Let me paint a scene for you: “Line up outside - no talking. When you come inside, put your phone in a basket at the front of the room. Sit down at your seat, not too close to anyone else. A Scantron and a test booklet will be passed out to you shortly - don’t touch them until I say so. You have exactly 50 minutes to complete your 60 question exam. No talking, keep your eyes on your own desk, raise your hand if you have a question. If you must go to the bathroom, you will leave your Scantron and test booklet with me. Tests will be graded by the end of the day and your final course grade will be riding on this exam.”
Does this sound familiar? This scene was based on my final chemistry exam day, but I bet you were imagining a personal experience of your own. When asked to think about my worst assessment, memories of long nights studying, mornings filled with stress, anxiety, and anticipation, and mere moments before high school exams came flooding back into mind. As I was picking through the pile of horrible assessments, trying to give one the title of “Worst Assessment Ever”, I found that these high school exams all had one thing in common: structure. What makes an assessment bad isn’t the teacher, the content, or the preparation. Bad assessments sprout from bad structures and the standard high school exams are notorious for the identical bad structure. The exams lack humanity, personality, individuality, and character. They are dry, unmemorable, and many times downright frustrating. The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines outline three standards for learning: providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2018). When utilized correctly, the goals of these guidelines is to produce learners who are purposeful and motivated, resourceful and knowledgeable, and strategic and goal-directed. I can confidently state that my final chemistry exam did not produce any of the above in myself as a learner. So, what did this exam (and the hundreds like it) accomplish? The teacher was able to tell how well her students could memorize facts, test each student in identical formats, and eliminate any potential bias in her grading. But this exam did not provide differentiation in enegagement, representation, or action and expression and completely missed the mark on UDL Guidelines. My class could have been assessed in limitless other formats (cumulative project, recreate a lesson, fishbowl discussion, real-world applications, etc) which would have more potential to meet the UDL Guidelines, but this teacher defaulted to the same dry exam format. As I have grown in my understanding of the pressures and constraints teachers are placed under, I have learned to give my teachers more grace when critiquing their courses. I want to emphasize that this teacher was a phenomenal professional, and I had many positive learning experiences in her classroom. My previous critiques are focused on the assessment as a product, and not on the teacher as a person. In certain cases, the standard “Scantron and test booklet” exam may be the best possible option for assessment, but even within these rote exams it is important to give students the best possible opportunity for success and learning. Incorporating the aforementioned UDL Guidelines provides this option for students and student success. References: Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (n.d.). UDL Guidelines. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/
0 Comments
The phrase “high stakes assessment” can bring up a range of emotions for many learners. Most people have had a plethora of bad experiences with tests, or assessments, throughout their education. But what about the assessments that are done right? These instances should hold just as much importance as the assessments that are done wrong.
One instance of a really good assessment that sticks out to me is a project I completed in my final year of my undergraduate education. This project was a “Microteaching Assignment” which assessed three other peers and I on our ability to research and understand content, create an equitable and accessible learning experience, and incorporate proper pedagogical strategies. Looking back on this project, although I did not have the precise name for it, the TPACK framework (Mishra, & Koehler, 2006) was seamlessly present throughout the lesson. My peers and I combined our technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge to create a robust lesson for our peers. So, what made this assessment so good? To begin, it was assessed qualitatively and took into account peer input, teacher feedback, and audience experience. The format of the assessment had a general outline and key components we had to include, but it could be molded into a final product that worked for each individual group. This placed the emphasis on the learning experience rather than the checklist of test items. The assessment was high stakes, but low pressure which allowed my peers and I to present to the best of our ability as well. The way this assessment was so open ended fought the “Unequal by Design” phenomenon as described by Au (2008). I want to emphasize a few points here that are critical in understanding why and how this assessment was facilitated.
My Lesson Plan My Visual Aids References: Au, W. (2008). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Manifesto for Online Learning
Teaching and facilitating are not the same Online teachers are teachers online. Online teachers are not facilitators, and facilitators are not teachers. Teachers have the job of teaching content, incorporating differentiation, proper pedagogical strategies, and customizing their teaching approaches to meet learner needs. A facilitator merely facilitates learning. They can be seen as more of a formality rather than a necessity, and if you take away the facilitator, the same learning could still be achieved. While learning can happen through a student-facilitator relationship, a proper online classroom is not composed of students and a facilitator, but rather students and a teacher. Teachers are professional experts in the art of teaching, and not just subject matter experts. The “lernification” phenomenon paints teachers as subject matter experts and students as autonomous learners, almost independent of one another. The threat of online learning is placing “teacher subject expertise and critical professional judgment in the background of educational practice” (Bayne, Sian, et al., 2020). This approach to ‘teaching’ places the subject matter expert at the center of the classroom, rather than focusing on “the growing expertise of the students”(Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J., 2018) and customizing the learning experience for their increased growth. Facilitators know content and can present it clearly. Facilitation of content is seen in youtube videos, mass online courses, and podcasts. Teachers, though, are master pedagogues and “their knowledge of the discipline and their knowledge of pedagogy interact” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2000) to produce a true learning environment. Due to their structure, online courses can easily face the threat of facilitation, and what could have been a true online classroom, can quickly turn into an online dump of knowledge. Quality online education is not “one size fits all” There is a lack of individualization in many online courses. They can be created largely for the general public, without consideration of unique learners. As with any course designed for a high volume of learners, there is minimal room for individualization. Massified online courses present themselves similar to massified in-person courses. While the 500-person lecture can be a convenient way for universities to deliver content to a large number of students in a timely and cost-effective manner, the education these learners receive is not going to be comparable to the education they would receive in a smaller 20-30 person classroom. The teachers in these large courses are reduced to facilitators, and students can quickly become just a number. To even come close to touching a sense of individualized learning, courses must incorporate smaller recitations, which can be difficult to facilitate in mass online education. In general, “massified higher education cannot, in many instances, be experienced as intimate”(Bayne, Sian, et al., 2020). Courses developed for the general public can be used as a wonderful supplement for learners who are looking for a convenient learning experience, but without the ability to customize the course to the learner’s needs, these online courses fall short for many students. While there may be structured opportunities for engagement with peers and / or the instructor, the overall outline of mass online courses have little room for flexibility in pedagogy and engagement opportunities that many learners need in order to thrive. So, the real issue here isn’t with online education as a whole, but rather with massified learning. The unfortunate reality is that many online courses are created for public use, and in turn lack the quality of in-person individualized learning. Online courses that are provided in a smaller environment, mimicking the structure of small in-person courses can still provide the one-on-one and specialized instruction that many students seek. Educational technology raises and resolves constraints of education simultaneously In recent years, the rise of online education has proven to be a tremendous solution to many issues presented in K-12 and higher education. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the world started to embrace online learning and educational technology as a solution to many of their problems. Students were able to learn from the safety of their homes, as teachers discovered ways to transition their content from in-person, to online. While the implementation of online learning and a broader educational technology toolkit resolved the immediate problem at hand, teachers uncovered new problems not present before implementing these new technologies. Teachers found that technology “has great potential to enhance student achievement and teacher learning, but only if it is used appropriately”(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2000). In other words, educational technology comes with its own constraints, and isn’t a magical fix to all problems faced in the classroom. There are really unique affordances of educational technology and online learning, but these tools must be looked at with a critical eye. “Trying to make an online class function exactly like an on-ground class is a missed opportunity”(Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J., 2018). Knowing where your technology falls flat, and not trying to ignore these constraints, but rather using its affordances to your advantage can provide students with an unmatched educational experience. Educational technology is not meant to replace traditional education. When used appropriately and in combination with proper instruction, teachers and students can maximize its potential. References Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Pressbooks. Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O'Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., & Sinclair, C. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. |
Welcome!Sit back, relax, and enjoy (or don't, up to you)! Archives
August 2023
Categories |