When Data Rules, Students Are Left Behind

We all know the arguments against using standardized tests.  We are aware that offering incentives based on sales figures or other hard data cause the best of people to blur the lines in order to improve their results.

In the United States there is a big to do currently around using student performance to decide the value of a teacher.  While I do not agree that a teacher who has more experience in the classroom is necessarily a better educator, I cannot believe that we actually feel, if a one's job is on the line, that educators would not do whatever they can to make the data look favorable. 

In #edchat lately there was a discussion on alternatives to grading in the classroom.  A number of interesting posts came to the fore, but for those of us in K-8 education, the options are limited.  Report cards will be coming out soon, and not having grades is not an option.

In our classrooms we talk about differentiation using technology and other resources.  We talk about assessment for learning, instead of assessment of learning.  Our case management meetings, staff meetings, network meetings, family of school meetings - they all focus on helping our students achieve using whatever means are at our disposal.  How can be help each student learn in his or her own way?

My school district is enlightened.  We tackle issues in a genuine and in-depth way.  Yet we still rely on standardized tests to provide data.  Standardized tests for non-standard students.

I have long since come to terms with this oddity.  But what has floored me in recent days is our melding of the standardized testing of reading with the concept that every student learns differently.

We use the Developmental Reading Assessment.  As a student teacher I was placed in a pilot school when the test first came to our district.  Since that time I have been pioneering the test in schools from one side of the region to the other.  It is based on psychometric principles and does a good job of letting one know both how well a student can read, and how well he or she can comprehend what has been read.

Is it perfect? Heck no.  Does it work? Yes.

What is killing me right now are our new rules regarding students with identified special education needs.  The reading passage can be read to the students by a computer.  Yes.  This supposed test of reading ability can be transmitted orally to the student.  What is more, students are allowed to read passages many years below their grade level and have those results melded with their actual grade level text to demonstrate that they read "at level".

When we submit our data to the Board, it can include numerous instances where students marks have no representation of their actual ability to read.  Huh?!

We are so caught up in a data-driven culture that we are beginning to collect data that makes no sense.  It is time for the pendulum to swing back.

Blended Learning and the role of the teacher

Blended Learning is a powerful pedagogy. It is more than just the incorporation of technology in order to carry out traditional learning tasks in non-traditional ways. In order to be effective, it must intrinsically motivate students to achieve learning goals collaboratively. If this is carried out, it can lead to an increase in test scores and grades, improve student's writing ability, create more and more positive opportunities for co-operation and improve student - student and student - teacher discussions related to the curriculum. Most importantly, a classroom in which blending is being carried out effectively reports vastly different set of roles for the teacher and the learner.

As students begin to take more and more control over their own learning, deciding themselves what it is they wish to learn, the role of the teacher is forever altered. No longer does he or she take centre stage and disseminate the information in a set schedule according to his or her aims. The teacher must willingly give up control of what is taught and when it is taught. Students will begin to seek out the information they require, when they require it. This "just-in-time" learning model (Bolton, 1999) redefines the relationship between teacher and student by allowing the teacher to step back from the instruction and instead work to guide his or her students to the correct learning.

Teachers, educators, no longer need to focus on teaching specific information, but on the teaching of skills and processes.  It is no longer important to be the centre of attention, disseminating information.  It is instead necessary to step into the background, give up control, and allow students to lead the path to their own learning.

On Life-Long Learning

In the early 1700s, Yamamoto Tsunetomo stated (as recorded in the Hagakure):

In one's life, there are levels in the pursuit of study.  In the lowest level, a person studies but nothing comes of it, and he feels that both he and others are unskillful.  At this point he is worthless.  In the middle level he is still useless but is aware of his own insufficiencies and can also see the insufficiencies of others.  In a higher level he has pride concerning his own ability, rejoices in praise from others and laments lack of ability in his fellows.  This man has worth.  In the highest level a man has the look of knowing nothing.

These are the levels in general.  But there is one transcending level, and this is the most excellent of all.  This person is aware of the endlessness of entering deeply into a certain Way and never thinks of himself as having finished.  He truly knows his own insufficiencies and never in his whole life thinks that he has succeeded.  He has no thoughts of pride but with self-abasement knows the Way to the end.  It is said that Master Yagyu once remarked, "I do not know the way to defeat others, but the way to defeat myself."

Throughout your life advance daily, becoming more skillful than yesterday, more skillful than today.  This is never-ending.

As long as we are open to to new opportunities there is no end to the possible value we can add to our practice.  I had a conversation with my biggest critic the other day.  Where I use technology, she shies away, preferring the tried and tested traditional forms.  Without realizing what she is doing she argues the well-worn paths of equity issues, and support concerns.  She identifies the myriad of problems can occur when incorporating technology into the classroom.

A fabulous teacher who constantly seeks self-improvement, she consistently ignores the possibilities technology can offer her program.  Through her I learn patience.  I learn not to dive in with both feet at the slightest opportunity.  Through me she advances, baby-step by baby-step.

With an open mind all things are possible. 

The life of a Digital Refugee

Marc Prensky will go down in history for coining the concept of the digital native and digital immigrant in 2001. The terms, well known in educational circles have always left me wondering. It is clear that between the great divide of immigrant and native there must be others, those who do not fit into these two extreme camps.

Researching a paper I recently came across Cheri Toledo's further musing on the concept in which she further identifies key players in the digital age: the Digital Recluse, Digital Refugee, Digital Explorer, Digital Innovator, Digital Addict, and Digital Tourist.

A Digital Recluse is one who uses technology because he or she has to. Computers are an accepted evil in the work world and are banned in the home. Similarly, a Digital Refugee is one who is forced to utilize technology. One to whom a hard copy is a thing of beauty, as all electronic copies are but fleeting versions of the truth. The Digital Explorer can be seen up late on twitter, facebook or other social media sites, looking for new horizons to conquer and new ways to incorporate technology into the landscape. Digital Innovators adapt and change old tools to suit new tasks. While the Digital Addict is relient on technology and will actually go through a withdrawal phase when it is removed. Finally, the Digital Tourist embraces the language and tools of the digital age only while in contact with it. They resist the application of technology to their personal and professional lives.

What caught me initially was the fact that these definitions still fail to describe me. What I initially saw as a series of different identities, I quickly came to recognize as many similar facets of the same person. What is the true difference between a Recluse, a Refugee and a Tourist? Is an addict a true sub-category, or a set of traits that can be applied to any native?

I feel a new definition is required, and try as I might I cannot escape the use of the term Refugee to describe my place in the digital age.

By definition a refugee has no place to call home. Feeling persecuted in their birth place they seek shelter in a new land. This nicely defines my position in the technological world. I am not a native. I can readily identify vast differences in the way they think in comparison to my own perceptions. While I understand much of the language, there are nuances that I can never hope to recognize. New patterns evolve daily and I am forced to try to keep up to keep my footing in an alien world.

Yet I am no digital immigrant. A computer is no closed book to me. I willingly use technology to meet all of my goals, and do recognize its potential. I utilize it in my professional and personal life to attain ends impossible to describe. Sitting down in front of a computer is not a fear-invoking experience. It evokes no emotional response whatsoever. My computers are a part of my life, and thus they cut me off from the world of the Digital Immigrant. I am no Babes in Toyland - and yes, I fully understand that reference.

It is time for a new meaning to be attached to the term Digital Refugee. I am reclaiming the label for all who are a kin to myself. Those who feel adrift in a digital ocean, looking for a port to call home.

Will you join me?