Assessing Meaningful Learning with Technology

Authentic and Performance Assessment

It is logical that in order to evaluate meaningful learning, there must be meaningful assessments. Jonassen proposes that we rid ourselves of the old, outdated forms of assessment and pursue authentic assessment that matches the authentic learning that is taking place. I would agree that it makes no sense to have a well thought out lesson, with authentic, meaningful learning, and then continue to have a meaningless list of questions for a student to answer. Traditional quizzes are in not necessarily bad, but they just might be inappropriate.

It is commonly known among educators, that proper assessment tests what the student has learned, and should be in a way that the student learned it. Just as it is illogical for a baseball player to practice, practice, practice his curve ball and then never throw it. If he just took a quiz on proper form at the end…what was the point? In the same way, a student should practice, practice, practice for the game! This might not be the best analogy…but it makes sense to me!

Technology-Based Assessments

With my first glance at this section I thought, “I hope this is more than just an online test or quiz!” I think that many teachers may look at a test on the computer as an alternative form of assessment. I would strongly disagree. Even though it may be slightly more enjoyable or even slightly easier (depending on the student this may or may not be true) to use a computer, this is definitely not an alternative assessment.

Jonassen addresses this specifically when he says, “the use of technology to support assessment has developed beyond simply placing traditional forms of assessment in digital format.” While I was happy at first to hear that he agreed with me, I realized that it was probably Jonassen who taught me to think of technology in these terms in the first place!

My Assessment of the Assessment for EME 4401

AHA! So this is the chapter where the learning artifacts came from! While I can’t say that I enjoy creating learning artifacts (mostly because I am a college student who sees them as just another obligation getting in the way of my Tuesday evenings ;)), I can say that I learn a lot from them. I am actually forced to think about the content and to create my own demonstration of learning. These are phrases that I have used before in describing assessments, but through the learning artifacts I feel as though I actually have some personal experience to support the statements. When I write my reflection I am actually mediating on the material at hand. I apply it to prior knowledge almost unintentionally. While it may not feel like I am learning a whole lot, the truth of the matter is that I am actually retaining knowledge. Instead of simply memorizing information for a test or answering a list of questions to get a check plus, I really feel that new knowledge is being assimilated into my brain. Even though my motivation to produce these artifacts is external, along the way I do, in fact, learn.

I agree that on-going assessment through electronic portfolios (which this blog kind of is) is a meaningful way of assessment. It provides students with the opportunity to present their best work, work that they have constructed and made meaning out of on their own.

I also appreciated Jonassen’s views on how E-portfolios offer teachers flexibility in terms of how they are implemented. Teachers can offer feedback along the way and even open up the floor for peer review. I am a huge advocate of ongoing assessment for students. This kind of assessment sets students up for success; it rids assessment of some of the misunderstandings that can come with communication of expectations for projects or assignments. If a student misunderstands part of the assignment, as the teacher gives feedback the student can be directed in the right way. Part of my job as a teacher will be to set my students up to succeed and learn.

As I analyze the format of this class, I can see the intentionality in the way that assessment takes place. The contracts set us up for success. We know exactly what will be expected of us to receive and A, B or C. This fulfills that consuming craving that has been deeply instilled in us to get good grades. Within the contracts, there are clear expectations for each assignment…but not in the form of a grading scale. Through our artifacts we are required only to demonstrate our learning. If the instructor feels as though we adequately demonstrated learning, then we receive credit for that learning. If we have not properly demonstrated learning, than we can try again.

I think that the types of assignments we are given foster meaningful learning, and that the assessment system matches the meaningfulness of the assignments. It is not busy work or mindless production, but real learning is taking place and then being demonstrated. Learning by doing and learning by reflecting. Even in the assessments, learning is taking place.

Clickers and Rubrics

I have never been in a classroom at any educational level that has used clickers. I have heard about classrooms using them at the university level, but never at an elementary level. From what I have heard from peers, clickers are used for enormous auditorium classes to take attendance or short quizzes. I have never heard good feedback from them. After reading Jonassens take on them, I can see how they could be potentially beneficial in the classroom. I can see how assessing in real time can benefit a teacher's instruction and allow her to change instruction to meet student needs very quickly. It is hard to formatively assess the entire class all at once, but clickers can allow that to happen. Even when a teacher asks questions to check the entire classes understanding, it is often through a raising of the hand or some other visual communication. Students can easily read each other, and not really know the answers themselves. While this kind of "cheating" can still happen with clickers, I think it is a little less likely.

Rubrics are not all that new to me as an education student. I have created them a lot, and most things that are graded in my classes are done through rubrics.

Visualizing with Technologies

Visualizing Scientific Ideas:

It seems that many of these technologies are not necessarily suitable for use in the elementary classroom. While students can definitely take advantage of these types of programs…I see it being less likely that they create with them. Chemistry visualization tools, for example, are both not necessary in the elementary classroom and too advanced for young students to handle. Geographic Information Systems are good for supporting students’ spatial thinking, but would be used for the upper elementary students at best. Students may benefit from this program by playing with created projects, but designing and creating projects would be unrealistic.

Google Earth and Google Maps could be used to better understand geography concepts and directions. This could be beneficial to students are they learn about directions and how to give them. This could be a great way to make learning meaningful and put it in context. Teaching right and left and other basic special awareness concepts could be done in context of maps and Google Earth images.

Visualizing Mathematical Ideas:

It is well known in the education world that students need/should be provided with visual aids and representations for math. Every week in my Elementary Mathematics Methods class we go over a different topic in the realm of elementary math. For each topic, ranging from counting, to patterns, to fractions to geometry, there is an accommodations section. Something that always comes up in this section is the use of visual aids. It seems that almost any student with any type of learning disability can benefit from visual aid. Not to be politically incorrect, but I would agree with many educators in the idea that “normal” students can also benefit from these visual aids, and they should not be used solely for students with learning disabilities.

With all of that said, I will begin to address the different technologies mentioned in Jonassen’s section on visualizing mathematical ideas. He states that most of the research on these tools has been conducted in universities, and that because of their power and complexity they are seldom used with K-12 students. I would have hoped for more information on lower level technologies.

Jonassen first mentions graphing calculators. Having taken pre-calculus and calculus in high school, I have a very strong foundation in using a graphing calculator. I recall how helpful it was to actually see the graphs that I often charted out with numbers and symbols. It was, as Jonassen said, difficult to distinguish important features of functional relationships. While it was true that the picture/graph helped me visualize the equation, I still would say that my learning experience was not meaningful at all. Technology did its job in aiding understanding, but I think the gap came in the lack of context of the math in general.

TinkerPlots is one of the programs that actually address elementary school (grades 4-8). It is a very minimalistic introduction to statistics concepts, charting, and data analysis. I find this tool to have great potential in aiding meaningful learning in an elementary math classroom. The problem with most mathematics instruction is that it is not contextual in the least. A few word problems at the end of a drill and practice worksheet does not count as contextual learning. Learning is not relevant to the student, it is not constructive, and there is typically no collaboration whatsoever. I think that a program like TinkerPlots can throw learning into a constructive, relevant, collaborative process for students. By posing a problem, a question, or asking for a prediction, students become engaged and find purpose. When they are required to collect, display, and analyze their data, learning becomes constructive, and students partake in something meaningful.

In this case, I am not sure whether or not the technology is “worth it.” Meaningful learning for this type of mathematics could occur without TinkerPlots, albeit the program would make learning a little more exciting. Getting students excited about math is one of the biggest issues in my opinion, but often contextual learning can grab and maintain interest. I checked out the cost of this program, and for a single user it would be $89.95. The 1o-user lab is the next up on the list, and it is $299.95. If a school were to invest in a school-site license, the program would cost $999.95. I would say that it might be worth it to put this program on one computer in the math classroom. All students could still benefit from the program, students would just need to work collaboratively in groups, and different groups would use it at different times.

Geometric Supposer appears to be a little more advanced than elementary geometry needs to be. Although it is not intended for elementary students, I think that they could still benefit from using the program. It allows users to create and test geometric objects, and even while learning basic geometry skills, elementary students could be aided in understanding geometric properties and relationships. I do not, however, think that this technology would be worth it for an elementary classroom. There are other ways to help students visualize and understand geometry at an early level. A big part of geometry in elementary school is keeping it contextual with shapes, patterns and other geometric concepts around them. I think that a program like Geometric Supposer might give the message that geometry is not practical or relevant in daily life. The program appears to lack any context or problem solving as it focuses solely on the creating and manipulating geometric objects.

Visualizing with Digital Cameras and Mobile Phones:

As we have discussed in our Technology class on multiple occasions, elementary age students are exposed to technology almost non-stop on every day. They have cell phones, digital cameras, text message, and so on. It is my personal opinion that instead of trying to keep that technology out of the classroom, it should somehow be incorporated inside the classroom. Mobile phone and digital cameras could be great fun for the students to learn with. Using their own digital devices, the mundane idea of “school” could turn into something relevant and exciting! These visualization devices could be used on photo scavenger hunts, for observing and documenting science experiments, for memorizing lists or vocabulary (used as a picture reminder), or for simple documentation of fun in the classroom.

Visualizing with Video:

This is something that could definitely happen in an elementary classroom. I think that I would be surprised at how well third graders could handle a camcorder. Camcorders are obviously a tool that can help promote meaningful learning in the classroom for any subject. Using a camcorder to make a video is engaging for students, constructive, collaborative, and very relevant. Students can work together to make a product. Video making could be used as a form of assessment in the classroom. Students could also make videos that teach the rest of the class part of a lesson or a topic that they teacher wants to cover.

I would say that investing in camcorders is definitely worth it! Their use in the classroom us limitless and they have great potential to foster student creativity and challenge students to think outside the box. They can be used by the teacher or the student; as a teaching tool, an engaging activity, or even an assessment. I am convinced that even if a classroom had only camcorder, it would be used over and over again.

I think that editing would be/is the most difficult part about video making. This is where elementary students would need the extra help and guidance. Classroom volunteers would be very helpful for the editing process, especially those who are computer savvy.