I just received an email from another grad student about a science outreach program looking for volunteers. The purpose of this organization is to have undergrad and grad students in the College meet with some teachers at a local elementary school and train them to teach science in a more engaging and deeper way than they might normally teach. In addition, the volunteers get to meet with the students occasionally to hold events like science fairs. I've been part of honor societies and student groups who do similar things, but this one in particular is unique as it is co-directed by two professors and the principal of the elementary school. I'll be meeting with some of the volunteers shortly and will learn more about the success of the program so far. But I believe this institutional support is vital to the success of these outreach programs.
We all know that teaching for standardized tests leads to rote memorization instead of true understanding. This is a shame and needs to be addressed. But even without NCLB causing these kinds of problems, another obstacle to great math and science education is that so few K-12 teachers have technical degrees. This affects how well students can learn technical material. Teaching science dryly and through memorization only holds the interest of a few students who have a strong desire to learn math and science. For everyone else, a common question is "Why do I need to know this?" This is the question that can be difficult to answer by a teacher without a technical background. This problem is what outreach organizations like this one hope to solve.
I am confident that most, if not all, K-12 teachers can teach the math and science they are required to teach. But if they wish to grab the attention of more students and teach concepts that will be remembered beyond the test, they often need a deeper understanding of the material than what is presented in textbooks. Outreach organizations bring demos to teachers and train them to recreate them in the classrooms. They help the teachers see the uses of technical concepts and see the importance of learning these concepts. The student volunteers get to practice teaching the concepts they learned in college while working towards the goal of improving science and math education. Everyone wins in this situation, but a cost must be paid. That cost is time and effort, usually unpaid. This is the root of most of the problems I've seen in outreach work. Volunteers have exams and homework and teachers don't want to spend their evenings and weekends at work. This is where institutional support comes in. Sometimes volunteers and teachers need a gentle nudge from their bosses: principals and professors. I'm sure most teachers want to maintain the attention of all of their students and want them to learn. Likewise, all the volunteers want to help out as well and the encouragement of their adviser can help them open up some free time to volunteer.
This organization is looking to expand to a new school in the city and that's why they need more volunteers. I hope to join and will be learning more about the group soon. The group's mission statement includes an excerpt from "A Mathematician's Lament", an essay by Paul Lockhart. This really caught my attention because I've been trying to get as many people to read this essay as possible. If any of you reading this blog have a technical background or are even remotely interested in math education, please read the essay. It's the best argument I've read thus far about the need to teach math like art.
Showing posts with label K-12. Show all posts
Showing posts with label K-12. Show all posts
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
The Case for Cursive
Cursive is a dying art in most elementary school classrooms around the nation. The Common Core curriculum used by 46 states no longer requires schools to teach cursive. Instead, typing has taken up the time previously allotted for cursive practice, which generally occurred in the third, fourth, and fifth grades. The idea behind the change is that typing has become the primary medium for writing and class time could be better spent teaching how to type properly. The issue seems to have as many supporters as opponents. I consider myself to be a strong opponent of the decision.
Where should I begin? How about I start with the fact that it is a major disservice to students to not provide them with the ability to read the handwriting of so many adults in the world today? I don't think I've ever had a high school teacher or professor who didn't write in cursive, unless writing on the board. And even then, many wrote in cursive. How can students expect to read signatures and generate their own? A simple Google search for "SAT cursive" brings up dozens of message board posts from students stressed out about the simple SAT pledge which is meant to be reproduced in cursive by the student. The gradual shortening of time spent on cursive education has a noticeable impact. Specifically, only 15 percent of students wrote the paragraph in cursive. I was taught cursive for three years in elementary school and, even though I didn't write in cursive again until college, I easily remembered how because I had so much practice with it from long ago.
There are also benefits to using cursive. Knowing cursive helps to generate a signature that is less prone to forgery, yet less enigmatic than a signature might be from someone who doesn't know cursive but doesn't want to sign his or her name in print. Being cursive-literate means that one can read all (legible) forms of handwriting. Just imagine how embarrassing it would be to be to come in to the office after lunch to find a cursive handwritten note on your keyboard from your boss. You look at the note from no less than six different angles, including upside down, and yet you cannot make any sense of the mysterious message. You then turn to your coworker or, even worse, your boss, and ask for a translation. I'm sure most of you can visualize the inevitable facepalm from him or her. Oh, and knowing cursive also means that you can read the occasional birthday card from your grandmother or the Constitution of the United States.
I won't argue that cursive is the faster form of writing. According to the first article above, no studies have shown conclusively that cursive is faster than print. So far, it seems that people tend to write fastest in whichever style they use most often. But I believe cursive should still be taught as an alternative to print. For some people like myself, cursive is much faster than print, and I actually print more than I write in cursive. For sure, typing is the fastest form of writing. But are typing classes really necessary in elementary school? I took a typing class in sixth grade and none of us really practiced typing correctly. We just enjoyed a chance to be on a computer. I didn't really learn to type properly until eighth grade. But is typing so complicated that it deserves to take up all the time previously spent on cursive? I know plenty of people my age who don't type from the home row position, yet type faster than me with the same or fewer number of errors. People will get faster and more accurate at typing just based on all the time they spend at the keyboard. Very few people, however, will teach themselves cursive. At the very least, allow students to learn cursive in an art class or elective. Just provide them with some option to learn cursive in school!
I'd like to hear your comments on the importance of cursive education. Whether you support or oppose the teaching of cursive in the classroom, or don't care either way, I'm interesting in hearing why you feel the way you do.
Where should I begin? How about I start with the fact that it is a major disservice to students to not provide them with the ability to read the handwriting of so many adults in the world today? I don't think I've ever had a high school teacher or professor who didn't write in cursive, unless writing on the board. And even then, many wrote in cursive. How can students expect to read signatures and generate their own? A simple Google search for "SAT cursive" brings up dozens of message board posts from students stressed out about the simple SAT pledge which is meant to be reproduced in cursive by the student. The gradual shortening of time spent on cursive education has a noticeable impact. Specifically, only 15 percent of students wrote the paragraph in cursive. I was taught cursive for three years in elementary school and, even though I didn't write in cursive again until college, I easily remembered how because I had so much practice with it from long ago.
There are also benefits to using cursive. Knowing cursive helps to generate a signature that is less prone to forgery, yet less enigmatic than a signature might be from someone who doesn't know cursive but doesn't want to sign his or her name in print. Being cursive-literate means that one can read all (legible) forms of handwriting. Just imagine how embarrassing it would be to be to come in to the office after lunch to find a cursive handwritten note on your keyboard from your boss. You look at the note from no less than six different angles, including upside down, and yet you cannot make any sense of the mysterious message. You then turn to your coworker or, even worse, your boss, and ask for a translation. I'm sure most of you can visualize the inevitable facepalm from him or her. Oh, and knowing cursive also means that you can read the occasional birthday card from your grandmother or the Constitution of the United States.
I won't argue that cursive is the faster form of writing. According to the first article above, no studies have shown conclusively that cursive is faster than print. So far, it seems that people tend to write fastest in whichever style they use most often. But I believe cursive should still be taught as an alternative to print. For some people like myself, cursive is much faster than print, and I actually print more than I write in cursive. For sure, typing is the fastest form of writing. But are typing classes really necessary in elementary school? I took a typing class in sixth grade and none of us really practiced typing correctly. We just enjoyed a chance to be on a computer. I didn't really learn to type properly until eighth grade. But is typing so complicated that it deserves to take up all the time previously spent on cursive? I know plenty of people my age who don't type from the home row position, yet type faster than me with the same or fewer number of errors. People will get faster and more accurate at typing just based on all the time they spend at the keyboard. Very few people, however, will teach themselves cursive. At the very least, allow students to learn cursive in an art class or elective. Just provide them with some option to learn cursive in school!
I'd like to hear your comments on the importance of cursive education. Whether you support or oppose the teaching of cursive in the classroom, or don't care either way, I'm interesting in hearing why you feel the way you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)