Skip to main content

Home/ EDF3604 - Social Foundations of Education/ Group items tagged games

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Lauren Tripp

How Learners Can Be On Top of Their Game: An Interview with James Paul Gee (Part Four) - 2 views

  • No one needs a Halo test after finishing Halo on hard and no one should need an algebra test after finishing an equally well-designed algebra curriculum.
  •  
    Can we use video games as an example for improving education?
  •  
    I particularly enjoyed this quote: "We define accountability around teachers failing to teach children." A lot has been said in class about the failure of standardized testing to really hold teachers accountable to giving a well-rounded education, but that quote says it succinctly. In terms of video games and the education system, I think the author has come up with a really amazing (although not totally new) concept. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone complain about how utterly unnecessary tests are, I'd be a very wealthy person. But comparing it to a video game gives this idea a lot of legitimacy. I've played video games. I may not have every level memorized, but I have the basic skills needed to play the game. This is (sadly) not true of many of the things I've learned in school. I have the BASIC skills needed for mathematics, but once calculus is in conversation, I'm done. I've taken the course, but because I had no vested interest in the class, I did what most students end up doing--master the information for a short amount of time, regurgitate it, then forget it in order to clear my mind for memorizing the next lot of (to me) useless information. If schools could take a more fundamentally hands-on approach to education (like video games), I think we'd see a lot more genuine mastery of material for long-term use. Plus... I bet we'd also combat the problem of truancy!
Amanda Rose

Standardized Testing and Its Victims (Shame of the Nation) - 3 views

  •  
    "In some schools, the principals and teachers tell me that the tests themselves and preparation for the tests control more than a quarter of the year." (113) Preparing for the test takes away from other core course work, presenting that only standardized tests are important. Teachers have begun teaching to the test instead of teaching other valuable lessons. Unfortunately, students in lower income schools struggle from this method of schooling, and "the tests are just the means by which this game is played. It is a game that a lot of kids-predominantly kids of color-simply cannot win."
  • ...6 more comments...
  •  
    "Standardized tests tend to measure the temporary acquisition of facts and skills, including the skill of test-taking itself, more than genuine understanding. To that extent, the fact that such tests are more likely to be used and emphasized in schools with higher percentages of minority students (a fact that has been empirically verified) predictably results in poorer-quality teaching in such schools." That seems so backwards to me, it is unbelievable. It seems really unfortunate to me that teaching quality is going down due to testing. I feel like less should emphasis should be placed on students to preform on tests the way they are required to. When FCAT starts, a student in 3rd grade is being tested, required to sit still, and told their academic performance in the classroom can be overturned if they do poorly on this test. Third graders can surprise you, but I really don't think that testing this strenuous, this young, is good for children. I am in not in agreement with the "few countries use standardized tests for children below high school age-or multiple-choice tests for students of any age." I think testing has its place, but should not be emphasized as it is.
  •  
    I found Fact 4 ("standardized-test scores often measure superficial thinking.") to be true in my own experiences. When studying for the SAT in high school, I could often answer many questions right, but just not in the time frame allowed. I had to take courses that taught tricks and shortcuts that involved almost no math in order for me to finish the math section. This was superficial thinking. The test was no longer testing my ability to work out these problems properly. Rather, the test had now become a game of "tricks." If you knew the right tricks, you can breeze through the test. This is stupid. I was not demonstrating any real mastery of skills, only mastery of memorization of rules and shortcuts. This article made some good points against standardized exams. I do not think they should be abolished; however, I do think they are unnecessary at least in elementary schools. Middle school seems like a more logical time to start this. Elementary school should be for basic learning, skill development and creativity.
  •  
    I strangle disagree with the statement, "virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion, on the results of a single test." I personally was very torn about this during high school. I do not agree that one test can change where you go to college or what you are going to do with your life. I personally was lucky to score high on my standardize test. However, I have friends that didn't get into their dream schools just because of one test. I think that in the United States, the idea of standardize testing needs to dramatically change. I completely believe that teachers focus to much on these test. Personally, I feel like I never truly learned how to write in high school because from freshman year to junior year, we were writing directly for the FCAT. Then, we had very little time to learn to write for college and for professional careers.
  •  
    First and foremost, this article made me thankful for Teach For America and other organizations who recognize, promote, and attempt to overcome the achievement gap between low-income students and high-income ones. I think some of the research and references presented in this article are a tragedy and I wish that there was an easy remedy for it. As for the standardized testing, I completely agree with the author when she discusses "material that will not appear on the test". I know that I personally will block out something I've learned and disregard it entirely if the teacher tells me it will not be on the test. Conversely, if the teacher speak the words "this will definitely be on your test", I will memorize, jot down, and pay rapt attention to whatever she or he has just said. I feel this is how many kids are becoming and where schools are pushing us to: ignoring "unimportant" information that will not be on a test, and focusing on information that will appear on a test.
  •  
    I agree with the article that way too much emphasis is put on standardized testing. Teachers spend so much time preparing students for standardized tests that programs such as art, recess, and electives must be cut. Cutting these programs from the curriculum decreases creative and imaginative learning. I agree with fact 4 that standardized test scores often measure superficial learning. The article states that "In a study published in the Journal of Educational Psychology, elementary school students were classified as "actively" engaged in learning if they asked questions of themselves while they read and tried to connect what they were doing to past learning; and as "superficially" engaged if they just copied down answers, guessed a lot, and skipped the hard parts." I completely agree that standardized testing is superficial. I found that when I took the SAT, I knew how to do the problems, but I was not allotted enough time to think through them. In agree with Elise that SAT prep courses teach students "tricks," so that they are able to complete the problems faster. In some cases, students are even taught to look for key words to answer questions without even reading the entire problem. I feel that courses like these teach students to rush through things, guess, and skip hard questions. I disagree with fact 6 that "virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion on the results of a single test." Now-a-days in order to get into college, a student must have high SAT scores, a high GPA, and extracurricular activities. High SAT scores play a huge role in being accepted into the college of your choice. Several students I know are not good test takers, but may be very smart and have a high GPA; unfortunately this can be overlooked because of such strong emphasis on SAT scores.
  •  
    I agree and really think that standardized testing is creating victims because children today are not excercising enough, lack motivation, and resembling robots in the classroom. "Fact 8. Many educators are leaving the field because of what is being done to schools in the name of "accountability" and "tougher standards." I have no hard numbers here, but there is more than enough anecdotal evidence-corroborated by administrators, teacher-educators, and other observers across the country, and supported by several state surveys that quantify the extent of disenchantment with testing- to warrant classifying this as a fact. Prospective teachers are rethinking whether they want to begin a career in which high test scores matter most, and in which they will be pressured to produce these scores (Kohn, 2000)." I chose Fact 8 out of all the facts in the article because I believe that Facts 8 is very understandable because teachers have to endure watching their students' creativity disappear after each semester of teaching. I also agree with Chelsea Townsend's opinions about how there is pressure on students today to make sure they have high SAT scores to get into a great college. In conclusion, we as a society need to make sure that students across the United States of America know and understand that life is more than an exam.
  •  
    I went to a private school and never really experienced the distress of preparing for FCAT and many other standardized exams. Although we had a couple of PSATs and SATs throughout the year, it wasn't to the extent where my teachers had to dwell on reviewing for those exams. They made sure that we are taught with the school's curriculum and maybe spend a couple of days or less to prepare us for exam taking tips. Fact #4 kind of stood out for me, "Standardized-test scores often measure superficial thinking." I don't really do best in general examinations. I think it has something to do with the pressure that I feel when taking those exams. There are times where I have no clue what I was reading during the exam but when I try to recall the question after, that's when I realize that I knew how to do it but I could not remember it because I was under pressure. I believe that schools should focus more on teaching what students need to know in general rather than focusing in just standardized exams.
  •  
    "Fact 1. Our children are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in our history and unparalleled anywhere else in the world. While previous generations of American students have had to sit through tests, never have the tests been given so frequently, and never have they played such a prominent role in schooling. The current situation is also unusual from an international perspective: Few countries use standardized tests for children below high school age-or multiple-choice tests for students of any age." They take standardized testing too far in the U.S. I remember having to take a special writing class in elementary school because my FCAT writing was low. From K-5 my school pushed reading, writing, and math. I don't remember learning much about history or science. This was all due to the FCAT. Teachers wanted their students to outshine other classrooms and my school wanted to outshine the other schools. I remember being disgusted even then. It was like they were completely forgetting about the most important thing, the students.
Lauren Tripp

The Good Behavior Game - 0 views

  •  
    This is one of Jessica Ross' sources, and I think it's really an interesting connection to the idea of school as a game and the possibility of creating reward junkies vs. the benefits of instant feedback. Here's the quote she liked from it: "Clearly,verbally identifying misbehaving students by name, publicly stating specific transgressions, and the provision of team debits on a blackboard may have acted as a discriminative stimulus for appropriate conduct (Salend, Reynolds, & Coyle, 1989) and provided a source of immediate feedback."
Lindsey Wilkinson

Children in Room E4: Are Today's Youth Less Creative & Imaginative? - 6 views

  •  
    In this section of the book, a central theme is how the curriculum being taught is limited by standardized testing in schools. In several instances, the teacher is limited in her lessons and the students answers are limited in their creativity because of the need to focus on standardized testing. The article we chose discusses creativity and imagination in current students and explores the idea that creativity is dwindling. Page 197: "But butterflies had been off the official schedule in the past few years. Each fall, Ms. Luddy imagined suburban elementary school students rambling around apple orchards on field trips, picking fruit, creaking about on hayrides. Her kids couldn't do that, not with all the mandatory test practice." ^Reflects limits in curriculum due to standardized testing Page 235: "Now can anyone tell me what a journey is, in your own words. Is a journey just a trip? Or is it something more? Can you think of examples of journeys?" "The CMT!" Jeremy yelled. "That's like something we work at a little at a time ^Reflects limits in student response due to standardized testing
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    I think that the article supports the quotes chosen from the text. I found the quote "Teachers don't spend a lot of time exploring unexpected ideas because they might not be sure where it will lead, Beghetto said. As a result, "out-of-the-box" thinking gets discouraged. Beghetto is not blaming teachers, who may even feel as though they cannot teach creativity. But teaching to prepare for tests and teaching to develop creativity are not mutually exclusive, Beghetto said. Teachers should recognize that unexpected answers may still lead to meaningful conversation and learning in a classroom." I believe that this quote expressly depicts the problem with standardized testing. The article states that there is less play in classrooms, and I find this to be too true. When I go into classrooms, I think one of the main reasons teachers have to get kids on task and stop them from side conversations, is because they do not get enough time to really interact with one another. Even in the form of group art projects, the children could explore new creative activities. However, the strict curriculum that teachers must stick to humbles all attempts at this. The quote from the text about butterflies shows this problem. I am not sure, but I feel as though if standardized testing is so important, it should continue, but perhaps the 180 days that kids are in school should be extended. That way, there will be time to learn what is needed for the test, but also time for other important lessons.
  •  
    Although the recurrent discussion about the effects of standardized testing continually progress with negative opinions from educators, officials increasingly stress the importance of such examinations. Consequently, today's youth are losing factors of creativity and imagination. "The current focus on testing in schools, and the idea that there is only one right answer to a question, may be hampering development of creativity among kids, Beghetto said. "There's not much room for unexpected, novel, divergent thought," he said. In fact, it is such unexpected, novel, divergent thought that leads to new discoveries. Just as students need an active outlet such as recess to channel energy, children need the opportunity to be creative and foster imaginative play. Not only is standardized testing putting a damper on the ability of teachers to allow students creative freedom, funding decreases have forced officials to cut back on structured creative outlets such as music and art, in order to allot more money for the expenses that accompany testing. At this point, it might be up to parents to support their children's creativity, including swapping creative play for some of the hours spent on electronics.
  •  
    Pointing fingers is always easy for any issue that arises. In regards to lack of creativity, teaching to the test seems like an easy culprit. This is not a reflection of the teachers ability to teach or ability to help the children explore their creativity (or lack thereof). Mandating yearly exams has consequences. Teachers have been threatened with their salaries being determined based on how their students perform on standardized tests; therefore, the teachers feel it necessary to teach to the test. When creating these policies, the policy-makers do not realize what they are actually talking away from the child. Children want to please their teacher. This is best described when Beghetto says "the interaction between students and teachers has become one of 'intellectual hide and seek.' The students try to match what they think the teacher wants to hear." I do not think the students are becoming any lazier or that we are breeding less creative children. Games like dress up, mom/daughter, doctor/nurse, pretending to be your favorite pop band, are all necessary for the children to build creativity and get out all their energy.
  •  
    "The current focus on testing in schools, and the idea that there is only one right answer to a question, may be hampering development of creativity among kids" It is upsetting to hear that due to the No Child Left Behind Act we are actually taking a lot away from our children. These tests were initally used to measure the mastery of skills to make sure all students receive an equal education. I personally believe the idea of standardized testing has gone too far, especially when it begins to take a toll on our students' creative ability. Furthermore, I was not entirely stunned by this article. Outside of standardized testing I feel there are many other factors affecting creative ability. Video games, TV shows and busy schedules have begun to consume all Americans, even the youngest ones. I think children really need to spend more time outside, more time with other children and have a less intense schedule to really get their creative juices flowing. With that said, the education system even wants to take away recess during the school day. This will be yet another factor contributing to less creative minds amongst our future leaders.
  •  
    I agree with most of this article. This is an article that has many interesting comments and assumtions. For example, in the article, Beghetto states, "I think there should be a variety of ways to assess what students know and how they know it." I agree with this statement. I feel that testing today is not a correct way of determining children's "intelligence". I agree that children today need to work on their creativity. They need to be allowed to find their creativity that helps them build character. I think that taking away recess is one of the worst things you could do for children. They need that time to be themselves and not have to be who they are in the classroom. This will increase the lack of creativity children have today.
  •  
    Although I find the article and interesting one and a great read, I do wonder if the way we find and measure creativity is entirely effective. It seems that testing for creativity is a very difficult and subjective test and I question its validity. I also wonder if the standard of creativity or the perceptions of creativity has changed over the past few decades. This would mean that our creativity styles would be different than those of generations before. I am always skeptical to think my generation is better than the ones that follows, and in the same way, that older generations have abilities that I can't or don't have. However, this is coming from a girl who is a naturally excellent test taker. I am good at information recall and application, but I am one of the most uncreative people I know. So I could be wrong. Either way, the author cites TV watching and standardized testing as two reasons for our less creative society. I see TV watching as the greater of the two evils as I feel it has more of an impact and that it is wasted time, unlike testing which, to me, is necessary.
  •  
    Recent findings have found that creativity has decreased among American children. "Since 1990, children have become less able to produce unique and unusual ideas. They are also less humorous, less imaginative and less able to elaborate on ideas." The current focus on standardized testing in schools is the cause of this decrease in creativity. Teachers spend so much time trying to meet test standards that students do not have time to express themselves; for example, through imaginative play. Children need time to exert energy and show creativity. With so much time spent on standardized test practice children become narrow-minded.
  •  
    I agree that the article and your assigned book have many correlations because both the article and book discuss today's American children levels of creativity, a decrease of thinking outside the box, and lack of imaginative skills. I believe that standardize tests are becoming more and more normative in our schools. For example, in a recent survey there are some states lobbying for standardized tests to start training preschoolers to hopefully result in better test scores before the students graduate high school. In the article, "Kim said No Child Left Behind, an act of Congress passed in 2001 that requires schools to administer annual standardized tests as a way to assess whether they are meeting state education standards, may be partly responsible for the drop in creativity scores ( Rettner, 2011)." I believe that US states officials are focusing too much on high performance test scores and not the welfare of the child. Overall, I think creativity and individuality sets a person apart from the social norm.
  •  
    Our social perception at present definitely has a lot to contribute as to why students are becoming less creative and imaginative nowadays. Our nation is becoming more career focused. On top of that, everything is becoming very competitive and fast-paced. The article mentioned how children does not even have time to check out the yard or run around the orchard because they have to stay at home and focus on studying standardized exams. I also heard recently that some schools are discontinuing recess because they do not have enough time to teach what they need to know for the exams. I personally believe that creativity and imagination ideas mostly come from experience and if those children lack experience, they would not have a broad spectrum of imagination.
  •  
    "But researchers say they are finding exactly that. In a 2010 study of about 300,000 creativity tests going back to the 1970s, Kyung Hee Kim, a creativity researcher at the College of William and Mary, found creativity has decreased among American children in recent years. Since 1990, children have become less able to produce unique and unusual ideas. They are also less humorous, less imaginative and less able to elaborate on ideas, Kim said." I am not at all suprised. Today, kids spend all of their time texting or surfing the internet. Less time is spent playing outdoors. Kids don't need to be creative to have fun, all they have to do is turn on their XBOX 360. There will always be the creative students but there just might be less of them in the future.
Christopher Nelson

The Mistrusted Male Teacher - 4 views

  •  
    Here's another source relating to "Why Are There So Few Male Teachers?"
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I personally didn't have a male teacher until I reached high school, but I honestly don't have a problem with having a male teacher as an elementary teacher. If a male teacher wants to teach at the elementary/middle school level, then they should have the right to.
  •  
    I think that this is such an interesting topic. I only had two male teachers before reaching high school, and neither of them were my home room teachers. One was my music teacher, and the other was a higher level math teacher. I really liked them both. But it actually wasn't until this topic was brought up in our conversation at our table this morning during class, that I realized how few male teachers I have. I can confidently say that I have really enjoyed and learned a lot from all of the male teachers that I've had. I think men can absolutely be passionate about teaching. I understand the reasoning for skepticism that is brought up in the article, but I also think that the reasons are kind of silly. if a man wants to teach, he should teach. If a woman wants to be an engineer, she should be one. Oy vay, gender bias.
  •  
    "What's a young single dude doing teaching fourth grade anyway?!" Oh man...obviously, there must be something wrong with him. The young single girl though? She's in the right place.
  •  
    "I really think it has a lot to do with the personality of the teacher," said Dr. Caryl Oris, a consulting psychiatrist for the Sewanhaka Central High School District on Long Island, N.Y. "What matters more than anything is that it's a good teacher and the teacher loves to teach." ^Amen, to the above. My elementary school had about four or five teachers assigned to teach the third grade. I distinctly remember one of them being a young male. He was not my teacher. My teacher was a young female, fresh out of college, with a degree but little experience in actually handling small children. She was mean, bitter, and obviously in over her head. She and my parents would constantly be on the phone with one another about something or other (for a child who had been considered a stellar example of good behavior, this was considered odd). I only bring this up because the other teacher, the young male teacher, taught the class that shared a recess with my own. The kids in both classes would play together and talk together and I remember, even now, how jealous I was of the kids in his class. They seemed to enjoy going to school, and their teacher always had some great game or movie to show about whatever the topic of the day was. When our classes played structured games together, he seemed more than willing to do what the kids were doing and had fun doing it. My teacher stood off to the side--a very sharp contrast. PS: My teacher was gone before I had finished the fifth grade. And the male teacher, last time I checked (a few years ago) was still at the elementary school, married and happily teaching.
  •  
    It's amazing how far we have come in terms of education, especially when considering that males used to dominate the profession. Now, it is almost foreign to us now a days when we hear of a male teacher and not a female teacher teaching students. It 's also amazing how much the US society has perverted the teaching profession, especially concerning male teachers teaching in any grade level. How much worse could it possibly get? Will this society get to the point where we can no longer allow males to teach students?
  •  
    This topic definitely stood out to me as a male who may potentially find himself in the teaching environment. It really got me thinking, "What would it have been like to have a male teacher in Elementary school?" I don't really know. I agree that females have the tendency to be more nurturing; it is simply in their nature. And as a male student who was less confident in himself at the time than the other males, it was nice to have that nurturing teacher in the classroom. I feel like a male would have been more apt to call me out on my mistakes rather than help me through them. But that seems like stereotyping! Veronica makes a good point. It really is amazing to see how things have changed over the years. 16 percent of Elementary school teachers are males! I don't even consider Elementary school when I consider teaching. Maybe it's the challenge of High Schoolers? Maybe I feel like I can relate with them better or I won't have patience to work with young kids? Whatever it is, I never thought that I'd be in danger of having suspicion poured upon me as a teacher with possible inappropriate intentions. But I can definitely see where that could come from if someone were a young, single, male teacher working with fourth graders. It's a shame. But that's just how it is! My final comment is that if someone is in that situation, they should just take the challenge and try extra hard to show the goodness of their heart and the reason behind their decision to teach that grade. People will see if the teacher is genuine or not. Don't let other peoples presumptions change the way you teach!
kashetamundy

The Children in Room E4 -- "Wide Response to Educational Plight of Mexican Immigrants" - 18 views

I definitely agree with April's comment. I think that the idea to reduce the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) based on poor academic achievement is horrible. Judy W., a reader from Maryland...

education Susan Eaton

Lauren Tripp

How Learners Can Be On Top of Their Game: An Interview with James Paul Gee (Part Three) - 1 views

  • School has a very hard time producing grit because different people have different passions (and school is about everybody learning the same thing) and passions are something people choose (and school is often not about choice). Furthermore, interest is kindled into passion inside things like passionate affinity spaces and related sorts of social formations and these are hard to come by in schools.
  •  
    Maybe moral education should be about developing students' individual passions? And supporting them in developing "grit"?
  •  
    This makes me think about how, on the higher education level, the top students tend to be those who pursue their passions outside the bounds of traditional categories- I think this is even true of professionals who tend to be recognized in their fields. As the article says, no history teacher would want to be blatantly mainstream. Part of the richness of university life is the affinity spaces of clubs and classes for unique interests, and this is present to a degree in earlier education through clubs, too. I think a certain exposure to a wide array of topics is important for earlier education, but I think the perspective for this can be shifted from a necessary baseline in every subject to drawing interdisciplinary advantages towards the developing passion of the student. In the early years, a basic education in all subjects, with opportunities to explore connections or more deeply delve into a growing passion could help students to discover why they should persist in learning, and to take more ownership of the process and developing knowledge. I experienced this kind of opportunity through independent research opportunities in elementary school in a gifted program- this is the kind of program that can benefit all students, not just those identified as gifted.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20 items per page