Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Achieving American Departmental Accreditation
See NOTES Below the SLIDE!
Intensive English Program – AUK IEPRD HOBBS
Email: [email protected]
AUK IEP Curriculum Developmentto achieve USA accreditationRD HOBBS [Read notes below!]Instructional Process Components
for IEP
Five components
• Curriculum guide• Curriculum process plan• Curriculum review cycle• Stakeholder responsibilities
• Professional development (Oliva, 2005)
5 developmental processes
• Biological – which evolves over time
• Psychoanalytical – focuses on needs fulfillment
• Behavioral – stimulus, response, consequences
• Cognitive – construction of understanding (Piaget, Bruner, Vygotsky)
• Contextual – importance of social and cultural influence(Schunk, 2004)
Curriculum Guide, Macro interfaceINT ENG 010
INTENG020
INTENG030
INTENG 099
INTENG090
Weeks 1-3Weeks 4-6Weeks 7-9Weeks 10-12Weeks 13-15
Micro-curriculum interface
MATRIX Grammar Vocabulary &
Spelling
Pragmatic usage
Reading Comprehension
Understanding nuances in
tense differentiat
ion
Word paradigms + syntax
Decoding
Writing Appropriate application of grammar
Orthographic production
Encoding & Formal Level Analysis
Listening
Audioscripts
enhance precision
New word explanation
before listening
Understanding accents
Speaking
Giving Presentation
s,Responding
Students use new words
Encoding accurately
Curriculum Review Cycle
Summer
Fall
Spring
Stakeholder Roles & Responsibilities
Stakeholders
Roles Responsibilities
Boardmembers
Administration
FacultyStudentsAlumni
CommunityOthers?
Professional Development
Initiation
Reflection, Reinforcement, Planning
Future Phases
Re-Teaching Meeting Cycles (Diamond, 1998)
Mid-Term
End of Each Semester
Before each semester
Comprehensive Framework Model (Hobbs, 2009, 2012)
Level 1: Community Values
Level 2: Institutional Vision & Mission
Level 3: Student Needs & Applied Theory interfaced with Strategies & Methodology
Level 4: Instruction & Material & Technology
Level 5: Formative Assessments& Performance Indicators
Level 6: Re-Teaching Cycles & Alternative & Summative Assessments
Level 7: Hidden + Extra Curriculum & Student Evaluations + Curriculum Evaluation
Education should build INTEGRITY
• “Teaching is a moral enterprise” (Gingell & Winch, 2006, p. 77)
• Education must instill responsibility and teach values (Ash & Clayton, 2004)
Vision and Values• The curriculum should reflect the vision and values common to the faculty & administration
• The vision and values should be reflected in the Mission Statement
• Instruction should explicitly and implicitly express the vision and values inherent to implementing the mission of delivering the curriculum (Hobbs, 2009, 2012)
13 Principles for Educators• Reflexive design• Cognitive & Motivational characteristics
• Strengths of students considered
• Applying knowledge to new contexts
• Higher-order skills
• Mutual respect and personal responsibility established
• Argumentation skill stimulation
• Self-regulated learning
• Efficient learning increase
• Maintaining interest
• Positive outlook• Minus Negativity• Self-instructional material usage
(Astleitner, 2005)
Pedagogical Essentials #1 (PE #1)
• Self-acknowledged learning is the transfer of skill, knowledge, and information from working memory to long-term memory with across topic transfer and within topic transfer (Boekaerts & Minnaert, 2006)
• Teacher effectiveness is significantly enhanced when pedagogical training includes implementing differentiated instruction strategies (Edwards, Carr, & Siegel, 2006)
Pedagogical Essentials #2 (PE#2)
Teachers must consider:• the factors of the learning environment to maximize learning, which relates to the limitations of the physical environment
• time constraints, and barriers to success that must be dealt with, if not overcome
• then select appropriate topics, organize topics efficiently, explain purpose and benefits of the lesson, and maximize and maintain rapport with learners(Small, 2000)
Pedagogical Essentials #3 (PE #3)
• Essential for learning are: Rigorous time-sensitive standards with all learners in mind; continuing feedback; curriculum support for individualizing instruction; and relevant, engaging content instructed with procedures, which lead to differentiated product (McTighe & Brown, 2005)
• Successful educators must set goals, plan project cycles, assess student knowledge and skills in problem-solving, creative thinking, synthesis, and application, evaluate attitudes, values, and reactions to various types of instruction, instruct in areas where students are lacking, and offer specific, timely feedback (Angelo & Cross, 1993)
Pedagogical Essentials #4 (PE #4)
• Teachers must analyze tasks, teach to objectives, monitor student performance, present models for student outcomes, develop automaticity, increase student perseverance, and teach diplomacy so students can agree to disagree amicably (Hunter, 1994)
• Rapport with learners should be gained by connecting to student lives what is being taught in as many ways as possible within the given constraints of the classroom (Lawrence-Brown, 2004)
TechnologyConstraints of the classroom can be delimitized by:
• using technology that includes interactive websites to enhance student learning with a focus to preparing for a complex world (Wishneitsky, 2004)
• encouraging hybrid or online participation (El Mansour & Mupinga, 2007)
that build through planned scaffolding of evaluation (Sims, Dobbs, & Hand, 2002)
Timing, Alignment, Research• Optimal teaching occurs with the alignment of teaching and learning
(Proserpio & Gioia, 2007)
• Teachers must select the right strategies at the right time
(Mehigan, 2005)
• Teachers provide excitement when discussing their own research (Marsh & Hattie, 2002)
Standards & Measurable Outcomes
Educators translate standards:• into experiences through organization that result in
• measurable outcomes of knowledge of terminology, facts, rules, principles, processes, procedures, and
• paraphrastic application, analysis, and synthesis; i.e. tables and matrices (Guskey, 2005)
Achieving OutcomesEducators achieve outcomes through:• systematic ongoing diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments
• that meaningfully frame performance goals according to stipulated and modeled criteria
• through specific feedback and student self-analysis via reflective goal-setting and attainment
• represented in quality learning products
• Thus, students become proactive about learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006)
Readiness
Educators must:• evaluate student readiness• explain teacher expectations• evaluate performance• correct misunderstandings• redirect off-task students• maximize usage of time, and• assist in problem-solving (Friedman, Harwell, & Schnepel, 2006)
Summation• Government and communities are demanding high-standard tertiary education that propel students into the complex and competitive 21st century. Educators are in the midst of providing effective learning environments and strategies that meet the dynamic needs of students, teachers, and society. (Hunt, Touzel, & Wiseman, 1999)
References #1• Angelo, T., & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom
assessment techniques; A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
• Ash, S., & Clayton, P. (2004). The articulated learning: An approach to guided reflection and assessment. Innovative Higher Education, 29 (2), 137-154. Retrieved Nov. 6 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Astleitner, H. (2005). Principles of effective instruction – General standards for teachers and instructional designers. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32 (1), 3-8. Retrieved Nov. 6 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Boekaerts, M. & Minnaert, A. (2006). Affective and motivational outcomes of working in collaborative groups. Educational Psychology, 26 (2), 187-208. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Diamond, R. (1988). Designing and assessing courses and curricula. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
References #2• Edwards, C., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006).
Influences of experiences and training on effective teaching practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education, 126 (3), 580-592. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41 (1), 242-248. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Friedman, M., Harwell, D., & Schnepel, K. (2006). Effective instruction; A handbook of evidence-based strategies. Columbia, SC: The Institute for Evidence-Based Decision-Making in Education.
• Gingell, J., & Winch, C. (2006). Is educational research any use? Studies in Philosophy & Education, 25 (1/2), 77-91. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Guskey, T. (2005). Mapping the road to proficiency. Educational Leadership, 63 (3), 32-38. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost databse.
References #3• Hobbs, R. (2009). The Hobbs report on
educational excellence: Reflective value, redirection, and a way forward. In AUK Occasional Papers; Liberal Arts & Business Affairs, No. 3 (pp. 94-102). Kuwait: American University of Kuwait.
• Hobbs, R. (2012). Diverse multilingual researchers contribute language acquisition components to an integrated model of education. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 204-234.
• Hunt, G., Touzel, T., & Wiseman, D. (1999). Effective Teaching; Preparation and Implementation (3rd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd.
• Hunter, M. (1994). Enhancing teaching. New York: MacMillan College Publishing Company.
• Lawrence-Brown, D. (2004). Differentiated instruction: Inclusive strategies for standards-based learning that benefit the whole class. American Secondary Education, 32 (3), 34-63. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
References #4• Marsh, H., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation
between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (5), 603-642. Retrieved November 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
• McTighe, J., & Brown, J. (2005). Differentiated instruction and educational standards: Is détente possible? Theory into Practice, 44 (3), 234-244. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Mehigan, K. (2005). The strategy toolbox: A ladder to strategic teaching. The Reading Teacher, 58 (6), 552-567. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
• Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2), 199-218. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Oliva, P. (2005). Developing the curriculum (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
References #5• Prosepio, L., & Gioia, D. (2007). Teaching
the virtual generation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6 (1), 69-80. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.
• Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
• Sims, R., Dobbs, G. & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23 (2), 135-149. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
• Small, R. (2000). Having an IM-PACT: A model for improving instructional presentations. Teacher Librarian, 28 (1), 30-36. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
• Wishneitsky, D. (2004). Using interactive internet sites in teaching. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks (525), 3-44. Retrieved Nov. 6, 2007 from ProQuest database.
• Fin RDH 2014
