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!
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Monday, May 4, 2015
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.
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.
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.
ConclusionPakman 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?
- 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.
- Research into the relationships between teacher practice and student outcomes need to complement comprehensive data points that holistically measure student outcomes.
- 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.
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?
Friday, May 1, 2015
- Put ¨quality of life" first.
- Work primarily to understand language classroom life.
- Involve everybody.
- Work to bring people together.
- Work also for mutual development.
- Make the work a continuous enterprise.
- Minimize the extra effort of all sorts for all concerned.
- Integrate the "work for understanding" into the existing working life of the classroom (p. 360).
- What are the challenges faced by practitioners (teachers and learners) when they try to conduct exploratory practice (EP) in an English for academic purposes (EAP) context?
- What is the relationship between principles and practices in EP? (p. 119).
The results of the study show how participants (two English language learners) "welcomed the responsibilities of setting the agenda (via their puzzles)" (p. 127). The two students were asked to write out what puzzled them which was used as an alternative to solving problems. The two "puzzles" were 1) Why can't I study in certain situations? and 2) Why do people learn bad words [swear words] more easily? In this research, students collected data to research what puzzled them. Hanks (2015) concludes that EP encourages practitioners (i.e., students) to set their own research agendas because it is integrated into the normal pedagogical practice.
The whole premise for implementing EP is because action research (the alternative) is too demanding and complicating for the English language educator (Allwright, 2005; Hanks, 2015). Instead of focusing on a problem-solution, the hallmark of any action research approach, the goal for EP is to gain further understanding. I would argue that it's impossible to pursue a problem of any kind and not gain some higher degree of understanding. And another misconception of action research is that problems are to be solved. Setting problems and the pursuit of a problem are sufficient to gain understandings, for both teacher and student. An understanding is meant to include six facets: to explain, to interpret, to apply, to have empathy, to have perspective, and to have self-knowledge (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Also, by calling it exploratory practice, one might get the impression that all research is exploratory in nature. However, research can also be explanatory, confirmatory, discursive, intuitive, etc.
Regarding EP as a framework, contrast Hanks's (2015) "seven principles" to Allwright's (2005) principles and suggestions above:
The 'what' issues
- Focus on quality of life as the fundamental issue.
- Work to understand it before thinking about solving problems.
- Involve everybody as practitioners developing their own understandings.
- Work to bring people together in a common enterprise.
- Work cooperatively for mutual development.
- Make it a continuous enterprise.
- Minimize the burden by integrating the work for understanding into normal pedagogical practice (pp. 117-118).
Regarding the method, there are no direct (explicit) answers to the research questions, and since only the students are included in the findings, I wonder if presenting the teacher results first wouldn't provide the necessary perspective needed to better understand the findings from the students. I'm more concerned about what challenges the teacher faces when conducting EP in an EAP context. I'm more interested in any relationships between EP principles and the teaching practice. The article neglects any mention of EP in the classroom itself. Again, perhaps this will be discussed later (future publication?), but not knowing this makes it more difficult to make sound judgments on any possible implications being presented by the (student) participants.
Finally, two images are included in the article showing poster boards that participants made in this EP experiment (great idea!); however, one image is completely illegible while the second only half of the image is decipherable. Missed opportunity.
Look through this article for possibilities for further study. Instead of doing an intervention, take some of these ideas and apply it with your own group(s). Problem setting and seeking are worthy causes as long as you systematically go about collecting and analyzing relevant data. Also consider the role of assessment when doing this type of student or teacher-driven research. How might teacher, student, and self-assessment evaluate the process and/or product that resulted from setting and pursuing a problem? As a mental exercise, take the six "puzzles" presented in this article and re-articulate them into problems. As an example, let's say that I puzzle over why I can't learn Spanish while watching TV. The problem I have might be 1) I am unable to allocate my time properly; 2) I have not looked at how I learn best; 3) I am unaware of learning opportunities that would help with my learning of Spanish; etc. See if you can do something similar with what's being shared in the article, then image how you, as the English language educator, could coach a student to research these problems for themselves.
If you agree with EP (for the sake of problem solving), still consider what I've mentioned above, but consider carefully how you plan to state a strong case in your literature review: initial argument, counterargument, and rebuttal. Is there room for problem setting and solving within this phenomenon called "EP"? Could another term be used instead? Should problem-based learning be ignored because the rigor of collecting and analyzing data is too much for the English language educator?
Allwright, D. (2005). Developing principles for practitioner research: The case of exploratory practice. The Modern Language Journal 89(3), 353-366. Retrieved May 1, 2015 from http://www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/HopkinsES/Alfonso_Web/ESOL%20Modification%20Research/exploratory_research_practice_in_classrooms.pdf
Hanks, J. (2015). "Education is not just teaching": Learner thoughts on exploratory practice. ELT Journal 69(2), 117-128.
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Group: Composition (3rd semester)
Time: 50 minutes
Task: As a group, listen to the above video as many times as you wish and write a single paragraph describing the essence of the message (idea), but in your own words. Create the paragraph using Google Drive and project the text onto a large screen so that the entire group can view it. Make edits to the text however you'd like, and include a list of those who contributed to this task (first names only) below the single paragraph. Once you have completed the text and have included your names, choose one person to sign into Google, and upload your work as a comment to this blog post.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Wait...what? Creativity in the classroom doesn't matter? After posting comments to Why creativity in the classroom matters more than ever, I've come across several additional posts through my personal learning network (PLN) that have all promoted creativity in the classroom. And just now (freaky), I got a notification that others within my PLN are thinking about creativity as well. So what's wrong about developing creativity in the classroom? Why would I dare say that creativity in the classroom does not matter? Let's dissect.
What others say about creativity and my response...
Key words here are skill and master. I have a hard time believing that creativity is limited to what we usually associate with being a skill. This ignores any characterization of competencies that also include knowledge and disposition. If creativity is only seen as being a skill - isolated from any connections to knowledge and disposition - it has no place in the classroom.
...creativity is when one idea branches into a complex, rich and vibrant neural network...creativity means starting with the bricks in the garden and winding up with the universe.
Now creativity is a noun, limited to a single idea, that metaphorically speaking branches into a "neural network". This definition ignores socio-cognitive aspects of learning that leaves the term creativity empty. Also, the metaphor "...bricks in the garden..." is so abstract that some (like myself) would not recognize what is meant by bricks, garden, and universe. Thus, creativity has not place in the classroom.
[Creativity] doesn’t have to be new to the whole of humanity— though that’s always a bonus— but certainly to the person whose work it is.
So here, innovation comes to mind. Downes (44:00), claims the innovation is taking something new and presenting it in a way that is of benefit of others. Here, there is no mention of creativity as benefiting others. Secondly, if it doesn't have to be new to the "whole of humanity", although it might, for whom must it be new? Now we are running into issues of how relativism and rationalism might fit within the classroom (I would argue they don't). Therefore, based on this definition, creativity has no place in the classroom because it potentially means too many things to potentially too many individuals.
Creativity is putting your imagination to work. It is applied imagination. Innovation is putting new ideas into practice.
Again, a definition ripe with metaphors. Putting new ideas into practice...here we again have the problem of defining new. Is it new for the student who is trying to be "creative"? Is it new for the entire class? Is it new for the teacher? Is it new for the local community? Is it new for society? etc. And how might practice be defined? Is it possible to develop a working definition of practice that is applicable across disciplines? Again, creativity as it's being defined here has no place in the classroom.
The process of having original ideas that have value...the idea you start with is not the one you end up with.
Ken Robinson uses original instead of new, and adds a second component, value. Whether one uses original or new, the same issue applies: original for whom? The term value is interesting because it links to what Downes discusses when using the term, innovation. So now there is a transactional element to creativity that employs an interpretive process that extends beyond the person(s) being "creative". This definition might avoid problems of relativism and rationalism on the part of those putting something new into practice, but ignores the still vast potential for interpretation when trying to objectively articulate ideas of new, valuable, innovative, etc. to those beyond the practitioners - I use the term practitioners to mean those who are setting out to be creative. Finally, the problem with accepting that an idea might change throughout the creative process means that assessment comes after the completion of instruction. In formal education (for better or for worse), this goes against the reality of adhering to a curriculum, syllabus, scheme of work, and/or lesson plan. That is, desired results are established beforehand, and instruction and assessment intertwine to facilitate how these desired results are met. This reality does not automatically mean students are unable to learn. For this reason, creativity as defined here, has no place in the classroom.
- Mary, you sure are creative.
- Mike, you produced a creative brochure, video, etc.
- Monica, your group worked creatively on that project.
Assessment includes more useful terms like formative assessment, summative assessment, dynamic assessment, diagnostic assessment, alternative forms of assessment, rubrics, portfolios, etc., which if collectively considered, limit the subjectivity of judging students and instead focus more on objectively providing feedback in terms of quantitative, qualitative, and interactional forms of data.
A Picasso painting is viewed as creative because the work is completely finished, and enough time has passed that enough people have determined that something new has been developed and that this object (the painting) has value. Picasso, the man, is viewed as creative because he has produced enough works that collectively are viewed by others as creative. Creativity is retrospective of the process and product together. Indeed, the term (creativity) serves a purpose, but not in the classroom.
Assessment is (or should be) more prospective; that is, formative. Assessment of learning is more about guiding, facilitating, coaching, and leading students towards understandings, skills, and dispositions that they haven't experienced before. Learning is a result (and process) of an individual being able to do something or think/feel a certain way that previously was not possible. Assessment allows this to potentially happen in varying degrees. In formal education, like scenarios found in the classroom, words like assessment, feedback, etc., should replace words like creativity, creative, creation, and creatively. It's possible (perhaps likely) that students learn something in the classroom that others deem uncreative. It's possible that educational stakeholders (students, teachers, parents, admin, etc.) deem a classroom experience as creative where students fail to learn much. Creativity in the classroom doesn't matter because it ignores other more useful terms like assessment, etc. If one wishes to articulate what creativity is in terms of assessment (using related terms mentioned above), wonderful. My only point is why not just talk about assessment and leave creativity out of it.
Photo attribution: http://pixabay.com/static/uploads/photo/2014/07/18/08/40/creativity-396268_640.jpg