Is Assessment Necessary for Learning?

There is a fantastic discussion on the nature of assessment and learning happening on Will Richardson's blog right now. You should go there and read through the comments. I am re-posting mine here:

To build on Gary’s earlier suggestion that we think about the role of assessment in terms of learning that occurs outside school settings I think it might help even to think about it in the context of other species. Take my dogs for example. Aside from formal training experiences I have observed two distinctly different types of learning experiences they engage in on their own. One involves learning by cause and effect and the other involves discovery.

An example of cause and effect learning is problem solving. This type of learning is fueled heavily by a motivation to attain a result. For example, for most of the day my dogs have free reign of the back yard but at night I lock them in the garage. My shepard-husky mix, who is our most hyper dog and arguably the best problem solver, doesn’t like this kind of confinement and constantly works to find ways to get out. The results of both her failed and successful attempts to open the dog door (or break it open) are forms of feedback and through this trial and error she engages in self-assessment until she has learned what she needs to satisfy the desire that motivates her.

The other type, discovery learning, has no motivational force and also lacks assessment. An example of my dogs learning through discovery is one day my newfoundland discovered, while digging a hole in my yard, that the soil below was cool. When he was a pup, and even a young adult dog, he rarely engaged in digging behaviors but through discovery he learned this was an effective way to keep cool outside on hot days. No one taught him to do this, it was not motivation that led him to dig (if I remember right he was digging because I forgot to trim his nails), and there was no assessment in the form of trail and error. I suppose you could argue that his discovery that the ground was cool was a form of feedback but it certainly was not assessment. And, how do I know he learned that the ground under the top layer of soil was cool? He only digs on hot days and he always sits in his holes. He has one this for ten years (he is 15 years old).

I also engaged in an interesting discussion tonight on Twitter. Here are a few bits an pieces of what I added to that conversation:

How do you self-assess the learning you do on Twitter?less than a minute ago via Twitterrificanderscj
anderscj

@jerridkruse what about learning that results from events of discovery? Learning occurs w/o goals. Does assessment need 2b in this equation?less than a minute ago via Twitterrificanderscj
anderscj

@shareski can you give an example of when it is not an instrument of control?less than a minute ago via Twitterrificanderscj
anderscj

@jonbecker to self assess one has to have an external model (curriculum), or perceived model, to use as a rubric.less than a minute ago via Twitterrificanderscj
anderscj

@bengrey @jonbecker @shareski isn't assessment just a byproduct of curriculum and a subtle imposition of ones control over another?less than a minute ago via Twitterrificanderscj
anderscj

I am still waiting for an example from Dean. I am curious what your thoughts are on this. Is assessment necessary?

What is the Purpose of School?

I have spent a significant amount of time this summer conducting workshops and giving presentations to teachers, administrators, and school boards about topics ranging from disruptive innovation to emerging technologies to project-based learning. In nearly every presentation discussion seems to turn to some degree to the question of, "What is the purpose of school?"

Whenever I pose this question the responses always seem to vary between three distinctly different overarching concepts. First, I always hear people refer to schooling as serving a Jeffersonian purpose of creating an informed electorate which is essential in a democracy. Second, I always hear people bring up the Hamiltonian idea that schools should prepare students to enter the workforce or go to college so they can be further trained to enter the workforce. Third, I usually hear people say the purpose of schools is to prepare students to become lifelong learners.

When I think these ideas through I always come to the conclusion that the first two are inherently contradictory in nature and the fact that for the duration of state sponsored education these ideas have always been at the foundation of our education systems is amazing. The notion that schools are supposed to prepare students to become lifelong learners is one I almost only hear from other educators. I also find it flawed or at least not complete. This thought, and I am not sure where it originated from, implies that people are not inherently lifelong learners. I find this hard to fathom. Do we need schools for this or are people naturally learning creatures? Is there ever any point of any day that a living, conscious person is not learning? Of course not, learning is a quality of life.

So, why does this notion sound so appealing? What does it imply that is not really said? I think what is really meant by this notion is that the purpose of schools is to help direct students' learning. It is not to create lifelong learners so much as it is to create lifelong learners within a socially acceptable and proper context. A context that has been established. When viewed this way there are two divergent paths that can be taken. First is conformity and adherence to authoritative structures and the second is critical thinking. I propose we drop the idea that the purpose of schools is to create lifelong learners altogether and instead replace this third purpose with, "The purpose of schools is to create lifelong critical thinkers."

Engagement as Consumers or Engagement as Producers

Last week as we were wrapping things up for the school year at end of year teacher meetings the topic turned to technology changes we will be making over the summer. Through Computers For Learning, a federal program providing surplus computer equipment to schools from federal government offices, we will be tripling our districts number of student use computers. We are also upgrading our servers, switches, and hubs including the server that our terminal computers run from. We are also switching all student use machines to open source software. Last year the two big initiatives were SMARTboards and laptops for teachers. Almost every teacher got a SMARTboard for their classroom and a laptop by the end of this year. However, there still were some classrooms that for both functional and budgetary purposes went without one or the other (or both).



After our tech people (including me) presented a synopsis of what to expect in the fall one of the teachers who did not get a SMARTboard asked if the district would be purchasing any new boards for next year. Now I have never been a huge supporter of SMARTboards as a caveat for student engagement. They are expensive and the payoff I have always suspected is not nearly as great nor is as learner centered as other investments that put the technology in the hands of the students rather than the teachers. However, I do see the benefits after watching the majority of our staff put them into action this past year.

After explaining to the teacher that it is not in the tech budget but that she could request one from the administration or pay for one out of her own budget I offered her another solution. Rather than spend the $1500 or so on a SMARTboard that can only track one pen or touchpoint at a time I could install a Wii Remote interactive whiteboard for her that could track 4 simultaneous points for under $100. She declined. This makes me wonder if she really wanted one of these interactive whiteboards because she knows how it could improve student learning in her classroom or if she just wanted one because other teachers had one and she didn't. However, that is for another post.

This got me thinking. The original reason for the SMARTboard initiative was to improve or increase student engagement in the classroom. Now I must add that this initiative was begun before I was brought on board but it has been my responsibility to help show teachers how to use this tool to engage students. It seems to me that, with the exception of interactive learning games and exercises that rely on a single click interface where one student can be in control at a time, the SMARTboard (and other brands of interactive whiteboards) are largely a teacher tool and not a student tool. The type of engagement they improve is engagement as consumers.



The question of engagement has long been looked at in education as something more along the lines of entertainment or edutainment. "How am I going to engage my students?" too often becomes "How am I going to keep my students entertained?" This definition of engagement fits well with those educators who look at teaching as performance. If you feel the engagement level of your students is directly related to how entertaining your presentations, lectures, and class demonstrations are than the SMARTboard is truly your allay. More so is the projector you need to make it work. You can show educational videos on it (you can also do this with a TV/DVD player), you can show PowerPoint presentations without needing to go back to your computer to change slides (you can also do this with a $10 clicker), you can write notes and diagrams on it and have the computer convert your handwriting to print (marginally helpful), and you can save what you wrote on the board as a PDF file that you can send to others or put on your teacher website (you can do this with any PC by pressing "Print Screen"). For a meager $1500 plus the additional $1000 you have to spend on the projector, you can have a nice tool that can make your 20th century teaching style look real professional.

However, is this engagement or entertainment? One could argue that when students are entertained they are engaged but is entertainment really what they come to school for? The real smart ones end up dropping out when they realize they can get better entertainment at home watching television, playing video games, and chatting with friends online. It is nice when we are entertained but what people go to school for is learning (or at least it should be) and entertainment should never get in the way of that. There must be a better way to engage students without having to make it look like entertainment.

Maybe we need to stop thinking of engagement as being akin to entertainment and start thinking about the things we do that we find engaging. What are the qualities of those things? I am engaged when I am doing my taxes but I certainly am not entertained. I am engaged when I am planning a camping trip but I don't find this entertaining. I am engaged when I am editing Wikipedia though I can't say this much ever feels like entertainment. I am engaged when I am working on a home improvement project but I certainly never find it entertaining. What is common about all of these activities? The only conclusion I derive is all engaging tasks require something meaningful of me. I am not passive when I am engaged. The times I can think of watching TV or watching a movie when I am engaged I am engaged because mentally I am doing something. I am analyzing the plot or I am comparing and contrasting what I see with what I already know, or I am finding information there that can support one of my other projects I am working on or it meaningfully informs something else I am interested in. Any way I look at it, engagement comes from my own activity in something.

This is why students drop out of high school, this is why some sleep in class, this is why SMARTboards rarely cure a teacher's problem with engagement in the classroom. Because, as soon as the novelty of the new wares off you are still left with trying to guess what to show to a class that will make them actively engaged mentally. It is much easier to achieve an engaged student by presenting them with problems to solve or projects to work through. It is far easier and more effective to think of how you are going to engage your students as producers of products and knowledge than how you are going to engage them as of consumers of information.



Now, if you have $2500 to spend on technology for your classroom with the goal of improving student engagement with it there are quite a few options you have that are likely to produce better results than a SMARTboard and projector. $2500 will buy a class set of digital cameras, or it will buy six Asus eee laptops, or it will buy quite a few digital audio recorders, or it will buy a printer that will print poster size images, or it will buy a ton of Legos (have you ever seen a kid not engaged with Legos?). I could go on and on.



The point is, when you are talking about how to get more student engagement in your classroom you need to think about what the students are going to be engaged with, not how the teacher is going to be engaging for the students. If you have the dollars to supply both student-based and teacher-based technology to support engagement than by all means purchase an interactive whiteboard. They are cool and there is a lot of good you can do with one. However, please don't neglect needs to get at the wants.

Clifford Stoll on Teaching

While I disagree with Clifford Stoll's opinion that computers should not be in our schools his thoughts on the matter have been influential to me in forming my own opinions and beliefs about education and technology. Particularly when it comes to assessing technology. Whenever a new tool comes out Clifford's voice always sounds in the back of my head reminding me to question its necessity and question its value. The conclusion I usually come to is somewhere between Clifford Stoll's extreme view that computers should not be integrated into the classroom and the other extreme. In this very entertaining TED talk he talks about teaching and children and very eloquently illustrates what a great constructivist classroom should look like. I remember back in the early '90s Clifford giving speeches and being very vocal on his view of technology in the classroom and have wondered what he has been doing since he has not been in the public eye much the past 10 years. Evidently he is teaching 8th grade physics, or rather teaching 8th graders college physics.






If the embed doesn't work click here for the TED site with this video.