Linda-Action Research
This is yet another very useful site for me to use in the future. I appreciate having access to other educators views on what works and what doesn't. As I read the introduction to the proposals, I was excited by the idea that this state cares so much about improving the quality of educators placed into classrooms in order to ensure the optimal learning for the students. I find it encouraging that so much is being done to find out what works, what doesn't work, and what strategies just need improving. One thing I think will be a challenge as a new teacher is really knowing what works for the individual child. Each child can learn so differently and I want to be able toapply various techniques to make sure each one of my students gets the most from their year in my classroom.
Over the past seven years I have worked with numerous students who struggle with reading. I was very interested in the Action Research proposals that addressed phonics, peer-teaching, and pair reading. I particularly liked the proposal on page 48, Jeff Bargs. I worked individually with a student last year in the first grade who struggled a great deal with reading and the program we used really benefited him. It is Total Reading for anyone interested.
It is interesting that so much time goes into the collecting of information and doing the work, and yet the proposal is so straight forward. The sharing of information between teachers is so great. I know that I heard somewhere that all good teachers or coaches are great at borrowing and adapting other people's ideas and strategies. If it works then why not?
I believe one point that the introduction says is very important. We have to continue to learn and study in order to perform well as quality teachers. I think that we are in a profession where if we stand still and just get the "necessary credits" to stay accredited, and don't really strive to improve how we do things, we will be doing a great disservice to not only the kids but inevitably to the country and ourselves.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Linda-Sanders 3-6
Linda-Sanders3-6
After reading the "Is this a Trick Question" post I learned so much. And then reading chapters 3-6 in Sanders I gained even more insight into testing. Chapter 3 begins with defining the different kinds of tests, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced, then it goes on to give important guidelines to designing a good test. I found this very insightful. I did know that making tests was challenging, but now realize the extend to which a teacher must go to assure quality testing. I liked how in the chapter there were examples to try and it was a good way for me to see if I was understanding the information along the way. The suggested resources I'm sure will be useful-Tests in Print and Mental Measurements Yearbooks (http://www.ets.org).
The way the chapter breaks down all the types of tests is very useful. I know I will be refering to this book often in the future.
I had no idea there were so many differnet types of validity. The case study helped to see all the information applied.
In chapter 4 I related to the statement, "How can you summarize the information you collect so that the message from your data is accurate and clear?". I have found that many times when dealing with data one can then look at the information and not be really be clear on what it is telling you. I like again how the chapter gives applicable examples and suggestions for doing it the right way. In chapter 5 the suggestion to discuss the findings with the person most directly affected first to avoid problems is a good one. I know that any time there is an evaluation, of people or of general information, people can become defensive quickly.
As I was reading all of these chapters I keep coming back to my own school. We have recentlybeen trying to get a bond issue based, and the information collection, the politics, the finaces, etc.-all of the information took quite a bit of organizing and information collecting. It had been a stressful couple of years for those in favor of and those oppposed to the bond. Debates got pretty heated to say the least. But back to the chapters, I can see that the amount of time needed to create questionaires, evaluations, compiling data, etc., it all takes a great deal of dedication. Even with the simplest of tests, it has to be done correctly taking into consideration all of the suggestions in these chapters. Like I said I'll be refering to this book in the future to write the best tests I can.
After reading the "Is this a Trick Question" post I learned so much. And then reading chapters 3-6 in Sanders I gained even more insight into testing. Chapter 3 begins with defining the different kinds of tests, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced, then it goes on to give important guidelines to designing a good test. I found this very insightful. I did know that making tests was challenging, but now realize the extend to which a teacher must go to assure quality testing. I liked how in the chapter there were examples to try and it was a good way for me to see if I was understanding the information along the way. The suggested resources I'm sure will be useful-Tests in Print and Mental Measurements Yearbooks (http://www.ets.org).
The way the chapter breaks down all the types of tests is very useful. I know I will be refering to this book often in the future.
I had no idea there were so many differnet types of validity. The case study helped to see all the information applied.
In chapter 4 I related to the statement, "How can you summarize the information you collect so that the message from your data is accurate and clear?". I have found that many times when dealing with data one can then look at the information and not be really be clear on what it is telling you. I like again how the chapter gives applicable examples and suggestions for doing it the right way. In chapter 5 the suggestion to discuss the findings with the person most directly affected first to avoid problems is a good one. I know that any time there is an evaluation, of people or of general information, people can become defensive quickly.
As I was reading all of these chapters I keep coming back to my own school. We have recentlybeen trying to get a bond issue based, and the information collection, the politics, the finaces, etc.-all of the information took quite a bit of organizing and information collecting. It had been a stressful couple of years for those in favor of and those oppposed to the bond. Debates got pretty heated to say the least. But back to the chapters, I can see that the amount of time needed to create questionaires, evaluations, compiling data, etc., it all takes a great deal of dedication. Even with the simplest of tests, it has to be done correctly taking into consideration all of the suggestions in these chapters. Like I said I'll be refering to this book in the future to write the best tests I can.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
KSDE,Question-Linda
Linda -Nixon
Thank you! This will be an invaluable tool when I am creating tests. From reading the Nixon assignment, I learned so much. The idea that writing tests will be one of the most challenging tasks I will face was true, but after reading this I feel more confident and will use it to assist me in the future. I read that 48% of teachers had no training in the construction of tests and yet testing is so vital to what we do. I myself am not a great test taker. I had anxiety and second guessed myself constantly, making myself a wreck when it came time for an exam.
I like the line that well designed tests motivate students and reinforce learning. I also agree with the suggestion to vary the level of difficulty throughout the tests. If a few answers are easier then the student will not feel so anxious. The suggestion to give tests often would have helped me a great deal by lessening the anxiety and being able to prepare properly without the surprise factor. The six general test taking tips on page 12 were useful and great to keep in mind when giving a test as well, remembering the students point of view. The number of useful tips in the site are many-put questions on cards after lecturing to compose relative questions, make sure they know what will be tested, provide feedback so they appreciate what they have or have not learned. I wish a few of my teachers would have done a better job of this. Having students construct their own test-I like this idea, good for review and good for suggested questions for the "real" exam.
An additional point I found interesting was the comment that the more subject matter a student knows the easier it is to make arguments in favor of answers that the teacher might regard as wrong.
Thank you! This will be an invaluable tool when I am creating tests. From reading the Nixon assignment, I learned so much. The idea that writing tests will be one of the most challenging tasks I will face was true, but after reading this I feel more confident and will use it to assist me in the future. I read that 48% of teachers had no training in the construction of tests and yet testing is so vital to what we do. I myself am not a great test taker. I had anxiety and second guessed myself constantly, making myself a wreck when it came time for an exam.
I like the line that well designed tests motivate students and reinforce learning. I also agree with the suggestion to vary the level of difficulty throughout the tests. If a few answers are easier then the student will not feel so anxious. The suggestion to give tests often would have helped me a great deal by lessening the anxiety and being able to prepare properly without the surprise factor. The six general test taking tips on page 12 were useful and great to keep in mind when giving a test as well, remembering the students point of view. The number of useful tips in the site are many-put questions on cards after lecturing to compose relative questions, make sure they know what will be tested, provide feedback so they appreciate what they have or have not learned. I wish a few of my teachers would have done a better job of this. Having students construct their own test-I like this idea, good for review and good for suggested questions for the "real" exam.
An additional point I found interesting was the comment that the more subject matter a student knows the easier it is to make arguments in favor of answers that the teacher might regard as wrong.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Ch. 4 English-Linda
Linda-Ch4
In chapter four the section dealing with the rationality of schools on page 106 was very interesting. The definition that a rational system is one in which the people and the activities are directed by goals and objectives was stated. Then it goes on to say that " if school systems are not rational they have to pretend to be to survive in a world that believes they should be and forces them to compete for funds to continue operating on this basis. Pretend to be? I understand that the problem is if they set goals first then write curciculum to match, or do they form the curiculum and then match goals to that. But either way the goals and objectives are set, right?
In order for the curriculum to be good, it has to help the teachers attain their objectives,is what the chapter says. We have to continually strive to accomplish the objectives, get feedback (internal and external), examine our levels of perfomance in order to improve it--just like expected in other institutions, the schools need to be held to high standards and be held accountable when things need improving.
I found another point interesting. That the issue of funding came up. The ever important issue of meeting standards and showing improvements in order to get the money, doesn't everything come back to that. Competing for funds.
I learned alot about the difference between an audit and accreditation. Accreditation seems to be so important and yet it isn't as "rigorous" and there are numerous variations in the reports. It was also stated that it is cheaper. How many areas can a school "fail" and still be accredited? Does this vary too? I wonder how many people in the public know how accreditation works, how it is so succeptable to "softening" and "back scratching". Why aren't schools audited more frequently, is it because of the expense? Did I miss that in the reading?
In chapter four the section dealing with the rationality of schools on page 106 was very interesting. The definition that a rational system is one in which the people and the activities are directed by goals and objectives was stated. Then it goes on to say that " if school systems are not rational they have to pretend to be to survive in a world that believes they should be and forces them to compete for funds to continue operating on this basis. Pretend to be? I understand that the problem is if they set goals first then write curciculum to match, or do they form the curiculum and then match goals to that. But either way the goals and objectives are set, right?
In order for the curriculum to be good, it has to help the teachers attain their objectives,is what the chapter says. We have to continually strive to accomplish the objectives, get feedback (internal and external), examine our levels of perfomance in order to improve it--just like expected in other institutions, the schools need to be held to high standards and be held accountable when things need improving.
I found another point interesting. That the issue of funding came up. The ever important issue of meeting standards and showing improvements in order to get the money, doesn't everything come back to that. Competing for funds.
I learned alot about the difference between an audit and accreditation. Accreditation seems to be so important and yet it isn't as "rigorous" and there are numerous variations in the reports. It was also stated that it is cheaper. How many areas can a school "fail" and still be accredited? Does this vary too? I wonder how many people in the public know how accreditation works, how it is so succeptable to "softening" and "back scratching". Why aren't schools audited more frequently, is it because of the expense? Did I miss that in the reading?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Ch. 3 English-linda
When reading chapter 3 the first thing that caught my attention was the section dealing with the problems with frontloading. I've had numerous occasions where the tests I have taken in a class were no more than a regurgitation of memorized information. At times I can see why teachers enlist this form of assessing, but as stated in the chapter, no higher level of thinking is engaged and no problem-solving is necessary. The students really miss out on important learning of the subject. They learn for the test and then do not retain the knowledge.
The challenge of designing tests that are valid and reliable is a large one. Teachers must beware of constructing tests that are just given in order for the students to have one. And they must be careful not to be general in their plan construction just for the sake of job security.
The chapter states that frontloading is only possible when local educators design their own curriculum and select their own test (pg. 70). I return to the concern that this is not as feasible as it once was due to the constraints of NCLB. Teachers will do less and less test designing of their own I believe.
The next point that I want to address is the idea that socioeconomics plays such a role in the prediction of test results. I live and work in a small community, with school children from poor homes, and who sometimes move around a lot. I have first hand experience with a student (supposedly home-schooled until this year) taking a state assessment test and simply randomly selecting his answers. Because this boy was pulled from the regular classroom for the majority of his day, had never before been given the chance to learn at his grade level until now, and he struggles with learning, he had no other choice but to just click on the answer he thought was "close". The questions and answers were read to him when allowed, but he had no background knowledge to answer these questions. What good did it do him or the school to have him take this test?
All students do not bring the same thing to the table. They do not share the same resources and backgrounds. So of course the students are "bounded by the lessons learned (and not learned) in their socioeconomic level. It is a sad fact, but true.
The challenge of designing tests that are valid and reliable is a large one. Teachers must beware of constructing tests that are just given in order for the students to have one. And they must be careful not to be general in their plan construction just for the sake of job security.
The chapter states that frontloading is only possible when local educators design their own curriculum and select their own test (pg. 70). I return to the concern that this is not as feasible as it once was due to the constraints of NCLB. Teachers will do less and less test designing of their own I believe.
The next point that I want to address is the idea that socioeconomics plays such a role in the prediction of test results. I live and work in a small community, with school children from poor homes, and who sometimes move around a lot. I have first hand experience with a student (supposedly home-schooled until this year) taking a state assessment test and simply randomly selecting his answers. Because this boy was pulled from the regular classroom for the majority of his day, had never before been given the chance to learn at his grade level until now, and he struggles with learning, he had no other choice but to just click on the answer he thought was "close". The questions and answers were read to him when allowed, but he had no background knowledge to answer these questions. What good did it do him or the school to have him take this test?
All students do not bring the same thing to the table. They do not share the same resources and backgrounds. So of course the students are "bounded by the lessons learned (and not learned) in their socioeconomic level. It is a sad fact, but true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)