Chapter
11
What
do you see that might be engaging to many different students?
The
practice of using alternative assessments (pg215) promises to engage many
different students as it focuses on behaviors, interests and performance of
each individual student. This focus is
on what the student is ABLE to do, as much as it is on what the student is
UN-able to do with the purpose of helping each student develop as a learner. Specifically giving attention to the
learning context as well as to cultural issues impacting the student promote
materials and curriculum choice that matches the interests and background of
each student. Such matching has proven
to stimulate student motivation and conversely, failure to attend to relevancy
of materials for a student population has proven to contribute to a lack of motivation.
Interestingly,
before reading this chapter, I had been doing some personal reading in an
international applied linguistics journal.
Sounds boring, I know, but stay with me, the abstract says, “The intent
of this paper is to create awareness about underlying values of educational
systems. Understanding of the value
behind the system will contribute to better material design and better
relationships with local educational authorities and teachers.” van Ginkel, A. (2003) “Educational Values
and Material Development”. Word and
Deed, Vol 2:1. SIL Int’l, Dallas,
TX.
The
author of this article notes that education tends to be governed by one of
three values:
1-passing
on valuable knowledge and culture (system-based education)
2-preparing
learners members of the society (function-based education)
3-
developing learns as individuals (process-based education)
While
reading our Reading Club selection, I realized that the struggle we are
experiencing between assessment for accountability versus assessment for
instruction (pg 208) has a lot to do with a difference in values focus between
the public and the teacher. The public
is looking at the final outcome and wants accountability, which is most easily
measured by defining content and evaluating its acquisition (a system-based
approach). While on the other hand, the
teacher must deal with each individual student’s development and best practice
dictates a focus on process.
While
parents, teachers, and the public all desire to prepare students as members of
society, we have an inherent conflict in values regarding the other two
purposes for education. It would be
nice if teachers could just be set free to teach with a focus on process which
is proven to be advantageous to the most students and ensures the best
outcomes.
What
do you see that might meet more than one learning modality?
Observation
strategies, portfolios, and student-teacher conferences allow for multi-modality
performance. Inclusion of this type of
assessment in a child’s performance review ensures that the student is able to
demonstrate his/her full potential as a learner. This is in comparison to standardized testing which is more
narrow in its use of learning modalities.
What
do you see that might support/hinder students
·
with special needs?
Special
needs students are hindered by standardized testing that is not used
appropriately. First of all, such
testing is not discriminating regarding skill use and cannot define
specifications for IEP’s (though I’ve seen this done – just this week I was
reviewing an IEP for my girlfriend’s son in a new school. The school used a standardized achievement
test that indicates a scattered performance profile that doesn’t match his
IQ. The resulting “diagnosis” was very
broad and the IEP was equally indiscriminate – it could have been written for
anyone)
In
addition, the actual construction of high stakes testing programs places many
special needs kids in the bottom percentiles of performance by definition since
the standardization process assumes a normal distribution and special needs
kids fill the lower end of the distribution. It is not productive for these
students to be classified, they need a descriptive assessment in order to
construct appropriate programming and evaluate progress.
Alternative
assessments which describe specific behaviors and performance in a variety of
contexts provides more useful information to the teacher who is evaluating
appropriateness of programming for a child.
·
English Language Learners?
ELL’s
are also hindered by testing programs when no accommodations are made for the
impact that their language skills are having on their performance. The author noted that such students are disadvantaged
because the test becomes one of language proficiency, rather than a skills
mastery test (pg211).
What
do you see that might be bias in the language used in the assignments discussed
in this chapter?
I
was a bit irritated by use of “discrimination” at the bottom of page 214 which
describes the experience of many ELL students.
I’m not sure that the treatment of these students by teachers (or even
by their school system) is one of discrimination (the inference is that
prejudice and mal-intent are involved) but rather of cultural insensitivity and
lack of training. Most of us are
unaware of how our own culture impacts our teaching and expectations. Similarly, we are frequently unaware of how
the culture and language background of our students is impacting their
performance and behavior. I think we
need multi-cultural training that goes beyond celebrating differences to really
understanding the subtle ways in which we are all different and how those
differences impact our worldviews, values, and behaviors. Additionally, teachers probably need more
help in knowing how to deal with language differences in their classrooms. With inclusion being a high value these
days, it puts a lot of pressure on teachers who may not be prepared to manage
the diversity in their classroom. Many
times students are “referred out” of the classroom simply because the teacher
doesn’t know how to teach them and is actually concerned for the student. This isn’t discrimination – it is a failure
of the system to adapt itself to student needs.
What
do you wonder about with respect to equity (in regard to what you’ve read in
the chapters)?
My
big question is regarding the national statistics which show that high performing students are getting
higher, and lower performing students are getting lower. This is alarming to me. The gap between the Haves and the Have-nots
is widening, why? What is effecting this trend? This statistic is saying that school reform is working …. but
only in places where the schools are already doing a good job. Obviously there are some big differences
between the two populations. I’m
curious to know what researchers are saying beyond the obvious. And I’m curious to know what is working and
what doesn’t in the high risk population.
Or is this all a bunch of statistical smoke and mirrors?
I’m
also curious to know exactly what affect the ELL population is having on the
low-end performance statistics. The
authors are inconsistent when describing this population. Sometimes they identify low performers as a
socio-economic level population (pg 204), other times as the minority ethnic
population (pg205 and others), then as largely ELL (pg 213). This problem of comparing statistics drives
me batty. Yes, there are equity issues
---- but I don’t think solutions can be found until the problem is consistently
described.