When I heard that we had to peer edit Dr. McCormick's 101 students, I was pretty excited. As someone who aspires to become a college level English professor, it seemed like a great way to get a small glimpse into one aspect of the profession. It also showed me different people's writing processes. You could tell from reading their drafts if they had done sufficient research, or had done some pre-writing for structure and organization. I had some previous experience doing peer review through my ENG 220-Seminar in Teaching Writing course. So I was already prepared for being critical of someone's work in a positive and constructive manner. This was important as I could tell from one of my student's blogs that she was a solid, confident writer and because of this she may not have been as receptive to criticism as someone who is aware of a deficiency. I tried to remain as honest as possible, but I was certainly mindful of the language I used to critique her draft and I made a concerted effort only to point out major issues such as lack of analysis for a quote. I didn't feel that apprehensive about my ability to critique or the way it could be interpreted by the students. I really did try to be as constructive as possible so that not only would I benefit from the editing process but the students I reviewed would be able to write a better draft as they go through their revisions.
As for how this experience will effect my own work, I think it will definitely allow me o be more critical of my work. I too am confident in my writing ability and at times this can be an obstacle in the editing process. In the past I tended not to do a lot of revision, instead opting to write a first draft, doing some minor editing such as spell check, and then submitting that draft as is. Only after my draft has been reviewed by the professor would I then go back and tweak my paper. However, I have learned that this is not necessarily the best way to approach writing. Since I would also like to do some creative writing in the future, I clearly see the benefits to peer review and a more critical self-editing process. By editing my own papers more thoroughly, I can see if my paper is starting to become too broad or losing focus. I can also keep my thesis loose, allowing it to evolve as I write my paper. Going forward with editing my research paper, I think I will be more open to rewriting or rethinking certain elements. I also have given my paper to a couple of fellow students to gauge their ideas on what I could improve or refocus. All in all, I truly enjoyed this experience and feel that both parties will benefit greatly from it.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
New Direction...First 6 pages so far
In his 2006 speech at the annual TED conference, Sir Ken Robinson expressed the notion that “creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status” (2006). During the last century in the United States, the focus in education has been on standardized test scores, rote memorization and regurgitation while actively neglecting the importance of creativity in the classroom. Recently, the trend in education has been the emphasis on mathematics and the sciences. In the wake of budget crises, educational programs such as the federal Race to the Top program, and the influence of films such as Waiting for Superman, the arts and creativity have been all but eliminated from the educational landscape. It is my contention that creativity through the arts and humanities needs to be returned to its rightful place in the classroom, as it has been shown to lead to greater academic and personal success. Education should encourage and foster creativity in students, not stifle it in the hopes of elevating achievement in other subject areas.
For many people, creativity and education are seen as being as separate as oil and water. They do not believe that the arts and creativity have a place in the modern classroom as we must strive to remain competitive in this rapidly advancing technological world. Educators and administrators stress that in order to compete with other industrial powers, we must achieve greater academic success in math and science, subjects that have a clear and defined correlation to computers and technology. Yet, the connection between the arts, creativity, math and science is generally overlooked or underestimated. For example, there have been numerous studies on the link between classical music and math test scores. A study by Hedden in 1971 showed that students who practiced classical piano performed higher on standardized math exams. It concluded that the creativity needed to interpret classical music pieces helped to stimulate higher level problem solving in the brain, which in turn had an effect on the student's abilities to perform better on the tests. So it can be argued that creativity and the arts do in fact have merit in the modern classroom and will serve to help students in their study of math and science.
There are a few misconceptions about creativity, which may have attributed to its declining influence in education. The first misconception is that only a few people are really creative. In actuality, it has been shown that we all possess the potential for creativity. As such, the emphasis on creativity in education who need to focused on everybody, not just a select few. The second misconception is that creativity is limited to its application to the arts and humanities. Traditionally, people have associated
creativity with the arts only. However, creativity encompasses everything we do. From math and science to music and art to writing and the social sciences, creativity plays a vital, often unseen, role in the education of our children. Creativity in the classroom should be worked into the whole curriculum, not just limited to the arts and fringe subjects. The third misconception about creativity in education is that it is just a New Age, impractical theory while it is actually a disciplined process that requires
skill, knowledge, and control. While, it is true that creativity requires imagination and inspiration, it also requires discipline to reign it in and hone it for practical use, such as a computer programmer working on a video game who must think creatively in order to come up with new game concepts yet must have restraint and discipline in order to work within specific parameters and meet deadlines for production.
The first misconception that not all people have the capacity for creativity is a source of major contention, particularly in the constant battle to increase funding for the arts while avoiding major cuts to arts education programs. In New York City for example, the Department of Education cut funding for arts programs by 68% since the 2006-2007 school year (Kreinin-Souccar 2010). The rationale behind such a large cut in arts funding was that not all students would benefit from arts education and that the focus should be on meeting the educational requirements set forth by the federal government. As New York City Councilman Robert Jackson, chair of the education committee noted “A frame work that emphasizes test scores has resulted in a significant diversion of resources away from arts education. The real irony is that students with access to arts education have been shown to produce superior academic achievement on standardized tests, the very goal that is being pursued” (Kreinin-Souccar 2010). It can be argued that if the education system wants all children to achieve greater success in math and science, then all children should have equal access to arts education in order to foster their creativity. Arts programs should not be relegated to specialized schools such as the LaGuardia High School for the Performing Arts or the High School For Visual Arts, they should be a part of the core curriculum of every public school starting with primary education all the way through higher learning institutions such as community colleges and universities. This way all students can gain from exposure to creativity, which they can then apply to their traditional studies where in hopefully this exposure will continue to show increased academic performance.
The second misconception about creativity is that it is limited in scope, mainly to the arts and humanities. The application of creativity in mathematics might sound like a foreign concept but is an idea that has been around for quite some time. Noted mathematician Augustus De Morgan once stated that “the moving power of mathematical invention is not reasoning but imagination” (Mann 2006). The notion that math and science have no room for creativity would have been absurd to early mathematicians and scientists. After all, it took imagination and creativity for a physicist like Sir Issac Newton to develop his theories on gravity. Creativity was at the center of Einstein’s work on the Theory of Relativity. One of the greatest scientific minds of all time and visionary inventor Leonardo Da Vinci was a classically trained artist and it was his ability to think creatively and out of the box that led to inventions such as his flying machine, parachute, and armored car, all of which were way ahead of their time. So it should be seen as natural to pair the arts and creativity in the classroom with math and science. Yet the exact opposite is happening.
Arts and creativity also have a place in world of business as well. Not only can arts education lead to creativity in math and science, but it can help increase overall problem solving skills. This is an asset that is highly sought after in the private sector. In an interview with the journal Educational Leadership, Sir Ken Robinson told columnist Amy Azzam “I work a lot with Fortune 500 companies, and they’re always saying, 'We need people who can be innovative, who can think creatively'”(Azzam 2009). This ability to use innovation and creativity in the boardroom can help companies remain competitive in their industries. It can also help an individual excel in their chosen profession, which is part of the goal of many in the field of education. So then, the question of why it is so hard for educators and administrators to connect the dots and ensure that creativity has a place in education is beyond me. It would seem that they would be clamoring to have an increase in funding and growth in arts education, but sadly this is not the case in the current educational climate.
The emphasis on success in standardized testing has increased in the last decade. As a result, it has had a detrimental, but not irreversible, effect on arts education. As more and more school districts across the United States concern themselves with the intense competition for federal funding, the focus has been on increasing student's performance on mandated standardized examinations. In her book, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing, author Linda McNeil suggests that standardized testing has been the impetus behind major cuts to arts funding in schools across the nation. She goes on to state “Federal requirements in compulsory subjects such as mathematics, science and reading comprehension have lead school systems to drop programs in the performing and visual arts in order to fund remedial and preparatory courses strictly to compete for funding. The cuts to arts programs are almost never revisited” (McNeil 35). The fact that schools would decrease funding for or simply eliminate arts programs only to apply for greater funding is not the most troubling part of this problem. What is most troubling is that once these funds have been earned, that this new influx of money is not utilized to restore the arts programs. It creates a vicious cycle in which funds for arts and creativity have been all but eviscerated from most schools' curricula solely to secure greater funding, with the purpose of achieving higher test scores, which in turn leads to more funding, and so on.
For many people, creativity and education are seen as being as separate as oil and water. They do not believe that the arts and creativity have a place in the modern classroom as we must strive to remain competitive in this rapidly advancing technological world. Educators and administrators stress that in order to compete with other industrial powers, we must achieve greater academic success in math and science, subjects that have a clear and defined correlation to computers and technology. Yet, the connection between the arts, creativity, math and science is generally overlooked or underestimated. For example, there have been numerous studies on the link between classical music and math test scores. A study by Hedden in 1971 showed that students who practiced classical piano performed higher on standardized math exams. It concluded that the creativity needed to interpret classical music pieces helped to stimulate higher level problem solving in the brain, which in turn had an effect on the student's abilities to perform better on the tests. So it can be argued that creativity and the arts do in fact have merit in the modern classroom and will serve to help students in their study of math and science.
There are a few misconceptions about creativity, which may have attributed to its declining influence in education. The first misconception is that only a few people are really creative. In actuality, it has been shown that we all possess the potential for creativity. As such, the emphasis on creativity in education who need to focused on everybody, not just a select few. The second misconception is that creativity is limited to its application to the arts and humanities. Traditionally, people have associated
creativity with the arts only. However, creativity encompasses everything we do. From math and science to music and art to writing and the social sciences, creativity plays a vital, often unseen, role in the education of our children. Creativity in the classroom should be worked into the whole curriculum, not just limited to the arts and fringe subjects. The third misconception about creativity in education is that it is just a New Age, impractical theory while it is actually a disciplined process that requires
skill, knowledge, and control. While, it is true that creativity requires imagination and inspiration, it also requires discipline to reign it in and hone it for practical use, such as a computer programmer working on a video game who must think creatively in order to come up with new game concepts yet must have restraint and discipline in order to work within specific parameters and meet deadlines for production.
The first misconception that not all people have the capacity for creativity is a source of major contention, particularly in the constant battle to increase funding for the arts while avoiding major cuts to arts education programs. In New York City for example, the Department of Education cut funding for arts programs by 68% since the 2006-2007 school year (Kreinin-Souccar 2010). The rationale behind such a large cut in arts funding was that not all students would benefit from arts education and that the focus should be on meeting the educational requirements set forth by the federal government. As New York City Councilman Robert Jackson, chair of the education committee noted “A frame work that emphasizes test scores has resulted in a significant diversion of resources away from arts education. The real irony is that students with access to arts education have been shown to produce superior academic achievement on standardized tests, the very goal that is being pursued” (Kreinin-Souccar 2010). It can be argued that if the education system wants all children to achieve greater success in math and science, then all children should have equal access to arts education in order to foster their creativity. Arts programs should not be relegated to specialized schools such as the LaGuardia High School for the Performing Arts or the High School For Visual Arts, they should be a part of the core curriculum of every public school starting with primary education all the way through higher learning institutions such as community colleges and universities. This way all students can gain from exposure to creativity, which they can then apply to their traditional studies where in hopefully this exposure will continue to show increased academic performance.
The second misconception about creativity is that it is limited in scope, mainly to the arts and humanities. The application of creativity in mathematics might sound like a foreign concept but is an idea that has been around for quite some time. Noted mathematician Augustus De Morgan once stated that “the moving power of mathematical invention is not reasoning but imagination” (Mann 2006). The notion that math and science have no room for creativity would have been absurd to early mathematicians and scientists. After all, it took imagination and creativity for a physicist like Sir Issac Newton to develop his theories on gravity. Creativity was at the center of Einstein’s work on the Theory of Relativity. One of the greatest scientific minds of all time and visionary inventor Leonardo Da Vinci was a classically trained artist and it was his ability to think creatively and out of the box that led to inventions such as his flying machine, parachute, and armored car, all of which were way ahead of their time. So it should be seen as natural to pair the arts and creativity in the classroom with math and science. Yet the exact opposite is happening.
Arts and creativity also have a place in world of business as well. Not only can arts education lead to creativity in math and science, but it can help increase overall problem solving skills. This is an asset that is highly sought after in the private sector. In an interview with the journal Educational Leadership, Sir Ken Robinson told columnist Amy Azzam “I work a lot with Fortune 500 companies, and they’re always saying, 'We need people who can be innovative, who can think creatively'”(Azzam 2009). This ability to use innovation and creativity in the boardroom can help companies remain competitive in their industries. It can also help an individual excel in their chosen profession, which is part of the goal of many in the field of education. So then, the question of why it is so hard for educators and administrators to connect the dots and ensure that creativity has a place in education is beyond me. It would seem that they would be clamoring to have an increase in funding and growth in arts education, but sadly this is not the case in the current educational climate.
The emphasis on success in standardized testing has increased in the last decade. As a result, it has had a detrimental, but not irreversible, effect on arts education. As more and more school districts across the United States concern themselves with the intense competition for federal funding, the focus has been on increasing student's performance on mandated standardized examinations. In her book, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing, author Linda McNeil suggests that standardized testing has been the impetus behind major cuts to arts funding in schools across the nation. She goes on to state “Federal requirements in compulsory subjects such as mathematics, science and reading comprehension have lead school systems to drop programs in the performing and visual arts in order to fund remedial and preparatory courses strictly to compete for funding. The cuts to arts programs are almost never revisited” (McNeil 35). The fact that schools would decrease funding for or simply eliminate arts programs only to apply for greater funding is not the most troubling part of this problem. What is most troubling is that once these funds have been earned, that this new influx of money is not utilized to restore the arts programs. It creates a vicious cycle in which funds for arts and creativity have been all but eviscerated from most schools' curricula solely to secure greater funding, with the purpose of achieving higher test scores, which in turn leads to more funding, and so on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)