Tag: Question

  • A competition begs this question: Why be judged?

    A competition begs this question: Why be judged?

    But after learning he had won first prize, he realized that his stories didn’t have to inspire everybody at once. “Every story has some kind of relevance good enough to satisfy the thirsts of inspirations for a set of audience,” he said. “This has even given me the confidence to share everything I have found irrelevant before.”

    By encouraging students to enter their stories we are asking them to first assess their own work. We want them to understand that what they created is worthy of critical assessment.

    The students aren’t the only ones to take lessons away from contest. That’s what Tim Agnew, an expert in commercial finance and economic development and a member of News Decoder’s Advisory Board, discovered when he served on the judging panel that awarded Fofana first prize. “By reading the stories, I not only learned what students are thinking about, I learned about issues and challenges in the world that I wasn’t aware of,” Agnew said back then. “That is the mark of great journalism.”

    If students enter their work early enough, we give them the opportunity to work with us to revise it. Some 600 students have entered their work into our competitions.

    Finding themselves worthy

    The point for News Decoder isn’t to determine which story is “best”. Instead, we want young people to realize that even if ultimately they aren’t chosen as the best, they deserve to be considered among the best. 

    Their work, their creation is worthy of consideration. And the stories they found to tell, whether about themselves or others, are important stories that should be read and heard — that their voice and the voices of the people they interviewed for the article matter. 

    The results of each competition are always a bit of a surprise. All student stories that News Decoder publishes throughout the year automatically get entered into the contest, so you would think that it would be those stories that would win. After all, to get published on News Decoder, a student needs to persevere through our signature Pitch, Report, Draft and Revise process, and that means that they have received significant feedback and professional editing from us. 

    But that isn’t the case. In each contest, the judges invariably pick a mixture of stories: some that have been published on News Decoder ‚ although they don’t know that when they read them — and some that are drafts that haven’t been previously read by us. 

    This reflects our philosophy. When a student sends us their story pitch and story draft, we will never tell them it isn’t worthy of publication. The message we send is that it is a great beginning; that you can bring any idea to fruition and take anything you have done and make it even better. 

    Perseverance not perfection

    This is important in the age of artificial intelligence. We want young people to accept the idea that AI is a beginning, a tool they can use to explore big, complicated ideas and a tool that will help them create something unique and original. But it is just part of a process. 

    This is why we see journalism as a great way of fostering all kinds of things: media literacy and global awareness, critical thinking and empowerment. Ask any journalist about any story they have done and they will tell you that if they had just a little more time and more resources it would have been a better story. 

    Journalism is an exercise in getting just enough to make a story accurate and convincing and that has context and clarity. In journalism there is no perfect. Each source you get makes your story stronger, each draft you write makes it more powerful. 

    Journalists work under a deadline because if they didn’t have that deadline, they would never stop reporting and writing that story. It is a process of steady improvement. And it involves working with an editor so it is a process of collaboration with others to make something better. 

    With our storytelling competitions, we give students a difficult challenge. First they must come up with an original topic to explore and find credible sources for their information. Then, if they are telling other people’s stories, they need to interview someone. If writing about their own experience, they need to show how that experience is relevant to a global audience. 

    Great stories from student journalists

    Twice a year, students deliver. 

    Back in 2024, I noted that the variety of the topics showed how much and about how many things young people care about — problems happening around them and in other parts of the world. And I noted how impressed I was at the breadth of their sourcing.

    “Every time we do this contest I am reminded that great journalism isn’t something only seasoned professionals can produce,” I said at the time. “Young people have the knack for asking really perceptive questions and the persistence to find people who can provide the answers.”

    It is our mission at News Decoder to give students the opportunity to ask those questions and the forum to explore the problems they see happening around them. We want to show them that they can start a conversation about those problems with a worldwide audience. 

    It is our hope that from this they will realize that the world isn’t too confusing to care about and that they don’t have to zone out and tune out to what is happening around them and across the world. 

    We want to empower them to ask questions and get answers and find the people working on solutions. By telling important stories through that exploration, they can help make the world a little more understandable and a little more connected. 

    Graves noted that teens are our next generation of leaders. “Nothing could have made Arch Roberts more proud than to see News Decoder students put themselves forward as they prepare to inherit the earth,” he said. 

    For 10 years it has been our mission to inform, connect and empower youth. We intend to keep doing it for another decade. You can check out the winners of our last competition here and more about our academic programs here. If you aren’t already part of our News Decoder network, we would love for you to join us. 

     

    Source link

  • As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    This story was produced by the Associated Press and reprinted with permission. 

    WASHINGTON – For a generation of young Americans, choosing where to go to college — or whether to go at all — has become a complex calculation of costs and benefits that often revolves around a single question: Is the degree worth its price?

    Public confidence in higher education has plummeted in recent years amid high tuition prices, skyrocketing student loans and a dismal job market — plus ideological concerns from conservatives. Now, colleges are scrambling to prove their value to students.

    Borrowed from the business world, the term “return on investment” has been plastered on college advertisements across the U.S. A battery of new rankings grade campuses on the financial benefits they deliver. States such as Colorado have started publishing yearly reports on the monetary payoff of college, and Texas now factors it into calculations for how much taxpayer money goes to community colleges.

    “Students are becoming more aware of the times when college doesn’t pay off,” said Preston Cooper, who has studied college ROI at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s front of mind for universities today in a way that it was not necessarily 15, 20 years ago.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    A wide body of research indicates a bachelor’s degree still pays off, at least on average and in the long run. Yet there’s growing recognition that not all degrees lead to a good salary, and even some that seem like a good bet are becoming riskier as graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years. 

    A new analysis released Thursday by the Strada Education Foundation finds 70 percent of recent public university graduates can expect a positive return within 10 years — meaning their earnings over a decade will exceed that of a typical high school graduate by an amount greater than the cost of their degree. Yet it varies by state, from 53 percent in North Dakota to 82 percent in Washington, D.C. States where college is more affordable have fared better, the report says.

    It’s a critical issue for families who wonder how college tuition prices could ever pay off, said Emilia Mattucci, a high school counselor at East Allegheny schools, near Pittsburgh. More than two-thirds of her school’s students come from low-income families, and many aren’t willing to take on the level of debt that past generations accepted.

    Instead, more are heading to technical schools or the trades and passing on four-year universities, she said.

    “A lot of families are just saying they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to go into debt for years and years and years,” she said.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon has been among those questioning the need for a four-year degree. Speaking at the Reagan Institute think tank in September, McMahon praised programs that prepare students for careers right out of high school.

    “I’m not saying kids shouldn’t go to college,” she said. “I’m just saying all kids don’t have to go in order to be successful.”

    Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable

    American higher education has been grappling with both sides of the ROI equation — tuition costs and graduate earnings. It’s becoming even more important as colleges compete for decreasing numbers of college-age students as a result of falling birth rates.

    Tuition rates have stayed flat on many campuses in recent years to address affordability concerns, and many private colleges have lowered their sticker prices in an effort to better reflect the cost most students actually pay after factoring in financial aid.

    The other part of the equation — making sure graduates land good jobs — is more complicated.

    A group of college presidents recently met at Gallup’s Washington headquarters to study public polling on higher education. One of the chief reasons for flagging confidence is a perception that colleges aren’t giving graduates the skills employers need, said Kevin Guskiewicz, president of Michigan State University, one of the leaders at the meeting.

    “We’re trying to get out in front of that,” he said.

    The issue has been a priority for Guskiewicz since he arrived on campus last year. He gathered a council of Michigan business leaders to identify skills that graduates will need for jobs, from agriculture to banking. The goal is to mold degree programs to the job market’s needs and to get students internships and work experience that can lead to a job.

    Related: What’s a college degree worth? States start to demand colleges share the data

    Bridging the gap to the job market has been a persistent struggle for U.S. colleges, said Matt Sigelman, president of the Burning Glass Institute, a think tank that studies the workforce. Last year the institute, partnering with Strada researchers, found 52 percent of recent college graduates were in jobs that didn’t require a degree. Even higher-demand fields, such as education and nursing, had large numbers of graduates in that situation.

    “No programs are immune, and no schools are immune,” Sigelman said. 

    The federal government has been trying to fix the problem for decades, going back to President Barack Obama’s administration. A federal rule first established in 2011 aimed to cut federal money to college programs that leave graduates with low earnings, though it primarily targeted for-profit colleges.

    A Republican reconciliation bill passed this year takes a wider view, requiring most colleges to hit earnings standards to be eligible for federal funding. The goal is to make sure college graduates end up earning more than those without a degree. 

    Others see transparency as a key solution.

    For decades, students had little way to know whether graduates of specific degree programs were landing good jobs after college. That started to change with the College Scorecard in 2015, a federal website that shares broad earnings outcomes for college programs. More recently, bipartisan legislation in Congress has sought to give the public even more detailed data.

    Lawmakers in North Carolina ordered a 2023 study on the financial return for degrees across the state’s public universities. It found that 93 percent produced a positive return, meaning graduates were expected to earn more over their lives than someone without a similar degree.

    The data is available to the public, showing, for example, that undergraduate degrees in applied math and business tend to have high returns at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while graduate degrees in psychology and foreign languages often don’t.

    Colleges are belatedly realizing how important that kind of data is to students and their families, said Lee Roberts, chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, in an interview.

    “In uncertain times, students are even more focused — I would say rightly so — on what their job prospects are going to be,” he added. “So I think colleges and universities really owe students and their families this data.”

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    The Strada Education Foundation, whose research is mentioned in this story, is one of the many funders of The Hechinger Report.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Financial Aid Advisers Question Trump’s ID Verification Efforts

    Financial Aid Advisers Question Trump’s ID Verification Efforts

    Many financial aid advisers are worried that the Trump administration’s latest effort to bolster identity verification in the student aid system could have unintended consequences. Instead of simply catching fraudulent grant applicants and borrowers, some fear that the verification process could also prevent real, eligible students from accessing public benefits.

    Education Department officials, however, assure aid advisers that one of their top priorities is to distribute aid smoothly to the students who have a right to it, even as they protect the integrity of the taxpayer-funded programs.

    In an electronic announcement published Aug. 12, Federal Student Aid officials said they would be checking the identities of an additional 300,000 aid applicants, on top of the 125,000 students already flagged in June. Some college advisers said they were alarmed by the sheer scale of the requests—especially given what they describe as a very tight timeline.

    While aid officers generally support the concept of catching identity thieves, they fear that requiring students to complete the verification process so quickly could delay or even block aid access for some legitimate students, putting them in a financial hole. FSA says the program will eventually be automated, limited to first-time students and managed by agency officials. But at the moment, it’s a manual process that can affect students midway through their program; financial aid officers say it is becoming increasingly complicated and burdensome.

    “Schools have been asking for help on how to find these people and prevent fraudulent identities from obtaining Title IV aid, so we’re very supportive of the Department of Ed’s attempts to assume responsibility,” said Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. “Unfortunately, the timing and how long it took ED to get this off the ground means that it’s August … We are entering, if not already in, the season of really large-scale disbursement. If verification is outstanding, schools may have to hold disbursements for those students.”

    The largest unknown seems to be what the consequences of an incomplete or overdue identity verification will be.

    The majority of students in the latest wave of verification requests are returning to college and need to verify their identity for the 2024–25 academic year as well as secure their awards for 2025–26. But some were flagged solely for last academic year and in most instances have already graduated or stopped out, making it harder to track them down and complete the process.

    Verification results for 2025–26 can be submitted up to 60 days after the data portal opens Aug. 31. At the same time, according to a Federal Register notice, verifications and any other changes to aid applications for 2024–25 must be completed by Sept. 13, making for a busy two weeks for students and aid officers.

    Experts have raised a number of questions about whether missing this tight deadline for 2024 could have repercussions. Some fear it could block students from completing future identity verifications or receiving upcoming disbursements; others worry that aid already disbursed in 2024–25 will need to be retracted. Either way, they say, it could have a crippling effect on low-income students.

    “There’s going to be a variety of impact,” one financial aid adviser said. “The monetary impact could be anything from a few hundred dollars to 10-, 15- or 20,000.”

    However, the Office of Federal Student Aid told Inside Higher Ed that missing that deadline shouldn’t be a problem—except in rare situations.

    Verifications for 2024 don’t have to be reported through the portal the same way upcoming 2025 ones do, one agency official said on background. Rather, aid officers just need to verify the student’s identity and determine internally whether a student’s 2024 aid should be awarded; therefore, “there’s no deadline that people are going to hit and fall afoul of,” he added.

    And in the “rare” scenario where an institution discovers inaccuracies on a 2024 FAFSA form, the department said, colleges can reach out to FSA to ensure a student’s eligibility is not impacted.

    ‘We Are Not Blocking Students’

    “If anyone has any examples of that Sept. 13 deadline actually being a blocker for students, we can move the deadline back, because we are here to make sure we are not blocking students,” the FSA adviser said. “There is no reason” a 2024 verification delay should affect a student’s ability to complete the 2025 process and have their award disbursed.

    Department officials also noted that they have streamlined the process to reduce the administrative burden, cutting steps such as making students provide a statement of purpose or notarizing the verification.

    And of the 300,000 aid applicants flagged in the most recent set of verification requests, the external vendor that helped identify them says that at least 50,000 are examples of fraud. The vendor is “very confident” that the other 250,000 are as well, the FSA official said, but the agency is playing it safe and having colleges check each case for good measure before stripping those recipients of aid.

    Ellen Keast, the department’s deputy press secretary, said it’s all part of the agency’s “student- and taxpayer-first mentality.”

    “We are committed to ensuring that every single dollar is spent on eligible students, not fraudsters,” she said. “This is not about putting a burden on postsecondary institutions; it’s about warning them, before they disburse both taxpayer money and their own, that the ‘student’ in front of them is most likely not a real person.”

    But representatives from NASFAA and college financial aid officers are still not clear on how the process will play out.

    Caleb Williams, director of enrollment management at Northern Arizona University, said that in addition to the typical verifications that occurred before the Trump administration’s new campaign was announced, selection rates for 2024–25 verification at his institution rose by 54 percent in June and another 13 percent in August. As he understands it, he added, a student “flagged for Identity verification cannot receive aid in any year until the process is completed.”

    Meanwhile, Charles Mayfield, the director of financial assistance at Northwest Missouri State University, believes that if an institution misses the September deadline for 2024 verifications, it will not be able to reinstate any of last year’s aid. But it would still be able to complete the 2025 verification and process that year’s aid.

    Mayfield hopes that the department will put out clarified guidance to relieve aid advisers’ confusion and explain exactly what the September deadline means, how it will be enforced and what the consequences will be for students. But like the staff at NASFAA, he said his greatest frustration is not the general need for clarification but its timing at the end of an academic year.

    “These students have received financial aid for the whole academic year, and now it’s all going to be taken away, and they’re at risk of not being able to enroll for the next academic year,” he said. “In the industry, we all know that students who stop out are much less likely to finish their degree.”

    It would be one thing if these concerns and challenges were specific to one college, Mayfair said, but when there are 15 or 20 colleges expressing the same confusion on a Listserv on the same day, the department should be more responsive.

    “It feels like when something doesn’t go right, we have to prove to the FSA that it didn’t work the way it was supposed to,” he said. “And until we can outright prove that—using data that’s on their system, that they should already have access to—they won’t acknowledge it.”

    McCarthy from NASFAA said that what the department told Inside Higher Ed about 2024 and 2025 verification being handled separately “sounds promising,” but as of Aug. 22 she hadn’t received the same notification from FSA.

    Other smaller concerns, such as whether the system for flagging fraud is accurate and if the new portal is functional, also have yet to be addressed, she added.

    “It’s an awful lot of work being pushed onto schools,” she explained. “So we want to make sure that it’s useful, beneficial work and that these are actual, really concerning applications, not sloppy work on the Department of Ed which then leads to delays for students.”

    Source link

  • What Is Bloom’s Taxonomy? 100+ Question Stems & Examples

    What Is Bloom’s Taxonomy? 100+ Question Stems & Examples

    One of the most powerful aspects of Bloom’s Taxonomy is the ability to ask engaging, interactive questions that offer immediate, actionable insights—allowing educators to create highly participatory learning environments that align perfectly with Top Hat’s mission.

    If you’re new to Bloom’s Taxonomy, here’s what you need to know: it consists of hierarchical levels (normally arranged in a pyramid) that build on each other and progress towards higher-order thinking skills. Each level contains verbs, such as “demonstrate” or “design,” that can be measured to gain greater insight into student learning.

    Get a fresh set of Bloom’s Taxonomy questions to apply in any course. Download 100+ Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems now.

    Table of contents

    1. What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?
    2. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
    3. Bloom’s Taxonomy for adjunct professors
    4. Examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems
    5. Additional Bloom’s Taxonomy example questions
    6. Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions for college classrooms
    7. Frequently asked questions

    What is Bloom’s Taxonomy?

    The original Bloom’s Taxonomy framework consists of six Bloom’s levels that build off of each other as the learning experience progresses. It was developed in 1956 by Benjamin Bloom, an American educational psychologist. Below are descriptions of Bloom’s levels:

    • Knowledge: Identification and recall of course concepts learned
    • Comprehension: Ability to grasp the meaning of the material 
    • Application: Demonstrating a grasp of the material at this level by solving problems and creating projects
    • Analysis: Finding patterns and trends in the course material
    • Synthesis: The combining of ideas or concepts to form a working theory 
    • Evaluation: Making judgments based on the information students have learned as well as their own insights

    Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

    A group of educational researchers and cognitive psychologists developed the new and revised Bloom’s Taxonomy framework in 2001 to be more action-oriented. This way, students work their way through a series of verbs to meet learning objectives. Below are descriptions of each of the levels in revised Bloom’s Taxonomy:

    • Remember: To bring an awareness of the concept to learners’ minds.
    • Understand: To summarize or restate the information in a particular way.
    • Apply: The ability to use learned material in new and concrete situations.
    • Analyze: Understanding the underlying structure of knowledge to be able to distinguish between fact and opinion.
    • Evaluate: Making judgments about the value of ideas, theories, items and materials.
    • Create: Reorganizing concepts into new structures or patterns through generating, producing or planning.

    Each level in the Bloom’s Taxonomy chart below is associated with its own verbs, outcomes, and question stems that help you plan effective instruction and assessment.

    Level Description Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Verbs
    Remember Recall facts and basic concepts Define, List, Identify
    Understand Explain ideas or concepts Summarize, Describe, Classify
    Apply Use information in new situations Demonstrate, Implement, Solve
    Analyze Break down information into parts Compare, Organize, Differentiate
    Evaluate Justify a decision or viewpoint Judge, Defend, Critique
    Create Produce original work or ideas Design, Construct, Develop

    Bloom’s Taxonomy for adjunct professors

    Free Download: Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems and Examples

    Bloom’s Taxonomy questions are a great way to build and design curriculum and lesson plans. They encourage the development of higher-order thinking and encourage students to engage in metacognition by thinking and reflecting on their own learning. In The Ultimate Guide to Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems, you can access more than 100 examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy questions examples and higher-order thinking question examples at all different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. 

    Examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems

    Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems

    • Knowledge: How many…? Who was it that…? Can you name the…? 
    • Comprehension: Can you write in your own words…? Can you write a brief outline…? What do you think could have happened next…?
    • Application: Choose the best statements that apply… Judge the effects of… What would result …? 
    • Analysis: Which events could have happened…? If … happened, how might the ending have been different? How was this similar to…?
    • Synthesis: Can you design a … to achieve …? Write a poem, song or creative presentation about…? Can you see a possible solution to…?
    • Evaluation: What criteria would you use to assess…? What data was used to evaluate…? How could you verify…?

    Support Bloom’s Taxonomy higher order thinking in your classroom. Get 100+ Bloom’s taxonomy question stems in our interactive resource.

    Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems

    • Remember: Who…? What…? Where…? How…?
    • Understand: How would you generalize…? How would you express…? What information can you infer from…?
    • Apply: How would you demonstrate…? How would you present…? Draw a story map… 
    • Analyze: How can you sort the different parts…? What can you infer about…? What ideas validate…? How would you categorize…?
    • Evaluate: What criteria would you use to assess…? What sources could you use to verify…? What information would you use to prioritize…? What are the possible outcomes for…?
    • Create: What would happen if…? List the ways you can…? Can you brainstorm a better solution for…? 

    Additional Bloom’s Taxonomy example questions

    Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a framework for categorizing levels of cognitive learning. Here are 10 Bloom’s Taxonomy example questions, each corresponding to one of the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, starting from the lowest level (Remember) to the highest level (Create):

    1. Remember (Knowledge): What are the four primary states of matter? Can you list the main events of the American Civil War? What are the three branches of government?
    2. Understand (Comprehension): How would you explain the concept of supply and demand to someone who is new to economics? Can you summarize the main idea of the research article you just read? Can you explain the concept of opportunity cost in your own words?
    3. Apply (Application): Given a real-world scenario, how would you use the Pythagorean theorem to solve a practical problem? Can you demonstrate how to conduct a chemical titration in a laboratory setting? How would you apply Newton’s laws in a real-life scenario?
    4. Analyze (Analysis): What are the key factors contributing to the decline of a particular species in an ecosystem? How do the social and economic factors influence voting patterns in a specific region? What patterns can you identify in the data set?
    5. Evaluate (Evaluation): Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of two different programming languages for a specific project. Assess the effectiveness of a marketing campaign, providing recommendations for improvement. Which historical source is more reliable, and why?
    6. Create (Synthesis): Design a new and innovative product that addresses a common problem in society. Develop a comprehensive lesson plan that incorporates various teaching methods to enhance student engagement in a particular subject. Design an app that solves a problem for college students.

    Download Now: Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems and Examples

    Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions for college classrooms

    Higher-order thinking questions are designed to encourage critical thinking, analysis, and synthesis of information. Here are eight examples of Bloom’s Taxonomy higher-order thinking questions that can be used in higher education:

    1. Critical Analysis (Analysis): “What are the ethical implications of the decision made by the characters in the novel, and how do they reflect broader societal values?”
    2. Problem-Solving (Application): “Given the current environmental challenges, how can we develop sustainable energy solutions that balance economic and ecological concerns?”
    3. Evaluation of Evidence (Evaluation): “Based on the data presented in this research paper, do you think the study’s conclusions are valid? Why or why not?”
    4. Comparative Analysis (Analysis): “Compare and contrast the economic policies of two different countries and their impact on income inequality.”
    5. Hypothetical Scenario (Synthesis): “Imagine you are the CEO of a multinational corporation. How would you navigate the challenges of globalization and cultural diversity in your company’s workforce?”
    6. Ethical Dilemma (Evaluation): “In a medical emergency with limited resources, how should healthcare professionals prioritize patients, and what ethical principles should guide their decisions?”
    7. Interdisciplinary Connection (Synthesis): “How can principles from psychology and sociology be integrated to address the mental health needs of a diverse student population in higher education institutions?”
    8. Creative Problem-Solving (Synthesis): “Propose a novel solution to reduce urban congestion while promoting eco-friendly transportation options. What are the potential benefits and challenges of your solution?”

    You can use these questions to spark meaningful class discussions, guide research projects, or support student-led investigations, making your lessons interactive and engaging.

    Want more revised Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs and questions? Download 100+ Bloom’s taxonomy question stems now.

    Frequently asked questions

    Q: What are Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems?
    A: Bloom’s Taxonomy question stems are short question prompts designed to help you align classroom learning activities with the various levels of learning, from remembering and understanding to applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

    Q: How are Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs used?
    A: Verbs like “describe,” “design,” and “evaluate” clarify learning goals and help students understand what’s expected of them at each stage.

    Q: Why are the six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy important?
    A: They provide a scaffold for helping students move from basic recall to complex analysis and creation—supporting critical thinking and deep learning.

    🎓 Get Your Free Resource

    Make your next lesson more engaging and intentional. Download 100+ Bloom’s Taxonomy Question Stems to start building stronger assessments and more interactive learning today.

    Tagged as:

    Source link

  • To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    In the wake of the Trump administration’s extralegal attack on Harvard University, which is essentially an attempted government takeover of a private school, the importance of academic freedom and institutional independence is clearer than ever. Had Harvard meekly complied with the demands in the hopes of maintaining its funding, it would’ve set a dangerous precedent for political interference in higher education. 

    Enter the Kalven Report: the north star for institutions striving to foster academic freedom. Crafted by the University of Chicago in response to Vietnam-era foment, the report warns that a university, though it may have the constitutional right to speak about unrelated political issues, should not take an official stance on these issues because of the chilling effect it has on the ability of university community members to discuss and debate amongst themselves.

    But it allows for two exceptions. First, when it comes to threats to the university’s very mission and values of free inquiry, the Kalven report explains, “it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” Second, when university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, or its membership in other organizations is at issue, the university is likewise entitled to defend itself.

    Both exceptions apply to Harvard.

    There is no standard by which an “exceptional” threat to the university can be determined. Instead, that is up to the university’s administration to determine. Kalven stresses that “it must always be appropriate, therefore, for faculty or students or administration to question whether in light of these principles the University in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.” 

    But by issuing a statement at all, the university risks chilling the speech of those who wish to question it.

    The decision by many universities to sign a “Call for Constructive Engagement” statement, published in April as a response to government pressure, may likewise be deemed an appropriate response by virtue of the Kalven exceptions. Yet, the question remains: was it wise to do so?

    By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    Developed by college and university leadership in conjunction with the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the statement urges opposition to “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses” and rejects “the coercive use of public research funding.” It is signed by over 650 institutional leaders and counting.

    And while the signatories explicitly affirm their “commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where . . . faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas . . . without fear of retribution,” they cannot escape the fact that their willingness to make an institutional statement risks undermining that commitment to open inquiry. After all, there are undoubtedly many people on those 650 campuses who agree, either in whole or in part, with the Trump administration’s efforts.

    The Kalven report issues a “heavy presumption” against making statements, “however appealing or compelling” the social or political value in question may be. This is partly because there is no escaping the question of who will decide which situations qualify as exceptional — there is no standard set by Kalven, simply the distinction of an “exceptional” circumstance. By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    There are other actions an institution can take to protect itself. Remaining neutral does not mean the university cannot advocate for itself against unconstitutional action. Nothing in the Kalven Report requires colleges to submit to unlawful action that merits a lawsuit. But when an institution adopts a statement on behalf of all its members, this stifles dissent and free inquiry because to question university statements then becomes tantamount to questioning the very values of that institution. This, in turn, negatively impacts students’ education. As J.S. Mill famously argued in On Liberty, “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion.”

    Indeed, in many cases, schools that have signed the letter don’t always uphold the values of free speech internally.

    For example, Columbia University signed the Constructive Engagement letter — and ranks second-to-last on FIRE’s Free Speech Rankings. Its faculty have experienced pushback from university administrators in response to their scholarship for decades, from the 2001 case of George Fletcher to the 2024 case of Adbul Kayum Ahmed. Nearly half (48%) of Columbia faculty think academic freedom on their campus is “not at all” or “not very” secure. Signing an open letter does little to improve the situation.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court.

    Another signatory to the statement, University of Pennsylvania has recently illustrated why statements aren’t an all-purpose solution but are instead an invitation for side-taking. The university faced significant backlash after it began to offer statements deemed inadequate in the weeks following October 7, including those by President Liz Magill and by members of Penn’s Board of Trustees.

    In response to a displeased alumnus, administrators released a slew of institutional statements, putting even more daylight between themselves and anything resembling institutional neutrality. Concerns over antisemitism eventually led to Magill’s resignation and the Pennsylvania House of Representatives withholding $31 million in state funding from Penn’s veterinary school. Finally in September, then-interim President J. Larry Jamson declared Penn would no longer issue statements in response to social and political events.

    Penn’s policy shift was a good call, even if it took a lot to get there. Modeling Kalven, Penn made a carve-out by promising not to comment on any more issues “except for those which have direct and significant bearing on University functions.” The only problem is that that loophole was on full display weeks ago when Penn signed the Constructive Engagement letter. Penn is once again speaking with its institutional voice by way of signature, finding itself aligned with a stance that is by nature political.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court. It is therefore worth considering whether signing the AACU statement was a smart move or an instance of political posturing that may end up doing more harm than good.

    Dinah Megibow-Taylor is a FIRE intern and a rising second-year at the University of Chicago.

    Source link

  • A South Dakota museum takes students on flights to the stars, but future trips are in question because of cuts from the Trump administration cuts

    A South Dakota museum takes students on flights to the stars, but future trips are in question because of cuts from the Trump administration cuts

    HAYTI, S.D. — “Are we actually in space?”

    The kindergartners of South Dakota’s Hamlin County are, in fact, in space. To be specific, they are on planet Earth, near the geographic center of North America, sitting crisscross applesauce inside an 11-foot-high inflatable planetarium set up in their school gym.

    The darkness is velvety. Childish whispers skitter around the dome like mice. The kids are returning from a short mission to Jupiter, piloted by Kristine Heinen, a young museum educator with a ponytail who knows how to make her voice BIG AND EXCITED and then inviting and quiet to hold little ones’ attention. 

    “Now we’re over China!” Heinen says.

    “My friend went to China!” a girl calls out.

    “The other side is nighttime and this side’s bright,” expounds a boy with a crew cut. “The sun shines here so it can’t shine over there.“

    The school is in eastern South Dakota, 34 miles northeast of the settlement where Laura Ingalls Wilder grew up and attended a one-room schoolhouse. The sprawling Hamlin Education Center is a modern-day analogue, serving an entire district in one building, with just under 900 students, pre-K through 12. Notable graduates include U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the former governor of South Dakota.

    The center is roughly equidistant from four tiny towns, surrounded by open fields where cornstalks shine in the sun; 95 percent of students arrive by bus, from up to 20 miles away. Over a third of them qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, said Dustin Blaha, the elementary school’s principal.

    • Hamlin Elementary students line up for their turn visiting a traveling planetarium sponsored by the South Dakota Discovery Center. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
    • During the planetarium’s daylong visit to the small community of Hayti, S.D., an educator from the South Dakota Discovery Center wowed 500 elementary school students with a presentation about the planets and stars. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
    • Many Hamlin Elementary haven’t had a chance to visit the South Dakota Discovery Center in Pierre three hours away, so the museum brings traveling exhibits like a portable planetarium to them. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report

    Blaha said that most of these children have never been to the South Dakota Discovery Center, a hands-on science museum three hours west in the state capital. But thanks to a federal agency called the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a part of the museum can come to them.

    The IMLS was established in 1996, combining previously separate programs. The small agency became the largest source of federal funding for museums and libraries, last year awarding $266.7 million in program grants, research and policy development across all 50 states. IMLS awarded the South Dakota Discovery Center about $45,000 in 2023 to upgrade this traveling planetarium.

    But students around the state may be waiting a long time for the next upgrade.

    Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.

    President Donald Trump signed an executive order in mid-March calling for the agency to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” Mass firings followed.

    On May 1, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary restraining order to block the agency’s dismantling, followed on May 6 by a second federal judge finding the dismantling of this and two other agencies unconstitutional. On May 20, the American Library Association reported that employees are returning to work and some grants have been restored.

    But the administration is continuing its legal battle to all but shutter the IMLS. The latest post on the agency’s Instagram account is captioned, “The era of using your taxpayer dollars to fund DEI grants is OVER,” holding up for criticism grants that were aimed at addressing systemic racism in museums, equitable library practices, and diverse staff development. The IMLS and the Department of Government Efficiency did not respond to requests for comment.

    A veteran of the agency who asked to remain anonymous because of fear of reprisal said they first saw DOGE staffers meeting with leadership on March 28. “On the 31st, we were put on administrative leave. We had about two hours to turn in your key cards, your ID, get everything off your laptop you’re ever going to need. We were locked out of our computer systems by 3:30 and told to get out of the building.” A skeleton crew was hastily rehired the next day.

    The ex-staffer points out that the Institute of Museum and Library Services spends, or spent, just 7 percent of its budget on its 70 staff, passing the rest along as grants. “We are not a bloated agency.” They have two kids at home, one with special needs and are married to another federal employee whose job is also at risk; but they are almost as worried about their grantees as themselves.

    “After 20 years, I didn’t even get to put an out-of-office response up. Is someone emailing me right now and getting nothing, because all of a sudden their grant just ended? I hate that,” the former IMLS employee said. 

    Almost all grants awarded required a one-to-one cost share out of the local institution’s budget, the staffer said. Plus, typically the grantees pay for activities first and then apply to get reimbursed. “We’re leaving these often small rural museums and libraries on the hook.”

    Related: Facing declines in reading proficiency, rural libraries step in

    Anne Lewis, executive director of the South Dakota Discovery Center, said that organizations like hers would be “wobbly” without federal funding and would have to scale back on ambitious programs like the planetarium upgrade.

    “The new system has much better interaction and control,” said Heinen, the museum educator. An earlier version had a static point of view, but upgraded visual effects means that “now we have spaceship mode,” she said. “We can travel to destinations including planets, and go in a full 360-degree mode around galaxies.”

    With a flick of the touchscreen menu, she can also display the constellations of a dozen different cultures including Lakota, a significant benefit especially when she visits tribal schools.

    The South Dakota Discovery Center, based in Pierre, has used federal support from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to pay for a traveling planetarium exhibit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report

    It’s a lean operation: Heinen drove solo nearly 200 miles from Pierre to Watertown the evening before and spent the night at an Econo Lodge. From there, it was another 20-some miles to Hayti, where she arrived at 7:30 in the morning, set up the dome herself, and ran 30-minute programs all day.

    The whole elementary school, about 500 kids in total, saw the planetarium, with each show customized to the children’s interest and grade level; and she also conducted a parent engagement program in the afternoon. Heinen said she never tires of being a “Santa Claus” for science. ”As soon as they see me, they know something fun is going to happen.”

    During this visit, the fan favorites were Jupiter, Mars and the sun. “It was cool when we went to Mars,” said Nash Christensen, 6. “And the volcano on that one moon, and the big hurricane on Jupiter. I think Jupiter is a dangerous place to live.”

    Grant recipients of the Institute of Museum and Library Services say the support from the federal government has been critical to running their programs. For example, the Boston Children’s Museum, the second-oldest children’s museum in the country, has used federal grant money to improve school readiness. One of the outcomes was a new exhibit in the museum, “Countdown to Kindergarten,” that mimics a kindergarten classroom, complete with a school bus you can sit in out front.

    “It’s helpful not only for the kids, but some of our caregivers who came from other countries and may not have gone to a school like this,” said Melissa Higgins, the museum’s vice president of programs and exhibits.

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    At the Madison Children’s Museum in Wisconsin, federal funds paid for a multistate partnership that provides climate education for young children and their families. In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a grant covered five “STEMobiles,” which offer hands-on science activities for children ages 3-5 in low-income parts of Broward County. The Philadelphia School District won a two-year planning grant to try to improve its pipeline of school librarians; they were down to only a handful for a district of 200,000 students.

    But the greatest impact may come in rural, often deep-red areas.

    “Rural communities have particularly unique challenges,” said Lewis at the South Dakota Discovery Center. “There’s 800,000 people in the state, and they’re dispersed. We don’t have a concentration of funders and donors who can help support these enrichment activities.”

    She said the teachers she serves are “passionate, committed and, like every other place in the world, underfunded.” If not for institutions like hers, students would probably go without this kind of hands-on science experience, she said.

    Blaha, the elementary school principal, concurred. “The planetarium brings excitement and expertise that we don’t typically have in a community like this,” he said.

    For now, the excitement is coming to an end. The class has “landed” on a green lawn, under a deep blue sky. Heinen announces “It’s time to leave.” She’s met with a chorus of, “Noo!”

    “You guys, we were in here for a full 30 minutes.”

    “It felt like 10!”

    “It felt like a second!”

    Tonight, many of them will be able to look up at the dark sky over the prairie and show their parents Jupiter, Ursa Major and Mars. 

    Contact the editor of this story, Christina Samuels, at 212-678-3635 via Signal at cas.37 or [email protected].

    This story about South Dakota museums was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.



    Source link

  • Access and participation is a political question

    Access and participation is a political question

    The question of how we drive access to and participation in higher education among non-traditional groups is intimately linked to the broader question of why we are doing it.

    Accordingly, there are different approaches across the UK. Whereas in the English system the focus is on outreach (partnerships between universities and schools), in Scotland and Wales there is a lot more interest in measuring and shaping university recruitment from underrepresented groups.

    From a purely instrumental perspective there is clearly value in doing both. It is entirely possible that universities and schools could be doing more to encourage able young people to consider universities, and that there are barriers and complexities within the admissions and recruitment process (not to mention the financial, social, and academic challenges of being a student once you get in) that could be usefully addressed.

    The politics of why different approaches have emerged in different places are fascinating. At first though, you might think that a right-of-centre approach would be tied in with the economic benefits of maximising workforce skills and a left-of-centre ideology might be considering utility beyond income generation. Or – for that matter – that the right would foster individual aspirations with the left focused on societal needs.

    But it actually seems to come down to how you think people become intelligent.

    Hardwired

    In his recent book Hayek’s Bastards, Quinn Slobodian characterises the world view of what we might loosely call the postmodern right as “hard borders, hard money, and hardwired human nature”. It’s clearly a politics of status anxiety – but more specifically it has a bearing on higher education policy.

    By “hardwired human nature”, Slobodian is pointing towards something that – at one outer extreme – underpins the confusing resurgence of beliefs in eugenics. These are beliefs in the primacy of nature (your genetic heritage) over nurture (the conditions under which you matured) in developing personal attributes, some of which may be described as “intelligence”. Actual scientists tend to agree that both nature and nurture are likely to have a bearing on your life chances, and empirical evidence tends to back this up. But this comes with a huge asterisk, in that it is very difficult to unpick the two experimentally or with any degree of accuracy.

    If your personal viewpoint tends towards nature, it makes sense to argue that too many people are going to university in that there will be some people that will “naturally” not be able to benefit from the experience. You could point to a declining graduate premium (the “extra money” a graduate will earn over the course of their life) or a lower proportion of graduates working in “graduate jobs” if you wanted evidence that we are currently educating people to degree level who are not able to benefit from it.

    That’s not to say that such evidence is compelling – a sustained and welcome rise in the value of the national minimum wage and rapid changes in the kinds of jobs graduates (and everyone else, for that matter) do offer a counternarrative that sees such “declines” as evidence of a more equitable society and the value of jobs beyond salary or personal benefit.

    Tell them that it’s human nature

    As a sector that is explicitly setting out to improve the skills and life chances of young people, most people working in education tend to lean towards nurture as the major contributing factor to observed intelligence. From this position stems any number of initiatives that aim to make university study accessible, livable, and achievable to people who would not have otherwise gotten involved. If anyone can benefit from university education, surely the right thing to do is to help them.

    From a nature perspective this all looks very odd. Sure, there may be some people who don’t usually go to university that might benefit from such schemes – but applications are merit based anyway. You get in by getting good grades, or interviewing well, or having a good portfolio. When we start flexing these requirements, don’t we devalue the entire experience? Isn’t higher education what we need to be offering the top end of an intelligence hierarchy?

    This might also have to do with the quality of our tools. How confident can we be that the tests we have are indicative either of innate talent or the potential to benefit from education? Indeed, there is cause to wonder whether intelligence itself is measurable (IQ tests being a superb measure of a person’s ability to complete IQ tests, A levels being a great indicator of how middle class your background is).

    If we think our standard entry requirements are perfect, the focus should be on supporting people (both in terms of capability and aspiration) to achieve these before they apply to university. Indeed, recent English system efforts in widening participation have focused on programmes that do things like this (schools partnerships for example) rather than contextual admissions (where students from particular backgrounds are given different entry requirements reflecting their life chances thus far).

    Other peoples children

    Politically, contextual admissions are controversial because of where they sit on the nature and nurture spectrum. They explicitly recognise the difficulties that some groups face in achieving the standard requirements, and modify these requirements (alongside offering additional support).

    The pushback on this seems to me to be because of the perception that university education – or education at certain kinds of university – is a scarce resource (perhaps it once was, but the last few UCAS cycles suggest otherwise). If people who do not hold traditional entry qualifications are allowed to enter universities, it stands to reason that others that do hold the qualifications may not be able to.

    So we are back to status anxiety, in that the perception is that some young people who would otherwise be almost guaranteed access to a prestigious university may no longer have such access, and the addition of students with other backgrounds will change the experience (in academic, or – frankly – social ways) for the traditional students that do get there.

    I say “perception” because in the main the expansion of many high tariff universities has been such that the idea of anyone with the right grades being unable to get in is not the threat that it once was. Again, to be blunt, there always will be people disappointed and confused about not getting into Cambridge, Oxford, medical school, or the more selective conservatoires.

    The recent Universities UK and Sutton Trust statement on contextual admissions is about clarifying and documenting practices and processes – both to help those who may benefit access what schemes exist, and to reassure those with concerns about the validity of such programmes. It won’t assuage all the concerns, but shedding light on the issue can only help. Of course, for some the mere existence of such schemes – or any suspicion that universities should be encouraged to run them – will be anathema.

    Enough?

    The elephant in this particular room is, of course, the capacity of the economy to absorb graduates. I’ve often heard it argued that there are simply too many graduates – both in terms of how this “crowds out” the benefits of being a graduate in the job market, and in terms of whether we really need all those graduates to do the jobs they are doing.

    For me, this reaches across to the hard borders end of modern right-wing political thought. If you think lots of people in online newspaper comment sections are upset about too many graduates, just ask them about how many immigrants we have! We import a vast number of graduates from overseas (and, indeed, overseas students) in order for them to take on graduate roles in the UK economy. NHS staff are the obvious example, but there are demands everywhere – from heavy engineering to biosciences, from the creative industries to staff working in professional sports.

    And a highly skilled workforce is a more productive, and thus more valuable, workforce. The economics are clear.

    There are wider benefits too. Graduates tend to be healthier and happier, meaning less pressure on public services. They disproportionally work in public services that benefit us all. They are more likely to develop high value innovations and scientific breakthroughs. More likely to start successful companies that employ others. They are generally paid more – so they spend more. They raise the value of property and businesses in their locality. They commit less crime.

    Employers, then, are generally pretty keen on access to graduates. Policy makers, and the rest of us, probably should be too. The choice appears to be more UK people going to university or more immigration – the meaningful policy conversation becomes around what people study when they get there.

    Source link

  • Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    • Mark Roberts is an English teacher and Director of Research at Carrickfergus Grammar School. He is the author of several books, including Boys Don’t Try? and The Boy Question, both published by Routledge.

    Spurred on by the huge response to the TV series ‘Adolescence’, Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education, has this week called for more male teachers to act as role models for disaffected boys.

    As a teacher who has been writing about issues with boys and education for many years, I’m delighted to see an increased focus on the debate about how best to support boys in school.

    Yet, while the idea of male teachers as role models is an alluring one, the plan is deeply flawed. Even if we can persuade lots of men to take up the call to arms to rescue our boys, there’s little evidence to suggest that the plan will work.

    The case for more male teachers

    Just as we have pushed more girls into STEM professions, we should be pushing more boys into HEAL (Health, Education, Admin and Literacy) professions. As I wrote in my book The Boy Question (2021):

    Seeing more men in teaching roles, and especially in primary settings, would help change attitudes towards both education and society at large. It would probably encourage more boys to consider teaching as a possible future career  option for themselves.

    But, in the rush to save boys from Tate and his ilk, we need to ask a key question: Will more men in teaching actually make a difference? In the age of the manosphere, would more male teachers help shift boys’ attitudes? And, from the perspective of participation in higher education, would these new recruits help improve their academic outcomes?

    The problem with male teachers as role models

    Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with the role model plan:

    1. Men are reluctant to go into teaching

      Given the relatively low pay, workload expectations and lack of status, attracting men into teaching is a challenging prospect. Efforts to recruit 6500 new teachers already look dubious, with only 200 more trainee teachers signing up in 2024/25. Without a plan to tackle negative perceptions of teaching as a career prospect, the idea is doomed from the start.

      2. Nobody can agree on what a male teacher role model looks like

        Cushman (2008) surveyed 250 New Zealand primary school principals to discover what qualities they were seeking in male teachers[i]. The principals had a long list of often contradictory desirable qualities, including outstanding sporting prowess. Research by Brownhill (2014) listed 65 different role model requirements[ii]. Meeting this idealised checklist is a big ask for any individual. Pupils, parents and politicians would also have their own role model requirements. Is any one man capable of being all those things, all the time, to all stakeholders? And even if these Supermen are capable of all this, are they also equally confident talking about misogyny as talking about algebra or Shakespeare?

        3. Children very rarely view teachers as role models

        Even if teachers were willing to try and adopt the position of idealised male teacher, there’s little evidence to suggest that boys would see them as father figures. Bricheno & Thornton (2007) found that between the age of 10-16, boys named relatives as their ‘most important role models’. Compared to 32% of young people who said they looked up to a parent, a mere 2.4% of students identified a teacher as a role model. [iii]

        4. There’s little evidence to suggest boys learn better with male teachers

        One key reason given for more male role model teachers is the suggestion that disaffected boys will respond better to teachers of their own gender. But the evidence doesn’t stack up. A 2010 study by Lam et al. of nearly 5,000 Grade 4 students in Hong Kong found no evidence that boys improved their reading when taught by men[iv]. In 2008, Carrington et al. found no teacher gender effect on attainment data and pupil attitudes in British primary schools[v]. In the same year, Marsh et al. found ‘little or no evidence’ to support the idea that boys will be more motivated by male than female teachers in secondary maths, science and English classes’[vi]. I could go on. While I welcome any efforts to recruit more male teachers, we shouldn’t expect this to lead to better results for boys.

        5. It judges female teachers unfairly

        Many of the calls for more male teachers come from voices bemoaning the ‘feminisation’ of schools. Such voices believe that female teachers are incapable of providing guidance for boys and helping them become productive members of society. This deficit model is frankly insulting to the many thousands of female teachers doing a wonderful job of educating boys in often challenging circumstances.

        Rather than getting distracted by the male role model debate, we should focus on fully supporting teachers to help boys succeed academically and get the grades required to, should they wish, enter higher education. Because that, above all, will make the biggest difference to boys’ lives.

        [i] Cushman, P. (2008) ‘So what exactly do you want? What principals mean when they say ‘male role model’’, Gender and Education, 20:2, pp. 123–136.

        [ii] Brownhill, S. (2014) ‘‘Build me a male role model!’ A critical exploration of the perceived qualities/characteristics of men in the early years (0–8) in England’, Gender and Education, 26:3, pp. 246–261.

        [iii] Bricheno, P., & Thornton, M. (2007) ‘Role model, hero or champion? Children’s views concerning role models’, Educational Research, 49:4, pp. 383–396.

        [iv] Lam, Y.H., Tse, S.K., Lam, J.W.I., & Loh, K.Y.E. (2010) ‘Does the gender of the teacher matter in the teaching of reading literacy? Teacher gender and pupil attainment in reading literacy in Hong Kong’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp. 754–759.

        [v] Carrington, B., Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2008) ‘Role models, school improvement and the ‘gender gap’ – Do men bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls?’ British Educational Research Journal, 34, pp. 315–327.

        [vi] Marsh, H., Martin, A., & Cheng, J. (2008) ‘A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: potential benefits of male teachers for boys?’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, pp. 78–95.

    Source link

  • “Am I Sure?” — A Mindful Question to Reduce Stress & Gain Perspective (Dr. Ryan Niemiec, VIA Strengths)

    “Am I Sure?” — A Mindful Question to Reduce Stress & Gain Perspective (Dr. Ryan Niemiec, VIA Strengths)

    How often do we let our assumptions add to our stress—without even realizing it? In this short video, Dr. Ryan Niemiec invites us to pause and ask one simple, powerful question: “Am I sure?” By gently challenging our perceptions, we create space for clarity, balance, and authenticity. Learn how mindfulness and the character strength of Perspective can help reduce stress and bring you back to what truly matters.

    Source link

  • Course-Correcting Mid-Semester: A Three Question Feedback Survey – Faculty Focus

    Course-Correcting Mid-Semester: A Three Question Feedback Survey – Faculty Focus

    Source link