I started my graduate education program here at Drake in January. During the spring semester, the two classes I took were Foundations of Education and Educational Psychology. One of the things that was discussed most often was that of formative assessment. Formative (or informal) assessment can include nearly all checks of understanding throughout a lesson. I decided to focus on a technology that would assist in my study of actual “pre-testing.” The original idea was to use Survey Monkey to set up a test, but upon Jerrid’s suggestion, I opted to look into Google Forms instead. Google forms allows you to set up a test/quiz/survey, email it to a group, and then it feeds the results into a spreadsheet: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoFh1QlpZkR1dEp0N2o3TlhKZWk2SkhOWnpiOU5ZZEE&hl=en_US
This sort of initial assessment allows you to focus your lesson on the areas in which the class is struggling as a whole. When I delivered my lesson in my practicum, I used a similar sort of worksheet pre-test. I then compiled that information and split the classroom into three levels of initial understanding. I then took one person from each group to create groups of three so that the students could work and help each other learn. Of course this was all done blind, and it was highly effective in having the students kind of teach each other. The one thing it really lacked, however, was the true sort of differentiation I was looking for. To me, the purpose of formative assessments is to be able to differentiate your lesson and your classroom in a way that targets each individual. Using the Google Forms survey application, I think I can do that. While I was able to create a sort of aggregated data with the paper form, the fact that Google Forms outputs to a spreadsheet that splits the results both by question and by individual allows me to quickly see where one student may need extra help. So while all formative assessments allow you to more quickly get students to higher level thinking (by eliminating redundant instruction) Google Forms allows me to build on each students prior knowledge on a more personal basis, which will allow them to assimilate the new data more efficiently.
I see very few issues with implementation regarding this technology. Obviously the main issue with this is the same as almost all of the other technologies we’ve discussed; the open access to computers by students. The thing that makes this specific technology easier as it comes to this is that students would not have to fill this out during class. If you can get an email address from every student, you can email it to them and they can fill it out as homework. If a student does not have an email account, you can link them to a webpage that has the survey on it. In that situation, they may have to access a computer lab to fill it out, but they should still be able to complete the task in no more than ten minutes outside of class.
Trade-offs or biases with the Google Forms version of surveying was a little tough to come by for me. In thinking about it over the past number of days, I had difficulty coming up with a way that the paper copy was better than the online version. When I did the paper version in the classroom, “grading” the quizzes and compiling the data in any meaningful fashion took three to four hours. When I used the Google Forms for my lesson plan in class yesterday, I had the data at my fingertips in five minutes. One problem that I ran into on Google Forms was that if you edit the survey by adding questions or changing the order, there doesn’t seem to be a way to quickly or easily delete the old survey results... but that is hardly different than having to write a new pretest if you wanted to change the paper form. The only major trade-off I found where the paper copy would be beneficial would be the ability to again use the test again later in the lesson. When I did my lesson last semester, it seemed to be very beneficial to the students when, after some instructional input, I handed back the pre-tests and allowed them to work in groups and correct their mistakes. Being able to see where they went wrong and actually fix it seems to give students a deeper level of understanding, and then being able to have a tangible copy of their work allows them to go back and review what they’ve learned. This is something that Google Forms does not provide. I could print out a paper copy of the questions at a later time for them to fill in, but I don’t think it would have the same impact. This is something I will have to continue to consider. There is another issue of bias that I did not consider until just now. Some students can better express their thoughts, answers, or ideas through other forms than writing. Since a survey on Google Forms would likely be done outside the classroom, it would not give students the freedom to answer the questions in other ways. If you give them a piece of paper, they may be able to write out their thoughts or they might be able to talk through things and tell you what they are thinking. The online form wouldn't give them that freedom, so while I may think I am assessing a students knowledge of the topic, I may instead be merely assessing their ability to read and properly comprehend the question.
Regarding standards, Google Forms’ Surveys meets INTASC Standard #8 and ISTE Standard #2. INTASC #8 discusses using “formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner” while ISTE #2 requires a teacher to “design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified in the NETS•S.” These standards are similar in a lot of ways in that they focus on the creation of meaningful assessments that utilize technological advances. Google Forms certainly achieves those goals in a way that will allow me to differentiate within the classroom in a way that would have been incredibly difficult in the past. This will allow me to ensure the continuous development of my students. It will also allow me to maximize content learning by making it so I am not wasting time that could be better spent in other ways. Instead of wasting my time manually “grading” quizzes that are meant solely for student development, I can instead use that time to develop new ways of getting through to individual students. Instead of wasting the students’ time teaching them information they already know, I can dig deeper into the information and get them to consider the connections that these ideas have to their world as a whole. Overall, saving this time can allow students to become more intimately involved with the material, which I think is a major focus of the NETS•S.
The book Challenging the Whole Child edited by Margaret Scherer is a compilation of articles that encompass a number of ideas about whole-student education. A number of the articles discuss the use of formative assessment versus summative assessment. One article, called “The Best Value in Formative Assessiment” (pp.219-226) by Stephen and Jan Chappuis, discusses the confusion that comes with the modern day understanding of formative assessment. It delves into the idea that many educators, especially since the advent of NCLB, have started to confuse formative assessments with “mini-summative assessments” and are using them to gauge how students will perform on the upcoming high-stakes tests. It’s thesis revolves around the idea that “assessment for learning” is the type of assessment that has “value” and that using these assessments as a way to adapt your teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.teaching style will best assist student learning. I think this is correct. It is certainly true that using these informal assessments throughout the process can focus your teaching towards what is currently deficient within your classroom. I guess the problem I have with this article is the same as I’ve had with almost every current thought, article, or textbook regarding assessment, goals, objectives, and achievement. They are all high on rhetoric without any satisfactory solution. It makes sense to say that assessing in order to help students learn better is more effective for learning than assessing in order to make students do well on tests. It makes sense to say that achieving well on a test does not necessarily work as an effective measure of how much was learned. The problem is that learning is an abstract idea that, in a lot of ways, is wholly undefinable. If schools were free, or simply paid for by individuals and their families, then trying to achieve the higher ideal of learning would be a noble goal, but the fact that these things are paid for by the government and by society as a whole means there has to be some sort of measure by which they can see if they’re “getting their money’s worth.” If how we perform on achievement tests versus how other countries perform is not a valid measure, then what is? How do we define it?
I think that it is important to impart all of these high-minded ideals into new teachers. I truly see the value in all of this theory and psychology. I believe it helps us become better teachers, and therefore helps us create better students. That said, I also understand why teachers fall back into traditional roles once they enter the classroom. All of the current goals within education seem opposed to the things we are learning and no one seems to have an implementable solution as to how we can change that. So, after that long rant, I’ll try to quickly get back to the point. While I agree with most all of the points included within the article, it seems that it was designed to speak to those who already agree with it. While it makes a distinct clarification between types of assessment, it does not provide any sort of compelling evidence that shows why formative assessment is better, or what “better” even means in this situation. I’m a solutions oriented person. That’s why I loved what Google Forms provided for me. But I truly can not see the end game with all of this, which I why I struggle with many of these articles and discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment