------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.- REDUCING SEXISM IN THE CLASSROOM
Reducing Sexism in the Classroom
By Gladys A. Juncos
Introduction
The practice of assigning masculine gender to neutral terms comes from
the fact that every language reflects the prejudices of the society in which it
evolved, and English evolved through most of its history in a male-centered,
patriarchal society. Like any other language, however, English is always
changing. One only has to read aloud sentences from the 19th century books to
sense the shifts that have occurred in the last 150 years. When readers pick up
something to read, they expect different conventions depending on the time in
which the material was written. Writers
in 1990s need to be not only aware of the conventions that our readers may
expect, but also conscious of the responses their words may elicit. In
addition, they need to know how the shifting nature of language can make
certain words awkward or misleading. The use of “man, his , him” in English to indicate both genders can be seen as
a remnant of sexism in our culture reflected in our language. These differences
between men’s and women’s discourse are the result of stereotypes, which are
changeable and changing. The stereotypes have their basis in our cognitive
abilities, as proposed by cognitive psychology and semantics.
‘Women are Intuitive, Men are Logical’
The split in our thinking between "masculine" and
"feminine" is probably as old as language itself. Human beings seem
to have a natural tendency to divide things into pairs: good/bad, light/dark,
subject/object and so on. It is not surprising, then, that the male/female or
masculine/feminine dichotomy is used to classify things other than men and
women. Many languages actually classify all nouns as "masculine" or
"feminine" . This is perfectly natural; it is part of the way
categorization works in language. This does not, however, mean that it is
right. It is probably unimportant whether a table or a chair is thought of as
masculine or feminine. It may not even be very important these days whether we
think of the sun as male and the moon as female (like the ancient Greeks) or
vice versa (like most of the German tribes). However, when we start associating
abstract concepts like Reason or Nature with men and women, we run into serious
difficulties.
The association of Reason with men and Nature with women is well-known,
and has been widely criticized. Aristotle defined Man as a "rational
animal", and by that he really meant men, not human beings. Unlike Plato,
he saw women as less able to reason, hence less "human" and more
"animal". In
Nearly all societies, from hunting and gathering tribes to
post-industrial nations, offer some kind of compensation to those who lose out
in the status game. For example, among the practically matriarchal Zuni Indians
of
Men and women are, of course, biologically different. There are even
significant differences in male and female brains; women, for example, have a
thicker corpus callosum (the thing that connects the two halves of the brain).
However, it is a giant leap from observing that there are neurological
differences between the sexes to assuming that these differences correspond to
the classic Reason/Nature or logic/emotion dichotomies. In fact, some of these
differences may even indicate the opposite. The left hemisphere of the brain
generally deals with linear processing, as found in language and some types of
mathematics, and this hemisphere develops faster in girls than in boys. The old
"11 plus" test of verbal reasoning used in British schools was
actually adjusted to bring boys' scores up to the level of girls'! Whatever the
case, it is a mistake to look at people's brains and then decide that they must
think in a certain way; it would be far better to try and find out how people
actually think, and then to see if this corresponds to brain structure.
Differences in Language Between Men and Women
Everybody knows that there are of perceived differences in the way men
and women talk. Men talk in a deep voice, they swear, they are born orators,
while women talk in a high voice, they are gossips or nags. It would be
interesting to study (and we will) if these perceived differences are actually
attributable to the speaker’s gender and what the other causes are. As Simone
de Beauvoir put it, “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”, and how we
speak is something that is acquired,
something that one is taught at early age.
Anatomical Differences
It would be useless to pretend that men and women are anatomically
identical. Consequently, their vocal tracts will also be different, not just
between sexes, but also within the same sex. Since men are usually bigger than
women, we would expect men to have a deeper voice, in the way a cello is bigger
and has a deeper sound than a violin. But studies have shown that it is
hormones, rather than the size of the speaker that influence the way one
speaks. Just look at the three tenors: José Carreras is small, Plácido Domingo
is of average size, Luciano Pavarotti is very big, but still, all three are
tenors. Needless to say, it is widely recognized that a boy’s voice drops about
an octave when he reaches puberty. Women also feel their voices change when
their hormone balance is changed.
Some studies claim that there are large psychological and social
pressures on boys/men to sound different from women, i.e. to talk with a deeper
voice, while other studies claim that it is the women who are distorting their
normal voices.
Sometimes social adjustment is quite deliberate: Margaret Thatcher had
to go through a training program so as
to lower her voice, thus hoping to command more respect when addressing the
Commons at the dispatch box.
Other Differences
There are of course many more perceived differences between men and
women’s discourse that have nothing to do with the anatomy of the speaker, such
as different styles in conversation . We will see some examples in SPEECH
PATTERNS. Here social factors will play an even greater role than in the
differences discussed before and again the binary male- female is not enough to
explain these differences. If we use the dichotomy Nature versus Culture we have all but
suppressed the factor Nature from our discussion of the differences between
men’s and women’s discourse. The other factors are related to the notion “Culture”
in its most elaborate meaning: everything that transcends the biological roots
of Mankind
Historical Comments on the Word “Man”
Man once was a truly generic word referring to all humans, but has
gradually narrowed in meaning to become a word that refers to adult male human
beings. Anglo-Saxons used the word to refer to all people. One example of this
occurs when an Anglo-Saxon writer refers to a seventh-century English princess
as "a wonderful man." Man paralleled the Latin word Homo, "a
member of the human species," the Old English word for adult male was waepman and the old English word for
adult woman was wifman. In the course
of time, wifman evolved into the word
"woman." "Man" eventually ceased to be used to refer to
individual women and replaced wer and
waepman as a specific term distinguishing
an adult male from an adult female. But man continued to be used in
generalizations about both sexes.
By the 18th century, the modern, peculiar sense of man was firmly
established as the predominant one. When Edmund Burke, writing of the French
Revolution, used men in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his
meaning: "Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes)
in
*"Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men"
(title of a research report)
*"The Pap test, which has greatly reduced mortality from uterine
cancer, is a born to mankind."
Even when authors insist that "man" is a general term of all
humans, they can lapse into meaning it as a term for only males:
*"As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he
ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth . . . "
Once you've started to recognize the problems that can arise with using
"man" as a generic pronoun, how can you prevent confusion? One way is
by substituting "human," "humankind," "people,"
or another word that does not involve any specific gender.
The Pronoun Problem
The first grammars of modern English were written in the 16th and 17th
centuries. They were mainly intended to help boys from upper class families
prepare for the study of Latin, a language most scholars considered superior to
English. The male authors of these earliest English grammars wrote for male
readers in an age when few women were literate. The masculine-gender pronouns
did not reflect a belief that masculine pronouns could refer to both sexes. The
grammars of this period portray no indication that masculine pronouns were
sex-inclusive when used in general references. Instead these pronouns reflected
the reality of male cultural dominance and the male-centered world view that
resulted.
"He" started to be used as a generic pronoun by grammarians
who were trying to change a long-established tradition of using “they” as a
singular pronoun. In 1850 an Act of Parliament gave official sanction to the
recently invented concept of the "generic" he. In the language used in
acts of Parliament, the new law said, "words importing the masculine
gender shall be deemed and taken to include females." Although similar
language in contracts and other legal documents subsequently helped reinforce
this grammatical edict in all English-speaking countries, it was often
conveniently ignored. In 1879, for example, a move to admit female physicians
to the all-male
Just as "man" is not truly generic in the 1990s,
"he" is not a true generic pronoun. Studies have confirmed that most
people understand "he" to refer to men only. Sentences like "A
doctor is a busy person; he must be able to balance a million obligations at
once" imply that all doctors are men. Imagine what it would be like if we
were to continue reading: "A doctor is a busy person; he must be able to
balance a million obligations at once. Dr. Jones is no exception. He has a clinic to run, medical students to
supervise, and a husband with polio." In this context, the realization
that Dr. Jones is a woman comes as a surprise to many readers. To push the
point further, check out this sentence: "The average American needs the
small routines of getting ready for work. As he shaves or blow-dries his hair
or pulls on his panty hose, he is easing himself by small stages into the
demands of the day." The first image that comes to mind is a transvestite,
not the average American woman. As a result of the fact that "he" is
read by many as a masculine pronoun, many people, especially women, have come
to feel that the generic pronouns excludes women. This means that more and more
people find the use of such a pronoun troublesome.
Solving the Pronoun
Problem
“They” as-Most people, when writing and speaking informally, rely on
singular they as a matter of course: "If you love someone, set them
free" (Sting). If you pay attention to your own speech, you'll probably
catch yourself using the same construction yourself. "It's enough to drive
anyone out of their senses" (George Bernard Shaw). "I shouldn't like
to punish anyone, even if they'd done me wrong" (George Eliot). Some
people are annoyed by the incorrect grammar that this solution necessitates,
but this construction is used more and more frequently.
He or She--Despite the charge of clumsiness, double-pronoun
constructions have made a comeback: "To be black in this country is simply
too pervasive an experience for any writer to omit from her or his work,"
wrote Samuel R. Delany. Overuse of this solution can be awkward, however.
Pluralizing--A writer can often recast material in the plural. For
instance, instead of "As he advances in his program, the medical student
has increasing opportunities for clinical work," try "As they advance
in their program, medical students have increasing opportunities for clinical
work."
Eliminating Pronouns--Avoid having to use pronouns at all; instead of
"a first grader can feed and dress himself", you could write, "a
first grader can eat and get dressed without assistance."
Further Alternatives--he/she or s/he, using one instead of he, or using
a new generic pronoun (thon, co, E, tey, hesh, hir).
Avoid peopling your examples exclusively with one sex.
Use parallel forms of reference for women and men: e.g. do not cite a
male scholar by surname only and a female scholar by first name plus surname or
construct examples with a cast of characters like executive “Mr. Smith” and his
secretary “Mary”.
Avoid consistently putting reference to males before females. Not only
does this order convey male precedence, in English and in French it will put
males in subject position and women in object position.
The Practical Side
This is not about freedom of speech; there is no rule insisting on
gender-neutral language. This is an issue of audience and awareness.
Gender-neutral language has gained support from most major textbook publishers,
and from professional and academic groups such as the American Psychological
Association and the Associated Press. Newspapers like the New York Times and
the Wall Street Journal avoid such language. Many law journals, psychology
journals, and literature journals do not print articles or papers that use
gender-inclusive language. If you anticipate working within any of these
contexts, you will need to be able to express yourself according to their
guidelines, and if you wish to write or speak convincingly to people who are
influenced by the conventions of these contexts, you need to be conscious of
their expectations.
Examples taken from Sarah Werner, and *The Handbook of Nonsexist
Writing* by Casey Miller and Kate Swift (New York: Lippincott, 1988)
Reducing Sexism in English by David A. Lillie
For many years researchers have felt frustrated by the built-in sexism
in English, the result of having pronouns corresponding to male and female or
neuter objects, but none that refer inclusively to male or female. In the past,
most likely due to our society's patriarchal structures, the male pronouns "he,
his, him" were used for this purpose, and the noun "man" was
used to refer to all humans. Our English education is supposed to train us to
accept these words as referring to both genders when used in a
"neutral" context. A careful study by Janet Shibley Hyde
("Children's Understanding of Sexist Language," Developmental
Psychology - Journal of the American Psychology Association, 1984) shows that
this often doesn't happen, and that all age groups studied, from 5 years old to
20 years old, and both genders, are much more likely to write stories about
male subjects when prompted by sentences using the supposedly gender-neutral
male pronouns. Her summary states, "...it is clear that the tendency for
subjects to think of males when they hear "he" in a gender-neutral
context (story-telling data) is present from first grade through the college
years. ...The contributions of language to sex role development are deserving
of considerably more attention, both theoretical and empirically."
After trying a variety of ways around this problem, such as using
"he or she," s/he, "himself or herself," etc., or
alternating paragraphs with male and female pronouns, David Lillie decided that what is needed is to extend the
English language. Now that this situation has been recognized, there is no need
to continue to write clumsy expressions or confusing gender references. We can
simply coin new words that mean what we want, declare their definitions, and
begin the process of spreading them around the world until they are commonly
used, just like other words which are constantly being added to the language.
The correction of this problem
has been attempted by various techniques, none of which are felt to be
satisfactory. This paper provides the simple solution (perhaps difficult to
implement) of adding new, gender neutral pronouns (wom, wem, hes, hir, hirs) to
the language to be used specifically for this purpose. The current gender
specific words would continue to be used to refer to people of known gender.
The male words would then be properly used only to refer to known male
beings.
Pronunciation should distinguish them from existing words, especially
the words they replace.
•They should have some connection to existing words to make them easy to
remember. Where possible, they should incorporate letters from both the male
and female gender words.
The Coins
New Word followed by Construction
wom, womkind this word is composed of the letter "w" from
woman, "m" from man, and "o," which is the symbol of the
circle, signifying unity and connection. The opposite order of the letters,
"mow," can't be used, as it is a common existing word. This word
would also be used as a syllable to replace the use of "man" in words
like Chairman, Mailman, etc. Pronounced as wom in wombat.
wem derived from wom, but using "e" for the plural, as in
"men." (could also be used for unisex bathrooms). Pronunciation
rhymes with "hem."
"hes" this word consists of the letters in "she,"
which also contains "he," but in a different order to make a new
word. Pronunciation rhymes with "fez."
"hir "takes letters from "her" and "him,"
combined to make a new word. Pronounced "here" to distinguish it from
"her."
"hirs "the possessive form of her has an "s" added
when there is no object, as: "That scalpel is hers." By always having
the "s" for the possessive, it is similar to the masculine form -
"his."
To summarize, here are my suggestions for replacing the old words with
new, gender inclusive words:
Old followed by New
man, mankind wom, womkind (pronounced as wom in wombat)
men or women wem (rhymes with hem)
he or she hes (rhymes with fez)
him or her hir (pronounced same as here)
his or her(s) hirs (pronounced same as here's)
himself or herself hirself
chairperson chairwom
(other obvious compound words may be created as needed)
Sample Gender Neutral Text
Old Way, "Neutral" Male Pronouns: -- No
man is an island unto himself
It was good to see that mankind had achieved equality of the sexes in
English. Now, whenever someone read a book or listened to a speech, he would
not feel ashamed of himself, or lose any of his dignity because of the way his
gender was used or ignored. Of course, no one can really take away inherent
human dignity from him, it is his from the moment of birth, and is only
obscured by the oppressive actions of men or women in his life.
Old Way, Inclusive but Clumsy: -- No
man or woman is an island unto himself or herself
It was good to see that mankind had achieved equality of the sexes in
English. Now, whenever someone read a book or listened to a speech, he or she
would not feel ashamed of himself or herself, or lose any of his or her dignity
because of the way his or her gender was used or ignored. Of course, no one can
really take away inherent human dignity from him or her, it is his or hers from
the moment of birth and is only obscured by the oppressive actions of men or
women in his or her life.
Alternative Way, Reworded and Incorrect Plurals: -- No
one is an island unto themself (themselves?)
It was good to see that humanity had achieved equality of the sexes in
English. Now, whenever someone read a book or listened to a speech, they would
not feel ashamed of themselves, or lose any of their dignity because of the way
their gender was used or ignored. Of course, no one can really take away
inherent human dignity from another, it is theirs from the moment of birth and
only obscured by the oppressive actions of others in their life.
New Way: -- No wom is an island unto hirself
It was good to see that womkind had achieved equality of the sexes in
English. Now, whenever someone read a book or listened to a speech, hes would
not feel ashamed of hirself, or lose any of hirs dignity because of the way
hirs gender was used or ignored. Of course, no one can really take away
inherent human dignity from hir, it is hirs from the moment of birth and is
only obscured by the oppressive actions of wem in hir life.
Implementation
These new gender inclusive pronouns could achieve rapid acceptance if
used by only a few people in the media, writers, teachers, etc. Each early use
of them will require a preface to explain their use, and perhaps a footnote on
each of them the first time it is used. After that, readers will pick up the
idea quickly. This requires some extra effort by authors and editors, but it is
better than the current situation, where concerned (or resistant) authors may
spend from one paragraph to a full page explaining why they do or don't make
any attempt to correct this flaw in English. I have also heard lecturers spend
five minutes at the beginning of their talks explaining why they use one
pronoun (either male or female), rather than try to include both.
A sample paragraph to include at the beginning of an article or the
inside cover of a pamphlet might be:
To simplify the text while avoiding unintended gender references, the
words "he or she" are replaced by "hes," "him or
her" by "hir," "his or her(s)" by "hirs,"
"man" (as in mankind) by "wom," and "men or
women" by "wem." These words will be footnoted for the first
occurrence to aid in this translation. Gender
neutral "man, he, him, his, etc." Are not used in this text.
At some point, these newly coined words will be used in schools and
popular songs, and we will no longer need the excuses, prefaces or footnotes.
Speech Patterns
The table below shows that social reality is at issue here and the fact
that the language we use powerfully
conditions our processes
|
Men |
Women |
|
They speak in a louder voice |
They speak in a softer voice |
|
They use loudness to emphasize points |
They use pitch and inflection to emphasize points |
|
They sound more monotonous in speech |
They sound more emotional in speech They use approximately 5 tones
when talking |
|
They interrupt others more and allow fewer interruptions |
They interrupt others less and allow more interruptions |
|
They disclose less personal information about themselves |
They disclose more personal information about themselves |
|
They make direct accusations (i.e., "You don't call") |
They make more indirect accusations. They use "why", which
sounds like nagging (i.e., "Why don't you ever call?") |
|
They make more direct statements and "beat around the bush"
less often |
They make more indirect statements |
|
They use less intensifiers |
They use more intensifiers such as "few", "so",
"really", "much", "quite" |
|
They make more declarative statements (i.e., "It's a nice
day.") |
They make more tentative statements and use "tag endings" or
upward inflections which make statements sound like questions (i.e.,
"It's a nice day, isn't it?") |
|
They use more interjections when changing topics (i.e.,
"Hey!", "Oh", "Listen!") |
They use more conjunctions when changing topics (i.e., “and”, “but”,
“however”) |
|
They ask fewer questions to stimulate conversation |
They ask more questions to stimulate conversations |
|
They rarely discuss their personal life in business |
They tend to establish more business relationships through discussing
their personal life |
Conclusion
Writing and speaking in non-sexist terms is important to avoid excluding
numbers of readers ( who simply switch off) . Researchers, social workers, and
educators can introduce bias
unintentionally by using terms of language, examples or jokes that are not
relevant to large sections of the population which the researcher wants to
reach ( or thinks have been included). Language categorizes. If it didn’t it
wouldn’t work, as you would have to have a separate word for everything in the
world. Categorization works largely through prototypes, stereotypes and maybe even archetypes, and these types
frequently use metaphorical and symbolic imagery borrowed from other
categories. Nature tends to be seen, metaphorically as a woman, but that
doesn't make her ( or rather it a woman). The modern personification of logic
is Star Trek’s Mr. Spock, pointy-eared, unemotional, and of course male. This
does not mean, however that to be logical you need to be unemotional, pointy
–eared or masculine. What researchers, like any intelligent people, need to do,
is analyze and criticize the false polarization and dubious metaphors that
distort our thinking, not repeat them in a different form.
Bibliography
Miller, C. And K.
Swift. The handbook of non-sexist writing. The Women’s Press, 1980, 1988.
Poynton, C. Language
and Gender: making the difference.
Maggio, R. The
non-sexist word finder, a dictionary of
gender-free usage. Beacon Press, 1988.
Coates,J. Women,
men and language. Longman,1989.
Prentice Hall,
1994.
About the Author
Gladys A. Juncos is a graduate teacher from ISFD N° 21 “Dr Ricardo
Rojas”
© by Gladys A. Juncos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2.- HOTS & LOTS: HIGHER ORDER THINKING SKILLS
AND LOWER ORDER
THINKING SKILLS
Higher-Order
Thinking Versus Lower-Order Thinking Skills: Does School-Day Scheduling Pattern
Influence Achievement at Different Levels of Learning?
M. Craig Edwards
Gary E. Briers
Abstract
Historically, one of the
most constant features of
included 45 teachers
representing 23 Traditional scheduled schools with 341 students and 22 Block
scheduled schools with 325 students. Student achievement was measured by two
examinations/scales based
on an extension of Newcomb and Trefz’ (1987) “levels of learning” model. The
scales consisted of 33 HOTS and 23 LOTS items. Teachers answered a
questionnaire describing themselves and their schools. Student achievement was
slightly more than half of the “conventional” 70 % passing standard. T-tests
revealed that neither HOTS nor LOTS performance of students on a Traditional
schedule was significantly different than that of the Block scheduled students.
Multiple regression analyses with hierarchical order of entry were performed.
The moderator variables student length of FFA membership and teacher tenure significantly
explained student variability for both levels of achievement (longer FFA
membership and longer teacher tenure resulted in greater achievement); the
scheduling variable Traditional
versus Block did not
explain additional student variability in achievement. One could not
conclude that one schedule
was superior to the other in improving student achievement.
Introduction/Theoretical
Framework
Elmore (1995) stated,
“Over the past decade the
Ranks: Changing an
American Institution (NASSP, 1996).
These reports called for a restructuring of the American educational system,
and frequently targeted “time” and its use in school-day scheduling patterns as
a basic element to be altered. Moreover, learning theorists (Bloom, 1974; Carroll,
1989) have stated that time and its use is a
significant and essential
component of student learning. Karweit and Slavin (1981) maintained “the
ambiguity of the research studies to date, make the continuation of studies of
time and learning important” (p. 158).
Researchers (Carroll,
1990; Kirby, Moore, & Becton, 1996) have maintained that one of the most
constant features of
high school has not
changed its basic form of organization” (p. 360). Moreover, investigators have
said, “The way time is organized in schools may have contributed to the
educational deficiencies in American education identified in such reports as A
Nation at Risk” (Wortman, Moore, & Flowers, 1997, p. 440). This “basic” or
“traditional”
school-day schedule is one
in which students attend between six and eight classes each school day, with a
class lasting approximately 50 or so minutes (York, 1997).
However, Cawelti (1997)
concluded, “The most visible and perhaps significant change in the organization
of the high school is the block schedule” (p. 41). DiRocco (1998/1999)
asserted, “Intensive schedules [i.e., block scheduling] can be a powerful
catalyst for change and for improved instruction in our secondary schools when implemented
properly” (p. 83). Although many “variations” of block scheduling exist (Canady
& Rettig, 1995), two of the more common are the Modified A/B (Alternating
Day) Block Schedule and the Nine-Week Accelerated (4X4) Semester Block
Schedule. On the Modified A/B Block Schedule, the school day is divided into
four instructional blocks of approximately 90 minutes each. Students alternate
class attendance between “A” day classes
and “B” day classes, and
may be simultaneously enrolled for as many as eight different courses. On this
schedule, most courses meet every other day for an 18-week semester. On the
Nine-Week (4X4) Block Schedule, the school day is also divided into four
instructional blocks of about 90 minutes each, but students attend the same
four classes
each day for the nine-week
period.
Watson (1998) asserted,
“In a block schedule, the [learning] tasks can be designed to take more time,
be of greater depth, [and] require more inductive or higher-order thinking
skills” (p. 97). Torres and Cano (1995) stated, “The use of thinking skills in
problem situations is universally recognized as a prominent objective for all
educational
academies” (p. 46),
including agriculture. Moreover, researchers Cano and Newcomb (1990) concluded
that agriculture teachers “should purposefully create learning situations which
assist in the development of higher cognitive abilities in students” (p. 51).
Bloom, Engelhart, Furst,
Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) described six levels of cognition, that is, levels
of thinking often referred to as Bloom’s Taxonomy. This approach to describing
thinking behaviors delineated cognition into lower- and higher-order thinking
skills and conceptualized them in a hierarchical fashion (Bloom et al., 1956;
Newcomb & Trefz, 1987;
Torres & Cano, 1995; Whittington, Stup, Bish, & Allen, 1997).
Using Bloom’s model as a
framework, Newcomb and Trefz (1987) developed a similar model for classifying
cognitive behaviors into “four levels of learning”: remembering, processing,
creating, and evaluating (Figure 1). Whittington et al. (1997) stated,
“Research supports the
theory that thinking at higher levels of cognition (thinking critically) is an
indispensable skill and must be reinforced in schools” (p. 47). Cano and
through the instruction
they receive” (p. 364). However, Cano (1990) stated that there was “a paucity
of findings regarding vocational education students’ level of cognitive
performance. Specifically, research in determining the level of cognitive
performance of vocational agriculture students was lacking” (p. 74).
Whittington (1995)
recommended that
additional research was needed to investigate non-teacher variables that may be
influencing the level of cognition obtained during instruction.
Block scheduling has been
accompanied by conflicting results regarding its effect on student thinking
skills and achievement (Wortman et al., 1997). Kirby et al. (1996) found
agriculture teachers to be “neutral or undecided” (p.357) when responding to
the statement “Student achievement has improved with block scheduling” (p.
358).
However, Brannon, Baker,
Morgan, Bowman, and Schmidt (1999) concluded, “Agriculture teachers agreed that
as a result of block scheduling learning is more meaningful for all students”
(p. 197). Yet, little is known about the effects of scheduling on
secondary-level agricultural education and its potential for influencing the
cognitive development of students (Kirby et al., 1996; Wortman et al., 1997).
Is there a difference in achievement for students enrolled in an agriscience
course, depending on the school-day scheduling pattern?
Purpose/Research
Questions
The purpose of this study
was to compare the higher- and lower-order thinking skills achievement of
students enrolled for a secondary-level course in animal science on a
Traditional school-day schedule to the achievement of students enrolled for the
course on a Block schedule basis (i.e., Modified A/B (Alternating Day) and
Nine-Week
Accelerated (4X4) Semester
Block schedules). These research questions guided this study:
1. What are selected
characteristics of students enrolled in and instructors teaching a
secondary-level course in animal science?
2. What is the level of
achievement for HOTS, as described by Newcomb and Trefz (1987), for students
enrolled in animal science? a) Does level of achievement for HOTS of students
on a Traditional schedule differ from that of students on a Block schedule?
3. What is the level of
achievement for LOTS, as described by Newcomb and Trefz (1987), of students
enrolled in animal science? a) Does level of achievement for LOTS of students
on a Traditional schedule differ from that of students on a Block schedule?
4. Do moderator variables,
e.g., student and teacher variables, explain variation in student achievement,
and does scheduling pattern significantly explain variation in student
achievement after effects of moderator variables have been removed?
Methods/Procedures
This was a descriptive
study that employed the causal-comparative method to describe and explore
possible cause and-effect relationships between school-day schedules and the
achievement of intact groups. Gall, Borg, and Gall
(1996) stated that “the
major advantage of the causal comparative method is that it allows us to study
cause-and effect relationships under conditions where experimental manipulation
is difficult or impossible” (p. 383).
The target population
(Gall et al., 1996) consisted of students enrolled in and the instructors
teaching the agriscience course Animal Science (AGSC 332) in
rather than individuals
from a defined population” (p. 227). The responding sample consisted of 45
“volunteer” teachers and schools, representing 23 Traditional scheduled schools
with 341 students and 22 Block scheduled schools with 325 students. Because the
data for this study were provided by a volunteer sample, the results are
generalizable only to
subsequent similar volunteer samples.
The students completed a
two-part instrument. Part one consisted of selected demographic items, e.g.,
length of FFA membership. The second part of the instrument was an
end-of-course achievement examination. Glaser (1963) maintained that
achievement tests were appropriate for determining “the degree to which the
student has attained criterion performance” (p. 519). The examination was
developed from recommended curriculum materials for the agriscience course
Animal Science (AGSC 332) (Instructional Materials Service, n.d.; Instructional
Materials Service, 1998). It included 56 multiple-choice items selected for
content validity in the areas of nutrition,
reproduction, health, and
management of domestic animals. Three agricultural educators—a curriculum
specialist, a classroom teacher, and a measurement specialist—reviewed the
items for clarity and content.
The examination was
divided into two scales based on an extension of Newcomb and Trefz’ (1987)
“levels of learning” model (Figure 1). The two scales consisted of 33 higher-
and 23 lower-order thinking skills items, respectively.
The LOTS portion of the
examination was made up of remembering and processing items; the HOTS scale
contained items at the creating and evaluating levels of learning (Newcomb
& Trefz, 1987). The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha reliability estimate for
the LOTS scale was .79, while the HOTS scale had a reliability estimate of
.78. Finally, teachers
responded to a questionnaire that included selected multiple-choice items
describing themselves and their schools.
A researcher-developed
packet consisting of student questionnaires/examinations, teacher
questionnaires, pre-coded scan sheets, and postage-paid return envelopes were
mailed to the participating teachers. Due to varying end-ofcourse dates, two
mailings were necessary. Teachers administered the student
questionnaires/examinations and
completed their
questionnaires at or about the same time. The student scan sheets were coded so
that they could be identified with their teacher and school-day schedule. The
returned scan sheets were inspected to ensure the number codes were still
intact. Following scanning, the data were entered into a Microsoft Excel 97
spreadsheet file and
then imported into an SPSS
7.5 data file. T-tests were performed to compare means and explore differences
for research questions two and three, with an a priori alpha of .05. Multiple
regression analyses with hierarchical order of entry of predictor variables
were performed to answer question four.
Results/Findings
As seen in Table 1,
slightly more than one-half of the participating students were male and nearly
44 percent were female. Almost 70 percent of the students were Anglo, while
three-in-ten identified themselves as “People of Color.” Slightly more than
three-in-ten had never been an FFA member, and approximately seven-in-ten had
been members for one or more years. Nearly three-fourths indicated at least
“some experience” with domesticated animals, while slightly more than
one-fourth said they had “little” or no experience (Table 1).
Nearly 90 percent of the
teachers were male while slightly more than one-in-ten were female (Table 1).
Concerning their education, the teachers were nearly evenly divided, that is,
slightly less than half held only a bachelor’s degree while a slight majority
had earned a master’s degree. Years of experience as an agriscience teacher was
also nearly
evenly split with slightly
less than half of the teachers having taught 12 or fewer years, and slightly
more than half indicating 13 or more years of service. When asked about years
of service at their current school, a slight majority replied that they had
taught at their current school for 10 or fewer years, while slightly less than
half indicated 11 or more years of service (Table 1).
1 8
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
To determine if school-day
scheduling patterns significantly explain variability in student achievement
after the effects of selected student and teacher variables were removed,
multiple regression analyses with hierarchical order of entry of variables were
performed. These procedures were done to control initial non-equivalence in the
two
research groups.
Correlation analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant
relationship between the student variable length of FFA membership and
end-of-course higher- and lower-order thinking skills achievement,
r = .53 and r = 46 (p <
.01), respectively. That is, the greater the length of time the student had
been a member of the FFA, the better they performed on the higher- and
lower-order thinking skills achievement examination items.
Moreover, similar analysis
demonstrated that there was a statistically significant relationship between
the teacher variable teacher tenure and HOTS achievement (r = .34, p < .05).
As a teacher’s length of tenure increased, the HOTS achievement of their
students increased. (The variable “teacher tenure” combined an instructor’s
years of experience as an agriscience teacher and their tenure at their current
school. The resulting scale had a reliability coefficient estimate of .86.) Therefore,
because of positive associations with student achievement, these two moderator
variables were entered into a multiple regression analysis equation as step one
in a hierarchical order of
entry procedure. Then, to
determine if school-day schedules significantly explained additional student
variability for end-of-course achievement, the scheduling pattern variable was
entered in step two of the procedure. Thus, step two included the variable
Traditional versus Block.
In Table 4, step one
portrays regression of the variable HOTS achievement on the variables student
FFA membership and teacher tenure. A statistically significant amount of
student variability for HOTS achievement was explained by this entry: R2 =
.324, F = 10.046, p = .000. But, when the variable Traditional versus Block
schedule
was entered, there was not
a significant contribution to the explanation of variance, R2 Change = .000, F
= .020, p =.888. Further, when the dependent variable LOTS achievement was
regressed on the independent variables entered in step one, i.e., student FFA
membership and teacher tenure, the amount of variance explained was R2 = .231,
F = 6.324, p = .004 (Table 4), which was significant at an alpha level of .05.
The variable Traditional versus Block schedule was entered into the regression
equation in step two; it did not explain additional student variability for LOTS
achievement, R2 Change = .002,
F = .103, p = .750 (Table
4).
Table 4.
Conclusions/Implications/Recommendations
Glaser (1963) contended “achievement
tests are employed to discriminate among treatments, that is, among different instructional
procedures [e.g., scheduling patterns] by an analysis of group differences”
(p. 520). This study compared the higher- and lower-order thinking skills achievement
of students enrolled for a secondary-level course
in animal science on a
Traditional school-day schedule to the achievement of students enrolled on a
Block schedule.
The end-of-course HOTS
achievement for all students was only very slightly more than half of the
“conventional” 70 % passing standard, while their LOTS achievement was only
slightly better (Table 2). Webster and Miller (1998) found similar results for
an animal science examination administered to high school seniors in 12 Midwestern
States. They concluded that the students were not strongly intrinsically
motivated to excel on the test, and that “this factor most likely explains why
the students did not perform better on the exam” (p. 318). Moreover, was there
a significant lack of “alignment” or “congruence” between the curriculum these
students were taught and the course content on which they were assessed? Hoyle,
Steffy, and English (1994) suggested, “the result of incongruence is normally
lower test performance on the part of the students, particularly if the test
has been selected because it was congruent with the written curriculum” (p.
98). The examination used in this study was based solely
on the recommended
curriculum materials for the course Animal Science (AGSC 332).
Was this a valid procedure
if the requisite “alignment” did not exist?
The higher- and
lower-order thinking skill performance of students on a Traditional schedule
was not statistically significantly greater than that of the Block schedule
students (Table 3). Moreover, when multiple regression analyses with
hierarchical order of entry were performed, and the moderator variables student
length of FFA
membership and teacher
tenure were entered in step one, variability in HOTS achievement was
significantly explained (Table 4). However, in step two, when the scheduling
pattern variable Traditional versus Block was entered, there was no additional
significant explanation of student variability (Table 4). Further, in the case
of LOTS achievement, when the moderator variables student length of FFA
membership and teacher tenure were entered in step one, variability in LOTS
achievement was significantly explained (Table 4). Similar to HOTS achievement,
in step two, when the scheduling pattern variable Traditional versus Block was
entered, there was no
additional significant
explanation of student variability in LOTS achievement (Table 4).
Based on these findings, one
could not conclude that one school-day schedule was significantly superior to
the other for the purpose of improving end-of-course achievement of students.
Recommendations for future practice and research include the
following:
1. This study suggests
that there may be an “incongruence” between the actual curriculum materials
that teachers used to teach animal science and the recommended instructional
materials. Hoyle et al. (1994) stated,
“curriculum mapping can
reveal what was taught, in what order, and for how long . . .” (p. 90). So, a
form of “curriculum mapping” should be used to identify the curriculum materials
used by the instructors for this course. It might also be useful to examine the
relationship between this study’s teachers’ use of the recommended materials
and the performance of their students.
2. This study should be
“replicated” using quasi- or experimental design procedures that will control
potential extraneous variables (i.e., student length of FFA membership and
teacher tenure), and thereby improve the generalizability of future results.
3. This study did not find
a significant difference in the performance of learners depending on which
school-day schedule pattern they received instruction. Would this result have
been similar for other agriscience courses?
Mindful of this, it is
recommended that this study be replicated for other agriscience courses.
4. Are there other
moderator variables that significantly explain student variability in
end-of-course achievement for the secondary-level course Animal Science?
Further research should be performed to determine if additional variables do
exist.
5. As a component to the
study that yielded these findings, Edwards and Briers (in press) found that
there was a significant difference in the achievement of students, when two
different “block” scheduling patterns (i.e., Modified A/B and Nine-Week (4X4)
Semester) were compared. In addition to the two patterns investigated by
that study, it appears
that there are numerous “variations” of block scheduling regimens (Canady &
Rettig,1995). Therefore, it is recommended that a two-part study be conducted.
The purpose of the first part would be to identify and describe these varied
block-scheduling patterns. Then, in part two one might conduct additional
comparative studies to
determine if there are significant differences in student achievement depending
on the learner’s school-day schedule.
6. Although the
relationship between the use of school-day time (i.e., scheduling patterns) and
student performance remains ambiguous, researchers (Canady & Rettig, 1995;
Carroll, 1994) have suggested that there is a causal relationship between the
use of block scheduling and an improvement in school climate (i.e., classroom
environment), and further, the important role that “climate” can play in the
behaviors of students and
teachers (Bloom, 1974;
Hoyle et al.,1994; Kruse & Kruse, 1995). So, research should be undertaken
to investigate how changes in school-day scheduling patterns may positively
influence factors that comprise a school’s “climate,” and, subsequently, create
learning environments that are more conducive to improved student achievement.
For example, instructors teaching on different scheduling patterns may be
exhibiting different teaching behaviors that are related to their students’
performance. Case studies or other qualitative techniques could be conducted profiling
the teaching behaviors of these instructors.
References
Bloom, B.S. (1974,
September). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29(9), 682-688.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart,
M.D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of
educational objectives - handbook 1: Cognitive domain.
Brannon, T., Baker, A.,
Morgan, J., Bowman, K., & Schmidt, B. (1999). The impact of integration of
vocational and academic activities on agricultural education in
Canady, R.L. & Rettig,
M.D. (1995). Block scheduling: A Catalyst for change in high schools.
Cano, J. (1990). The
relationship between instruction and student performance at the various levels
of cognition among selected
Cano, J. & Martinez,
C. (1989). The relationship between critical thinking ability and level of
cognitive performance of selected vocational agriculture students. Proceedings
of the Sixteenth Annual National Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 16,
359-366.
Cano, J. & Newcomb,
L.H. (1990). Cognitive level of instruction and student performance among
selected
Carroll, J.B. (1989,
January-February). The Carroll model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective
view. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 26-30.
Carroll, J.M. (1990,
January). The Copernician plan: Restructuring the American high school. Phi
Delta Kappan,71(5), 358-365.
Carroll, J.M. (1994,
March). Why more time makes more sense: Author of Copernician plan says ‘macro scheduling’
brings benefits to student learning. The School Administrator.
[On-line]. Available:
<http://www.aasa.org/Front
Burner/Block/block1.htm> [June 9, 1998].
Cawelti, G. (1997). Effects
of high school restructuring: Ten schools at work.
DiRocco, M.D. (1998/1999).
How an alternative-day schedule empowers teachers. Educational Leadership,
56(4), 82-84.
Edwards, M.C. &
Briers, G.E. (accepted for publication, in press). Higher-order thinking skills
versus lower-order thinking skills: Does block scheduling influence achievement
at different levels of learning? Proceedings of the 26th National
Agricultural Education Research Conference.
Elmore, R.F. (1995).
Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and regularities
of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 355-374.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R.,
& Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction (sixth
edition).
NY: Longman Publishers
Glaser, R. (1963).
Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some
questions1. American Psychologist, 18(8), 519-521.
Hoyle, J.R., Steffy, F.W.,
& English, B.E. (1994). Skills for successful school leaders (2nd
edition).
Instructional Materials
Service. (1998). Curriculum guide for animal science: Agriscience (second
edition).
Instructional Materials
Service. (n.d.). Curriculum material for agriscience 332: Animal science
(#8831B).
Kirby, B., Moore, G.,
& Becton, L.K. (1996). Block scheduling’s impact on instruction, FFA and
SAE in agricultural education. Proceedings of the 1996 National Agricultural
Education Research Meeting, 23, 352-361.
Kruse, C. A. & Kruse,
G. D. (1995, May). The master schedule and learning: Improving the quality of
education. NASSP Bulletin, 79(571), 1-8.
National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP). (1996). Breaking ranks: Changing an
American institution.
National Education
Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time.
Newcomb, L.H. & Trefz,
M.K. (1987). Levels of cognition of student tests and assignments in the
Torres, R.M. & Cano,
J. (1995). Examining cognition levels
of students enrolled in a college of agriculture. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 36(1), 46-54.
Watson, C. (1998).
Instructional ideas for teaching in block schedules. Kappa Delta Pi Record,
34(3), 94-98.
Webster, J.K. &
Miller, W.W. (1998). Articulating high school and university level agricultural
courses:Implications for educators. Proceedings of the 25th Annual National
Agricultural Education Research Meeting, 25,310-320.
Whittington, M.S. (1995).
Higher order thinking opportunities provided by professors in college of
agriculture classrooms. Journal of Agricultural Education, 36(4),
32-38.2 3
Whittington, M.S., Stup,
R.E., Bish, L., & Allen, E. (1997). Assessment of cognitive discourse: A
study of thinking opportunities provided by professors. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 38(1), 46-53.
Wortman, J.,
York, T. (1997). A
comparative analysis of student achievement in block and traditionally
scheduled high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
© by M. Craig Edwards and Gary E. Briers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3.- CREATIVITY
THROUGH TECHNOLOGY IN THE ENGLISH CLASSROOM
Creativity
Through Technology in the English Classroom
By Nancy Ann Zrinyi Long,
Abstract
First generation in
college, low family income, and weak writing scores: This describes the
students I teach at a historically black institute,
Introduction
each fall I choose students
to be in my Title IV program for Student Support Services. The special criteria
for selection is the following: first-generation college student, low-economic
background, and developmental (remedial) level in writing and grammar according
to scores on the college placement tests. These students are below college
level in skills, but I place them in my college level Writing I course which
offers a five day schedule and which combines the basic grammar and writing
skills with the college level demands of literature and writing. This can be
quite a challenging course to teach, and this is where adding technology has
served as a motivational tool.
Digital Photo
Camera
I begin the semester with
students interviewing each other and writing biographies. Using a digital photo
camera, students photograph each other during the interviews. I print these
photos and post them on what I call the “Writing Wall.” Students type good
copies of these biographies and the papers are displayed under the photos.
Seeing their writing displayed under the photos seems to motivate students to
work harder on the papers. I am amazed at how much time students spend just
perusing the biographies of their peers.
Creative writing is
enhanced by a photo to accompany the paper. Students are allowed to borrow the
camera and take photos which relate to topics of their papers. They also help
each other download pictures from the Internet for the covers of their papers.
These papers are graded and revised, and the final versions are also put on
display at the “Writing Wall.”
Digital Movie
Camera
The digital movie camera
can be a miracle motivator to help students put their ideas onto film. For
example, I assigned students to read the novel Kindred, which involves a young
black woman being transported into the past days of slavery. The students then
wrote creative essays about traveling into the past and encountering people or
situations from the early days. The stories were shared with the class, and the
class voted on the best stories. Groups were then formed to reenact the stories
and create a ten-minute script based on the selected essay; this script was
then acted out and videotaped with my movie camera. These films were later
shown at a special assembly for the freshmen class as a “film fest.” The
student involvement and motivation in this project was truly inspiring. Whether
they were writers or editors or actors, they truly got involved in this
project. Again sharing the final product through technology with others
encouraged motivation.
Last semester I had a
class of 20 students who had not passed the strict standardized tests required
in grammar and writing. It is an understatement to say these students returned
to me totally demoralized and despondent. They felt as if they were failures.
After a few days of pep talks and constant reminders that they had learned a
lot and made great progress, but just not enough, I resorted to a heritage
theme for the semester. I brought in some elderly people who had known Dr.
Bethune, the founder of the college, and I had students videotape these
speakers. I sent the students out into the community to videotape and write
summaries of the life stories of these elderly. Then each of them had to
interview, videotape or audiotape, and write about their own family members and
the family history. Interest grew as the students created their own family
history of stories and anecdotes of relatives. When they saw some personal
purpose in the assignments, they wrote better. The passing rate of that class
jumped to 80% by the end of the semester.
Computer and
Projector
My students come to
college with some basic computer skills, but most do not own a computer, and
some are computer illiterate compared to peers from a better economic
background. I have set up three computers in a hallway which are for student
use. I borrow from the tech support department a computer and projector to add
variation to the classroom lessons. For example, grammar exercises can be shown
on the screen and students take turns coming to the computer to fix errors in
grammar. If we are reading a particular short story or play, there is a vast
array of video clips, audio readings, and biographies that can be downloaded
and displayed to students to capture their interest before reading a selection.
Research papers can be a
horrible experience for freshmen and instructor alike, but using the computer
and projector for step-by-step procedure in the research paper process can make
the assignment less painful. Furthermore students must do a PowerPoint
presentation about what they learned in their research; PowerPoint adds a
powerful motivation for both presenter and audience. Students enjoy creating
these programs to share with their peers. Adding technology creates a touch of
creativity and makes the research paper more interesting for all.
Plagiarism
Check
Turnitin research paper
site is a great resource. Research papers open up a new phase in technology as
the instructor now has the tool to capture plagiarism in research papers and
other essays. For a few years, I would type in a phrase from a suspicious essay
using quotes; unfortunately I did catch some “downright” thieves who had simply
copied and pasted an essay as their own work. Such surprise showed on their
faces as they would sit and look me in the eyes and say these were their own
essays, and I would pull out the printed websites with the same essays written
by another author with a date much earlier than what the students had written.
I had a mixed feeling of smugness at catching the plagiarism and sadness at the
students’ laziness and bravado to just download a paper or part of it and pawn
it off as their own.
Now with Turnitin, the
English teacher is even better armed in fighting the battle against plagiarism.
My students must do the outline, works cited, and then a final draft of their
research paper. They then sign on to the Turnitin.com site and submit their
paper online. The Turnitin program shows the students what areas of the paper
are
incorrectly cited or need
to be cited, and what needs to be reworded. This frees me as the instructor
from worrying about the plagiarism; I can grade the paper now for content and
grammar. It has truly been a liberating tool in the fight against plagiarism.
Becoming
Researchers
The Internet is the
greatest tool for study, grammar practices, and research. Students can practice
grammar skills by linking to the many sites sponsored by grammar handbook
companies. These sites allow students to take tests, do grammar drills, and
teach themselves in areas which they are weak. The Internet also provides a
source of ideas for writing. One of the most exciting projects in my classroom
has been the “Roots” project, where I have students do a family tree and trace
their heritage. Several sites on the Internet provide help in genealogy. Two
years ago students were writing about their families, and one girl came to
class so thrilled. She had done a search on the computer and located her
grandfather. This man had never seen his daughter, did not know he had a granddaughter,
and had left the
Becoming
Authors
Audience is a key
motivator to young writers. I require students to write journals, but I have
found that students revise and edit much more when they post their journals on
the website bulletin board. Posting their ideas for the others in the class to
read and ponder makes the students truly think and write more carefully about
their ideas and summaries. I do require a hard copy for me to edit and then the
students can add it to their portfolio which is the compilation of all of their
writings. The quality of these journals is enhanced when students know not just
the teacher, but their peers, are reading their writing.
There is no better
motivation for a student than to have a paper published. This past semester I
helped several students email their papers to newspapers or magazines for
publication. The thrill on their faces to see their letters to the editor in
print was fulfilling to me. The biggest triumph this semester was when some
students emailed their essays to a company which was printing a book on college
student opinions. One of my students was chosen to be published and she spoke
to an assembly and said that this recognition has changed her whole outlook
about herself and her writing goals. I encourage my students to write poetry
and journals in my class, but then enter these same writings for poetry
contests and essay contests. With the internet, they can submit their work so
easily. I tell them if they are working hard to write for my class, they might
as well try to win some money or at least get their writing published to a
bigger audience. Again technology helps students reach a larger audience, and
this is motivation for them.
I myself have followed my
advice. I personally began videotaping elderly people who knew Dr. Mary McLeod
Bethune. After several years of taping, I transcribed the interviews and
published three articles; this summer I took my laptop and while camping across
the country, I wrote a biography on Dr. Bethune which was published in
September. I never dreamed that I would write a book, but thanks to technology,
I am an author. The book has been well received.
Grading
The final benefit of
technology for me is the computerized grading. I absolutely love setting the
percentages on my program Maestro, and watching it calculate the grades
according to tests, portfolio, attendance and finals. Thanks to the
computerized grading, I have a printout for each student; they can see their
averages in each area and understand the grade that they have earned. I can
print or email the grades, and I have access to many reports, such as
comparisons, averages, individual achievement, etc. The computer grading
programs have eased the burden of accountability and grading for me as an instructor.
Conclusion
Therefore, technology over
the past five years has liberated me as a teacher and made my job much easier.
Technology provides a tool to motivate the underachieving, low-skilled student
who is afraid of writing and who hates grammar. Working with minority students
at a historically black college, I find that these students especially need
technology which engages their interest and allows them to learn in
untraditional ways. If every student, rich or poor, could have his own computer
and have access to the Internet, I believe the research, writing skills,
grammar, and literary level of every students would be enhanced. As for the
English instructor or any instructor, taking advantage of the multi-sensory
instruction available with technology enhances the instructor’s ability to
motivate and captivate students; it makes learning more fun and interesting for
students, and education becomes more relevant.
This article was first published in Journal
of College Teaching & Learning - September 2005 Volume 2, Number 9
© by Nancy Ann Zrinyi Long,
Email: longnz1@earthlink.net),
------------------------------------------------------------------------