Assessment reform... are we going in circles?

I'm admittedly torn about the assessment thing... I'm left wondering whether opposition to perpetual reform of how teachers assess students is based more on a lack of understanding and poorly communicated strategy than fear or top-down direction to the contrary. Teachers need to find balance between high-quality current assessment practise, and action-oriented efforts to make future practise even better.

At the core of professional, responsible assessment is really strong and meaningful (real-time) communication (feedback) with students. Effective and solidly researched assessment practise (portfolio-based, two-way dialog between teacher and learner... group dialog has a place here as well- and perhaps even peer evaluation) is nothing new. Like many logical and pedagogically sound improvements to what teachers do, when we think we've discovered something new, some immediately and inevitably begin to resist out of ignorance. Seems to me the assessment issue is a black swan- we think we've discovered 'new' and better ways to assess students, and now we're busy aggressively trying to justify them and convince our colleagues that they need to follow our lead and implement the same assessment strategies because they are more effective than those that the "uninformed" utilize.

For decades, teachers have been doing assessment in relatively the same manner- summative, high stakes, 'bell-curved' tests have been the norm for a long time... and that's OK because these were what defined the limits of our understanding about how best to provide useful and positive feedback to students. Few would have predicted we would find better ways to evaluate students, (if the case were otherwise, it would have happened sooner...) but the reality is that today, we know more about how assessment works. Teachers don't have to justify pedagogically sound and responsible assessment, they just need to do it. Simply practising research-based, effective and meaningful assessment of students that surpasses previously-held understanding of what "works" is the best way to communicate best-practise with our colleagues...  morphic resonance will take care of the rest.

Teachers are professionally obliged to perpetually seek improved ways to do everything we do... including assessing students. Even more importantly, we are professionally responsible to share what we discover with others meaningfully, pragmatically and incrementally. The tipping point of assessment reform depends on how well we can display the effectiveness of new ways to evaluate students over time; and it will take time. It will also depend on our avoiding getting stuck in any "new" way of doing assessment. Like our limited perspective and conditioned acceptance regarding traditional forms of student assessment that have permeated our craft for decades, if we were to begin doing assessment differently, and then become resistant to critical analysis leading to even better ways, we'd right back where we started, wouldn't we?

I'm growing weary once again of the dichotomous perspective teachers appear to default toward on so many issues. There's the "old" way of doing something, and then there's the new (right) way according to the person making the claim. Instead of the old vs. new way of doing assessment, I think teachers should simply always be looking for the better way. To deny that this is a good, professional perspective would be ridiculous.

Change doesn't have to delineate right vs. wrong ways of doing things. When viewed as constant improvement, change never ends, and things never stop improving because getting it right simply becomes making it better... everyday. There are no meaningful static goals in the education assessment realm. To be truly striving for excellence, the bar must be continuously inched upward.

Pay attention to those who disagree with you...

flickr cc image via mwlguide

"The only things Mick and I disagree about is the band, the music and what we do." Kieth Richards

There are three types of people we all interact with on a daily basis: strangers, acquaintances and friends. We see them at work, at play and often just pass them by as we go about our business. There is a quantum nature to our interactions with others, and we never really know where they will take us as we navigate each day. There are some elements to the relationships we develop that need to be considered carefully if we are to avoid unproductive or perhaps even debilitating interactions with others. One rule of thumb I go by is to simply be aware that strangers dismiss, acquaintances agree and friends question. Please, let me explain...

Strangers are those whom we have no direct connection to. We may sit beside them on the transit, pass them by on the street or perhaps buy something from them, but we don't really communicate with them beyond the artificial surface-level "how are you doing" type of exchange. We interact, then we dismiss each other.

Acquaintances are those whom we have an ongoing connection to. They are our co-workers, friends-of-friends or those whom we see regularly because our daily goings on share a common element. We communicate more regularly with acquaintances, but it doesn't generally advance beyond small talk designed to pass the time without much thought of deeper meaning or more involved dialog. We interact, and just agree with each other... we don't want to think too much.

"Nine out of ten Americans believe that out of ten people, one person will always disagree with the other nine!"

Colin Mochrie

Friends are those whom we have a deeper connection to; they are the inner circle of our tribe. We may not communicate with them regularly, but we never lose our bond with each other. Something in our past has strengthened our relationship to the point where we consider each other as confidants; those willing to listen to us and support us. We interact in deeper more involved ways, and as a result there is occasional conflict involved... but this is good. This is what makes friends so much more valuable to us than acquaintances or strangers.

Friends are those who will call us out when we are on the wrong track. Friends are those who don't let us get away with anything- they hold us to a higher standard. The most important role of a friend is to disagree with us. Friends take the time to critically analyze us, and they can because they know us well. They take the time to scrutinize our actions, feelings and words because they care about us and they care what we do. Even if we become annoyed or upset with our friends as a result of their scrutiny, we must remember that they care and that makes them who they are- people who support us by grounding, balancing and questioning our actions feeling and words.

"The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know." Napoleon Bonaparte

Pay attention to those who disagree with you... these people are your friends and they see something in you that you may not see yourself- a person that can be better.

Too much social, not enough media...

OK, I've been thinking about the value of online collaboration lately. For the record, I really, really like #edchat. In fact I am fond of chiming in at a number of Twitter-based online collaborations... #ecosys, #ptchat, #gtchat and more. I appreciate the professional value of these online networks relative to sharing ideas and furthering the improvement of anything to do with teaching and learning... but, there is an issue.

I've been using Twitter to build my cyber-PLN (personal learning network) since late last November, and I'm beginning to notice that occasionally the conversation surrounding teaching and learning becomes imbalanced; too much social and not enough media in social media. Let me explain the context...

'Social' for the purpose of relaying my point of view here will mean, "of the group." 'Media' in kind, will mean, "a means of communication." It's my impression at times when involved in Twitter chats that some people participate more for the social element of it than the media element; primarily to be part of the group. Don't get me wrong; there's nothing inherently damaging about socializing, but when the social environment and the seemingly overwhelming need for some to preserve it, hinders open and honest dialog about the issues being addressed, this means the scales have tipped to create an imbalance between socializing and communicating professionally. I see an increasingly prevalent level of groupthink out there in Twitterland, and it's bothering me a bit. Like Professional Learning Communities (PLC's... we love our acronyms don't we...) my understanding is that the most prominent element of a PLN needs to be learning. If learning isn't happening as the major element of our professional social media interaction, then it's just socializing; again, not inherently bad, but also not productive with regard to becoming a better teacher and learner.

I don't go to professional chats to socialize per se... I go to learn- that's the essence of professional development; the reason I think we all participate via Twitter in the first place- to develop ourselves professionally. Its like those who call going out for a refreshment with coworkers on a Friday after work "team-building"- this is fun for most, and I would even submit that you may get to know your co-workers better as a result, but in the context of team-building, there is no benefit... the function of the team is not strengthened by this activity, hence it's not team-building. If I'm going to involve myself in professional conversation using Twitter (and the group chats that occur there) as my conduit, then I am professionally responsible to do this intellectually and with purpose beyond simply belonging to a group of like-minded people. I love the original version of "Twelve Angry Men"... Henry Fonda's character, Mr. Davis is the only juror in a capital murder case to cast a not-guilty vote for the accused, and he sticks to his guns despite the intense groupthink efforts of the rest of the jury to sway him... a remarkable film broaching human nature in such a visceral way- highly recommended. We all need to be reminded of the Mr. Davis' of the world, and when we're feeling the peer pressure of any group to conform at the expense of our core beliefs just so we can continue to belong in that group, we need to step back and remember our responsibility to be true to ourselves, even if that means disagreeing with the direction the group is pulling us in. We need to think independently first if we are to make a meaningful contribution to any group.

As professionals who use Twitter as a conduit for collaborative idea jamming, we must avoid groupthink. I don't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with me... I prefer conversations where agreement is a distant possibility because its dissonance that stretches people's thoughts, not conformity. Through the process of hashing about our theses and antithesis toward that distant possibility called synthesis, we grow ideas; we formulate potential and truly evolve understanding. Many profess to appreciate having their ideas stretched until someone disagrees with them; then their true nature is revealed through defensive lashing out at the contradictory person. We have to get past this tendency to take things personally and strive for a default position that takes an objective point of view toward dissonance; one that posits conceptual growth... the evolution of ideas is impossible without contradiction. Blindly accepting the ideas of any group/cohort/ movement/etc... is a recipe for stagnating ideology... dead-end thinking.

Teachers, lets act objectively and responsibly toward the sharing of ideas and professional collaboration. We can't grow our status as leaders of thought otherwise... we have to be true intellectuals; people who invite contradiction as challenge leading to deeper and fuller understanding... aka knowledge.

Feel free to disagree with me;o)

You can teach an old dog new tricks...

Although I completely get that our children are growing up in a digital age that is vastly different and more advanced than any other widely accessible technology we have previously seen in society, I am growing weary of the whole "digital citizens/digital immigrants" continuum. Let me tell you why.

We recently bought new net-books for our children. My son is particularly interested in computers, and we are actively encouraging his interest. He is a very smart kid, but the traditional school environment isn't really working for him, so we're working on connecting him with different forms of digital interaction so as he grows perhaps he will migrate toward his aptitude for tech integrated learning. He's super excited about the new blog we're building together, the gaming he's getting involved in and different forms of social media software like Skype, Twitter etc.

This evening, one of the coolest things happened. I've been communicating with my grandfather for years now via Skype. Originally from Saskatchewan, he now lives in Ottawa. My grandfather is an electrician by trade, and worked for years with Saskatchewan Power Corporation, so he has some really strong mechanical understanding and worked with analog computers in his role as an operator with Sask. Power, but it wasn't until I sent him an old HP computer we had replaced about 9 years ago that he began tinkering with digital technology. That's also when we started communicating via Skype. When the kids were babies we used to hold them up in front of the web camera so my grandfather could see them and talk to them. They have grown up with this, and they love to visit with their grampa in this manner. Tonight was the first time my son spoke with his great grandfather on his brand new net-book, and he was thrilled... it was touching for his mom and I to see him get so excited about what he was doing. The happiness on his face as he spoke to his Grampa Woods using this tool that he has always known, but never manipulated personally was obvious.

So here's why I'm weary about the digital native/digital immigrant continuum. This evening I witnessed the joy of two people... a ninety-two year old man, and a seven year old boy... as they manipulated a tech tool to digitally connect with each other. My grandfather was born in 1918. Certainly that must place him in the digital immigrant cohort. Think about it... he has lived to see the evolution of the motor age, the age of flight and the video age. He told me once that when televisions became widely available and he got his first in the 1950's, he wondered if there would ever be a day when he would be able to talk with people on the telephone and see their face on some sort of TV-like screen. Well today he did just that, and on his computer screen were the happy faces of a couple of digital citizens- his great grandchildren.

How cool is that?

Worksheets are to learning as junkfood is to eating...

With special thanks to Lisa Butler (via Twitter @SrtaLisa) for creating this poster, I'd like to further the thoughts behind the quote.

This quote (in the form of a tweet) garnered 22 re-tweets; a record for me;o) The simple message seemed to resonate with people, and I was happy about that. The idea for the quote came to me after visiting two distinctly different grocery vendors on the same day in my home town.

Where I live, people have been enjoying the ambiance of our local farmer's market for over forty years. A stroll down the aisles of this HUGE outdoor market on a sunny Saturday morning... the sights, sounds and smells welcoming you from all sides... is one of my families absolute favorite things to do in spring, summer and fall. It's a multi-sensory experience that just feels right. We eat fresh cooked breakfast there; we sample and buy fresh produce and other natural products like honey and soap; we listen to cultural musicians and we occasionally buy stuff that catches our eyes for the kids, or for our home... there is no end to the supply of unique and interesting clothing, art, nostalgia, furniture, greenery etc. We could spend all day there, but alas, the market moves on to the next town around noon, and we go on with the rest of our day.

A couple of weeks ago we left the farmer's market and went to a local big-box retailer to purchase some party supplies for my daughter's birthday party. As we walked through the doors of this massive building it just hit me. You know how that happens... like a big old wind that comes out of nowhere and startles you with its strength... I was completely taken aback. Fresh from my visceral and fulfilling morning at the farmer's market, I knew my big-box experience was going to be less than memorable.

The farmer's market is so vivid, so stimulating to the senses, that its impossible to feel rushed. Every modality is firing on all cylinders there- you feel alive and receptive; in the here and now. Coupled with the fact that virtually every item for sale at the market is produced naturally, by hand in an organic and particular way, the farmer's market experience becomes so meaningful and mindful; the two words I use to describe an authentic environment.

On the contrary, the big-box environment is filled with stuff too, but it hits you in a vastly different manner. There are no smells in the big-box store beyond the air-freshener aisle. Everything just sits on shelves within the same packaging it left the factory. There's no sound beyond the whirling of shopping carts and the odd "cleanup on aisle 8" intercom announcements in the big-box store. In the grocery section there was no fresh produce in sight... as I walked up and down the aisles I felt rather unstimulated and distant... and I know why. The big-box store was the antithesis of what I call an authentic environment. That's when the analogy hit me.

The farmer's market and the big-box store both provided me with an opportunity to get stuff I needed (even if I didn't realize I needed it until I got there;o) That's where the similarity ends though. At the market, high-quality, organic and creatively manufactured products are sold in a wonderfully stimulating environment that peaks the senses in a way that would affect even the most unreceptive patron... that's just the way it is. In the big-box store, prepackaged, mass-produced chemically-altered products of marginal quality are sold in a glorified warehouse that is about as inviting to the senses as the industrial plants the products were manufactured within.

It's hard for teachers not to draw parallels between their in, and out-of-school experiences... enter my thoughts about authentic teaching and learning environments. The market was like an authentic classroom... hitting all the sensory targets with creative, meaningful and purposeful activities... the classroom where students and teachers feel a sense of discovery and wonderment... where the experience is remembered because it was enjoyable and stimulating to the mind, body and spirit.

The big-box was like an inauthentic classroom environment... hitting none of the sensory targets as a result of under-stimulating, prescribed activities with little relevance to the learner... the environment where the answers are already provided (curriculum) and everyone is busy trying to make up the questions to match them.The first example of a "learning activity" I thought of that undeniably represents this sort of environment was the infamous worksheet... hence the quote.

The pre-packaged, chemically-altered junk we buy at bog-box stores, like the worksheets teachers use in school, fill us up to be sure, but not with anything good. Let's move away from the easy 'drop a worksheet on the desk' mentality and start letting kids fill themselves up with questions instead of answers, and lets make sure that the classroom environments we create look, sound and feel more like the metaphoric farmer's market than the big-box store.