Receiving and providing feedback on context drafts was a valuable experience, and would have been even more so if I had more time to put into it.
Two aspects that I found most valuable were advice about structure and advice about the relevance of a reference to Finland’s students’ performance on international standardised assessment.
Two aspects that I found most valuable were advice about structure and advice about the relevance of a reference to Finland’s students’ performance on international standardised assessment.
1. Structure
Feedback
Re-read your topic sentences. Are they identifying the main idea that will be developed within your paragraph? You often put the author not the topic at the foreground of your sentence. Look at the examples in the assessment guidelines.
Read your topic sentences in isolation. Do they flow naturally? I think some of your paragraphs could be reordered to make your report flow better.
Reviewing topic sentences of the Context first draft
Reviewing the topic sentences to re-structure the context was an excellent idea.
Firstly, I looked at the topic sentences in isolation. I read them as if they were a paragraph in their own right to see if they read logically. Then I examined them to see whether they portrayed my main ideas. Finally I looked at whether the topic sentences were general statements that were backed up by more specific information.
Firstly, I looked at the topic sentences in isolation. I read them as if they were a paragraph in their own right to see if they read logically. Then I examined them to see whether they portrayed my main ideas. Finally I looked at whether the topic sentences were general statements that were backed up by more specific information.
I decided that the context needed restructuring to make the main ideas more clear and to sequence the information. Some of the topic sentences were too specific, and needed to be reworded as general statements.
Topic sentences of the Context revised draft
After receiving feedback on my revised context, I re-examined the topic sentences to see whether the concepts of inquiry learning and information literacy developed as themes throughout the context statement, and led to an understanding of the inforation-learning nexus. This helped me to understand that too little emphasis was placed on the essence of inquiry approaches (questioning) and that I had not clearly conveyed what I understood to be the information-learning nexus. The structure of my context statement needed reworking to highlight the key concepts of information literacy and inquiry-based learning, and to clarify the information-learning nexus.
1. Seeking further evidence
Finland's students continue to perform well on the triennial Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Program for International Student Assessment, or PISA, examinations in reading, science and maths (Nelson, 2010). Their success has been partly attributed to the pedagogical practices of their strong pre-primary education program. (Nelson, 2010; Lerkkanen, 2007). The focus of pre-primary education in Finland is on ' learning how to learn' rather than on subject area content (Jimenez, 2009 in Nelson, 2010). Finnish preschools use child-initiated and play-related, small-group activities to promote active learning (Lerkkanen, 2007).
Feedback
Your lead sentence is very long and could be more succinct. For example, Students from Finland
Also is the purpose of inquiry based learning to improve standardized test scores or is it to develop a deeper understanding. I know these don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive but using a standardized test to validate inquiry-based learning is floored [sic].
I wasn’t sure that I was actually trying to validate inquiry-based learning on the basis of national performance on standardised tests, nor did I agree that to do so would be flawed. I was trying to link sound educational pedagogy with a relatively objective measure of consistent academic success. I was trying to identify a possible link between the Finnish pre-primary education focus on learning to learn (as an important building block for both information literacy and inquiry-based learning) and the information literacy and problem solving demands of the PISA assessment items.
So I re-examined my sources of information, firstly to assess their credibility and secondly to identify evidence to support my argument.
Lerkkanen, M.K. (2007). The Beginning Phases of Reading Literacy Instruction in Finland. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from cass.org/downloads/41/41_14_The%20Beginning%20Phases%20of%20Reading%20Literacy.pdf
Nelson, B.J. (2010). Finland Education and Pisa: A Review of Literature. Michigan: Northern Michigan University. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from webb.nmu.edu
Sahlberg, P. (2006). "Education Reform for Raising Economic Competitiveness". Journal of Educational Change(1389-2843), 7(4), 259. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.pasisahlberg.com/downloads/Education%20reform%20for%20economic%20competitiveness%20JEC.pdf
All three sources are relatively current, published in the past 5 years. The credibility of the sources was based on their origins. The first two sources were published by universities and the third was published in an educational journal. Lerkkanen’s report on the literacy instruction was available from the Western Education and Library Board that provides curriculum advice and support to schools in Northern Ireland. Nelson’s literature review was published as part of the requirements for a Master of Arts in Education at Northern Michigan University. Sahlberg’s paper is available from his blog. Sahlberg is an educator and researcher. He is also director of CIMO which is an independent agency under the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture that promote international cooperation and mobility by implementing exchange, trainee and scholarship programmes. All three articles were well written and extensively referenced.
In revising the paragraph, I shortened the topic sentence. I used the topic sentence to foreground the concept of ‘learning to learn’ by making it the rheme of the sentence. I added information about the nature of the PISA assessment items to emphasise the need to solve real world problems rather than regurgitate subject content.
‘Learning how to learn’ rather than subject area content is the focus of pre-primary education in Finland (Jimenez, 2009 in Nelson, 2010). The success of Finnish students in international examinations — that evaluate how well students use knowledge and skills to solve real world problems rather than students’ specific knowledge of subject area content (Sahlberg, 2006) — has been partly attributed to the pedagogy of their strong pre-primary education (Nelson, 2010; Lerkkanen, 2007). Finnish preschools use child-initiated and play-related, small-group activities to promote active learning (Lerkkanen, 2007), which occurs when children explore things that interest them and construct their understandings by direct, immediate and thoughtful experiences of “objects, people, ideas, and events” (Hohmann & Weikart,1995, pp. 16 & 36). The pedogogical underpinnings of the Early Years Curriculum Guidelines are consistent with those of the Finnish pre-primary curriculum.
REFERENCES
Education Queensland. (2009). Smart Classrooms: ICT Student Expectations. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from education.qld.gov.au/smartclassrooms/pdf/student-ict-expectations.pdf
Heider, K. L. (2009). Information Literacy: The Missing Link in Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(6), 513-518. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from EBSCOhost.
Hohmann, M. & Weikart, D.P. (1995). Educating Young Children: Active Learning Practices for Preschool and Child Care Programs. Educating Young Children, A Curriculum Guide. pp. 13–41. High/Scope Press. Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from www.ecdgroup.com/download/gh1eycxi.pdf
Kapitzke, C. (2003). Information literacy: a review and poststructural critique. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 26(1), 53–66. Retrieved September 4, 2011, from QUT ePrints http://eprints.qut.edu.au/8867/
Kinder, D. (2004). Information Literacy: A Key to Success in the 21st Century.The Greet Exchange, Spring 2004. Ryerson University. Retrieved September 3, 2011, from http://www.ryerson.ca/lt/publications/GREETSpr04V03Apr5.pdf
Kuhltau, C.C., Maniotes, L.K. & Caspari, A.K. (2007). Guiding Inquiry: Learning in the 21st Century. Westport: Libraries Unlimited.
Lerkkanen, M.K. (2007). The Beginning Phases of Reading Literacy Instruction in Finland. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from cass.org/downloads/41/41_14_The%20Beginning%20Phases%20of%20Reading%20Literacy.pdf
Lonka, K., Hakkarainen, K. & Sintonen, M. (2000). Progressive Inquiry Learning for Children — Experiences, Possibilities, Limitations. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 8(1), 7–23. Retrieved September 4, 2011, from Taylor and Francis Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930085208461
Nelson, B.J. (2010). Finland Education and Pisa: A Review of Literature. Michigan: Northern Michigan University. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from webb.nmu.edu
Owens, R.F., Hester, J.L. & Teale, W.H. (2002). Where Do You Want to Go Today? Inquiry-Based Learning and Technology Integration. The Reading Teacher. 55(7), Owning Technology (April, 2002), 616-625. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/20205108
Queensland Studies Authority. (2006). Phase Descriptors: Examples of Behaviours in the 4 Phases of Learning. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/981.html
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Cross-curriculum priority by the end of Year 3. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/7300.html
Queensland Studies Authority. (2009). Early Years Curriculum Guidelines. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/981.html
Robinson, L. (2008). Information Literacy and Early Learners. Library Media Connection, 27(2), 10–11. Retrieved September 5, 2011, from EBSCOhost.
Sahlberg, P. (2006). "Education Reform for Raising Economic Competitiveness". Journal of Educational Change(1389-2843), 7(4), 259. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from http://www.pasisahlberg.com/downloads/Education%20reform%20for%20economic%20competitiveness%20JEC.pdf
Spink, Amanda H. and Danby, Susan J. and Mallan, Kerry M. and Butler, Carly. (2010). Exploring Young Children's Web Searching and Technoliteracy. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 191–206. Retrieved August 6, 2011, from QUT eprints http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31386/
Stephen, C. and Plowman, L. (2008). Enhancing Learning with Information and Communication Technologies in Pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 178(6), 637–654 Retrieved August 28, 2011, from EBSCO Host http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430600869571
No comments:
Post a Comment