Amy asks us to ponder the philosophy of Paola Friere

What is critical pedagogy and why is it so important in education?  Do you feel that there is a place for critical pedagogy in our curriculum structure today?   Or do you think that the time has passed for us to embrace ideas of social justice and economic transformation?  Do Paolo Freire’s philosophical positions interest you?   Do they make sense to you?  Why?  Which of the six principles of pedagogy from Freire’s philosophy do you feel that you incorporate into your teaching…….if any?     

Kate asks us to think about the importance of the arts

How might repeated significant encounters with the arts be used to combat standardization and dehumanization?

 Maxine Green argues that meaningful exposure to and study of the arts is critical to developing persons  who “live more ardently,” who are roused from the stupor that results from unquestioning, passive reception of superficial societal messages that focus on consumerism, technology, and a view of human beings as ‘human resources.’”

 Yet, even some “educational experts” seem to buy into the idea that the arts are frivolous.  In December 2010, Grant Wiggins posted his opinion on his ASCD blog.   Wiggins felt that schools should ban most fiction books from the curriculum altogether, on the premise that they don't prepare students for the future and that the bulk of reading adults do is non-fiction. He also claimed that fiction bores boys, and he recalled “with horror having to read Jane Austen and Nathaniel Hawthorne as a student.”

 Do you agree with Green that the failure to expose students to works of art that force us to confront the complex and the uncomfortable will most unabashedly lead to “a desperate stasis?” Or do you side with Wiggins in his belief that our job is to prepare students for their future work in a high tech world?

If you agree with Greene, how do you personally act to help your students avoid intellectual numbness?

 If you agree with Wiggins, how do you respond to Greene's concerns?

 

 

 

Dr. Ries and Insensitivity of Tests

According to  the author of this week's article, W. James Popham (2011, p. 298), when evaluating a large scale accountability test one must consider the test’s “instructionally sensitivity.”    A test’s “instructional sensitivity”  represents the degree to which students’ performances on that test accurately reflect the quality of the instruction that was provided specifically to promote students’ mastery of whatever is being assessed.   An “instructionally sensitive” test should  be capable of distinguishing between strong and weak instruction by allowing us to validly conclude that a set of students’ high test scores are meaningfully, but not exclusively, attributable to effective instruction.   Similarly, such a test would allow us to accurately infer that a set of students’ low test scores are meaningfully, but not exclusively, attributable to ineffective instruction.  Popham goes on to suggest that the only  practical way in which to appraise a test’s “instruction sensitivity”   is to create panels of 15 to 20 curriculum specialist and teachers who are knowledgeable about the content under study, and to add to that group of specialists several noneducators.   Popham recommends that such a panel rely on four evaluative dimensions.  In essence, those who judge large scale accountability tests should consider:   1) the number of curriculum aims assessed,  2) the clarity of assessment targets,  3) the number of items per assessed curricular aim, and  4) the instructional sensitivity of the items.  First of all, do you agree with Popham that large scale accountability tests need to be examined more closely by expert panels?   Why or why not?   Then you are being asked to  discuss any one of these four evaluative dimensions suggested by the author and make a case as to why it should or should not be used for the large scale evaluative purposes discussed here.    Taking this thought a step further, can the “four dimensions of evaluation” model that has been discussed in this article be applied to you in your classroom and to your teacher-made assessments?   How do you evaluate the "instructional sensitivity" of the tests you create for your students?    Do you apply any of the evaluative dimensions to your personal evaluation of tests?      

Maureen is asking us to further exam our educational philosophy

Chapter thirty-two of the Ornstein text is entitled “Dichotomizing Educational Reform.”   It is an article written by C.D.Glickman.   In his article, Glickman discusses what he believes  American public education is about and what philosophical beliefs should drive that education.   Glickman shares with us his belief that  “public education is supposed to serve a common good”  and he goes on to state that  Horace Mann, in the mid 1800s, wrote that public schools “would be the great equalizers of human conditions, the balance wheel of the social machinery.”  The debate remains however as to what an “educated” person in our democracy actually is.  Who is to make the decisions as to what constitutes a thorough education?  Does one need three years of high school or college level preparatory classes in order to be an “educated” person in our society?  What essential knowledge and skills should an educated person in a democracy possess?  Glickman, however,  believes that we should not think in terms of any one structure , method or system of education but rather that we must consider competing views as we go about answering the above questions. 

 

 Do you agree with Glickman’s  position?    Why?   Why not?   And finally, do you agree with Horace Mann’s statement above?     I look forward to reading about your philosophical preferences with regard to the education of our young people.   

 

 

Jennifer poses a question about our assessment practices

        What grading and reporting practices do you feel support learning and encourage learners?  Many teachers find grading to be a conflicting exercise.  They want to encourage their students, but on the other hand they feel obligated to be a judge and evaluator to meet the criteria of the grade level expectations.  Tomlinson and McTighe stated in this week’s reading in (pp. 129-133) that grading and reporting should be done using six key principles. 
             ·         Principle 1 states that grades and reports should be based on clearly specified learning

goals and performance standards. 

 ·         Principle 2 states that grading should be valid.  Looking at a concept to be learned and

making sure that child is learning it should be the key focus, not whether the child has a

learning disability for example. 

 ·         Principle 3 recommends that grading should be based on established criteria, not on

arbitrary norms.  Norm-based grading, they believe,  promotes unhealthy competition in

which some students will necessarily become “winners” and others “losers” as they compete

for scarce rewards.”

 ·         Principle 4 states that not everything should be included in grades.  In essence, the authors recommend that pretests should not be considered as a grade and formative assessments should rarely be factored in.  Grades should come from summative assessments.

 ·         Principle 5 suggests that we avoid grading based on averages.  Tomlinson and McTighe (2006, p. 132) consider the problem through a humorous anecdote: A man is sitting on an old fashioned room radiator that is blistering hot.  His bare feet rest on a block of frigid ice.  When asked about the room temperature, he replies, “On average, it’s pretty comfortable!”  Point being averages can be misleading. 

 ·         Principle 6 encourages teachers to  focus on achievement and report other factors separately.        

          Which of these six principles resonates with you the most?   Do you take issue with any one of them?   Which approach to grading, in your estimation, encourages learners and supports “true” learning, i.e., comprehension and ability to transfer knowledge.   Does your approach to assessment support the principles set forth by Tomlinson and McTighe or is your approach to assessment in conflict with theirs?