Regular Education Curriculum Research Articles

Urban Design Workshops in the Education Curriculum: Advantages and Disadvantages

Urban design workshops have become a quality addition to the regular education curriculum in architecture, urban design, and landscape architecture schools. In many of these institutions, short courses or workshops are introduced as an obligatory part of the design studio. However, the quality of urban design workshops varies. This study focuses on twenty-five years of experience in teaching through workshops. Workshops, which are very often an extracurricular activity, can be used as a tool for curricular renovation and flexibility because they complement the studio program. The advantages of introducing programs with urban design workshops into education is that the professional subject changes every year depending on the current events taking place in the surroundings and the profession, and, in comparison to the compulsory curriculum, this dynamic component of studying links students and practice. During the course of the workshop, the students have to focus their thoughts, work, and results in a short period. This allows them to contemplate current events, and also to assess both their individual capabilities and knowledge gained through regular studies and extending the intuitive and intellectual learning process. The main disadvantage of urban design workshops is that only by completing all phases of a workshop will participants have the best results from every perspective. The first phase of preparing a workshop, when its themes and goals are set, places a lot of responsibility on the teachers that organize the workshop. Regular work usually occupies the teaching staff, and so this phase presents a burden for their educational and other activities at the school. The second phase is the very core of the urban design workshop, when all of the planned activities come together. It is essential for the participants to share their experiences and work in a common living environment for a few days. The results of the workshop—that is, transformation of their experiences into design—are seen in the third phase thorough exhibitions, presentations, or publications. It is usually difficult to continue workshop activities after the very intensive work in the second phase. The third workshop phase requires a new investment of creative energy.

초등학생을 위한 단계별 흡연예방 프로그램의 효과

본 연구는 정규교과과정으로 활용될 수 있도록 개발된 사회인지학습이론 기반 흡연예방 교육프로그램의 효과를 측정하고자 수행되었다. 프로그램 적용대상은 D 광역시 소재 4개 초등학교의 1학년, 3학년, 5학년 학생으로 실험군과 대조군이 1학년은 54명과 50명, 3학년은 57명과 54명, 5학년은 101명과 99명이었다. 프로그램 실시는 1학년은 2시수, 3학년은 4시수, 5학년은 6시수가 2013년 11월 1일부터 12월 19일까지 이루어졌다. 프로그램의 효과측정을 위해 흡연 지식 및 태도, 자아개념 도구를 사용하였으며, 수집자료의 분석에는 Chi-square test와 t-test를 사용하였다. 연구결과 프로그램 실시 전후 흡연지식에서는 모든 학년에서 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 있었으나 흡연태도와 자아개념에서는 차이가 없었다. 초등학생 대항 흡연예방 프로그램은 정규교과과정에 연계되어 단계별로 적용되어야 하며 단기 효과보다는 장기 효과를 목표로 하여야 할 것이다. 【The subjects of this study were 415 children in the first to third grade selected from 4 primary schools. Among them, 212 children belong to the experimental group, and 203 children were in the control group. The program was provided respectively to first, third and fifth grade children for 2, 4 and 6 teaching-hours from 2013.1.1 to 2013.12.19. To measure the effects of the program, the knowledge and attitudes on/toward smoking, self-concept were used as the research tools. Before and after program-implementation, there were significant differences in knowledge of smoking, but no differences in attitudes and self-concept. A smoking prevention program for primary school children should be applied step-by-step in conjunction with the regular education curriculum. In addition, the program should aim for long-term effects rather than short-term effects.】

Perspectives on Preparing Graduate Students To Provide Educationally Relevant Services in Schools

Abstract Working in the schools today requires more than the skills and knowledge for addressing the communication and swallowing disorders that children exhibit. With changes in the way speech-language pathologists (SLPs) perceive themselves and their purpose within their school setting, there must also be changes in the way graduate programs prepare the next generation of school-based speech-language pathologists. This paper addresses those critical skills that will enable school-based SLPs to work within and help to create a school culture that embodies (a) flexibility in service delivery; (b) constant attention to promoting children's successful performance within the regular education curriculum; (c) collaboration among professionals, children, and parents; (d) advocacy for the highest quality services to children and the expanding role of the SLP in that effort; and (e) using evidence to support clinical practice. We will also address what university graduate programs can do to support the development of those skills.

Improving Academic Achievement: Can a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Model Help?

Improving Academic Achievement: Can a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Model Help? Donald F. Moores, Editor In the seemingly neverending conflict between equity and excellence in American education it is clear that the emphasis has shifted to excellence in the first years of the 21st century. More than half of our states now require some form of high-stakes testing for promotion and/or graduation. The No Child Left Behind legislation mandates rigorous, scientifically-based instruction and assessment of progress by grade-level testing at the school, school district, and state levels, with results disaggregated by gender, racial/ethnic status, family income, and disability. Major specified goals include the expectation that by 2014 all third-grade children will be proficient readers and that all schoolchildren, with very few exceptions, will document achievement at grade level. All children, including deaf students, should be taught and tested through the regular education curriculum of a particular school, school district, or state. Progress, of course, has been uneven, but expectations clearly are higher in elementary and secondary education and the effects have spilled over into higher education. Admission criteria have been raised in many colleges and universities, frequently including standards for students seeking to transfer from community colleges and other 2-year institutions. Part of the reason for this is the placement of caps on enrollment. This impacts both deaf and hearing students in regular higher education environments. The same situation is occurring in universities and institutions of higher education that traditionally serve deaf students. For example, Gallaudet University recently has raised its entrance requirements significantly and students who might have been accepted in recent years may no longer meet the new criteria. There are many deaf students for whom the new requirements do not present an obstacle and who will continue to matriculate into higher education programs. However, the new standards will constitute a barrier for a significant and probably growing number of deaf students. These are students with ability but who, for one reason or another, have not achieved their full academic potential. If we are to meet these students’ needs, new strategies must be developed and new systems of instruction must be implemented. If not, their development will be curtailed. I am proposing that we consider a variation of the Response to Intervention (RTI) model that was presented in the Individuals With Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. Most readers are aware that RTI was proposed as an alternate or supplement to the ability/achievement discrepancy paradigm traditionally used with children classified as learning disabled. It involves early identification and assistance to children who may be having difficulty learning under the regular education curriculum. The goal is to prevent failure and ensure success through early identification, progress monitoring, and research-based instruction. RTI has been presented most commonly as a multitiered process starting with the regular curriculum in a regular classroom entailing regular classroom instruction with grade-level expectations (Tier I). An essential component is school-wide screening and ongoing progress monitoring. Tier II involves identification of children not making adequate progress in the regular curriculum, followed by the development and implementation of a supplementary diagnostic instructional trial. Ongoing progress monitoring is an essential component of Tier II as well as in Tier I. If responsiveness to the supplementary instructional trial is not satisfactory, it may be concluded that children who have not responded may have more fundamental problems, leading to Tier III, the development and implementation of an individualized education plan (IEP). Of course, the deaf and hard of hearing children we are concerned with already have an IEP and many of these children have been diagnosed with additional disabilities. In many cases these may have been misdiagnoses due to inadequate educational, psychological, and neuropsychological assessment, but that is a topic for a later editorial. My focus here is on those deaf children for whom the gap between grade placement and academic achievement grows every year. These are children, for the most part, who have been [End Page 347] exposed to a regular education curriculum in an inclusive or integrated setting or to a regular education curriculum or a variation of it in a self-contained classroom or a day...

Editorial: Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces

In our field, as elsewhere, there is always a temptation to oversimplify things and to see matters in dichotomous black-white, either-or frameworks. The reality, of course, is much more complex even when we consider the impact of such separate forces as national and international organizations of the deaf, the growing acceptance of national sign languages, cochlear implants and digital hearing aids, mainstreaming and inclusive education, and changes in curriculum, among others. The complexity increases exponentially when we try to analyze and comprehend the interactions of these forces, some of which tend to draw us together and some of which tend to move us apart. Added to that, each country has different characteristics, inevitably leading to different outcomes. Finally, there may be significant regional differences within each country For example, examination of the data for education of deaf and hard of hearing children within the four major regions of the United States - Northeast, Midwest, South, and West - reveals significant differences in educational placement, racial/ethnic status, and mode of instruction (sign-only sign plus speech, and speech-only) for deaf and hard of hearing students. In fact, if one did not know the source, it would be easy to assume that the data were gathered from four different countries. Even further, individual states within each region, such as California and Idaho in the West and New York and Vermont in the East, also vary widely The competing forces for uniformity and variation have been brought home strongly for me recently as I have been working along with Dr. Margery Miller of the Gallaudet Psychology Department, editing a text on deafness around the world. There are similar forces operating internationally, but the impact varies from one country to another. Although it is dangerous to overgeneralize, some commonalities may be identified tentatively. On the international level, there is a growing influence of organizations of the deaf, some of which have a long history. Chief among these are the World Federation of the Deaf, the Deaflympics, and the European Union of the Deaf. In addition to annual meetings and conventions, electronic communication has served to bring deaf leaders in constant contact, facilitating the development of an international deaf community capable of coordinating activities and advocating for the benefit of deaf individuals across the globe. Another example of the growing commonality of interest is reflected in the increase in recent years of manuscripts submitted to the Annals from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America addressing shared topics of interest. The widespread use of English is a contributing factor to the exchange of information. In the case of curriculum, there are both common and separate elements. Most countries classified as developed now emphasize that deaf and hard of hearing children have access to the regular education curriculum. …

Editorial

Editorial Between Scylla and Charybdis or Between a Rock and a Hard Place In his travels, Ulysses was warned by Circe of the dangers of sailing between two rock-dwelling monsters, Scylla and Charybdis. If a boat sailed too close to the cave dwelling six-headed Scylla, she would seize and devour the sailors. On the other hand, if the boat strayed too far to avoid Scylla, it would be sucked into the whirlpool of Charybdis, with the sailors to die an equally horrible death. Through superb seamanship, Ulysses was able to negotiate the straits, losing only six men to the multi-headed Scylla. The dangers facing leaders in the field of education for deaf and hard of hearing children may not be quite as dire as those facing the intrepid Ulysses, but they are serious, and our students stand to suffer if we are not successful in addressing sometimes conflicting demands. For some time, I have been convinced that we have been facing three essential questions, basically: How do we teach deaf children? Where do we teach deaf children? What do we teach deaf children? Although I know some colleagues might disagree with me, I believe that the field has come to an accommodation about the first two questions . Most professionals working with deaf children are aware of the great diversity within the population and the need for options for communication modality (oral-only, sign plus speech, sign-only) for individual children. I also believe that we have come to an accommodation on school-placement options from complete integration to resource rooms to self-contained classes to separate center day and residential schools. Although any two of us may disagree on the most appropriate communication mode and academic placement for a particular child, in general we embrace the concept of individual plans with a range of options. From my perspective, we face our greatest present challenge with the question of curriculum: what to teach deaf children. On the surface it appears that we have begun to address this in a satisfactory manner. Federal legislation calls for all children to have access to the regular education curriculum, and other federal legislation calls for all children, with very few exceptions, to be tested for proficiency in subject matter periodically, with passing a program of testing a criterion for high school graduation. As a result of the first body of legislation, more and more deaf children are being exposed to a regular curriculum. This is occurring not only for students in schools with predominantly hearing student enrollment, but also in center day schools and residential schools for deaf children that are adopting regular local or county curricula. The outcome for the testing mandates will not be known for several years, although many of us have strong opinions, because implementation will take place over a period of time. There have been some positive outcomes from these trends and mandates. It is apparent to me that the curricula in many programs have been strengthened and are more rigorous than even a few years ago. I have felt for years that most programs were not intellectually challenging enough for our students and that many of us underestimated the academic potential of deaf students. This is Volume 147, No. 1, 2002 American Annals of the Deaf Editorial being remedied to some extent. However, we are coming to regular education curricula at a time when pressure is mounting on schools to decrease flexibility in what is being taught. We are dealing with a system in which each state comes up with learning standards for schools by grade, then theoretically curricula are developed to ensure children meet these standards, and finally tests are developed to assess whether or not high levels of proficiency have been attained by schools, school districts, and children . In many, perhaps most, states, the cart has come before the horse. Tests have been developed, schools have been found lacking, as measured by one test, and curricula have been modified to meet test requirements. In other words, schools teach to the test, regardless of whether the tests are valid and reliable measures of academic achievement. Of course, guesswork is involved in teaching to the test...