Synthesis Theme 5: Standards, Measurement and Testing

The standardized testing debate has been going on for a long time and I don’t see it getting better anytime soon or any conclusion reached either.  Amanda, who commented on my blog post, made some really good points. It seems that the standardized test are just data collection tools that students do not see the importance of.  They are used as “weapons” against teachers so the teachers care more about the test that the students who do not seen any purpose for them unless they are motivated by their score.  Those students who are from certain family backgrounds or low socioeconomic status are not going to be motivated by their score as they are not motivated by grades so why should they do well on this test that means absolutely nothing to them. What if the test were used to identify the gaps and determine course placement for the coming year or who needed to be pulled out for additional assistance so they could make up the gaps.  In my former district we began using the Iowa Assessment Data to determine who would be placed in a Second Chance Reading course.  Students began to take the test very seriously rather than be put in a reading course.  More than anything it shows to the students that these test are important and we are using these to identify skills gaps and then helping those students close the gaps.  

I do believe that standardized testing can have a place I am just not sure we are using the testing correctly at this point.  

Theme 5: Standards, Measurement and Testing

I was enthused by this themes topic on standards, measurement and testing as this is an area I feel very passionate about have a deep interest in.  I was disappointed that some of the readings were not very current but the TED Talk by Ken Robinson was exactly what I was looking for.  Robinson argues that we have been educated to be “good workers rather than creative thinkers”.  "We are educating people out of their creativity," Robinson says.  Robinson outlines 3 principles that allow individuals to flourish and yet these principles can be a rare thing in public education.  Principle 1 talks about how people are naturally different and diverse yet it seems to me that we are delivering a one size fits all education.  Principle 2 talks about the people being curious and that makes people learn without assistance.  This is where the major change is taking place in education a teachers are not to teach but to facilitate learning so students can be curious and curious about different things.  When things I was not expecting was Robinson to say that standardized testing was acceptable as long as it did not interfere with learning.  Yes we are locked in a constant fight about standardized testing and the benefits and pitfalls but if standardized testing is done right it can be a useful tool to measure outcomes but it should not be used to measure the quality of the teacher or provide the only picture into what a students has learned.  Principle 3 says that people are naturally creative but we are so focused on teaching the standards that we do not allow students to be creative.  So what this means for classrooms is that me must make education more individualised to the interest and curiosity of the learner.  In the article Creative Thinking in the Classroom by Robert Sternberg, Sternberg says there are 3 main aspects for creative thinking, synthesis, analytical and practical.  Sternberg argues that most schooling is centered around the analytical and that in order for schools to allow for creative thinking they must find a healthy balance between the three, he refers to it as the “triarchic theory”.   Synthetic is where students can generate their own ideas and redefine problems.  Analytical allows for judgement of one's own ideas and identification of strengths and weaknesses.  Practical is the ability to apply intellectual skills in everyday settings.  These three things need to be balanced in order to have true creative thinking in education and can come from things like Project Based Learning.  I really believe that the lack of creativity in public education has what has led America to be passed up by other countries in the the areas of science and engineering.    

Ted Robinson also has a great TED Talk on killing creativity.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html?qsha=1&utm_expid=166907-20&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ted.com%2F

Synthesis Theme 4: Curriculum Creation

In my synthesis this week I want to respond to the questions that a couple people who commented presented me with.   What inspired me to develop a richer curriculum is when I looked at my classroom one day and realized they were all bored. Heck I was bored.  After I gave the same lecture for the 4th time in one day and watch students copy down the same notes so they could memorize the same boring facts I really wondered what kind of teacher I was.  When our school district embarked on a mission to compare opur curriculum against Daggott’s 4 quadrants or rigor, relevance and relationships I realized nothing I was doing in class we what Daggott referred to as Quadrant D work.  This Quadrant represented coursework that was done at the highest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy and applicable to real world unpredictable situations.  I think if someone wants to develop a deeper richer curriculum the place to start is with Daggott’s 4 Quadrant work.  While I embrace Doll’s 4 R’s I think to have something to measure your current curriculum and lessons against to actually see how rich they are you need a tool like Daggott’s 4 Quadrants in order to assess lessons.  I thinks Doll’s 4 R’s would be great conversation starters for interdisciplinary work.  Presently I am not involved in interdisciplinary work but a truly rich curriculum would have those connections between subject areas.  Where you have to start is a curriculum map so that each content area can see what is being taught when in each subject area.  There is some curriculum mapping software that each teacher enters what content they are teaching when, all in a large spreadsheet intended so that each principal knows what is being taught each month in the building.  What if this tool was also available for teachers to see opportunities for interdisciplinary work? What is besides subject alike professional learning community meetings they were cross content.  So PLC meetings with say 9th grade science, language arts,  social studies, math and art.  There goal was to create one project for the year or semester that was cross curricular.  The possibilities for cross content is endless if the right base is provided.  I do believe that before cross curricular can happen rich curriculum within the each individual content or teachers classroom must be developed first.  

Theme 4: Curriculum Creation

Much focus has been given over the past several years to the 3 R’s - Rigor, Relevance and Relationships -  created by William Daggett, but I was very unfamiliar with the 4 R’s.  These ideas are very progressive and could serve as a great model.  Tyler’s 4 principles has pre-set ideas goals and/or purpose, methods and then evaluation.  While not a wrong model Doll Jr. saw how the revision of Tyler’s principles would fit a more post-modern model of education.  The R that most grabbed my attention was the Richness.  As I look back on the curriculum that I taught 5 years ago this is what was missing.  I was teaching a curriculum with no depth.  It was meaningless to students and allowed for very little dialogue that Doll Jr. says is needed in a rich curriculum.  This is because there was too much on the “curriculum” plate so that the depth could not be there for fear we wouldn’t get it all covered.  I love that Doll Jr. places significance on richness as the deep rich conversations that my students have about things like stem cells, cancer and brain research as far more important than memorizing the parts of the cell.  So in preparing this blog post I googled “richness in curriculum” and actually found a university that has a Richness in Thought graduation requirement.  This is how they described it, “Through this component you’ll develop keen insights and a deep understanding of literary works, mathematical models and artistic vision. It will enable you to debate definitions and articulate differences in thought or action. As a result you’ll have a better understanding of the diversities of human experiences”, Susquehanna University .  I thought this was a great description of what exactly I am trying to do with my students when I try to make the curriculum richer.  Recursive also really grabbed my attention as I see more and more blogging and electronic portfolios as summative assessments.  I really like the idea of blogging and recently attended a conference where one school was having students start blogs at 2nd grade and keep the same blog through 12th grade.   Research shows that student reflection is a great tool for assessment of learning and learners can see their own strengths and weaknesses.  After students see their weaknesses they know what they need to improve on and can focus on that in their learning and relearning. In Daggetts model the relationship piece is about establishing relationships with students but Doll Jr. has a different perspective on relations as it pertains to curriculum.  I see how Relations directly relates to Richness.  As more connections are made between topics, the curriculum and conversations become deeper and richer.  I believe that the Rigor comes from the Richness, but also that the Richness provides the Rigor.  I think some teachers still define Rigor as how many difficult formulas or math problems they can make students do or memorize and it infuriates me.  To me the Rigor comes from the deep conversations where students must make arguments, connections, reflections and solve problems.  I was excited about the 4 R’s and instead of analyzing lessons by Daggett’s 3 R’s we need to have more lessons analyzed against the 4 R’s.  

http://www.learningnetwork.ac.nz/shared/professionalReading/WATTS1.pdf

http://education.apple.com/acot2/curriculum/