Friday, March 4, 2011

It's not the test; it's the timing of the test....


Recent #ecosys Twitter (EcoSys: Exploring the future of K12 Education) chat surrounding the issue of common core curricular standards has me thinking about how EduKare would respond to the issue. In the interest of furthering the EduKare thought experiment, like everything else about an EduKare approach to teaching and learning, the element of assessment would require a series of small shifts as opposed to piecemeal change. Twisting the lens regarding how we view the role of assessment in education allows EduKare proponents to use their best integrative thinking to identify currently useful elements of assessment, and insightful, informed ways to improve them. Despite what some educators appear to believe, it's essential that we know what kids know.


I believe that there is a element of self-efficacy to learning and acquiring knowledge, but it would be naive to assert that learning is entirely personal and serves no social purpose for the individual, and as it applies to the larger social need to produce citizens who are educated. Having said that, alas, all learners are different. There are particular skills and knowledge that society needs educated kids to possess once graduating from high school. Some of these could be considered basic (literacy and numeracy) and some are very specific depending on the service kids are going to provide to society relative to their career choice. How best to ensure that all kids possess the knowledge and skills basic to social function while also providing opportunities for them to extend themselves toward more advanced learning is one of the questions EduKare schools aim to answer. How can we customize learning so needs are met across the learner spectrum, and how can we customize the assessment of learning so kids are measured authentically and fairly against their own progress?

A common core set of benchmark skills is a necessary element of the school system. We need something to measure progress against. In golf as I strive to improve my score, I try to reduce my handicap against a benchmark of par, or achieving a zero handicap. Benchmarks are useful. In schools, perhaps if benchmarks were applied on a broader spectrum, and the schedule applied to meeting them was adjusted to reflect individual learner progress based on their developing cognitive strengths as opposed to norm-referenced developmental levels, we could then effectively apply a customized approach to learning, and also the assessment of learning. Contemporary educators are doing a really good job differentiating instruction, but we're still assessing kids using standard time-lines and homogeneous developmental assessment paradigms.

The golf analogy helps clarify the shift. If I want to know if I've improved at playing golf, I have to play golf. Playing golf is the test; how I measure myself against myself to see whether I have improved since the last time I played. Assessment in the education system could mirror this paradigm. To know if kids have improved their cognitive ability, we have to witness them attempting to use cognitive ability so we can measure them relative to the last time they displayed it. This applies to any form of assessment across all contexts. We have to do something to know how good we are at doing it. It's not the need to measure progress, but the time-lines we apply to the process that EduKare questions.

Relatively speaking as influenced by a litany of uncontrolled social, emotional and cognitive variables, we develop skills and abilities at our own pace. What I'm going to suggest here is that the test, (framed as the opportunity to do what you're trying to become better at doing,) could become far less anxiety-inducing if it was flexibly applied to a time-line that individual students had more influence over. EduKare schools are social learning places. Within them the social and cultural interactions that occur should be maximized and leveraged toward the creation of a vibrant and cohesive learning culture where interdependent learning is key.

Jean Piaget's claims and the influence they have had on the creation on school curriculum represented some of the best thinking surrounding child development at the time. His natural line perspective on the maturation process sparked a great deal of debate over how kids "grow up" that continues to this day, and that's a good thing. However, as all teachers know, there are kids in every classroom that do not fit nicely into Piaget's natural line of development perspective. Should we continue to group kids into predetermined cohorts based on theory stating that all fit generally into a natural schedule of developmental milestones?

Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky was another prominent thinker in the realm of child development that believed learning was more a social process that could be enhanced through the understanding of zones of proximal development. Both Piaget and Vygotsky could be considered constructivist thinkers, but from different perspectives. Piaget was a cognitive constructivist, while Vygotsky was a social constructivist. An EduKare teaching and learning environment aligns better with the social constructivist approach; the idea that meaning and understanding grow out of social interactions.

We're learning how to differentiate instruction to address unique learning needs, but we don't routinely match these efforts with differentiated assessment to address unique student abilities. We typically give the same test on the same time-line to kids who have learned differently, and at different levels of proficiency. It's not the test that's problematic; it's the test schedule. An EduKare teaching and learning philosophy perceives learning as a thirteen year journey, but not one that fits neatly into grade levels.

A colleague said to me this week that she always has a hard time with report cards. She explained that no matter what sort of positive progress each child has made in the term of reporting, when measured against a grade level standard, it's very hard to provide the sort of positive feedback that the child needs to motivate them to keep working hard toward their learning goals. The child may be leaps and bounds ahead of previously measured levels of proficiency, but not yet advancing to a higher scale of measurement. On the contrary, considering the small shift, if that child was to be placed in an age cohort rather than a grade cohort, progress could be measured against previous skills and knowledge allowing for a unique and targeted reporting of progress as opposed to achievement.

This is not to assert that the common core or standard by which learning is measured would be abandoned in favor of a totally student-centered, self-directed process. As I said before, a common core set of benchmark skills is a necessary element of the school system, however, it's not until high school in contemporary education that kids get the benefit of some degree of customizable self-determination. When kids enter high school they choose course streams that fit the knowledge and skills they have acquired up to that point, and that support post-graduation goals they may have. We fail to address this diversity that kids represent before they reach high school age. A comprehensive set of carefully filtered core standards across the thirteen year spectrum of school would be applied to kids right from the start using the principle of constructive alignment within an outcomes-based system.

An EduKare grading system would be measured against much of the same set of comprehensive curricular standards that already exists within the education system; it would simply allow for greater variance regarding when each standard is 'achieved.' Our growing teaching ability to use differentiated forms of instruction would take care of the need to apply instruction toward the standards at age-appropriate levels without the need to even consider retaining kids to repeat a grade. Proficiency would be checked off the list so to speak, at each age level using appropriate teaching and assessment strategies that are individually determined. Adhering to Vygotsky's social constructivist theory, some kids would become proficient at particular skills earlier than others, but the age-appropriate social interaction that occurs between kids with varied abilities would enhance the zones of proximal development for all of them.

At at a minimum the EduKare school would offer nothing less than a stream that teaches core literacy and numeracy knowledge and skills. Beyond this the sky is the limit, again owing to the social constructivist approach that's inherent in an EduKare school. Kids in Year Kindergarten to Year Eight EduKare schools would target standards at multiple levels measuring their progress against previously determined progress; how much they have grown relatively since the last time they were assessed against the core or standard. As they advance from level to level based on chronological age, our efforts to help socially construct knowledge and skills with them can be made in the least restrictive, most individualized and fair teaching and learning environments possible.

Reporting of progress would be made as part of the learning story-writing process. A document that records the growing body of knowledge and skill acquisition of each child would travel with kids over the thirteen year journey that they are mainly responsible for writing themselves. There would be no need to standardize the form as long as locally customized versions reflected individual progress against the common core set of standards applied as curriculum, and included the total set of standards possible over the same thirteen year period of time so the variable nature of achievement could be reflected for each child.

At the end of year twelve kids would be assessed relative to the degrees to which common core standards were met for each of them within the different subject areas of study. This would be compiled in a locally developed final statement of proficiency measured against the common core standards that could be translated into prerequisite levels of achievement required by post-secondary institutions in the same manner that occurs now.

EduKare schools are flexible and adaptable. By expanding the scope of curriculum to represent the unique thirteen year journey of each student through a set of core outcomes that spans the entire time period, EduKare schools become flexible relative to individual student abilities, zones of proximal development and levels of motivation in learning. They also become adaptable to each student by applying socially appropriate instruction to kids at each age and relative cognitive ability level. They also become responsive in an assessment context by utilizing locally designed formats to provide feedback to students that measures each against themselves instead of each other, and against curricular outcomes that are individually applied as opposed to within a norm-referenced context.

6 comments:

  1. There are many differences between your golf game and typical assessments of students. You choose to play golf or not, students don't get the choice, for example, whether to study algebra or not. You choose to give value to your golf score instead of merely playing for fun or relaxation, students don't get that choice. The main difference between your golf game and assessment of students is that you understand the purpose, method and scale of the golf assessment before you start the round. That is not true of almost all the assessments students face.

    The purposes and meanings of assessments are kept hidden from students, deliberately or not, by jargon, overly complex or otherwise incomprehensible scoring formulas, unclear foci, and by lack of meaningful feedback. Teachers, and often the assessment creators themselves, don't know or understand the scale of scores of the assessment until after it is given, and even if one stipulates that report cards have meaning (and I don't), they are given to parents or guardians, not to the students.

    You keep track of your golf scores and measure your progress in reducing them because doing so has some value to you. For assessment to have value to the student he or she must have access to and understand its purpose, scoring, and applicability to future opportunities in or out of school.

    You propose a shift from grade-based to age-based groupings and standards. This is a distinction without a difference since the grade a student is placed in is usually very tightly linked to that student's age. If all nine-year-olds are grouped together it doesn't matter if you call it 4th grade or "the nines."

    I reject the notion that students of any particular age need to be grouped with students of the same age. Grouping should be done by ability, by interest and, perhaps, by learning style. The nine-year-old who has an interest in math is likely to have developed more advanced abilities than the same-aged child with less of an interest in that subject. Why shouldn't that advanced child be able to learn alongside 11 or even 12 year old students at the same point in the maths sequence?

    Teachers know that assessment is an essential part of the teaching/learning continuum, but they also know that the more major the assessment, the less meaning it has relative to the students' actual immediate needs. That we continue to react to and base schooling processes on an imagined instead of instructional value of standardized exams (as opposed to highly valuable ongoing standard-based assessments), is an insult to our students and a massive distraction from their actual learning needs and abilities,

    ReplyDelete
  2. Deven, thanks for your comments. Perhaps you haven't been following the EduKare stream. It appears you have missed some vital philosophical points as indicated by your response.

    -EduKare is ALL about student choice. Within the philosophy choice is framed as self determination and purpose (hope.) It's the responsibility of EduKare teachers to facilitate this within a wraparound service provision model. A major element of EduKare is the writing of student's stories, right from the very beginning. The student is at the center, and family, significant others and teachers support the story writing effort. EduKare believes hope is an action word; we need students to feel the sense of belonging and investment in learning that will frame this action.

    -Re. the golf analogy... For the record, there are many thing we have to do that we don't choose to do; that's life. This does not change the value of measuring how well we do these things against how well we've previously done them. You will notice I did not cite specific forms of assessment in the post. EduKare believes there are many authentic and valid forms of assessment used in schools. The idea is to leverage these to avoid massive costs and time resources to reinvent the wheel... better, faster, cheaper is the order of the day, and real-time action research oriented evaluation of practice should be done by teachers continuously so the best assessment is prominently used in the field on a perpetually improving basis.

    -Re. age vs. grade groupings... It's quite simple. EduKare believes (as do I) that kids ultimately fit best socially, emotionally and physically with age peers. By considering the grouping as age specific instead of grade level specific, we remove the issue of grade level. Kids in an EduKare age grouping format would be provided the privilege of being grouped with age appropriate peers, while at the same time receiving instruction at the appropriate cognitive level through differentiated instruction and assessment based on the teacher's knowledge of curriculum on a 13 year continuum as opposed to a one year "grade level." Do kids benefit from multi-age groupings in specific circumstances as in peer learning or mentoring? Of course, but they also will benefit from the diversity of a regular grouping presenting with varied ability levels of kids that are the same age.

    -Re. standardized tests... Didn't say anything about standardized exams. Trying hard to be apolitical about that (there are enough people going to to toe on that one already.) My point is simple; provide a 13 year continuum of carefully filtered curriculum at differentiated levels matched to kids presenting with differentiated skills in same-age groupings, and then assess them against their personal previous progress using authentic and valid assessment tools that already exist with a constant eye toward improving them (and everything else within an EduKare framework- change contextualized as constant improvement.)

    Would be great for you to red the EduKare thread on my blog, and check out the #EduKare Twitter stream as well. You may be surprised to know that you and I are not as far apart on issues as you seem to suggest in your comments.
    Cheers,
    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have read and commented on some of your earlier posts about the EDuKare system, particularly the one about using learning stories as a basis of further instruction and I know that we share many of the same concerns and views regarding teaching and learning.

    If you watch students outside of school you will see that they do not gather in single-age groups when left to their own choices so I continue to not see the value of grouping them by age in school.

    While I agree that teachers generally should be aware of more than the present year's curriculum, I think you are asking too much of any teacher when you suggest they know the curricular requirements of 13 years of schooling AND differentiate instruction sufficiently to provide appropriate instruction for students who might be anywhere along four or five years of abilities along that stretch of curricula despite being the same age as their classmates.

    I have yet to see any assessment used in school that I would generally accept as authentic in the sense that the same type of assessments are used in environments other than school. I much prefer that we drop pretensions of authenticity and worry more about validity as defined by the assessment telling us and the student useful accurate information in a timely manner.

    I look forward to reading more of your posts and learning more about the EDuKare system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beg to differ on the playground age groupings- I'm outside every day in a k-5 school... just doesn't happen. Didn't so much in HS either as I remember (seniors and freshmen? Only if they were dating, and that was a little weird too;o)

    Re. the curriculum challenge for teachers- they already have to know a good four to five year span, at least generally speaking, if they are to effectively differentiate as that's how kids are spread across within inclusive classrooms. The problem is, despite the wide range of abilities within each class, the assessment is generally the same and targeting the "grade level." Differentiating instruction and learning, and then assessing with grade level specific assessment is somewhat of a disjoint, I think. The 13 year curriculum spectrum is more a reference for teachers as it applies to each child's learning story- of course I would know nothing about 30 level physics, and on the outside chance one of my grade 5 kids did, I'd be looking for some support as a teacher on that one. I think it's entirely reasonable for teachers to have a good understanding of K-5 curriculum, however, especially if it were to be (outside of our control) filtered to include really core content that could be extended if need be utilizing the wrap-a-round services EduKare would offer.

    Re. authentic assessment... I don't define "authentic" in a school context simply to mean same outside of school. To assert that all should be "authentic" in school as determined by the degree to which things are the "same" outside of school is too simplistic IMO. To me, authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions (Wikipedia)... in other words I feel it connotes purposeful intent to derive meaning from the assessment. If it provides no such meaning, it's not authentic.
    I can't agree with you that there is no authentic assessment that exists in schools in the context that I've presented. I feel I provide authentic forms of assessment every day in my class.
    Sean

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sean,

    The point for me is that the issue is not so much what we think education should be as what it is evolving to. The evolutionary pressures are undeniable. What we can do is take out some friction and minimize the collateral human stress that is inevitably part of epoch making changes.


    What I think I see in the States is various forms of "homeschooling" as one natural end State for many. Once standards follow the student as opposed to be controlled by the school, it seems a natural.

    As Open sStandards become common place in various States, seems to me it undercuts the value of much of the USA Education Establishment.

    What I also think I see is that PYP is growing quickly in Asia and Australia. From what I've been able to glean, it seems very similar to an EduKare approach.

    Perhaps someone with direct experience of PYP might weigh in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree Michael... alas, the only constant is change.

    I would love to hear from someone with a PYP background. I am intrigued by the PYP platform, but not very knowledgeable myself about that perspective.

    ReplyDelete

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog

Labels

learning (49) teaching (45) education reform (29) authentic learning (24) students (23) effective teaching (18) school (18) EduKare (15) educational leadership (13) resiliency (13) creative teaching (11) education (11) educational change (11) perspective (11) 21st Century Learning (10) Glendale School (10) change (10) collaboration (10) school climate (10) school culture (10) support (10) creativity (9) assessment (8) caring (8) culture (8) leadership (8) teachers (8) hope (7) inquiry-based learning (7) learning circles (7) learning stories (7) professional development (7) student success (7) technology (7) technology integration (7) #edchat (6) at-risk kids (6) collaborative teaching (6) empathy (6) pre-service teachers (6) purpose (6) responsive teaching (6) #EduKare (5) Alberta Education (5) Sean Grainger (5) Twitter (5) at-risk (5) engaging (5) integrative thinking (5) mentor teachers (5) public schools (5) teach (5) teacher training (5) Bell Curve (4) beliefs (4) belonging (4) bullying (4) children (4) diversity (4) empathy reboot (4) high-stakes testing (4) learn (4) possibility (4) relationships (4) resilience (4) school leadership (4) student (4) LCU (3) action research (3) child development (3) choice (3) classroom (3) communication (3) community (3) counseling (3) debate (3) dreams (3) duty to care (3) ed reform (3) educators (3) failure (3) fun (3) growboys (3) inclusion (3) inquiry (3) interculturalism (3) kids (3) life-long learning (3) mindfulness (3) nemetics (3) pedagogy (3) professionalism (3) reflection (3) thinking differently (3) transformational leadership (3) understanding (3) #cpchat (2) #ecosys (2) #redcamp13 (2) Bloom's Taxonomy (2) Control (2) Google (2) Innovative Voices in Education- Engaging Diverse Communities (2) Moore's Law (2) PD (2) alternative teaching (2) audience (2) balance (2) behavior (2) behaviorism (2) best educational practice (2) blogging (2) boys (2) bully (2) bully prevention (2) challenge (2) change agent (2) character (2) circles (2) classroom management (2) commitment (2) competition (2) connecting with kids (2) creative (2) development (2) dialog (2) digital technology (2) disagreement (2) edcamp (2) edkare (2) education change (2) effective classrooms (2) etmooc (2) facts (2) feelings (2) formative assessment (2) future (2) goals (2) groupthink (2) growth (2) hope wheel (2) ideas (2) independent thinking (2) interdependence (2) journey (2) listening (2) mastery (2) mindful (2) morphic resonance (2) multiculturalism (2) new teachers (2) opinions (2) opportunity (2) passion (2) personal learning network (2) phenomenological (2) philosophy (2) project-based learning (2) question (2) resilient (2) resolution (2) responsibility (2) self-esteem (2) self-organized learning environments (2) servant leadership (2) share (2) social-media (2) special education (2) standardized tests (2) struggling schools (2) success (2) sympathy (2) teacher (2) teacher welfare (2) trust (2) unconditional love (2) unconference (2) university (2) values (2) vision (2) voice (2) words (2) #LCU (1) #ccunesco2014 (1) #nemetics (1) #speakchat (1) 40 Developmental Assets (1) ATLE 2010 (1) Africa (1) Black Swan (1) Brokenleg (1) Calgary Science School (1) Circle of Courage (1) ConnectED (1) Curate (1) Daniel Durant (1) Dry Island Buffalo Jump (1) FBA (1) Fouth Way (1) Geoffrey Canada (1) Grow Boys (1) Howard Gardner (1) Impact (1) Instructional leadership (1) John Dewey (1) Kathryn Schultz (1) Lao Tzu (1) MIT (1) Michael Josefowicz (1) Nunavut (1) Occam;s |Razor (1) PBL (1) PLN (1) Phoebe Prince (1) Piaget (1) Red Deer (1) SBL (1) SOLE (1) Search Institute (1) Second Way (1) Shankardass (1) TED (1) Tao Teh Ching (1) Vygotsky (1) Wangler (1) aboriginal (1) accountability (1) achievement (1) action (1) actions (1) adversity (1) anger (1) answer (1) applied behavior (1) applied research (1) apprenticeship (1) aptitude (1) aquaintances (1) at risk (1) athletics (1) authentic (1) autonomy (1) badges (1) being wrong (1) believing (1) benchmark (1) blended learning (1) blog (1) borders (1) brain research (1) budget (1) business (1) cdnedchat (1) chaos (1) character education (1) charity (1) child-development (1) clarity (1) collaborate (1) communciation (1) communicate (1) conference (1) confidence (1) conflict (1) connect (1) consciousness (1) conversation (1) cooperation (1) coordinated children's services (1) critical thinking (1) curiosity (1) curriculum (1) democracy (1) destiny (1) developmental (1) differentiated learning (1) differentiation (1) digital citizen (1) digital immigrant (1) diigo (1) dissonance (1) dyslexia (1) education innovation (1) effort (1) emotions (1) enabling (1) endogenous (1) engaged (1) engagement (1) equity (1) ethics (1) evaluation (1) excellence (1) fail (1) faith (1) fate (1) fear (1) feedback (1) feminine (1) finding voice (1) focus (1) friends (1) gender differences (1) gender identity (1) global education (1) goal setting (1) governing body (1) happy (1) hardware (1) healthy (1) heuristic (1) high school (1) higher education (1) homework (1) honesty (1) hop (1) humility (1) iconoclastic (1) imagery (1) imagination (1) improbable (1) inclusive (1) inclusive education (1) indigenous knowledge (1) innovation (1) inspiration (1) instinctual (1) interdependent (1) internalize (1) internship (1) interpersonal (1) intuitive (1) knowledge (1) lacrosse (1) leading (1) leaps of faith (1) learning circle (1) learning disabilities (1) learning disorders (1) learning from place (1) learning goals (1) learning spaces (1) learning story (1) learning styles (1) learning tools (1) lecture (1) library (1) lifelong-learning (1) limits (1) literacy (1) lobby (1) management (1) masculine (1) math (1) medicine wheel (1) men (1) mentorship (1) micro-blogging (1) mindfullness (1) mission (1) mistakes (1) morals (1) motivation (1) navigate (1) negative reinforcement (1) network (1) networking (1) new year resolution (1) objective (1) open education (1) open-source (1) operant conditioning (1) outcomes (1) overcome (1) pass (1) patience (1) polarity (1) positive (1) positive reinforcement (1) positivity (1) positve dissonance (1) postmodern (1) poverty (1) power point (1) practice (1) pride (1) private logic (1) productivity (1) professional organization (1) progression (1) questioning. Socrates (1) rally (1) rationalization (1) rdcrd (1) rdpsd (1) re-frame (1) re-tool (1) reality (1) receive (1) reclaim (1) redcamp15 (1) relative (1) relevance (1) research (1) rest (1) revolution (1) ritual (1) routine (1) scholar (1) scholarship (1) sciences (1) scrutiny (1) self-determination (1) self-help (1) significance (1) silence (1) simple (1) sincerity (1) skate park (1) skateboard (1) smile (1) socialize (1) society (1) software (1) solution-focused (1) speaking (1) sport (1) standards-based learning (1) stories (1) strangers (1) strengths (1) stress (1) student engagement (1) sustainability (1) synergy (1) taking risk (1) talking (1) tangibility (1) targets (1) teaching. learning (1) textbooks (1) thinking skills (1) thought (1) thoughts (1) trans-species (1) transference (1) tribes (1) unconditioned response (1) unconditioned stimulus (1) universal (1) urban gardening (1) urban schools (1) victim (1) visceral (1) wellness (1) wisdom (1) work (1) work week (1) worksheets (1) writing (1)