Weak Curriculum vs. Inadequate Instruction
Grand Canyon University
November 12, 2014
Curriculum and inadequate instruction both have their pros and cons when it comes to the decision-making process of what works best to achieve higher level learning among students. Curriculum mainly focuses on the knowledge and skills that are important to learn where as instruction is what learning will be achieved to meet the needs of students, standardized testing, and outcomes. Teachers in the 21st century have to employ instructional strategies that are innovative, research-proven techniques/strategies, technologies, and real world resources-contexts in order to differentiate among the many learning styles in the classroom. If the curriculum is weak, it does not provide the students with the necessary knowledge in order to master standards. If the instruction is inadequate, then students will not benefit from the content being taught which will lead to further failure among students. Teachers have to provide a curriculum with adequate resources that will allow for students to be knowledgeable in skills necessary to be promoted to the next grade level as well as an instruction that consist of high level learning and strategies that will allow for academic growth and success. The purpose of this assignment is to analyze weak curriculum as well inadequate instruction and the causes as to why they lead to low achievements among students.
The grading system has dramatically changed in the 21st century which consist of standards-based report cards. Educators are required to grade students of academic achievement of content knowledge of subjects being taught. The sole purpose of grading is to accurately show data pertaining to levels of academic achievements that students have mastered or obtained that is mandated in order for promotion to the next grade level. The problem here is are the grades being accurately measured to show student’s achievements and mastery. If grades are not accurately measured then the grading system does not communicate the truth about levels of student mastery and achievements. Alternative Methods
There is an alternative method to measure learning that is meaningful “assessments”. Teachers and schools can use assessments to show students strengths and weaknesses in order to gauge instructional practices. Assessments represents the schools and teachers accountability to determine whether they are up to scratch. In measuring learning, instructional practices/grading systems must have the abilities to allow for students to recall, analyze, inference, comparison, and evaluate mastery. This is the kinds of skills that should be measured by our current high-stakes tests. By incorporating performance based assessments (formative-summative) into standardized tests or adding assessment vehicles such as presentations of student performance or portfolios that will show additional measures of student mastery, it will allow for teachers and districts to show further mastery/achievements of students.
Many school districts have adopted standards-based grading to show students mastery and achievements. According to Tomlinson (2006) one grading practice that is gaining popularity “is standards based grading, which involves measuring student’s proficiency on well-defined course objectives” (pg.4). The standards-based report card gives a wealth of information to help the teacher adjust instruction to meet student’s needs. The implications of the standards-based report card is to simply show that students are meeting (standards) to demonstrate their learning-mastery or what modifications/accommodations need to be made to instructional practices for achievements to occur. Standard-Based Test Scores
The litmus test that is used to show teacher competency, is a small scale test that...
References: McMillian, J. (2008). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices.
Educational measurement: Issues and practice 20:1, (pg. 21).
O’Connor, K. (2007). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Portland, OR:
Educational Testing Service. (pgs. 172-173).
Tomlinson, C. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction: Understanding by design.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD (pg. 4).
Please join StudyMode to read the full document