Running head: Paradigm Evaluation of Learning Environments
Paradigm Evaluation of Learning Environments
Grand Canyon University: EDA 575
June 22, 2011
State assessments measure students learning|Standardized testing initiated by NCLB helps ensure all public school students, no matter where they go to school, receive a quality education|Students learning cannot be assessed by state test.|Students create year long portfolios and apply test questions to real life situations because higher order thinking and skills such as teamwork, collaboration and moral character cannot be measured by standardized test.| All students have the ability to learn|varying instructional approaches to match the learning styles of students, differentiating instruction, providing access to high-quality preschool programs|Not all students are capable of learning|According to Tashlik (2010), nonacademic obstacles can have a profound effect on academic performance such as pregnancies, family crisis, illnesses and ets. | Education is ever-changing|The traditional teaching methodologies (e.g., lectures and tests) are becoming obsolete in a world that encourages people to think critically and creatively. New forms of pedagogy, active learning, self-guided instruction, and group work are transforming teaching approaches, moving them away from traditional lectures to passive audiences(Leverett, 2010). Education has changed by inclusion classes, mandated state testing, elimination of corporal punishment and prayer. The biggest shifts have been in how information is presented as many schools[->0] start pushing out more multimedia content.|Education has stayed the same, the students have changed|Increased number of special education students, non -traditional family households, and violence in schools. Extremely high cases of bully incidents. Rising number of drop -out rates which causes a drop in college enrollment. Large number of students with ADHD and other heath ailments caused by parents’ drug abuse. | Schools promotes students individuality|Extracurricular activities that promote students' appreciation of their individuality, ethnicity, cultural heritage.celebration of holidays also promotes individuality.|Schools do not promote student individuality|Uniforms, strict appearance guidelines, restriction on types of organizationsAccording to Rockney(2005), ACLU argues that school uniforms violate students’ rights offree expression and enforce conformity, stifling expressionof individuality.| Parents play a vital role in a child’s education|Schools develop PTA organizations. Parent involvement components are required in the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and various federal and state education programs including Early On, School Readiness Program and Title 1. |Parents are not vital to a child’s education|Schools don’t focus on parental involvement. School activities to develop and maintain partnerships with families decline with each grade level, and drop dramatically at the transition to middle grades. (Epstein. 1984)| Every child can be college ready|College readiness programs and curriculums. |Not all students are able to prepare for college|Trade schools, decreased college enrollment. | Providing below-gradeinstruction and assessment to a student with a disability is necessary for academic growth.|A grade-level assessment is too difficult and, therefore, does not provide data about a student’s abilities or information that would be helpful to guide instruction.(U.S. Department of Education, 2007, p. 17748)|A student with disability should be instructed and assessed on their current grade level|Below-grade instruction prevent the student’s access to the general education curriculum and deprive a child of the opportunity tolearn grade-level content, but it also prohibits any fair assessment of what the student knows and is able to do, as well...
References: Doll, B., Spies, R., Foley, B., LeClair, C., & Kurien, S. (2010). Student Perceptions of Classroom Learning Environments: Development of the ClassMaps Survey. School Psychology Review. 39(2)203-218.
Epstein J.L. (1984). Single Parents and Schools: The effects of marital status Parent and Teacher Evaluations. 17-23.
Greenwood, C. R. (1991). Longitudinal analysis of time,engagement and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57(2), 521–535.
Kesner, J. E. (2000). Teacher characteristics and the quality of child-teacher relationships. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 133–149.
[->0] - http://www.collegecrunch.org/school-profiles/
[->1] - http://www.edutopia.org/closing-achievement-gap
[->3] - http://web.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bZLsamvUbSk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6srUqvpbBIr6eeSa6wskm4
Please join StudyMode to read the full document