Category: Education

ASL as a Foreign Language

April 21, 2016 / cmpasl

Abstract

All colleges and universities should be accepting and offering American Sign Language as a foreign language credit. Since colleges and universities have begun to do so, the gain of enrollment and interest in ASL courses increased by 16.4%. Learning foreign languages has intellectual, practical and economical rewards. The diversity in America makes all foreign language exposure, including American Sign Language, vital and necessary in our schools.

Introduction

“Language provides a unique perspective from which to view the history, politics, business, and social development of humankind, and in addition to offering a unique receptive and expressive communication skill, ASL has a place within this larger social science paradigm of understanding how humans interact. This is important given the current trend at universities worldwide to embrace globalization” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 37). As Easterbrooks notes, more and more people have become interested in American Sign Language (ASL), and it has become “an American ground swell” (Wilcox, 1991, p. 1). Colleges and universities are starting to see that the study of Deaf culture and ASL is becoming more and more prominent and this recongition is opening up more doors for ASL to be accepted as a modern/foreign language credit. People often think that ASL is based off the English language when that is not true at all (Easterbrooks & Johnson, n.d., p. 2). ASL is indeed a language and just because one knows the English language does not mean ASL is less than any other language (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 1). Defining and discussing the background information of American Sign Language (ASL) and the Deaf culture will give a better understanding of why this is so important. To give everyone a deeper understanding of this issue at hand, we shall review the facts, statements, statistics, quotations as well as reasoning as to why ALL colleges and universities should accept and/or add American Sign Language as a modern/foreign language credit. We will also discuss why the colleges and universities should make it an integrated part of our education system.

What is Deaf Culture and American Sign Language?

Deaf Culture is unique in itself. One thing that makes it unique is the capitalized D in the word Deaf when discussing the Deaf culture. You should always capitalize the d in Deaf culture to indicate you’re pertaining to the socio-cultural definition of an individual. If the d is lowercase then it indicates an audiometric measurement of the ear’s response to sound pressure (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 44). “Being Deaf is not only a medical condition, it is also a cultural matter. One needs to learn to be Deaf, just as one needs to learn what it means to be Egyptian or Figian” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 44). In The rightful place of American Sign Language and Deaf culture in university curricula, culture is defined as the shared patterns and interactions, cognitive constructs, and affecting understandings that are learned through a process of socialization (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 44). The Deaf culture is about cognitively and socially relating to what they are gathering through the eyes. The Deaf culture have certain behavior patterns and interactions that are shared such as being straightforward with no filter. Just like any other culture their language, heritage, and expectations of the Deaf culture is passed down from generation to generation using American Sign Language (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 45). The study of Deaf Culture is a very important part of learning American Sign Language (ASL) and is integrated into the ASL classes. So what is American Sign Language?

American Sign Language is a language created by human culture over generations of interactions, and passed down from generation to generation” (Easterbrooks & Johnson, n.d., p. 1). American Sign Language (ASL) meets all criteria necessary to be considered a legitimate language. ASL is a fully developed language, complete with unique structures and processes having its own literature and culture. “The Linguistic Society of American affirms that sign languages used by Deaf communities are full-fledged languages with all the structural characteristics and range of expression of spoken languages. They have ruled-governed systems of articulation, word formation, sentence structure, and meaning” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 38). American Sign Language is often mistaken for being fundamentally different than spoken languages just because it is visual more than oral (Wilcox, 1991, p. 1). “It is a language because each country’s sign system is uniquely different from the others; it is comprised of aspects of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that are conveyed in a uniquely visual and spatial manners” (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 5). So in other words, ASL functions just like any other foreign language does. The grammar of ASL is very different from English which is common in other foreign languages. Many top-tier journals recognize ASL as an official language such as Brain and Language, Child Development, Discourse processes, American Annals of the Deaf, Deafness and Education International and so many more (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 41). Where does ASL and the Deaf culture come from? Let’s dig into history and discuss the origin of American Sign Language and the culture it comes from.

Background of Deafness and The Deaf Culture

The Deaf Culture in the U.S. is traced back to the island of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 42). It is said that the first gene carrier arrived on the island in 1694 and over generations the community expanded. There was no way off the island so it continued to expand and eventually a unique form of Sign Language developed in this community, Martha’s Vineyard Sign Language (MVSL) (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 42). MVSL was used as the main form of communication among hearing and deaf people on this island while the English language was secondary (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 42-43). In 1817, the first Deaf school, the American Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, was established by a Connecticut preacher named Thomas H. Gallaudet and another graduate named Laurent Clerc (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 43). From there Deaf culture and Sign Language spread and expanded far and wide. MVSL merged with French Sign Language and created American Sign Language (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 2). “According to the website of the World Federation of the Deaf, about 70 million people worldwide use a signed language as their primary language or mother tongue” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 38). ASL is not limited to just deaf people in today’s world. Hearing people also use it on a daily basis (Mitchell, Young, Bachleda, & Karchmer, 2006, p. 7). So why shouldn’t ASL be accepted as a foreign/modern language credit in our education system?

Why Should ALL colleges and universities (the education system) accept and/or add ASL as a foreign/modern language credit?

American Sign Language meets the curricular demands of supporting the internationalization of universities (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 1). There is a notion that teaching ASL in the education system will cause a drop in enrollment in other languages and that is entirely false (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 49). The Modern Language Association (MLA) with support from the United States Department of Education gathers and analyzes data on undergraduate and graduate course enrollments in languages other than English in the United States colleges and universities. MLA’s twenty-second survey Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education published in 2010 describes trends in language course enrollments. MLA data was distributed by individual state as well as in eleven geographic regions. The state of Georgia is one of eleven states positioned in the South Atlantic region which posted the highest increase (22.1%) of language course enrollments between

Christopher Patterson Teaching ASL at UGA (Photo taken by: Dot Paul)

2006 and 2009. MLA’s findings report American Sign Language (ASL) as the fourth most studied language in institutions of higher learning. Nationally, enrollment in ASL grew from an enrollment of 1602 students in 1990 (the first year ASL data was collected) to a student enrollment of 91,763 in 2009. Between 2006 and 2009, the MLA report noted a double-digit gain (16.4%) of student enrollment in ASL courses (Easterbrooks, n.d., p.4). There is also the data indicating the rising concomitant undergraduate student enrollment in ASL courses. Additionally, ASL was among the languages demonstrating growth in graduate level ASL course enrollment. So it is clear that interest and studies in the foreign languages department has increased since ASL was added to some of the colleges and universities as an allowed credit (Easterbrooks, n.d., p.5). In fact, ASL studies have caused students to develop an interest in learning other languages and are more likely to take a traditional, spoken language (Wilcox, 1991, p. 2).

Many colleges and universities recognize the study of American Sign Language and Deaf culture as legitimate academic pursuit and accept ASL in fulfillment of foreign language requirements. American University, Clark University, Florida State University, Georgetown University, Purdue University, Stanford University, University of Georgia and University of Hawaii are just a few of MANY colleges that accept ASL as a foreign language but notice I said many, not all. What is necessary and should be required is for all colleges and universities to accept ASL as a modern/foreign language and to accept that ASL can and should be taught in classrooms. All colleges and universities should also offer ASL as a foreign language credit. For the past ten years, Sherman Wilcox, professor and chair of the Center for Linguistics of the University of New Mexico, has kept track of the trend to accept and teach ASL as a foreign language. To date, Wilcox has compiled a list of 172 colleges and universities in 40 states which accept ASL as a foreign language. In the South Atlantic region identified by the Modern Language Association, thirty-one universities are among those Wilcox has tracked. Not only that but major universities such as Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Manchester-England and more have recognized that American Sign Language have all of the generally accepted features of a language (Easterbrooks, 2013, p.39). Even states’ bills, laws or resolutions acknowledge ASL as a language and over 40 of them in fact, acknowledge it (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 40). Over 200 universities and colleges accept ASL as a foreign language credit and these are top ten, Ivy league and other important universities such as Purdue and Clemson (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 40). Not only that but teachers are required to take and pass certain credential testing in order to teach foreign languages and this is also the case to teach ASL. Credentials as well as meeting the standard when teaching a foreign language is required and this is so for ASL instructors as well (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 3). “Recognition (or not) of ASL reveals a university’s unspoken biases and true stance on diversity. A strong ASL program can lead to many opportunities to learn about and develop sensitivity to cultures and internationalization by students, members of the faculty, and the University at large as it is a prime example of how cultures critically evaluate and develop their value system” (Easterbrooks, n.d., p. 5). A strong ASL program will not only bring in more enrollment but it will also assist in diversity as well as cultural exposure. So it is clear that this should be a worldwide change in all of the colleges and universities.

Questions might arise to why American Sign Language is not housed at the Foreign Language department. It should be emphasized American Sign Language courses, currently at the College of Education under Communication Sciences and Special Education, should not be moved to the Foreign Language Department. While it is very critical for one to understand that American Sign Language should be recognized as a foreign language however, it is rather important to understand that the term foreign is outdated as indicated by the more current and inclusive terminology used by the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Language (ACTFL) and the Modern Language Association (MLA). In fact, in its 2012 Annual Research Report, the ACTFL authors used the term foreign only two times (with the exception of the appended surveys) other than in the name of the organization, whereas they use the term “language” 67 times (e.g., “learning a language,” “technology in the language classroom,” “27% of students use their languages on the internet,” but not foreign language). The National Council Accrediting Teacher Education (NCATE) recognizes ACTFL as its SPA and by default to ACTFL, gives its tacit approval to the use of language or second language as opposed to foreign language. The Modern Language Association (http://www.mla.org), by its very name, recognizes that world language learning has a broad context. The Executive Council of the MLA posts a statement titled “Learning Another Language: Goals and Challenges.” Nowhere does this document state that the language must be “foreign.” Furthermore, by not using the term (and spirit of) “foreign”, we can be inclusive of U.S. learners who study the non-foreign languages of Navajo and Latin. So American Sign Language is best known as a modern language and not a foreign language. Some may even refer it to a second language. This is beneficial for colleges and universities because “The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages states that the opportunity to learn any second language is more important than the specific language that is learned since research shows that generally learning a third or fourth language is facilitated after learning a second. The language offerings of a school or institution of higher education should reflect the needs and the interests of the communities and students they serve, as well as national and international needs” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 47). The more languages we learn, the easier it gets so it is important and vital for all colleges and universities to “acknowledge that ALL languages should be considered appropriate for students to learn” (Easterbrooks & Johnson, n.d., p. 2).

The ASL courses here at the University of Georgia are administered through the College of Education and not through the foreign language department at University of Georgia. Across many Universities in the United States, ASL courses have been taught in Colleges of Education, Departments of Linguistics, Speech & Hearing Sciences, and Modern and Second Languages. Where a particular university chooses to offer the study of ASL to its students is an administrative issue that should be debated and decided by respective program administrators, not a state body. If anything, many universities are promoting cross-disciplinary inquiry and would see such offerings “outside of traditional units” as a positive move.

Languages aren’t taught for just the intellectual rewards, but also for practical and economic reasons (Wilcox, 1991, p. 2). Students can obtain jobs and be able to use the foreign language or modern language that they studied in college. “[Learning ASL] enhances ones’ appreciation and understanding of a different language and culture, which is a key element of cross-cultural competence and understanding diversity” (Easterbrooks & Johnson, n.d., p. 4). What is important is the appropriateness and rigor of the coursework, and the quality of the program and its instructors. “The study of signed languages provides a glimpse into ways that cultures differ even when they share a language” (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 41). Not only does it teach how cultures differ, it requires more advanced communication to understand the higher-order and abstract thinking skills that are reflected in modern/foreign languages (Easterbrooks, 2013, p. 43).

Conclusion

It is believed that the ACTFL and MLA statements support the acceptance of ASL, a bona fide, legitimate language, to meet modern/foreign/second/new/world language requirements and that Georgia institutions of higher learning should be able to manage the offering of ASL within their particular administrative structures as best fits the institution’s history and current needs. There are additional supporting documentations to support the argument that American Sign Language should be accepted as a “foreign” language and remain housed at University of Georgia’s College of Education can be found in the article in The rightful place of American Sign Language and Deaf culture in university curricula written by Dr. Susan Easterbrooks, which should be used to support the argument and why American Sign Language courses should be officially recognized and accepted for credit under Area D/Area 4 under the World Languages and Culture section at University of Georgia. We are exposed to diversity daily and we are often reminded that the minority will soon overtake the population living in the United States. Minorities that speak other languages so students are developing a necessary skill if all languages are included in the modern/foreign language area in the education system. Not only that but students who learn a foreign language “commonly find that their perceptions of themselves and the world are richer than their monolingual peers. The study of a language, culture, and literature different than their own propels students beyond the limits of their own world. In all respects, ASL affords students the same challenges and rewards as more traditional foreign languages” (Wilcox, 1991, p. 2). ASL is already accepted in high schools in Georgia as a foreign language so would not it be reasonable and smart to extend it further to the colleges and universities as well? The ACTFL and the MLA conclude that essentially all languages should be supported in the education environment. All the evidence and facts supports ASL being accepted as a foreign language so what is stopping us from making it a permanent part of our education system?

References

Easterbrooks, S. (2013). The rightful place of American Sign Language and Deaf culture in university curricula. NECTFL REVIEW: A Journal for K – 16+Foreign Language Educators, (71), 37-50. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Dana/Downloads/Easterbrooks%20ASL%20NECTFL_Review_71%20(1).pdf

Easterbrooks, S. (n.d.). Summary of Brief: American Sign Language and Deaf Culture.

Easterbrooks, S. R., & Johnson, E. J. (n.d.). Rebuttal to FLAAC Rejection of Georgia State University’s Request to Add American Sign Language for Modern/Foreign Language Credit.

Goldberg, D., Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2015). Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2013. Retrieved from The Modern Language Association website: https://apps.mla.org/pdf/2013_enrollment_survey.pdf

Lane, H. L., Pillard, R., & Hedberg, U. (2011). The people of the eye: Deaf ethnicity and ancestry. New York, United States: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, R., Young, T., Bachleda, B., & Karchmer, M. (2006). How Many People Use ASL in the United States? Sign Language Studies, 6. Retrieved from http://research.gallaudet.edu/Publications/ASL_Users.pdf

Patterson, C., Leffler, B., & Teesdale, D. (n.d.). Justification Statement #2: American Sign Language Courses to remain at College of Education.

Patterson, C., Leffler, B., & Teesdale, D. (n.d.). Justification Statement #1: American Sign Language Recognized as World Language.

Wilcox, S. (1991). ASL as a Foreign Language Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.unm.edu/~wilcox/UNM/facts.html

The Obsession with Education

April 14, 2016 / t00nghee

The desire to be educated is a natural instinct that should be encouraged in a healthy manner. It is good that people seek to know more about the world around them, how it works, and how to successfully manage it. Recent indicators within the United States education system, however, have pointed toward an underlying shift that renders this curiosity for learning unhealthy. For instance, while America has been noted to have “spen[t] more than other developed nations on its students’ education each year,” results unfortunately show that “U.S. students still trail their rivals on international tests” (CBS News, 2013). On the other hand, many famous American figures, such as Bill Gates or Mike Zuckerberg, have been widely known for their successful endeavors upon the national and international stage – despite having dropped out of college. Such a discrepancy between what is termed “education” and what is deemed actual success should strongly encourage educators, parents, administrators, and students to rethink education’s definition, its cost, and its execution within the American education system. Such an unhealthy thirst for knowledge can devastate the fundamental principles of how knowledge is transferred and received within the classroom, especially when already controversial issues such as standardized testing or working toward a college degree are involved. These issues can strongly influence teachers and students to respond very poorly in the classroom. While there may be widely differing opinions regarding these policies, the great demand and insistence for education to thoroughly permeate and benefit individuals of our society has had a great effect on our nation’s psychology, gradually culminating in an extreme desire to be educated no matter what the cost. Despite the obvious benefits of education, the obsession for education is very harmful to our body of students and educational professionals because it strips away the true essence of education and its purpose, which is to help individuals learn how their world works and how to effect benefit from that world for themselves and others.

The obsession for education has greatly affected the American education system first through the advent of standardized testing. America’s unhealthy obsession with education can clearly be seen by how often students are tested within a year and how much time teachers spend preparing students for these annual assessments. The Washington Post reports that the “average student in America’s big-city public schools takes some 112 mandatory standardized tests between pre-kindergarten and the end of 12th grade,” which is an “average of about eight a year” (Strauss, 2015). While perhaps not a surprising number at first, this calculation is relatively high when considering how “often” these standardized tests “overlap” and how students may also take “teacher-written tests” alongside standardized ones that are also within “the very same subject” (Strauss, 2015). Such an epidemic of over-testing students for the sake of achievement becomes a serious problem when it starts to detract time from useful learning and teaching by both students and teachers, especially when considering how that number of standardized tests “eats up between 20 and 25 hours every school year” and how “there is no evidence that adding testing time improves student achievement” (Strauss, 2015).

With the introduction of government policies such as No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top, teachers and educational professionals have entered a frantic frenzy to enforce students to do well academically on standardized tests. This testing hysteria is commonly attributed to such policies since they claim that “states could win federal education funding by promising to undertake specific reforms” – even through “evaluating teachers” by their students’ test scores (Strauss, 2015). By rewarding schools based on performance and simultaneously threatening a teacher’s position due to poor student output, the obsession for education has increased as many teachers have unfortunately shunned good, solid teaching strategies for the sake of keeping their jobs. By “teaching to the test” (Jerald, 2006, p. 2), teachers have opted to implement “item-teaching” strategies rather than “curriculum-teaching” ones (Popham qtd. Jerald, 2006, p. 2). A preference for such strategies is harmful, as Jerald explains that “[i]tem teachers narrow their instruction, organizing their teaching around clones of the particular questions most likely to be found on the test” and instructing students with “only the bits of knowledge students are most likely to encounter on exams” (Jerald, 2006, p. 2). Unlike “curriculum-teaching,” which focuses on the “full body of knowledge and skills represented by test questions even though tests can employ only a sample of questions to assess students’ knowledge about a topic,” teachers – understandably obsessed with their students’ scores – have decided to simply offer rote and predictable items for students to memorize and regurgitate, rather than teaching them how to understand and apply the information they have been given for practical and profitable use (Jerald, 2006, p. 2).

Despite the debatable enforcement of issues such as standardized testing and the clear stakes such test results have upon a teacher’s livelihood, teachers and educational professionals should not allow the obsession for perfect scores to get in the way of true learning and education by implementing strategies that promote “curriculum-teaching” (Jerald, 2006, p. 2). In fact, evidence suggests that “the choice between good instructional practice and good test scores is really no choice at all” (Jerald, 2006, p. 1). In one study, students who were given “more authentic intellectual instruction” actually “logged test-score gains” on a “commercially developed, nationally norm-referenced” Iowan assessment. These students “exceeded the national average by 20 percent”; in comparison, students who did not receive the same type of teaching and were given “few authentic assignments” received scores that were “much less than the national average” (Jerald, 2006, p. 4). Indeed, despite the hysteria for perfect test scores to keep teacher jobs, Jerald states that “[c]learly, it is possible for educators to make better choices about how and when to teach to the test than the alarmist newspaper articles and editorials would seem to suggest” (Jerald, 2006, p. 5). Such experiences serve as proof that both teachers and students do not need to sacrifice integrity and sound teaching practices in order to effectively achieve an exceptional education.

The obsession for education not only affect students within the traditional K-12 system as they work from grade to high school in order to graduate, but also as they decide whether or not to enter college, thus having a much larger impact on their future lives as a whole. Of course, there is no contest against the argument that attaining a college education and a college degree – especially a bachelor’s – is very beneficial, and that doing so can benefit a student and his future family financially. Not surprisingly, the “possession of a BA is statistically associated with higher income across the life span” and “this economic benefit persists after controlling for measures of human capital (e.g., IQ scores), field of study, and other background variables,” thus proving the benefit of a college education within a four-year time span (Murray, 2008).

The desire for a college-level education, however, becomes a problem when students mistakenly believe that they must attain a college degree in order to succeed in life, “echoing a sentiment that suggest[s] that a college degree is required for most people to have a good career” (Singh, 2014). Many jobs, in fact, do not require a diploma from a center of higher learning. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that “only 27 percent of jobs in the U.S. economy currently require a college degree,” indicating a fairly low number of people who will be entering the work force that actually needs to attend college (Singh, 2014). Furthermore, the Bureau “projects that the proportion of jobs requiring a college degree will barely change – increasingly to only 27.1 percent by 2022,” proving to students the unnecessary cost of pursuing a college education (Singh, 2014).

Despite these numbers, the U.S. Census Bureau also reports that “47 percent of workers today have an associate degree or higher” (Singh, 2014), demonstrating the obsession that students have with the idea of college, going to college, and getting a degree there. Singh notes that this fascination with attaining a college degree most likely stems from the prestige associated with a college degree or notion that having one automatically allows for a more successful career post-college, since “[e]arning a post-secondary degree or credential is a prerequisite for 21st century jobs” (White House qtd. in Singh, 2014). Singh further explains that “we do everything possible to encourage people to go to college, whether it works or not,” even when knowing that “about a third” of those attending college will “pick majors that have very poor job prospects” such as the “social sciences […] education […] psychology […] and visual and performing arts” (Singh, 2014). By obsessing over college or a college degree and neglecting to opt out of one, students can greatly affect their learning by mistakenly overlooking other options and opportunities like a trade or vocational school that could benefit their learning much more or much better fit their goals and talents. In fact, Singh notes that as “we’re pushing more people to get college degrees, we’re also facing a worsening shortage of skilled workers in many categories that does not require a college degree” – options that could very well satisfy a student’s interests, needs, and pocket-book much more effectively.

By witnessing the harmful effects that an unhealthy obsession with education can have upon the American education system, teachers, parents, administrators, and students all need to rethink what education is and what we are willing to pay in order to achieve its ideal form. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term education, defined as a noun, means “[t]he systematic instruction, teaching, or training in various academic and non-academic subjects given to or received by a child, typically at a school” as well as “the course of scholastic instruction a person receives in his or her lifetime.” Certainly, receiving such an education from any high school or college presents a person with a certain set of educational advantages that will have a notable impact on that person’s future life and opportunities. As learners, we need to learn the fundamentals and basics, and at times, rote memorization is completely necessary to achieve these goals.

I would like, however, to push the definition of education a bit further. I would like to argue that education is much more than simply receiving or giving the “systematic instruction, teaching, or training” of a particular set of information (“Education”). Instead, I would like to consider Jonassen’s definition of education, which he re-defines as “meaningful learning” (2011, p. 2, emphasis added). Concerning this new approach, Jonassen defines this type of learning as having students “willfully engaged in a meaningful task” and also explains that meaningful learning promotes a learning environment that is “active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative” (2011, p. 2). Jonassen further explains that “meaningful learning,” unlike the mindless, “inert” consumption of facts, “helps students to learn how to recognize and solve problems, comprehend new phenomena, construct mental models of those phenomena, and, given a new situation, set goals and regulate their own learning (learning how to learn) (2011, p. 2).”

I believe Jonassen’s definition of education is, in a sense, widely different from our daily interpretations of “education” or being “educated.” By adhering to this specific definition of education, teachers and students can have a better perspective on how to deal with certain issues that intrude upon the classroom because the intent behind “meaningful learning” shuns a simple regurgitation of information – it focuses on thoroughly understanding the material and applying that knowledge to problems, benefiting the individual and others within the real world (Jonassen, 2011, p.2). Like Jerald, I believe that such an education will be successful because teachers are “employing a variety of strategies to ensure that students develop basic skills and can apply those skills to complex tasks grounded in real-world challenges” (2006, p. 4). Moreover, applying this definition to education and turning away from those that only promote the simple transfer of information between an instructor and receiver builds a level of intellectual trust between the teacher and student that allows for a more honest, meaningful, and trustworthy classroom and environment. Although the cost of paying for such a definition of education can be fatal at times – especially for teachers who are tied closely to their jobs – I believe that such a cost is a small price to pay for the promotion and continuance of good ethics and for true, personal benefits within an educational community that is shrouded by a constant flux of complications and problems.

Despite the obsessive nature that is prevalent within the educational community, teachers and students can be reassured that they can truly thrive within the classroom when they choose to promote a meaning of education that advocates for the sound acquisition and profitable application of information. As can be seen when observing classes within the K-12 and college hierarchy, students and teachers always have the opportunity to reject the simple transfer of knowledge, despite the pull of undesirable educational policies. Succumbing to such faulty educational policies for the sake of a passing grade or a certain status ultimately degrades a child’s education and undermines any meaningful learning that can be done. By making a conscious choice to implement teaching strategies that promote learning for the sake of being able to know more about the world and how to apply such knowledge for a better life, teachers and students can finally benefit themselves as well as future classrooms. I am certainly not saying that there is not a place for factual transfer or more rote methods of learning; I am saying, however, that there must be a balance when trying to equip oneself with fruitful knowledge, not an obsessive nature. Learning should be a process done for the purpose of discovering and knowing more about a person’s surroundings and how to benefit others, not for the cost of simply obtaining graded success. By doing so, true intellectual relationships can form between students and teachers, thus strengthening individuals, families, and communities.

References

CBS News. (2013). U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows. The Associated Press. < http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-global-list-study-shows/ >

Education. (2016). In The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jerald, Craig D. (2006). ‘Teach to the test’? Just say no. Issue Brief.

Murray, Charles. (2008). Is college worth it? Cato Unbound. < http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/10/06/charles-murray/down-four-year-college-degree >

Singh, Raghav. (2014). The obsession with college degrees: are too many people seeking a degree for the wrong reasons? Ere Media. <http://www.eremedia.com/ere/the-obsession-with-college-degrees-are-too-many-people-seeking-a-degree-for-the-wrong-reasons/ >

Strauss, Valerie. (2015).Confirmed: standardized testing has taken over our schools. But who’s to blame? The Washington Post. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/10/24/confirmed-standardized-testing-has-taken-over-our-schools-but-whos-to-blame/ >

Category: Education

ASL as a Foreign Language

The Obsession with Education

Search CSE

Recent Articles

Essay Archive

Categories

Social Links

Meta