As an EFL/ESL educator, what issues do you face?

A five-day academic writing workshop starts January 11, 2016!

A five-day workshop begins January 11, 2016, and will be conducted face to face via this wiki.  The through-line question that underpins the pedagogical aspects of teaching and learning academic writing is as follows:

As an EFL/ESL educator, what issues do you face?

Participants of this workshop will be asked to develop a thesis around this essential question as they develop an argument with supporting claims and logical reasoning patterns. Join us!

Navigation: Day 1>Day 2>Day 3>Day 4>Day 5

Going Gradeless vs. Formative and Summative Assessment

Attribution

I came across Edchat Interactive (#edchat) and the Starr Sackstein Edchat Interactive webinar where Sackstein shared many great ideas about the importance of formative assessment in formal educational contexts. I certainly agree with the various ways formative assessment allows learners to take ownership of the learning process.  Clearly, formative assessment (over summative assessment) should be the main focus when providing the kinds of feedback that allow students to transform into more competent individuals. But after having watched the webinar - which touched on topics few would disagree with (and not having read Hacking Assessment: 10 Ways to Go Gradeless in a Traditional Grades School) - I felt there was a missed opportunity to touch on more issue-based (or practical based) concepts that stem from the title of her book.

What grabbed my attention before having watched the webinar was the part of the book title, 10 Ways to go Gradeless in a Traditional Grades School.  So, going into the webinar, I expected to hear about how summative assessment (via grades) would not be used at all. I quickly learned while watching the webinar that grades were in fact used in her classes by having students grade themselves.  Also, at 42:25, she says she, "...hates to teach to the test", which is really a false argument against a thesis that grades should not be used in class at all.  In other words, tests can be useful in class without teaching to the test, aka dynamic assessment. Regardless, I get the impression that Sackstein is currently using summative assessment in class in the form of student self assessments and perhaps a final test at the end of the course?  If this is true, then this would seem to be counter to the book's thesis, going gradeless... 

The would have been interesting to hear Sackstein's perspective on the following questions:

• How does she and each of her students negotiate the final grade for the course?
• How does she resolve any differences in opinion between her and a student when negotiating the final grade for the course?
• Are individual assignments, products, projects, etc. negotiated as well?  Do they receive a grade for each of these or just a final grade at the end of the course?
• Is she really going gradeless if students are giving themselves a grade?
• Does peer assessment play any role in the overall assessment approach?
• How does she reconcile aligning assessments with both course goals and individual goals students set for themselves (assuming students set goals for themselves)?
• What role does technology play in how assessment emerges both in and outside of class?

Again, the topics Sackstein bring up in the webinar are timely and relevant to today's standard-based testing environment, but I couldn't quite connect the dots between the book title and the webinar. And, I also felt that she was for the most part, preaching to the choir. A (future) webinar on the above questions, taking on a more practical discussion, would be helpful is better understanding the important relationship between formative and summative assessment in formal education.

Space Between

Today, I began discussing sonnets with my writing class and developed this example as a guide....

Space Between

The space between by all accounts betrays,
divides the ones who wonder why they went.
Confused, misused, mislead, confined all day,
unsure how salty language had been sent.

The view from up above came from the sky,
engulfed the place, our space, we made our home.
Upon our faces said the warmth, "goodbye",
behind the solar shade she chose to roam.

Like dawn the crisp cold curse crawled in the sheets,
as numbness crept along its fearless fight.
The heat escaped the lifeless frame sans beats;
the calm and docile thoughts in mind that might...

The cause became the life forever bound;
the speed of light pronounced, and it was sound.

Photo attribution

Teaching is a calling or not...to a degree

Photo Attribution

Teaching is a calling

Dr. Tom S.C. Farrell asks, Teaching is a Calling: Or is it?  This article was brought to my attention by a Griffin tweet, as part of an #rpsig Twitter discourse.

Farrell concludes that the maxim, teaching is a calling, is too often taken for granted by institutions who try to exploit teacher selfless dedication to their students' learning.  He also states that teacher assumptions can be imposed by others, presumably institutions. Although I can appreciate his efforts for looking out for the interests of educators, I wonder if it's really warranted.

My take

I am always leery of the use of maxims when forming an argument because it's too easy to generalize.  In order to agree with the point of view, one has to accept the maxim.  In this case, many educators may feel compelled to agree with this maxim because most have experienced times when the opposite is true: feeling overworked, underpaid, etc. - teaching which is not a calling but just a job. In other words, it is easy to take a dichotomous look at the teaching profession as either being only a calling or just a job...nothing in between.

If teaching is a calling (or vocation), then there is some force that attracts one to a profession whereby the act of doing the job becomes more important than a salary, the work conditions, the hours, etc.  Calling it a force (Robinson calls it one's element), seems a bit abstract, so let's just say that a person is interested in the job itself to the degree that the positive aspects outweigh the negatives.  Contrast this point of view to a more dichotomous viewpoint that labels teaching as a calling as being all or nothing.

If teaching is a calling is just a subjective (internal) viewpoint of one's job in assessing the positives over the negatives, then it also cannot be an assumption from some outside source (e.g., an institution or school) imposed on someone else (e.g., a teacher).  Of course outside sources can influence how one perceives the positives and negatives of a particular job, but the assumption, given, or maxim that teaching is a calling cannot be passed on to the individual.

Example

Let's assume that ELT Language School is taking advantage of ELT Teacher A because Teacher A simply loves her job so much that other aspects of the job don't matter: making money, long hours, etc.

In this example, what matters is who is doing the assuming?  If Teacher B, her colleague, is doing the assuming, but Teacher A is happy with the job (the positives outweigh the negatives), then what does it matter? As far as Teacher A is concerned, teaching is still a calling.  If Teacher A realizes that ELT Language School is taking advantage of her, then it's likely that the negatives outweigh the positives and Teacher A as a result is not happy with the job.  Teacher A is working for some other reason and not for the joy of it, and teaching then no longer is a calling.  Teacher A is not in her element, as it were.

If Teacher A is not happy with her job, is it's the school's fault?  Certainly there are situations where this might be the case, but I think what is more likely is that Teacher A just has not found her calling.  There are possible reasons for this: she does not recognize her calling, she doesn't know how to find her calling, she doesn't know how to prepare (or train) for her calling, etc. Robinson might help here.

Conclusion

A calling cannot be designed by those who exploit another's selflessness.  Someone who is acting selflessly is not looking for anything in return, which teachers undoubtedly often do when they feel that teaching is a calling.  But teachers who view teaching as a calling also do so in terms of degree, pragmatically accepting the fact that certain positives outweigh certain negatives at any given time - this process is unique to the individual and cannot be assumed by others.  If there comes a time when teachers realize that negatives outweigh the positives, then it is up to them to make the decisions necessary to improve the situation; otherwise, it is there choice to live with current conditions (which in this case teaching no longer becomes a calling). The question here then is less about the profession as a calling and more about whether or not teachers are being taken advantage of.  But I think most educators know when they are being taken advantage of...perhaps what might be more interesting is to explore what options they have to actually do something about it.

Transforming EFL Teacher Trainers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge Openly Online (#globaled15)

I will be presenting the following talk on Nov. 18, 2015 at the Global Education Conference (#globaled15)...

Your Name and Title: Benjamin L. Stewart, PhD, English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) educator and researcher

Link to the session: https://au-sas.bbcollab.com/site/external/jwsdetect/dropin.jnlp?sid=2008350&password=GEC15Part123' 

School or Organization Name: Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes

Area of the World from Which You Will Present: Aguascalientes, Mexico

Language in Which You Will Present: English (and Spanish if necessary)

Target Audience(s): Anyone interested in teaching English to speakers of other languages and those interested in connecting with others with the same interest, and those learning English as an additional language.

Short Session Description (one line): Making the TESOL educative experience transparent through writing

Full Session Description (as long as you would like):  During this session I will share two different writing classes, which were designed for English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) trainers, and will explain how transparency and technology together afford a more educative experience when setting out to improve both skill and pedagogical development.  I will explain situational and instructional considerations when teaching openly online, and will provide opportunities for attendees (both educators and learners alike) to connect with others who have similar interests.

When: Check local times.

Websites / URLs Associated with Your Session:  Composition | Academic Writing

Tags: 2015EFA, 2015Students, 2015Teachers

My presentation...


[office src="https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=25BA717264948AF4&resid=25BA717264948AF4%21112699&authkey=ADaBH6meszwMGnY&em=2" width="402" height="327"]

Personalization and Personal Learning Networks

For me, I can only do that from my own experience with people I've known and things that I've lived and experienced. That's what good pop music is all about, pop music that does reach out to people. It's very personalized and very real, honest and sincere. Jon Secada

The word personalization has steadily been trending upward over the years, where its usage has been most prominent in the United States (Google Trends). I came across Dobyns´ take on the word this week which sparked further reflection into why personalization - within the field of education - seems to pop up quite a bit in the blog, Getting Smart. I tend to agree with Dobyns on the end goal, but think that the term personalization just clouds the issue.

I agree with Dobyns that the school experience should reflect the following elements: 1) Students who are empowered to be self-directed in their interests/passions through, 2) the process of inquiry/PBL, while 3) using assessment data to design experiences that 4) intentionally seek to address critical areas of improvement that either impede student learning or are essential for future success (para. 11). I just don´t think that personalization is the answer.

Statements that muddy the waters...

• Personalization is not a pedagogy (a theory and method for teaching and learning)

Ok, so what is it then?  There is no clear explanation as to what personalization is...only why it is important and vaguely how it occurs (i.e., in problem-based learning).

• While personalization happens for students through classroom-level interactions, our experience is that it takes coordinated school-wide attention to have enduring changes in practices that meaningfully impact student outcomes.

Personalization is only about classroom-level interactions?  This just sounds like differentiated instruction.  There is nothing about personalization and assessment within a common curriculum.  If there were, it would help define what was meant by personalization.

• For our work we see [meeting the needs of the students] as “getting personal” in ways that are consistent with our beliefs about education and our espoused pedagogy.

There´s a dangerous assumption going on here: one´s beliefs (i.e., theory in use) and one´s espoused pedagogy (i.e., espoused theory) are both the same.  Oftentimes this is not the reality, and when this occurs, it can have a detremental effect on the educative experience.  Also, personalization should not be confused with understanding the needs of the students.  This is like saying that we should tailor instruction based on individual learning styles.

•  A rigorous, high quality project and problem approach to teaching and learning creates a set of environmental conditions where good teachers can do tremendous personalization work. This approach allows students to enter the learning at their level and make sense in a very personal way.

This still does not explain much about what is personalization.  So, it´s an approach but not a theory or method for teaching and learning?  Is it possible to personalize the experience without implementing a problem-based learning assignment?  Is it possible to conduct a project-based learning assignment and not personalize it?  

• Marrying PBL and personalization can multiply the teacher’s presence, giving students access to the learning tools adults use in the “outside” world to answer our own questions and needs, and produces better data around learning student and teacher reflection and decision making.

"...Multiply the teacher´s presence..."and personalization?  Again, this sounds like personalization is something done to students (which it is not).  If we "give students access to learning tools", this is the same as personalization? How do teachers (schools) reconcile students answering their own questions and needs in a way that matches the curriculum?  How do big data and learning analytics fit into this concept of personalization?

Counter

Personalization is not something done to/for the student.  It does not take a school-wide mandate in order to implement it - it can be done at the classroom level.  And it is not called personalization. 

Teachers cannot personalize the learning experience for the student. Learning is personalized without the teacher doing anything at all.  It´s like saying that learning should be social...learning can´t help but be social.  Even if every aspect of instruction and assessment were magically the same, each individual learner would experience a unique learning experience (i.e., their learning would be personalized).  Each unique learning experience is inherently personalized and social because our interpretation of the world is based on lived experiences.  But it´s easy to think in absolute terms, so let´s introduce a more nuanced perspective.

Teachers can differentiate instruction, which is not the same as Dobyns´use of the term personalization.  Teachers can offer fair amounts of formative and dynamic assessment, making feedback more timely and accessible for each student.  This is still different from personalization. Teachers can differentiate product, process, and content and provide formative feedback to students, which still does not speak to the different roles they play based on student needs: didactic instructor, facilitator, and coach (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005).  The roles teachers play at any given moment is something done to the student, while personalization (like social learning) can´t help but exist, and thus is an internal/social process.

I think the point in using the term personalization is to explain the importance of helping learners become more interdependent.  So, instead of saying personalization, how about a personal learning network (PLN).  A PLN is a conglomerate of ideas, materials (or technologies), and social relationships that serve some purpose.  To understand any one idea is to understand its relationship with the related materials and human relationships that network around that one idea.  Thus, teachers can assist learners to understand and cultivate their own PLN for specific purposes.  These purposes might include class objectives and/or personal objectives that extend beyond the curriculum.  The student personalizes the learning experience in terms of how a PLN serves a particular purpose; the educator is there to facilitate this process.  But, the teacher does not personalize the PLN for the student.  A PLN inherently exists and is unique, but it may or may not be useful for the individual.  The educator´s job is to help the learner make decisions so that the PLN becomes more valuable to the learner over time.  

To Jon Secada, music is personalized based on lived experiences.  To a learner, the classroom experience is personalized since one´s interpretation, understandings, and skill sets are rooted in prior experiences.  Based on these experiences, a teacher´s job is to help transform learners from being dependent, to independent, to interdependent by making them aware of how respective PLNs can take student understandings and skill sets to new levels for specific purposes.  Teachers help students to understand how to personalize their own learning through their awareness of a PLN.

 

Understanding what learning is...is king!

Photo Attribution

I read with confusion, Robinson's Content is no longer king.  Here are five things that are at ELTjam, and felt compelled to counter.  Without having read the post, I realized from the title alone that a well-intentioned metaphor had been butchered - to my knowledge, there is no evidence of any country having had more than one official king.  Also, saying, content is no longer king, gives the impression that this is relatively novel idea, which it is not.  It is not exactly clear who the target audience is, but will assume that it is either learners in formal education (i.e., schools) or those interested in more informal educational contexts (learning outside of schools). Terms like businesses and customer are used in the piece, but learning seems to be the real focus.

Robinson concedes in the introduction that content is at best a "minor royal" (para. 5), and that the following have taken its place: 1) user experience, 2) access, 3) choice, 4) cost, and 5) data. I'll try to unpack each in turn, but struggle with the notion that these (or any) concepts should come before content and if all actually come before content in equal fashion.  Let's explore...

User Experience (UX)

Glossing over such a complex idea as UX is futile.  Robinson says, UX can be learned and applied with ease.  What does this mean?  The user experience can be learned and can be applied with ease?  Let's change to the active voice to see if this makes any more sense: Learners learn the user experience?  Teachers learn the user experience?  Teachers apply the user experience with ease?  As an educator it has never crossed my mind that I could apply a user experience to the user.  By definition, it's the experience of the user, which seems to mean that the user experience is inherently unique, regardless what the educator does.

Access & Choice

I do not really see any argument for access and choice (over content).  Robinson states that the value in Netflix (as a "content access business") is "...in the easy access to so many films, with no caps on usage and a recommendation system to help you navigate the impossible amount of choice".  How do these two points (access and choice) reach king status over content?

Cost

Cost is king over content?  What's the argument Robinson is trying to make?  Charging or not charging for classes is really what matters in how, where, when, etc. individuals learn?  And this is more important that content?

Data

I would compare this definition of big data with that of Robinson's: "sets of data larger, more varied and more complex than we could ever have imagined capturing" (para. 18). How can big data be king over content, when content is at least part of the learning process?  This is like saying assessment (from big data) is more important than learning.  If there is no learning, then there is nothing to measure.  Surely most would agree that content has something to do with learning, and that assessment either occurs concurrently or sequentially to the learning process (but not absent of...).  Of course big data could be used to diagnose or for placement purposes, but this is limited in scope when compared to a more broader use that comes in the form of both formative and summative-types of assessment. The purpose of big data is to assess learning.

Conclusion

Nothing is "king" over content.  Learning is complex.  Learning involves ideas, materials, and social interactions, and none of these three - ideas, materials, and social relationships - are inherently superior over the others.  Learning is the aggregate of ideas, materials, and social relationships that grow and decline over time and are worth understanding at any given point of time.  Just using the word content limits the scope of an idea as it tends to ignore perspective, interpretation, and understandings of each individual (e.g., learner, educator, coach, etc.).  Learning is an ideational, material, and social network that intentionally and incidentally transforms over time.  If businesses want to make money in education, understanding what learning is...is king!

Note-Taking as a Strategy

I can always count on Winkler to drive me towards expressing a current view I have on teaching and learning.  Today, it's her piece, Notes and Learning Resources: Why we Cannot (and Should not) Stop Student Sharing (May 25, 2012) that caused this expression.  There are three (interrelated) themes I'd like to unpack: a) students as "digital natives", b) note-taking policies, and c) the note-taking business.

"Digital Natives"

Students are oftentimes described as being "digital natives" who seem to be inherently "wired" for managing educational contexts that involve educational technology.  The term digital native is not one I tend to use as it typically stereotypes younger learners as being more prepared compared to those more mature learners who are typically labelled as being less technologically savvy (you know, those older folks.)  It's been my experience that learners who are more technologically savvy are seldom inherently at an advantage when it comes to using educational technology for some learning outcome or objective.  When it comes to note-taking, students usually need to learn it as a distinct strategy which many times is not linked to competencies with technology.

Since note-taking is a strategy, personal approaches to the act of taking notes will vary.  Regardless of which objects are used (technology, pencil, paper, etc.), the process is likely to vary as well: writing key words, mindmaps, outline, summarizing, etc.  Based on the educational context, this process will depend on how much will occur synchronously (while in class as the teacher is speaking) and asynchronously (outside of class). So, regardless as to whether a learner is a "digital native" or not, the strategy is what matters most.  And more often than not, students need assistance when learning which approach to their own strategy of note-taking works best for them - the technology (if) used is one of many aspects to an overall strategy.

This meta-awareness - knowing how to approach note-taking - will also intrinsically intertwine with where note-taking takes place.  Winkler alludes to this when she states, "students mostly love [taking notes], as this form of curation–possible thanks to the Internet–makes their life easier" (para. 2), insinuating that note-taking that is shared publicly online is synonymous with curation.  But taking notes, deciding how to share those notes, and topic-curating each require different (metacognitive) thought processes.  Again, the educator, an expert learner, becomes the facilitator in terms of not only what is to be learned, but more importantly how the learning could occur given each of these three distinct ways students might recall information.

A Note-Taking Policy

Winkler mentions that she has not found any school policies that address student note-taking. Based on the above, I wonder if schools should even implement such a policy, unless it is only to address licensing.  Choosing the type of Creative Commons license, for instance, will dictate much in the way of how and where sharing of notes will take place.  An understanding of commercial vs. non-commercial rights, derivative vs. non-derivative versions, etc. requires administrators to not only understand legal provisions but more importantly understand the school culture in terms of how students currently take notes and how students should be sharing notes in the future.  Any decent policy will set out to close this gap by tying it to student outcomes. 

The Note-Taking Business

I would be hard-pressed to find any business that allows for personalization of any note-taking strategy that goes beyond what is already being offered by EverNote, OneNote, or any public wiki for that matter (Wikispaces, Wikieducator, PBworks, etc.). 

Since note-taking is initially an individual pursuit, sharing them requires cooperation, collaboration, creativity, and consensus.  When working within a community, members of the community may need to conform (i.e., conform to ideas, social connections, and/or materials/technologies).  Thus, one needs to embrace the benefits of taking notes as an individual endeavor and/or appreciate the value of group note-taking as long as conforming does not hinder the learning process.  Indeed, the educator's role is to coach students through this realization and not assume that technological competency equates to having gained a set of metacognitive strategies.

A Mission for Unity and Coherency

Always looking for a teachable moment, Choice Stifles Learning for Educators (Whitby, July 25, 2015) gives me an opportunity to speak to writers taking composition and academic writing about the importance of unity and coherency.

Paragraph 1

What is it about a mandated, contractually obligated, professional development conference that inspires some teachers and completely turns off many others? Why do some teachers glow with excitement at conferences and many others complain as they go through the motions? Is it the conference itself, or the attitude of the educators attending, or a combination of both?

 The first paragraph provides a hook by asking three consecutive questions. The first question provides context by limiting the types of professional development (PD) conferences as not being a choice a teacher makes (i.e., conferences are required); it suggests that conferences are appealing to some educators, and not for others. The second question restates the rheme from the prior sentence, making it sound as if the main idea of the essay (i.e., the thesis) vaguely relates to the differences in opinion when attending a conference.  However,  the third question offers a dichotomy that insinuates the reason for these differences in opinions about conferences has to do with both the conference itself and the attitudes of the attendees.  

A hook should align with the main thesis of the essay.  The rest of the essay speaks mainly about conferences and slightly about educators but not related to ideas found in this paragraph.  Also, mentioning that PD conferences are mandated clouds the overall thesis for this essay.  Just being forced to attend a conference is reason to be turned off and may have nothing to do with the conference or how it is organized.  The hook (the entire first paragraph) lacks unity both in terms of the rest of the essay and within the paragraph itself.

Tip: Begin your essay with a hook but limit it to one question, famous quote, or important statistic or fact.  Develop the rest of the introduction paragraph by providing context or background and conclude with a strong thesis statement.  As a general rule, avoid questions throughout your essay... answer the questions instead! 

Paragraph 2

When it comes to professional development for educators, conferences are believed to offer a great deal of choice with usually a seemingly wide array of sessions and workshops for educators to choose from to fill their blank schedules for a full day of learning. That is at least what is in the minds of the conference planners as they spend a huge amount of time planning these events. They seem to concentrate on the how and what of education, but fall short of the why.

 The second paragraph provides more context and speaks to the problem of conferences focusing more on the how and not the why of education.  Notice how the hook (prior paragraph) does not align with this paragraph.  One of the first two paragraphs are off-topic (lacks unity). Also, notice how the use of passive voice in the topic sentence (...conferences are believed...) fails to disclose who the agent is.  Do teachers or conference organizers believe this?  Then in the next sentence, the writer kind of suggest conference organizers. Incoherent.

Tip: Provide context, background information, or problem in the introduction paragraph.  This sets up or should lead right into your thesis statement, which concludes your introduction paragraph.

Paragraph 3

The why refers to why we do things in the first place? Without at least discussions on that subject of why we should, or should not do certain things in order to examine their relevance, we might find we are doing things just because that’s the way they have always been done. To simplify an example: that is why we teach keyboarding and not typing. There are no longer any typewriters, but keyboards abound. Of course all of that goes out the window with mobile devices where thumbs and pointer fingers rule the keys. The point is that we examined why we were teaching typing, and found that we needed to teach something else to stay relevant, keyboarding.

The third paragraph attempts to expand on the why of education that was introduced in the prior paragraph and concludes with an example.  The topic sentence is vague because it is still not clear who we are: educators, conference organizers, administrators, instructional designers, parents, etc. As a question, it is not clear why the reader should ask why about education.  If this was not just a mistake in punctuation, it is the opposed of what the main point of this paragraph is - that the reader should consider why teachers educate.  The example that concludes this paragraph does not go far enough in contrasting the reasons for teaching typing class vs. keyboarding class.  The example seems to suggest that the we pronoun refers to educators. 

As it relates to the first paragraph, why teachers teach typing or keyboarding has just as much to do with curriculum planning and policy than actual instruction.  For this reason, paragraph three does not align with paragraph one which seems to be about decision-making among educators, forcing educators to attend conferences, and conference organizational choices.  Lacks unity.

Tip: Avoid questions as topic sentences.  Instead, create claims as topic sentences that are 1) not questions, 2) not commands (imperatives), and directly align to the thesis statement or the overall thesis of the essay.  Avoid the we pronoun when its antecedent is not clear.  Unless writing a narrative, it is usually best to stay in the third person.

Your mission: Take a look at the rest of the paragraphs of this essay and choose two to comment on.  Provide an analysis similar to the discussion above.  Your instructor will suggest where to post your response for others to comment on from a discourse perspective.

What's the link between formative assessment and anticipating student challenges?

I was asked recently about formative assessment and anticipating student problems in a recent Google+ Community chat, so I thought I would create a blog post.

 

Could you give some examples of what you mean by the "formative assessments" you said you build in to your planning? And I'm curious as to how you go about "anticipating student challenges"...how and what kind of challenges?

Wiggins and Mctighe (2005) posit (and I would agree) that assessments include standardized exams, in-class exams, quizzes, academic prompts, performance tasks, and informal discussions. Informal discussions might occur around homework, student portfolios, Socratic Method, among others.  Broadly speaking, all assessments can be broken down into two categories: formative and summative.

Summative assessments are often associated with standardized tests; they are defined as any assessment that measures learning.  They measure what knowledge and skill sets the student has acquired in the past.   When teachers assign grades, they usually (but not always) are applying summative assessments.

Formative assessments set out to promote learning, and in contrast to summative assessments are more prospective or forward-looking. The most common example are informal discussions with students that are intended to help them achieve something they could not do before.  When teachers are in class, they constantly observe students who are struggling and thus make adjustments to either their teaching practice and/or they suggest to learners to make adjustments to their learning tactics.  This is an example of formative assessment...we are assessing and tweaking the educational design in order to help students learn more effectively, efficiently, and through higher engagement.

I mentioned before that exams were "usually" considered summative assessment - but they don't have to be.  Dynamic assessment is a term used to describe how teachers use the results from student exams, for example (which are typically summative assessments) as a type of formative assessment.  Teachers build a lesson (i.e., a learning experience) around common problems reflected in the results that came from the results.

So, formative assessment techniqually can be any type of assessment, but it is what you do with the test, exam, informal discussion, etc. that matter.  The purpose of formative assessments is to create better learning experiences; the purpose of summative assessment is to measure learning.  In formal education, both are important, but my philosolphy leans on having more formative assessment than summative.  As in the case with dynamic assessment, anything can be turned into formative assessment.

As for anticipating student challenges, there are two perspectives to consider: the novice practitioner and the expert practitioner.  The novice teacher perhaps will lack at being able to anticipate certain student challenges. So, what I would suggest is to record or share classroom experiences as often as possible and inquire about what others are doing. One's personal learning network (PLN) can come in handy when using social media to share experiences with others in this regard.  Simply asking questions to others often can create a discourse around working towards a possible solution - make learning transparent.  Then, complement this with what the literature (research) states.

The expert practitioner perhaps can anticipate more problems that students are likely to face.  But since each group of students is unique, being a reflective practitioner and sharing one's experiences with others (like in the case of the novice) can also be beneficial.

For me, being a reflective practitioner and sharing my experiences with others has helped me cultivate my own PLN in a way that helps me become better as an educator.  I often reach out to my PLN when it comes to student challenges. These challenges are often linguistic, technological, and managerial when it comes to when, where, and how they set out to achieve the objectives of the class.  I receive a lot of good information via my PLN and this has helped me learn how to be more in-tune with my students.  For me it's just paying attention to the types of feedback that I repeatedly give (i.e., formative and summative assessments) and then reflecting on and sharing what I learn as often as possible.  This is the approach I currently take.

ELT Live #9

‘Summer Brainstorm/Get the Rust Out’ edition

Join this ELT live hangout on air of language learners and educators this Tuesday, July 21 at 0100 UTC (Global Times: http://bit.ly/1M98Kwn)

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlIaMeEGzx4]


http://chatwing.com/chatbox/0c1e72c0-2e33-11e5-80ad-256dece08ad8

Academic Writing and ICTs

I'm preparing an in-house talk on using information and communication technologies (ICTs) for academic writing and am planning on using the presentation below (currently a work in progress) and will broadcast my talk live as well.  Feel free to share any ICTs you currently are using to promote better academic writing skills with your (language learning) students!


[office src="https://onedrive.live.com/embed?cid=25BA717264948AF4&resid=25ba717264948af4%21111648&authkey=AI7GTRptdfNwGD4&em=2" width="402" height="327"]

Standardized testing...why not just opt out?

Hashtags: #education #edchat #commoncore

Props to DP (@pakman) for including a segment on education.  I'll leave it to him to put a political slant on it all! :)

David Pakman (DP) - +David Pakman, of The David Pakman Show,  interviewed (at 27:42) Joel Westheimer (JW) for today's broadcast regarding what's wrong with standardized testing.  The answers were all over the place (incoherent), and basically neglected one key point. Let's review.

DP: What are you most concerned about when you look at education?

Point #1: JW begins by describing a shift to standardization stemming from a shift from tradition view of education as serving a public good to one that he labels a "job training institution"...? 

My response: Really?  I thought the shift to standardization came from periodic student outcome reports (tests) showing the US towards the bottom when compared to other countries.  I don't see how standardization came about from a focus on high school students getting jobs.  High schools are designed to prepare students for either the workforce or higher education, but never considered them job training institutions per se (unless we're including vocational high schools).   If one believes the intention of high schools is only to prepare students for employment, what types of jobs are high school graduates prepared to fill? And aren't standardized tests more about assessing academic knowledge than vocational?  If JW means that high schools are job training institutions because they both prepare students to further their education and indirectly prepares them for better employment, then isn't this also a "public good"?  I'm just note sure what JW is getting at.

Point #2: JW uses the term, so-called, as in "...obsession with so-called standards...", to make it sound as if the word standards is falsely termed, yet later in the interview says he has no problem with the term standards, but does have a problem with the term, standardization (more on this later).

Point #3: JW argues that standards only apply to math and literacy to the exclusion of other subjects that used to be part of a public education. 

My response: So, subjects that are not covered by Common Core aren't currently part of a public education?  I know what he means, and I agree that certain subjects are being neglected (and cut out entirely).  But try looking at it another way.  If the US can't even get standards set on a few subjects within a curriculum, how likely is it for them to extend those standards to other subjects? Baby steps...

DP: How do the problems in the US educational system compare with those in Canada?

Point #4: JW claims various things...

• One similar issue among both countries is that there is a "growing obsession with standards and standardization".  Nobody is against standards, but the problem is that of standardization.  

• My response: Here, JW makes a distinction I reference in Point #2 above. So, one moment JW is against the term standards, the next he is for it?  Or perhaps not against it and not for it?  And everyone agrees with this.  Can we have standards with not standardization?  And can we truthfully call them standards if only one person is doing them? This is like saying I'm respecting a community of practice (or I'm following "best practices") when I'm the only one doing (or practicing) them. Or another way of looking at it: it's fine if each teacher has individual standards, just don't force teachers to share these individual standards with others. I have to believe that "forcing" teachers to share what's working in the classroom (perhaps a standard, perhaps not) has to be part of the solution. Question: how many standards are required before standardization emerges? :)

• He states that standardization is the "enemy of imagination".   
• My response: So, standardized testing is standardizing the teaching practice? I don't think so...I'll explain this more in my conclusion below.
• Standardization means that everyone must be the same - numberical numbers on very small amounts of the curriculum as represented on standardized tests.  
• My response: Everyone meaning students?  Teachers?  Both?  Standardized testing does not mean that all students are learning in the same way.  It means that what students are expected to know and can do are uniform, but does not speak to how students can learn and develop such knowledge and skills.  And it does not speak to how teachers teach or the environment they create for students to thrive. 
• When standardized tests are used, this takes away from teachers individual passions they bring to the classroom. 
• My response: This is like saying Standardization means that everyone must be the same (see above).  I really get the feeling that everyone here includes the teachers.  This is not what standardization is all about.
• Standardization is the cause of the high attribution rate in the US. 
• My response: I'd be interested to know if standardization is the sole reason why teachers leave the profession.  This means that teacher pay, work conditions (which may not relate to standardization), advancement, etc. have nothing to do with it.

DP: What's the logic of the standardized test?  Why have standardized tests?  To find the strongest students?  The strongest teachers?  If standardized tests worked well, what would they help us to do?

Point #5: Standardized tests have noble origins: helped address educational bias so that all students had an equal opportunity. It levels the playing field.  But here are the reasons why this didn't play out, according to JW:

• Massive inequality that we're experiencing.
• Test preparation favors the wealthy.
• Bias build into the test regarding the materials the test cover.
• Standardized tests to not measure what's important to teachers and parents.
• Standardized tests do not measure critical thinking skills, creativity, healthy relationships, if students can give back to the community, develop convictions and stand up to those convictions., etc., .
• DP interjects and suggests that tests also do not show the potential of the student, JW agrees.
• Standardized tests only measure a vary narrow view of learning.

As a result, JW states that the US is scaling back subjects that are not part of the standardized tests.

My response: Is it possible to even create a completely unbiased exam at this level?  Isn´t it more important the constant measures are being used to improve the test? The rest of my response is included in the conclusion below.

DP: Goes on to mean the problem of funding for schools linked to test outcomes.  JW agrees and they discuss problems with teachers "teaching to the test".

DP: What could change this and how could we restructure this?

JW responses that schools, parents, teachers, etc. are opting out of Common Core.

My response: Teaching to the test is a problem, but this is a problem with teaching and not testing.  Different from teaching to the test, teachers should be preparing students for the knowledge and skills that test items (from the standardized test) are intended to assess. 

Conclusion

Pakman poses some important questions but the discussion really never got to the key point: The reason standardized testing isn't working is because educational stakeholders (i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, civic leaders, lawmakers, etc.) fail to use standardized testing as a means for improving public schools.  What would this look like?

1. Standardized tests in conjunction with additional qualitative and quantitative data which are generated from both internal and external sources are used collectively to measure student outcomes.
2. Research into the relationships between teacher practice and student outcomes need to complement comprehensive data points that holistically measure student outcomes.
3. School funding is based on a comprehensive assessment of student outcomes, current literature into teacher practice and student outcome relationships, and the current educational context that covers everything beyond student outcomes. 

This simple, yet complex, solution turns comprehensive data into formative action.  When schools are struggling, this data provides a clearer vision as to the resources that are needed (mainly an external commitment) and types of changes that are needed using the resources that are newly available (mainly an internal commitment).  This is not a top-down directive, but rather a negotiation (investment) between all parties. High performing schools share their successes, providing a model for possible solutions for other, more lower performing schools. Hence, education becomes more transparent. 

In this scenario, evidence-based education provides the professional learning environment for teachers and subsequently for students to be creative, imaginative, etc... If teachers are being creative in the learning design, then it's realistic to think that students are being allowed to be creative (however one defines creativity).

Of course my vision is idealistic, some would say impossible.  But unless we change the narrative, then educational stakeholders are going to go on thinking that the "answer" to standardized testing is simply opting out; in other words, we're just spinning our wheels...

What do you think?  Am I off base?  What am I missing?  What's the problem and solution with standardized testing as you see it?