“Understanding by Design is predicated on the idea that
life-long achievement gains are more likely when teachers teach for
understanding of transferable content and processes while giving learners
multiple opportunities to apply their understanding in meaningful contexts.”
I like this quote for the sheer fact that it sums up the
ideas in the readings quite nicely, as it really is all about “life-long”
processes. Actually, if you go back to
the Wilhelm chapters we read, there is that word, lifelong, right on the cover.
When I read that the first time, I thought of what a huge concept lifelong is. What is
interesting is that I haven’t really heard concept before this class,
the idea that we should really be teaching students not to just succeed in our class, or even school in general, but throughout their entire
life. What these readings basically are saying is that when my students leave
this class, the ultimate goal is to give them the tools they need to not only write
a well-organized and structured analytical essay, but also think about why
they should master the skills of being able to analyze and apply them
to the real world, not just to Huckleberry Finn. If that’s not a daunting task, I don’t
know what is.
This transfers into a heavy emphasis on assessment, both internally and state-wide, as we now have to make sure that the “enduring understanding” goal that we created out of the standards is on its way to being met. Figure 1.4 gives a list of assessment types, which is of course is an essential tool, but which ones work the best? How much should I vary my assessment strategy? I attended a conference this weekend and one of the sessions was “focused “on the Common Core and PARCC. I placed the word focused in quotations because I was a little disappointed the way the conference turned out. My presumptions were that we would go through some of the standards and look at big picture ideas and instructional design that will teach those big ideas, but those presumptions may have been grounded in the readings I did the night before. Instead, perhaps because the conference was only an hour and a half and the topic so large, we were not really able to dig deep into either, but it was evident that the presenters, both of whom played a major role in the development of the CCSS and are working with PARCC representatives currently, are unhappy with how PARCC is being implemented.
There was a lot of talk of how computerized it is, how much
of it early indications are show, and how rigorous it is appearing to be. I
mean, they showed us an example of a third-grade level question, and I was
shocked at how difficult and demanding it was. THIRD GRADE!!! Now, they only
scratched the surface of the ideas surrounding PARCC, and I’m curious as to
learn more. There was a question brought up however, and it surrounds the idea
of differentiation and how it applies to assessment. Should we differentiate
it? If so, how extreme? One woman, a Special Education instructor at the fine
college of Rhode Island asked me my stance on this and my thinking then and
still now after doing some pondering, is that by differentiating instruction we
could possibly be walking on eggshells. Students take assessment very
seriously, as they know it has the biggest impact on their grade. The
environment and spectacle of a “test,” is really an intense one for a student.
Imagine what student reaction would be if because Billy is a kinesthetic learner,(
he doesn’t have a IEP, I just know he responds better to hands-on learning) he
can take a test more suitable to his learning style, while the others take a
different version. Billy gets an A, they get a lower grade. Wouldn’t they get
upset? She didn’t get the chance to respond, but considering how much importance
these readings place on assessment, as well as our understanding that all of
our students learn differently, do you think there should be a movement towards
differentiated assessment?
The points you make about differentiated assessments are extremely important. I can see how different forms of a similar test could be difficult to explain in the classroom, but we know from our education classes that differentiation allows a sort of "leveled playing field". In high school, I had a class where my teachers actually handed out a list of options for an end-of-the-quarter project. The tasks ranged from filming a video to writing an essay and students could pick the project they wanted to complete. It was great to have a choice in the type of project, but I look back and wonder how teachers could possibly grade the different mediums. You can't compare a video to an essay (not that teachers should compare students work when grading anyway) and there would have to be either separate rubrics or a very vague rubric that encompasses every choice. The bottom line is that differentiated assessments require more work and preparation from the teachers.
ReplyDeleteI know that you are looking more at the state-wide testing issue, and I personally think that portfolios or presentations would be more beneficial. There are a few schools in Rhode Island that focus on fieldwork in the community and students present their findings through portfolios and presentations. This helps the students to experiences real-life skills like writing a professional email, talking on the phone, and making connections with potential employers. I don't think that state testing will be removed, but I think we need to start moving towards individualized testing, rather than a concrete standardized test.