Conceptual Frameworks and Your Student (redux)

I saw this post that I had originally written a year ago.  At that time we had made a major switch in curriculum from ABEKA to HM for language arts.  I fielded many questions from the K, 1st and 2nd parents that the first several weeks of work seemed too easy.  For many parents, we rejoice that our youngster can do something quickly, but forget that there are underlying essentials of knowledge that must be in place for success in the later grades.  Our first month usually involves quick review and assessment of simplistic concepts.  This allows us to identify strengths and weaknesses early for differentiated instruction.  Within another month, our students started complaining that they had too much homework and were being challenged.

Here's last years article.  Enjoy:


Conceptual Frameworks and Your Student
In my years of experience as a HR professional, I often had the opportunities to take new employees and direct them into positions that best fit what they had learned and could achieve. The critical difference between employees I interviewed for lead or managerial positions and line worker positions were their critical thinking skills and conceptual frameworks.

In my years studying educational theory since then, we've recognized that how we teach our students from the earliest age affects how they think and the job opportunities they will be presented. An article in the current issue [Summer 2008] of The Kappan (the national educational journal of PDK) examined the discrepancies between high school success and collegiate success. Much of it came down to conceptual frameworks and critical thinking skills.

As educators we are committed to best practices within a Christian worldview. Our recent changes in curriculum are in pursuit of this goal.

Another recent study with pre-schoolers supported this idea. Its critique can also apply to elementary educators. That article continues below:

Too often we give our children answers to remember rather than problems to solve.  Roger Lewin in
Early Developments (Summer 2008), reported on a wide range of findings coming out of the National Center for Early Development and Learning Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten (NCEDL). One analysis of the findings focused on the usefulness of process versus structural measures in evaluating quality. Here is what was found..."Using data from the NCEDL study, researchers compared the benefits of policies that defined the quality of pre-kindergarten programs by either structural or process features.... Structural features included characteristics such as class size, teacher:child ratios, and levels of teacher education. Process features were defined as 'observable social and instructional interactions that children experience directly with teachers in the classroom.'"They found that none of the recommended minimum standards of structural quality were directly related to children's development of receptive language (words they understood), expressive language (words they were able to use), rhyming, problem solving, letter naming, or behavior. Yet each dimension of process quality examined was associated with at least one area of development. Children learned best when teachers' interactions promoted conceptual development and offered feedback on children's learning. Children showed considerably larger gains in language and social development when they experienced higher quality instruction or more responsive and sensitive interactions with the teacher."These findings suggest that state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and policies should not rely on structural features alone to promote development. High quality interactions between teachers and children are the active ingredient through which pre-K programs foster the academic, language, and social competencies of children. In fact, the evidence suggests that when state policy only focuses on structural features, pre-kindergarten programs may fall short of their potential for facilitating children's development."