability are often considered to be greatly crucial in the assessment process and they are given utmost significance in the formulation of the assessment tasks. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to the educators to recognize the relevance of these principles which guide an effective assessment of the learners in the learning process.

Works Cited

Principles of Assessment for Learning. New South Wales Government: Assessment Resource Centre: Board of Studies News. 2006. Web.

Principles of Assessment. Oxford Brookes University. 2007. Web.

Diversity in a classroom is a complex issue that needs a thorough examination. In particular, ability, special needs, and cultural backgrounds would be considered in this paper. Diversity refers to a variety of differences that are inherited to every learner. Moreover, each of the students possesses certain expectations, predispositions, and interactions that compose their identity. In order to understand the learners’ experience, it is essential to take into account classroom diversity.

The first factor under discussion is the cultural background. It goes without saying that plenty of ethnicities and nations might live together in the same community. As a result, learners from different origins study in the same class. Newly moved ethnicities might also experience several difficulties with language and adjustment to a new area. Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, and Le Cornu (2003) state that “Australian-born children of immigrant parents are also likely to have been raised in a culturally different environment and this might affect their ability to learn at school” (p. 57).

Family peculiarities affect students’ performance on the level of their expectations. In other words, some parents are strict and require excellent marks, while others prefer to help their children with studying. Finally, a teacher should be sensitive to the gender peculiarities of every learner avoiding generalizations.

The second factor consists of the special needs of learners. For instance, gifted and talented children have more inherited potential. However, this issue is rather controversial as some people argue that every student is talented in his or her own way. Howbeit, such students might need more psychological support to use their advanced skills and knowledge. Some of the talented learners tend to downplay their abilities or conceal them.

Students with disabilities present another group that requires a specific approach and programs. At the same time, the above issues might lead to the decreased isolation of children and the decline of their self-esteem. As a rule, children with disabilities do not have problems with mastering school material, yet the problem of communication with peers appears at the forefront of these students. Children at risk include those with temper tantrums or chronic illnesses and also compose diversity.

Abilities or learning styles are the third factors defining classroom diversity. Every student learns differently. According to Gardner’s multiple bits of intelligence, there are eight types of learning including linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and others (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, and Le Cornu, 2003). Consequently, learners might understand and remember information in a variety of ways that also should be considered by a teacher.

Seeing the above diversity issues, it seems appropriate to discuss a set of strategies aimed at providing equal learning outcomes for diversity classroom. McInerney and McInerney (2006) note that multicultural education is the best solution for the identified problem. In particular, bilingual education would suit to the learners’ expectations. Teachers might engage parents to contribute to the equal education as well. It might be performed by means of different meetings, conferences, and other mutual control measures.

Inclusive learning is another way to achieve the stated goal. Gargiulo and Metcalf (2013) consider that inclusive learning involves the formation of a joint education of children with disabilities or other peculiarities and their peers. As a result, all the children with special educational needs would be able to develop and learn together attending regular schools and having friends. The idea is that in order to get an equal education and psychological adaptation, children with special needs would actively interact with other children (Cheminais, 2013).

It should also be stressed that there is a need to provide indigenous children and children belonging to minorities with equal access to quality education on the same basis as other children. Efforts should be made to make sure that education is ensured with respect to their heritage (Petrovic, 2010). It is also necessary to make efforts to create opportunities for learning so that indigenous children and children belonging to minorities may be more aware of and maintain their cultural identity including significant aspects such as language and values (Skutnabb-Kangas & Heugh, 2012).

Being aware that some children are often insufficiently prepared for school, have learning difficulties, or do not get family support, the teachers should make maximum efforts to develop their learning motivation, to orient to the highest possible academic results, and support the interest and activity in the study (Shernoff, 2013). To this end, it is of great importance to actively involve diverse classroom members in project activities and academic studies starting with their primary class and associating with themes close to the students: the history of their family, local environment, or global issues.

Rapidly developing information and communication technologies should support education processes while reducing inequality in access to education (Ashman & Elkins, 2011). In particular, technology allows improving some functional tools such as glossary or thesaurus. Also, technology-based learning promotes children integration. For example, it is possible to design a digital storybook to share with others.

References

Ashman, A. F., & Elkins, J. (2011). Education for inclusion and diversity. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Australia.

Cheminais, R. (2013). How to create the inclusive classroom: Removing barriers to learning. London, UK: David Fulton.

Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. J. (2013). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms: A universal design for learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R. & Le Cornu, R. (2003). Teaching: Challenges and dilemmas (2nd ed.). Southbank, Victoria: Thomson.

McInerney, D. & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: constructing learning (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.: Pearson Education.

Petrovic, J. E. (2010). International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy. Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Shernoff, D. J. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York, NY: Springer.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Heugh, K. (2012). Multilingual education and sustainable diversity work: From periphery to center. New York, NY: Routledge.

Abstract

The topic of this study is the integration of autistic children into mainstream schools. Thus, the literature of this research is concerned with the issues of autism in education and possible combinations of ordinary children with the autistic ones in mainstream educational establishments. The information retrieved from the numerous studies and research works allows us to make the following statements in the current research.

The issue of autistic children’s integration is of crucial importance in modern society. In some aspects, it is being solved by letting autistic children study in mainstream schools, by creating special accommodations and adaptations for them in the mainstream schools, by special training given to teachers who have to teach autistic children, and by employing specially trained attendants for these purposes. All these aspects of the problem are disclosed in the research which is aimed at finding out if the study of autistic children in mainstream schools is right and if it has a certain effect on the education of ordinary pupils (Ormrod, 2007).

Introduction

Autism is one of the numerous mental problems and the way in which children suffering from this disorder should be treated in society is of great importance for the formation of a highly developed and adequate society that will display respect and be friendly to people who have certain disabilities. The issue of autism is one o the most burning issues in modern society. On the whole, mental disorders cause a lot of controversies, and people suffering from them are treated differently. To some people, they are “abnormal” human beings who should have separate space for living, education, and other activities.

Others acknowledge their rights for mainstream education and complete development in society alongside all others. This is a rather controversial point because the decision that will be made will predetermine the direction of the development of human society in the future. Special importance is attributed to the issue of autism and people with other mental disorders when it comes to education and children’s development (Alston, 2004).

Problem

The question of the autistic children should study together with ordinary children in mainstream educational establishments or have their separate ones is to be answered, and the current research was conducted in order to get the answer to it. In this paper, we are going to see the major research carried out on this topic before. We will also consider the results of the researches, see their advantages and drawbacks, and analyze the issue using our own point of view.

The problem of the current research paper is the integration of autistic children into mainstream classrooms. As far as the issue exists in many countries, scientists from all over the world paid their attention to it. The main aspect of the problem is the treatment that the autistic children will be given in the mainstream educational establishments from the sides of both teachers and classmates. Other important issues of the kind are the attitudes of parents towards the study of their children, as far as parents of autistic children claim that all children must have equal rights, while parents of other children suppose that special attention of teachers will prevent both groups of students from getting a good education.

Moreover, there are ideas that autistic children can develop their communication and social skills better while communicating with healthy children. At the same time, there are opposing views that claim that autistic children can only become more reserved because of the communication that will demand from them the skills and effort they have never heard. All this led us to the necessity of the current research, and the following sections will be discussing the most important issues of autistic children’s integration, as well as proposing further research.

Analysis

As far as autism is a serious mental disorder with a lot of symptoms and various types that differ from each other in seriousness, the question of adaptations for autistic children has been studied a lot. The latest research was carried out by Janet Alston. The author ponders on the issue of necessity, and in some places of continuation, of the use of special accommodations and adaptations for children with various disabilities including autism.

Adaptations are very important as far as they make the study easier for pupils with special demands and needs in respect of communication and activity. These adaptations in a classroom can include the special lighting of the room, special equipment of the place of study, certain material aids, as well as using different methods and ways of teaching in respect of demands of autistic children care, different time organization of classes and, sometimes, presence of specially trained attendants to take care of autistic children if a teacher can not cope with the task because of lack of knowledge or special training in the field.

This practice, which is implemented in certain schools and kindergartens in the USA and some other countries, is rather effective and helpful for autistic children, as well as for teachers and other students who can easily adjust to new conditions (Alston, 2004).

Modern science is concerned with another aspect of the issue – attitudes and actions of parents of autistic children. This topic is disclosed by Rebekah Grace and her colleagues in their article dedicated to the help from the side of parents to the autistic children in order for them to become integrated into society and into educational establishments in particular. The study carried out by the authors of the article examined the interviews of a lot of parents of autistic children and of many workers of mainstream educational establishments and care centers in order to see their point on the topic of integration of autistic children and the results were not surprising.

Parents were disappointed with the attitudes of officials who ignored or refused to take autistic children to their establishments or agreed to do it if the parents pay a lot for it. Officials, in their turn, explained such a situation by the fact that mainstream establishments do not have facilities to assure the proper studying of children with special needs so it would be better not to enroll them so that not to cause additional difficulty for both sides.

These arguments are understandable, from the parents’ point as well as from the opposite one, but the truth is in the middle – in trying to combine both points and let autistic children develop in the most useful surrounding, for example simplifying their adjustment to mainstream education by methods of a jigsaw or behavioral intervention (Grace, 2008).

One more controversial point of view discussed by Jane, Simpson, Volkmar, and other scientists are the point of absolute separation of autistic children in respect of education. This point is motivated by the fact that their joint study with other children can be harmful to both groups (Simpson, 2003). Autistic children can be affected by cruelty and lack of understanding from the side of other children which is quite usual at an early age, while other children can be limited in access to education because of more time in class being paid to the needs of autistic students and thus neither of the groups will be provided with proper education standards.

This argument also is quite reasonable because the needs of ordinary students also should not b discriminated against to satisfy the needs of students with disabilities. In this case, the way out can be to enroll those autistic students whose disabilities allow them at least some extent of work with the rest of the class, while those who are affected by serious forms of autism should start their education in separate establishments with possible transition to mainstream ones (Volkmar, 2004).

Behaviorist Theory

All the considered issues seem to be viewed from the behaviorist point of view as far as they all pay attention to the influence of culture, environment, and conditions of society upon the behavior of both ordinary students and autistic ones. The essence of behaviorism lies in explaining behavior by external factors leaving no space for the unconscious. Thus, the actions of autistic children can change and be out of control without proper care of parents or attendants, and this in its turn can affect the behavior and studying skills of ordinary students. To put it simply, behaviorist theory can not guarantee the success of the integration of autistic children into mainstream classrooms as far as factors affecting behavior can not be permanently controlled (Ormrod, 2007).

Conclusion

To conclude, the social and educational integration of autistic children is possible under certain conditions but still demands further research. Further research should also be conducted so that to avoid all possible negative effects of such integration. There is a need to study the effect of communication with autistic children for ordinary students, as well as the ways in which the studying skills of autistic students can be improved without discomforting mainstream education and discrimination of needs of mainstream students. So, my research project will cover the areas that have not been yet studied enough and complete, to a possible extent, the knowledge of autism and the integration of autistic people into the mainstream education system.

References

Alston, J., & Kilham, C. (2004). Adaptive Education for Students with Special Needs in the Inclusive Classroom. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(3), 24+.

Grace, R., Llewellyn, G., Wedgwood, N., Fenech, M., & Mcconnell, D. (2008). Everyday Experiences of Mothers and Early Childhood Professionals Negotiating an Inclusive Early Childhood Experience in the Australian Context. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 18+.

Ormrod, J. (2007). Human Learning. 5^th edition, Prentice Hall.

Simpson, R. L., de Boer-Ott, S. R., & Smith-Myles, B. (2003). Inclusion of learners with autism spectrum disorders in general education settings. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(2), 116-134.

Volkmar, F., Lord, C., Bailey, A., Schultz, R. T., & Klin, A. (2004). Autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 135-170.

The Most Appealing Ideas Expressed by the Author

In this book titled Fair Isn’t Always Equal: Assessing & Grading in the Differentiated Classroom, Rick Wormeli explored the complexity and diversity of strategies for differentiated teaching and raises a very interesting question concerning the effects such teaching could have on the teachers, as well as their students. In particular, the author wondered whether or not this kind of teaching had limitations and could eventually become overwhelming for the educators using too much differentiation. In addition, Wormeli also expressed his concerns about the impact of differentiated education on the learners who could become used to this type of treatment and eventually grow to expect the rest of the society to adjust to their needs.

The author responds to the latter issue by saying that the ultimate point of differentiated education is not to make learning easy and simple but to make it more flexible in order to meet the students’ needs of various kinds. The perspective of the author is very interesting as he elaborates on the ways how differentiated learning will help educators deliver knowledge in a more learner-centric and sensitive manner.

Moreover, it is interesting that the author links the lack of differentiated education and the teachers’ knowledge of their individual learners with the children’s dropping out of schools and courses due to their perceived unsuitability for the learners’ needs. In that way, as emphasized by Wormeli, by making education more accessible and comprehensible for the students. The educators would be able to encourage them to continue studying and never give up on complex and demanding courses.

Additionally, the author emphasizes that differentiation is opposed to the approach used in old-fashioned teaching strategies where the students who failed to take the grasp of certain material right away are encouraged simply to learn it by heart. In that way, the teacher seems to act in a selfish manner accomplishing his or her mission superficially; this behavior could be likened to fraud where instead of actual change, the agent facilitates its imitation to cover up their failure.

The Implications of the Ideas in the Book for Me as an Educator

The book under review carries many different implications for me as an educator. First of all, it encourages teachers to treat their professional duties and tasks in a fair and honest manner and to prevent the superficial teaching that occurs under the lack of differentiated approach. Secondly, the author paid a lot of effort attempting to discuss differentiated teaching and explain to the readers that it is, in fact, a very valuable concept and a useful strategy. The author did so because he knew he was addressing a common stereotype that differentiation is nothing but making the learning easier and convincing the students that the world revolves around them and everything will always match their individual needs.

The information presented by the author in this book focuses on assessment in differentiated learning that, of course, needs to match the general approach. In other words, the implication for me as an educator is that since the knowledge and new information are to be delivered in a flexible manner matching the individual needs and learning styles of the students, the assessment practices require diversity as well. In particular, it seems that the author suggests that separate assessment instructions need to be developed for every evaluation session and every differentiated test. This implication is rather logical because since the learners may have different levels of mastery, as well as different achievement levels, an educator has to present everyone with a fair feedback and assessment.

In addition, the implication also may be that I, as an educator, would have to become more attentive to my assessment guidelines and, in some cases, pay much more effort than usually developing approaches to assessment, methods, and interpreting the results.

The Ideas that I Challenge

Even though I enjoyed learning from this book a lot and find it extremely valuable, I would like to challenge a couple of ideas expressed by the author.

First of all, at the very beginning of the book, Wormeli explained the mechanism according to which differentiated teaching works by using an analogy with teaching two students with different eyesight capacities. To be more precise, the author states that equalizing the condition of the two children and removing the glasses used by the student with weak eyesight would provide him with an excuse to skip the lesson due to not being able to keep up with the instruction physically. In that way, providing the students with tools and techniques that meet their learning needs keeps them challenged and engaged with the lesson. However, the problem is that the curricula are often fixed and have stable and standard requirements where all students need to reach a certain level of mastery to graduate. Providing some of them with tasks matching their level of academic achievement would likely keep them at that level without encouraging any growth.

In addition, I would like to wonder if differentiated assessment stands for differentiated grades. Let us suppose that there is a high-achieving student who was given a solid B+ for their work, and there is a low-achiever, who did a very good job for their level as well. Both students will be given the same grade for different levels of knowledge. That seems rather confusing. This way, my question is – will differentiated learning bring about a broader spectrum of grades?

Introduction

Education had brought with it a world of possibilities, among them is academic freedom. However, when mishandled, academic freedom is a double edge sword that can start unwarranted tension. The question as to whether professors should be allowed to advocate their views on political and social issues is rather obvious; they should not. This is mainly because by so doing, they will be infringing on the academic freedom of their students by imposing their ideologies on their receptive students. While most professors adhere to the logical concept of keeping personal opinions personal, some have converted the classroom into a pulpit for the masquerading of personal political and social opinions. In the recent past, professors have been accused of several faults, and it was because of these faults that it was deemed necessary to put a cap on the extent to which professors can excise freedom in the classroom.

Discussion

In a 2007 report dubbed ‘Freedom in the classroom’, professors were allowed the jurisdiction to exercise freedom in the classroom while discussing their subjects. However, several pointers were made. First, professors were required to educate, not indoctrinate, their students. Indoctrination is said to be the propagation of ideas that have not been professionally tested and validated as being true. This robs student of the opportunity to challenge the truth in these said truths or to offer possible comprehension of the matter. In indoctrination, students are unable to develop themselves as learners because they are limited in the extent to which they can participate in the debate or acquisition of independence of thought (AAUP, 2007).

Professors are also discouraged from propagating their political and social thoughts in classrooms as they rob the learners of the aspect of balance in education, which can be brought about through an exposure to different points of views. Further, if professors are allowed to express themselves in class, they are likely to create hostile learning environment that may be discriminatory to students who practice certain religions. It was noted that when professors were allowed to express their opinions in class, they are likely to diverge their teaching form relevant and appropriate matter to completely inappropriate material (AAUP, 2007).

It is without a doubt that universities can be very volatile and charge environments and it is important the professors refrain from propagating political ideas. Mr. Barrett, a lecturer, has been under a hail of criticism for his allegation that the 9/11 attacks were not an Al-Kaeda steered attack but an American government doing. This has rubbed many the wrong ways, and Mr. Barrett has been accused of failing to differentiate between fact and fiction (New York Times, 2006).

However, both O’Connor Erin (2007) and Michael Berube (2007) raise some questions about the validity of the ‘Freedom in the classroom” document. O’ Connor (2007) suggest that there may have been some confusion in the explanation of some situations. She states that AAUP’s description of indoctrination “falsely suggests that charges of classroom indoctrination are chimerical.” Berube (2007) contests the definition of controversial material, stating “controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry…”

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is imperative for professors to refrain form making religious, political and social opinions known to their students. This is with the aim of maintaining tranquility, relevance, equity and neutrality in the institutions of learning. There should be a clear understanding of the extent beyond which education is longer serving its intended purpose but has degenerated to sheer indoctrination.

Bibliography

AAUP (2007). Freedom in the Classroom. 2008. Web.

Berube Michael (2007). Academic Freedom. Web.

New York Times (2006). Conspiracy Theories 101.

O’ Connor Erin (2007). AAUP To Critics: What, Us Biased? Web.

The Most Appealing Ideas Expressed by the Authors

In the book titled Classroom Assessment for Student Learning, the authors focused on decomposing the process of assessment and then reviewing its different components is separate chapters. One of the most interesting ideas promoted by the authors is the adjustment of the educators’ expectations as to the final result and achievements of the learners. In particular, this aspect presents itself as a problem when unrealistic expectations of a teacher serve as the basis for the established assessment. In such situation, the students are likely to fail the test and be given poor grades that essentially would not reflect the actual level of performance and, consequently, my lead to the teacher’s failure to set the new requirements and form the further instruction appropriately.

Another idea expressed by the authors that I found particularly fascinating is the one about “student-friendly language”. The concept of the student-friendly language is used by the authors to refer to the teaching communication style that will allow a higher level of mutual understanding between the teacher and the learners. Moreover, this language is expected to include special techniques helping the teachers to get their point across to the students, reason with them without having to become an autocratic educator. Also, speaking the student-friendly language, a professional could become better at motivating the learners to work on their tasks and projects – a skill that is extremely valuable in the educational setting. In my opinion, teaching has to be based on the learners’ willingness to receive and use the offered new knowledge, and that is why I believe that the ability to persuade the students to cooperate is very useful.

The Implications of the Ideas in the Book for Me as an Educator

The major implication for me as an educator that this book has involves a better understanding of the nature of assessment that, in turn, allows a deeper vision of the tasks and objectives included in assessment practices. In addition, as a complicated activity, assessment requires careful and thoughtful management. In that way, the second implication of the book on my practice as a teacher is the provision of an opportunity for me to develop a smarter and more detailed perspective on different aspects of assessment. In particular, reading this book could potentially enable me to recognize the learning and assessment needs on my students and thus set more appropriate assessment tasks. Moreover, the authors mentioned that assessment strategies are very diverse and for a professional to be able to select the techniques that are the most suitable for his or her learning activities and goals, the educator is required to be able to distinguish between them and know their specificity and purposes.

All in all, reading this book could potentially teach an educator to manage assessment strategies and use them wisely and in consistence with the context, interpret the assessment results accurately and make the appropriate conclusions for the future instruction and the provision of feedback to the learners, and avoid biased perspectives during the processes of grading and evaluation.

The Ideas That I Challenge

In my opinion, the importance of the assessment practices in education is extremely high. As a result, I found it rather challenging to identify the ideas in the book under review that I could challenge.

The idea I would like to challenge is the one that I found particularly interesting in the first place – the concept of student-friendly communication. As I mentioned previously, I believe that this feature is one of the critical components of the successful teaching. At the same time, the entire concept of learner-friendly communication, instruction, and the delivery of new knowledge is rather vague. To be more precise, I think it is well-known to any practicing teacher that classroom environments can be very diverse; meaning that in one class there can be students of different backgrounds culturally and socially. In that way, I find it challenging to outline a general definition of student-friendly communication in education. Aligning the instruction and the delivered material with the real-life experiences of the learners, using comprehendible vocabulary, and a down-to-earth approach are usually named as the major techniques helping educators to accomplish student-friendly communication. However, in a classroom comprised of learners with different cultural and language environments, socioeconomic backgrounds, and overall life experiences it could be very difficult to deliver the same material to several different groups of learners simultaneously while using a type of language and communication that would be equally appropriate for everyone without causing isolation.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that I am fully aware of the universal complexity of the learner-friendly concept due to a growing rate of social and cultural diversity on a national, as well as global scale. At the same time, I do not want to deny the value of the strategies for learner-friendly communication in education and their positive effects. However, the application of this concept is becoming more challenging for the teachers operating in highly diverse school environments.

Introduction

Until the middle of the 20th century, the value of teaching and learning methods was habitually measured by numerical evidence that was reflective of what a student has been able to synthesize, analyse, evaluate and remember. Conversely, over the last few decades, pedagogies based on constructivist frameworks and modelled on inquiry-based learning are being hailed within educational consortiums and within state-wide and national programmes of study for their ability to create long-lasting impacts on learners.

In addition to learners being able to acquire traditional skills as identified by Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956), inquiry-based learning also promotes other indispensable proficiencies. In the context of the primary humanities and social sciences classroom, inquiry-based learning provides relevance to student’s lives through fostering active citizens, developing critical skills for learners to discern accurate information for use in a range of contexts, cultivating adeptness in historical enquiry and engaging learners.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is among the most recognisable elements of inquiry-based learning. There are two ways in which it can ensure the relevance of historical studies to students’ lives. First, it equips the students with means for interpreting the received information and arriving at meaningful conclusions (Marsh & Hart, 2011). History is a subject that consists primarily of the accounts of past events, most of which can deliver important information if appropriately analysed.

According to Hoepper (2017), the study of history provides students with the opportunity to become critically aware citizens of the contemporary world by gaining insights into the mechanisms of development of their nation. Such understanding is only possible through an exploration of the presented facts, reasoning, and evaluating their relevance for possible real-life situations. By extension, it enables the students to make decisions based on the received information, apply it in unfamiliar situations through adjustment, and encourage reconsideration which is a crucial component of self-development process (Reynolds, 2014).

Second, critical thinking provides the possibility to detect possibly inaccurate information and evaluate its reliability based on its components. A good example of such a critical approach would be stage 3 of the K-10 history curriculum, where students are encouraged to explore the impact of a specific event on the colony. After getting familiarised with the event, they determine the significance of the selected event and conduct an investigation to confirm their initial suggestion using a range of relevant sources (Board of Studies [BOS], 2012). In this way, students are prepared to deal with the presented information in a critical way by supplying the rationale for their conclusions and comprehending the basics of scientific inquiry.

Prior Knowledge and Experience

An important element of the inquiry is the stage of obtaining information. Therefore, inquiry-based learning is virtually impossible without the integration of previous experience of students. According to Marsh and Hart (2011), past learning experience serves as the basis for the facilitation of reflective thinking since it provides the data for analysis and offers additional insights into possible outcomes of an event based on the known events from the past.

By encouraging students to reflect on the knowledge and experience received earlier in the course of studying or outside the classroom, the educators prepare them for the diversified and multifaceted environment of the modern world and connect the available information to the possible situations encountered by them in the real-world setting. Aside from the analytical capabilities, prior knowledge is useful for making judgments and respective decisions in unfamiliar situations.

Taylor and Boon (2012) suggest that combining the real-life experience of students with the imaginative reconstruction of a situation brought up in class provides them with a better understanding of the material by establishing an emotional connection and thus gaining a necessary sense of perspective. Hoepper (2011) points out that a link to lived experience is capitalised in the national curriculum and promotes its use among the youngest learners through inquiry into their family history, which would lead them to the understanding that other people also have histories.

NSW history syllabus makes strong use of the prior knowledge principle by incorporating materials from past stages into subsequent ones. For instance, stage 2 presents the information on the contacts between the Europeans as well as Macassans and the Aboriginal peoples, whereas stage 3 utilises this knowledge to analyse the factors that influenced the nature of convict or colonial presence (BOS, 2012). Such organisation ensures the actualization of previous knowledge and streamlines the inquiry process.

Authentic Learning

Finally, in order to ensure the relevance of the received knowledge for the real world and make sure that it can be appropriated to facilitate active citizenship among students, the authenticity of the process must be maintained. Tudball and Gordon (2011) state that the authentic element ensures active student participation in school-related decision-making which eventually contributes to the respective process outside the school and, by extension, active citizen involvement.

Taylor and Boon (2012) further expand the role of an authentic element by suggesting deep inquiry as a viable component of the history curriculum. It should also be noted that the importance of authenticity of the process for inquiry-based learning has been experimentally confirmed. Studies on the matter suggest that a certain minimum amount of authentic exposures is necessary for them to achieve the desired level of automation of skill in question (Marsh & Hart, 2011).

Once the received knowledge is aligned with the old information in a meaningful way, the authenticity of learning can be considered successful. NSW History Syllabus contains several components that incorporate the authentic learning principle. For instance, stage 3 of the syllabus outlines the British and American influences on the formation of Australian law and government and defines key events and figures leading to Australia’s Federation (BOS, 2012). This is done by exploring the local, state, and federal structures and responsibilities of respective governing bodies. As s can be seen from the example, the citizenship component is explicitly emphasised in the segment, which is expected to foster active citizenship position of students in the authentic environment.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.

Board of Studies NSW. (2012). History K-10 syllabus vol 1 history K – 6. Sydney, Australia: Board of Studies New South Wales.

Hoepper, B. (2011). ‘Teaching history: Inquiry principles’, In R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper (Eds,), Teaching society and environment (4th Ed). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage learning.

Hoepper, B. (2017). ‘Planning for critical inquiry’. In R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper (Eds,), Teaching humanities and social sciences. History, geography, economics and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum (6th Ed). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage learning.

Marsh, C. J., & Hart, C. (2011). ‘Learning, skills and inquiry in social education’. In C. J. Marsh & C. Hart (Eds,), Teaching the social sciences and humanities in an Australian curriculum (6th ed.). French Forest, Australia: Pearson.

Reynolds, R. (2014). ‘Inquiry pedagogy’. In R. Reynolds (Ed,), Teaching humanities and social sciences in the primary school (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, T., & Boon, D. (2012). ‘Historical Inquiry’. In T. Taylor, C. Fahney, J. Kriewaldt, & D. Boon (Eds,), Place and time : Explorations in teaching geography and history. French Forest, Australia: Pearson.

Tudball, L., & Gordon, K. (2011). ‘Teaching for active and informed citizenship’, In R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper (Eds,), Teaching society and environment (4th Ed). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage learning.

Introduction

The do-talk-record (DTR) approach was developed to engage learners in collaborative practices while working in mathematics classrooms. According to it, students accomplish a task, discuss it with one another, and then make records. This approach is targeted at learners mainly so that the educator does not have much influence on the process (Do–talk–record triad 2017). Thus, the teacher must consider the possibility of facing some communicational issues.

Moving from recording to completing tasks

The teacher may be too focused on the sequence of events that should be maintained when using the DTR framework so that the interaction can be limited only to it. As a result, classroom communication will be rather boring. Losing interest, students will not be willing to continue working hard. To avoid this situation, the teacher should resort to some creative tasks and remember that it is not critical to follow all steps in a particular order. All interactions and tasks are different, so there will be an opportunity to implement changes and move from recording back to doing, for instance.

Personality differences should be taken into consideration (Barriers to communication in the classroom 2015). Some students may be introverts for whom discussing something with others is not an easy task. Even knowing what to say, they may be unwilling to take the initiative and start a conversation. Thus, the teacher should try to gather students in groups so that they are balanced and no one is suppressed.

Communication may be ineffective if the educator streamlines interaction. Not all students can discuss their work while doing it or as soon as it is done. As a result, they may be confused and fail to grasp the information. So teachers need to allow their students to think and reflect on results at least for several minutes.

Even though the DTR approach is focused on students, the teacher is the one who gives instructions and controls the whole educational process. Taking into consideration the fact that he/she needs to work with 11-years-old children, the teacher should make sure that he/she is easy to listen to and understand. It is significant to avoid complicated phrases and words that are not vital for a class and to structure the speech decently (Dayo 2016).

DTR presupposes the necessity for both the teacher and students to consider and discuss even wrong answers (Enactive–Iconic–Symbolic and related frameworks for teaching 2017). Still, they may be willing to omit them with no reasoning. In this way, the expected feedback from the receiver will not be obtained, which can make some students unwilling to work further. The teacher should make sure that peers provide comments. He/she should attract student’s attention and instruct them to give some feedback if no reaction follows.

Conclusion

Finally, communication can be negatively affected by biases (Williams 2011). Students and even the teacher maybe not willing to listen to one of the educators because of some personal prejudices. Thus, it is critical to think of possible biases to identify them and try to avoid them. Instructions can be used to make other students similarly communicate with one another. In addition to that, the teacher can develop a task, in which a student can show his/her abilities and become equally treated.

In this way, the professional has an opportunity to define whether a student’s inability to accomplish a task was triggered by communicational problems or the lack of knowledge. What is more, based on this information, the teacher can successfully find out what should be done to overcome the observed issues.

Reference List

Barriers to communication in the classroom. 2015. Web.

Dayo, I 2016, The common barriers to effective classroom interaction. Web.

Do–talk–record triad. 2017. Web.

Enactive–Iconic–Symbolic and related frameworks for teaching. 2017. Web.

Williams, M 2011, 7 ways to overcome barriers to communication. Web.

Research that spans over two decades indicates that for effective teaching to take place there must be an orchestration of a variety of skills that have to be adapted to various contexts.

Students learn more when their teachers emphasize more on achievement of learning objectives. This is achieved by establishing expectations, allocating time, and use effective managing strategies to ensure maximization of academic time. Teachers are supposed to pace the students through the curriculum briskly but in small steps that allow high achievement of success. Teachers who want quality learning to occur in their classrooms deliberately pace and deliver content in ways that allow all learners to engage in intellectual activities that promote quality learning

There is a need for the correct pacing in class to keep students on task and provide engaging and motivating lessons that minimize class management issues. the lesson pacing has to be kept lively so as to prevent the students from engaging in off-task behavior especially when the lesson is long and boring or too difficult.

The teacher should assess the knowledge background of the students so as to be updated and plan for an appropriate variety of teaching strategies. This should be geared towards making the students interested and motivated.

For the English learning students’ class, the lesson has to be paced in accordance to language and intellectual abilities unlike in the other case without English learners.

The teacher is supposed to give reflection to the sequence of language development skills which include listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The teacher may formulate necessary alterations in the language of instruction according to individual student’s language aptitude, an important factor that also should determine the pacing of instruction. In English learning class, pacing modifications focus mainly on vocabulary and concept development; in the other case, the medium of instruction focuses on a process strategy to the subject matter. Instructional personnel should watchfully investigate course selections and assignments at the students’ instructional levels in the textbooks. Additional pacing modifications may include clearing up particular language terms in words familiar to the students while writing shorter and less complex sentences.

The teacher can also assign short homework tasks that require reading and teach the words that signal sequence. There is also modification in terms of inspection understanding of written language that may put across complex concepts.

For easy understanding, the teacher may rephrase story problems in simpler language by making use of shorter sentences and images.

Most consistent and replicated result findings link the student’s achievement to their opportunity to learn the material and to be specific the degree to which the teachers carry the content to the students personally through active instruction and move them all through the curriculum. The amount of content a student learns is correlated to the opportunity to learn, whether it is measured in terms of the pages covered in the curriculum or the number of items taught by the use of lectures or recitation. The movement of content from the teacher to the students depends on the complexity of the information. The easy content paces faster from the teacher to the student.

It is important for the teacher to provide modified instruction in English without oversimplifying the content. Difficult or complicated content material will not be interpreted or understood easily by the English learners therefore the pacing will definitely slow down.

Correct pacing will ensure that all students including the ELLs are held to the same high expectation of achievement and they must be evaluated to show that they uphold the content standards.

Reference

Hofmeister, A., & Lubke, M. (1999). Research into practice: Implementing effective teaching strategies (3rd ed.). Logan, UT: Utah State University.