The document discusses how standardized assessments and standardized curriculum can subdue creativity and innovation in U.S. students by requiring standardization. Creativity and innovation are important for success in future endeavors like college and careers. While standardized tests aim to measure college readiness, they do not ensure students have the diverse skills needed for postsecondary education and future employment. The curriculum should support developing individual creativity and innovation to prepare adaptable, lifelong learners.
The purpose of this paper is to present a research proposal as a response to the need for inquiry on new participatory approaches of learning design in higher education. Learning scenarios are required that better connect with the skills and interests of specific groups of students, both in regard to the methodological strategies and the uses of supporting technological tools proposed
Mc carty, darla shared leadership nfeasj v32 n4 2014William Kritsonis
NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS are a group of national and international refereed, blind-reviewed academic journals. NFJ publishes articles academic intellectual diversity, multicultural issues, management, business, administration, issues focusing on colleges, universities, and schools, all aspects of schooling, special education, counseling and addiction, international issues of education, organizational behavior, theory and development, and much more. DR. WILLIAM ALLAN KRITSONIS is Editor-in-Chief (Since 1982). See: www.nationalforum.com
Mobile devices have been the focus of a push in many nations and internationally as part of
efforts to achieve greater literacy and numeracy among students. Research has shown a strong
link between Internet usage, the spread of broadband in a country, and its GDP. Those countries
that are the highest performing educationally already integrate mobile devices in their
education. This paper synthesizes empirical research on mobile devices from 2010 to 2013 in
K-12 schools by focusing on studies that demonstrate emerging themes in this area. It is also
clear that the pedagogy needed to be successful in creating positive outcomes in the use of
technology has to be student-centered with the aim of personalizing the learning experience.
Research found that students could become collaborators in designing their own learning
process. As students become independent learners, they become more prepared in the skills
needed for college and in their careers.
Transforming Traditional Professional Development into Blended Learning Commu...Cristo Leon
The New Jersey Department of Education sought to develop an online professional learning community for 150,000 educators in nearly 600 school districts. The authors present a post-project analysis of the project developed in support of Face-to-Face, Blended, and fully online learning situations. This project created an “Online Professional Learning Exchange” with blended online learning modules and was funded with over two million dollars. The greatest strength of the OPLE tool is to aid the state of NJ to shift their training from expert delivery of knowledge in a face-to-face format towards the Community of Practice. The paper presents a Systematic Review of the Literature, the analysis of Professional Learning and Training Methods, a description of the methods to create Blended Learning Modules focused on video, written materials, polls, and discussions. Through this integrated approach, the OPLE allows for user mastery of concepts that enhance their ability to provide more efficient and effective instruction to their students. Finally, the paper concludes with the results and implications in light of the current world developments and their impact on education.
The purpose of this paper is to present a research proposal as a response to the need for inquiry on new participatory approaches of learning design in higher education. Learning scenarios are required that better connect with the skills and interests of specific groups of students, both in regard to the methodological strategies and the uses of supporting technological tools proposed
Mc carty, darla shared leadership nfeasj v32 n4 2014William Kritsonis
NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS are a group of national and international refereed, blind-reviewed academic journals. NFJ publishes articles academic intellectual diversity, multicultural issues, management, business, administration, issues focusing on colleges, universities, and schools, all aspects of schooling, special education, counseling and addiction, international issues of education, organizational behavior, theory and development, and much more. DR. WILLIAM ALLAN KRITSONIS is Editor-in-Chief (Since 1982). See: www.nationalforum.com
Mobile devices have been the focus of a push in many nations and internationally as part of
efforts to achieve greater literacy and numeracy among students. Research has shown a strong
link between Internet usage, the spread of broadband in a country, and its GDP. Those countries
that are the highest performing educationally already integrate mobile devices in their
education. This paper synthesizes empirical research on mobile devices from 2010 to 2013 in
K-12 schools by focusing on studies that demonstrate emerging themes in this area. It is also
clear that the pedagogy needed to be successful in creating positive outcomes in the use of
technology has to be student-centered with the aim of personalizing the learning experience.
Research found that students could become collaborators in designing their own learning
process. As students become independent learners, they become more prepared in the skills
needed for college and in their careers.
Transforming Traditional Professional Development into Blended Learning Commu...Cristo Leon
The New Jersey Department of Education sought to develop an online professional learning community for 150,000 educators in nearly 600 school districts. The authors present a post-project analysis of the project developed in support of Face-to-Face, Blended, and fully online learning situations. This project created an “Online Professional Learning Exchange” with blended online learning modules and was funded with over two million dollars. The greatest strength of the OPLE tool is to aid the state of NJ to shift their training from expert delivery of knowledge in a face-to-face format towards the Community of Practice. The paper presents a Systematic Review of the Literature, the analysis of Professional Learning and Training Methods, a description of the methods to create Blended Learning Modules focused on video, written materials, polls, and discussions. Through this integrated approach, the OPLE allows for user mastery of concepts that enhance their ability to provide more efficient and effective instruction to their students. Finally, the paper concludes with the results and implications in light of the current world developments and their impact on education.
Converged Learning: the spectrum of technology-mediated learningCristo Leon
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), a four year polytechnic research university in the United States utilized a participatory strategic planning process to implement an innovative approach to the modes of delivery for instruction that exist between face to face and online instruction. NJIT defines the spectrum of integration of online and on-ground instruction as Converged Education. This spectrum allows students to either participate face to face, join remotely through real-time video conferencing technology (synchronously), or watch classroom instruction asynchronously. The article opens with a general background of NJIT's approach to the new idea of converged instructional delivery. Then the process for defining and clarifying the terms and conceptions of the various modes to be adopted is presented. Finally, the resulting implementation of the new policy and its reflection in course offerings is shown and discussed
New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. (2016). NPDL Global Report. (1st ed.). Ontario, Canada: Fullan,
M., McEachen, J., Quinn, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
NPDL-Global-Report-2016.pdf
Authored by:
Joanne McEachen & Matthew Kane
Converged Learning: the spectrum of technology-mediated learningCristo Leon
New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), a four year polytechnic research university in the United States utilized a participatory strategic planning process to implement an innovative approach to the modes of delivery for instruction that exist between face to face and online instruction. NJIT defines the spectrum of integration of online and on-ground instruction as Converged Education. This spectrum allows students to either participate face to face, join remotely through real-time video conferencing technology (synchronously), or watch classroom instruction asynchronously. The article opens with a general background of NJIT's approach to the new idea of converged instructional delivery. Then the process for defining and clarifying the terms and conceptions of the various modes to be adopted is presented. Finally, the resulting implementation of the new policy and its reflection in course offerings is shown and discussed
New Pedagogies for Deep Learning. (2016). NPDL Global Report. (1st ed.). Ontario, Canada: Fullan,
M., McEachen, J., Quinn, J. Retrieved from http://npdl.global/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/
NPDL-Global-Report-2016.pdf
Authored by:
Joanne McEachen & Matthew Kane
Finnish Core Curriculum: New Approach to LearningTiina Sarisalmi
Core Curriculum of Basic Education:
- basic values and principles
- transversal competences
- changes in school culture
- implementation: challenges and possibilities
- October 2016
Presentation made at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, 2015. Explains why and how college faculty should align with the Common Core and NGSS.
Growe, roslin the new growe inquiry in education schooling v2 n1 2011William Kritsonis
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Editor-in-Chief, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS (Founded 1982). Dr. Kritsonis has served as an elementary school teacher, elementary and middle school principal, superintendent of schools, director of student teaching and field experiences, professor, author, consultant, and journal editor. Dr. Kritsonis has considerable experience in chairing PhD dissertations and master thesis and has supervised practicums for teacher candidates, curriculum supervisors, central office personnel, principals, and superintendents. He also has experience in teaching in doctoral and masters programs in elementary and secondary education as well as educational leadership and supervision. He has earned the rank as professor at three universities in two states, including successful post-tenure reviews. See: www.nationalforum.com
Transformative learning of pre-Service teachers during study abroad in Reggio...Reggio Lingua
The present paper explores the transformative learning of five preservice teachers participating in a two-week study abroad program to Reggio Emilia, with Reggio Lingua School.
Ital, May 2015
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis & Steven Norfleetguestfa49ec
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis & Steven Norfleet
In 2004, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis was recognized as the Central Washington University Alumni Association Distinguished Alumnus for the College of Education and Professional Studies. Dr. Kritsonis was nominated by alumni, former students, friends, faculty, and staff. Final selection was made by the Alumni Association Board of Directors. Recipients are CWU graduates of 20 years or more and are recognized for achievement in their professional field and have made a positive contribution to society. For the second consecutive year, U.S. News and World Report placed Central Washington University among the top elite public institutions in the west. CWU was 12th on the list in the 2006 On-Line Education of “America’s Best Colleges.”
From the Penn IUR and Penn GSE sponsored conference:
“Preparing Today’s Students for Tomorrow’s Jobs in Metropolitan America: The Policy, Practice and Research Issues"
May 25-26, 2011
Organized by Laura Perna, a professor in Penn GSE, and Susan Wachter, a professor in Penn’s Wharton School, “Preparing Today’s Students for Tomorrow’s Jobs” explores the most effective institutional and public-policy strategies to be sure high school and college students and adult learners have the knowledge and skills required for future employment.
“The conference addresses such critical questions as: How do we define success with regard to the role of education in preparing students for work?” Perna said. “How well are different educational providers preparing future workers? What is the role of public policy in improving connections between education and work?
“It seeks to improve our understanding of several fundamental dimensions of this issue through insights from federal, state and local policy leaders, college administrators and researchers.”
Guest speakers include Eduardo Ochoa, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Education; former Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell; Lori Shorr, chief education officer to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter; Charles Kolb from the Committee for Economic Development in Washington, D.C.; Claudia Neuhauser from the University of Minnesota; Bethany Krom from the Mayo Clinic; and Harry Holzer from Georgetown University.
“Much recent attention focuses on the need to improve high school graduation and college degree completion. But, relatively less attention has focused on whether graduates and degree recipients have the skills and education required by employers,” Perna said.
The event is sponsored by the Penn’s Pre-Doctoral Training Program in Interdisciplinary Methods for Field-Based Research in Education, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences in collaboration with Penn’s Institute for Urban Research.
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxedgar6wallace88877
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
SIRCDSociety for Reÿearchn Child Developmentsharin.docxjennifer822
SIR
CD
Society for Reÿearch
n Child Development
sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 28, number 2
2014
I Social Policy Report
Common Core
Development and Substance
David T. Conley
University of Oregon
Abstract
his poticy report provides an overview of the Common Core State
Standards, how they were developed, the sources that were ref-
erenced in their development, the need for educationa[ standards
generatty, what they entail, and what it wit[ mean for educators
to imptement them. The report draws from research and refer-
ence materia[ to outtine the argument for the Common Core and the sources
used in its development. These inctude cortege and career readiness standards
developed over the past 15 years, high quality state standards, and the con-
tent spec]fications from other nations whose educationa[ systems are widety
respected. Additiona[ research demonstrates the retationship between the
Common Core and co[[ege and career readiness. While this report does offer
insight into the structure of the standards, most of the information presented
here is designed to hetp po[icymakers, educators, and other interested parties
understand the effects on educationa[ practice.
Common Core
Development and Substance
'he Common Core State Standards burst upon
the scene in June 2010 and were quickly
adopted by the vast majority of states, 43 as
of spring 2013. This initial embrace has been
followed by a period of reexamination in
some states. Although the idea of standards
that are consistent across states has become controver-
sial in certain circles, the undertying content knowledge
and cognitive skills that comprise the Common Core State
Standards themselves have not been seriously questioned
or chaltenged. When ideological arguments about edu-
cational governance and who should control curriculum
are stripped away, the Common Core State Standards are
more likely to be viewed more dispassionately as a syn-
thesis of college and career readiness standards already
developed, the expectations contained in the standards
of high performing U.S. states and in the educational sys-
tems of countries that are equipping their citizens for life
in the dynamically changing economic and social systems
of the 21st century (Conley, Drummond, de GonzaLez,
Rooseboom, Et Stout, 201ta; Conley, Drummond, de Gon-
zalez, Rooseboom, & Stout, 2011b; Council of Chief State
School Officers Et National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices, 2010).
This Social Policy Report considers the Common
Core State Standards, where they came from, what they
are, and what effect they are likely to have on educa-
tion. It begins with an overview of the importance of
educational standards in U.S. schools, the need for more
students who are college and career ready, and the role
of the Common Core State Standards in achieving this
goaL. The process by which the standards were deveL-
oped is described, followed by a consideration of the
facts about.
2. “[C]reativity is essentially responsible for all of human progress… is the
production of anything... an idea, a tangible product, or a performance… [is]
different from what’s been done before… [and] in the workplace [and university]
should also be appropriate to some goal or meaning” (citing Teresa Amabile,
Goldman, 2015).
“Innovation is the successful implementation of those ideas… [success is
dependent upon] innovation… [a]nd innovation depends on creativity...” (citing
Teresa Amabile, Goldman, 2015).
Claim: Standardized Assessments require the standardization of
curriculum, and in turn, subdue both the creativity and
innovation of U.S. students. Both creativity and
innovation are key components for success in all future
endeavors.
3. • In the United States (U.S.), “[t]he college readiness gap reflects the disparity between the
skills and knowledge that students gain in high school versus the skills and knowledge that
colleges and universities expect” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 2010).
• Despite a history of the application of state education standards in the U.S. (Conley, 2014),
“[i]n mathematics literacy and problem solving in 2003, even the highest U.S. achievers
(those in the top 10 percent in the United States) were outperformed on average by their
OECD counterparts[,]” (Lemke et al., 2004) and, in comparison to their international
counterparts, only 61% of U.S. students assessed had obtained grade 10, and 30% of U.S.
students assessed were at grade 9 (Lemke et al., 2004, p. 4).
• Post implementation of Common Core Standards in various states in the U.S., “performance
of US students flat lined between 2003 to 2012, with even a small decrease with just over
10 percent of students scoring at level five or above in 2003 and 8.8 percent meeting that
standard in 2012.” (Craw, 2014).
• “[G]rowth in standardized test performance doesn't buy us cognitive ability” (Kaufman,
2013b).
• In the U.S., “children starting school this year will be retiring in [2074, yet] [n]obody has a
clue… what the world will look like in five years' time... [a]nd yet we're meant to be
educating them for it” (Robinson, 2006).
Evidence
4. Warrants
• Only 40% of “first-year college students are “ready for postsecondary studies” in the U.S. (National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 2010).
• Satisfying state standards for high school graduation, completing college preparation courses, obtaining
required grade point averages and SAT/ACT scores does not “ensure college readiness” (National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 2010).
• Japan, as well as 25 other countries, were considered by the 2003 Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) to be more “mathematically literate” than U.S. students (Lemke et. al., 2004, pp.
13-14).
• As grades and performance on standardized testing do not ensure college readiness, schools must
“[integrate] the development of higher level learning skills in the curriculum, specifically in reading,
writing, and math” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Southern Regional
Education Board (SREB), 2010).
• As intelligence is “diverse, dynamic, and distinct,” educators must embrace the various components of
a child, and understand that their learning needs are “diverse, dynamic, and distinct” (Robinson, 2006),
and efforts then to standardize expected outcomes in education may neglect the needs of such diversity.
• The future depends on unknown variables, and “concerns [may] be quite different…Will the carrying
capacity of the planet support feeding 9 billion people… How will water stress and climate change
impact productivity…How will new technologies, such as big data, the internet of things and renewable
energy affect business…” (Satell, 2015). Standardized thinking may not provide the answers.
5. • Readiness standards and expectations do not incorporate key values and characteristics that mark
successful behavior in other countries. Specifically, differences between student achievement in Japan
and the U.S. may need to start with an examination of the messages conveyed by schools regarding the
efforts of hard work, and consider the effects of culture on cognitive abilities and performance.
• “Placement tests” of colleges and universities “vary substantially” both nationally, and “within a state
or a postsecondary system” and those “postsecondary placement tests may bear little connection to the
high school curriculum or to high school assessments” (National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 2010).
• According to the University of Michigan (n.d.), “[t]he concepts of ability vs. effort and intrinsic
motivation vs. extrinsic motivation may play a key role in the difference in achievements between
Japanese and American students [as] Japanese students have been taught to believe that their entire life,
not just their academic fate, relies directly upon the amount of work they put into their studies”
(University of Michigan, n.d.).
• “[A] an imposed curriculum damages the individual and usurps a basic human right to select one’s own
path of development… [l]earners either become alienated from the established curriculum or learn to
play the ‘school game’ and thus achieve a hollow success” (Holt cited in Koonce, 2013, p. 23).
• “[O]ur task [as educators] is to educate [the] whole being [of our students], so they can face this
future… [as] we may not see this future, but they will… And our job is to help them make something
of it” (Robinson, 2006).
Backing for Warrants
6. Counter Arguments & Rebuttal
1. “At the heart of college readiness is development of the cognitive and metacognitive capabilities of
incoming students… [including] analysis, interpretation, precision and accuracy, problem solving, and
reasoning” (Conley, 2008).
“[S]tandardized test performance doesn't buy us cognitive ability” (Kaufman, 2013b). Teaching efforts that work
to “train changes in the brain” do (Kaufman, 2013a). “[M]otivation and dopamine are associated with greater
levels of neuroplasticity” (Kaufman, 2013a), and thus, college readiness programs must focus on the motivations
and value systems of students to create new ways of learning, create new brain connections for learning, and to
make those “new connections stronger” (Anderson, 2013).
2. “[S]pecific types of content knowledge” is important for college readiness (Conley, 2008).
Although, “many states have emphasized mastery of specific content and performance standards, as shown
through grades and statewide assessments; this shift to standards-based performance in the schools generally has
not been extended to higher levels of achievement associated with college readiness” (National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education, Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), 2010).
3. Saving the “future of our free institutions” is an important consideration when improving the quality of
education in the U.S. (Alder cited in Koonce, 2016, p. 28).
The “future of our free institutions” (Alder cited in Koonce, 2006, p. 28) is meaningless, if students are
disillusioned instead of inspired. According to Holt, “an imposed curriculum damages the individual and usurps a
basic human right to select one’s own path of development” (Koonce, 2016, p. 23). Students need to maintain their
“right to control and direct their own learning” or, “[i]f we take from someone his right to decide what he will be
curious about, we destroy his freedom of thought” (Holt cited in (Koonce, 2016, p. 29). If we “destroy [a
student’s] freedom of thought” (Holt cited in Koonce, 2016, p. 29), we “stigmatize mistakes,” and thus, educate
“people out of their creative capacities” (Robinson, 2006).
7. The U.S. education system should be flexible and adaptable to the
learning needs of all students. Standardization in service of college
readiness does not adequately prepare students for advance studies
and adult employment. In turn, college readiness does not directly
correlate with successful employment and professional
development and expertise. Curriculum should support and
develop individual creativity, innovation, “curiosity, dignity, and
sense of identity and worth” (Holt cited in Koonce, 2016, p. 31).
Education programs should offer subjects and options within
required courses for advancement and graduation that allow
students to find relevancy with their own lives and personal
communities; as relevancy, once established, will inspire students
to become effective contributors to local and global needs.
8. References
Conley, D. T. (2008). Rethinking College Readiness. New Directions for Higher Education. Volume 2008, 244. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794245.pdf
Conley, D. (2014). The Common Core State Standards: Insight into their development and purpose. Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO). Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/The_Common_Core_State_Standards
_Insight_into_Their_Development_and_Purpose.html
Craw, J. (2014). Statistic of the month: Trends in the performance of the top performers on PISA 2003 - PISA 2012. Center on International
Education Benchmarking. Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/2014/03/statistic-of-the-month-trends-in-the-performance-of-the-top-
performers-on-pisa-2003-pisa-2012/
Goleman, D. (2015). Daniel Goleman on creativity and innovation: What’s the difference? Value Walk. Retrieved from http://www.valuewalk.com/
2015/01/creativity-vs-innovation/
Kaufman, S.B. (2013). Exam_hall.jpg. [background image file]. Retrieved from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-
minds/files/2013/12/exam_hall.jpg
Kaufman, S.B. (2013a). Reasoning training increases brain connectivity associated with high-level cognition. Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/reasoning-training-increases-brain-connectivity-associated-with-high-level-
cognition/
Kaufman, S.B. (2013b). Standardized Achievement Tests: What are they good for? Hint: Not cognitive ability. Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/standardized-achievement-tests-what-are-they-good-for-hint-not-cognitive-
ability/
9. References
Koonce, G. L. (Ed.). (2016). Taking sides: Clashing views on educational issues-Expanded. (18th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., Kastberg, D., Jocelyn, L. (2004). International outcomes of learning in
mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 Results from the U.S. perspective. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, and the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). (2010). Beyond the rhetoric:
Improving college readiness through coherent state policy. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/
reports/college_readiness/index.shtml
Robinson, K. (author/educator). (2006, February). How schools kill creativity. TED Talks. [internet video]. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity/transcript?language=en#t-896200
Satell, G. (2015). To prepare for the future you need to shape it -- or someone else will. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2015/05/22/to-prepare-for-the-future-you-need-to-shape-it-or-someone-else-will/
University of Michigan. (n.d.). Educational systems of Japan and the US. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/
arun.356/home