Learning Aloud

The end of the semester is approaching and the last chapters in most ed psych books involve testing and evaluation. One of the topics I consider concerns the practices involved in standardized assessment and the reasons such practices are employed. Part of the point of the exercise is to reveal assumptions that guide the process and what we think the results of standardized tests mean. For example, students taking standardized tests typically are given exactly the same amount of time to complete tasks and hear exactly the same instructions. These actions are taken basically so that all students have an equal opportunity to understand and complete the tasks SO that the scores generated can be compared and differences attributed to the capabilities of the student.

The discussion about expectations started me thinking about some of the behaviors and consequences I have observed with ???high stakes??? testing. Are we really recognizing what we standardize and what our assumptions are? For example, I know that many 4th grade teachers approaching the ???test??? begin to allocate class time differently and begin to emphasize different skills. Math and language arts receive more attention and sessions devoted to history receive less. Experiences in math and language arts may be best characterized as test prep rather than traditional instruction.

So, what might such differences in experiences imply when comparing performance results across schools? When experiences are different, just like when time allowed to complete the exam is different, one can no longer progress to simple conclusions. If results are a function of time spent on test taking strategies and not content knowledge, it cannot be assumed that differences in achievement across schools taking different approaches to preparation mean the same thing. If achievement in one area is sacrificed to boost achievement in another, what is represented as achievement no longer implies the same thing. What standardized tests show mean the same thing only when the preparatory experiences are standardized?

A USA Today article identifies threats faced by your computer when online, provides data on which operating systems are most vulnerable, and offers suggestions for defense.

Microsoft (MSN) now offers a blog service (msn spaces). Note the service is still listed as a beta version.

It appears MSN is attempting to compete the Google which acquired blogger.com in order to offer another service to attract users.

Blog on!

Beginning Monday, November 15, 2004 until March 2005, C-SPAN will televise live a series of discussions hosted by the Library of Congress’ John W. Kluge Center. Approximately one presentation will be available a month and archived versions of the presentation can be viewed online (C-SPAN Digital Future).

The first program, featuring David Weinberger (blogging), is available as of this date.

eSchool News reports that the federal budget support for the “Enhancing Education Through Technology” block grant program is to be cut by 200 million despite a 1.4 billion increase for education.

Earlier administration promises that technology support would be provided through block grants rather than more targeted programs (e.g., Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers To Use Technology – PT3) no longer appear valid. The argument for block grants is basically that states are allowed to apply funds as needed rather than as mandated at a higher level.

Funding priorities are heavily weighted toward NCLB initiatives.

Goals of administration technology policy can be found at Offices Educational Technology.

?? Individualize learning by personalizing instruction for each student???s unique needs.
?? Equip teachers with new tools to improve instruction.
?? Empower teachers, parents, and decision makers with the real-time data on student performance.
?? Expand access to the best resources and learning opportunities.
?? Engage students in their education in ways never before possible.

Perhaps the new secretary of education will update these goals.

A British study finds negative correlation between school use of computers and scores in math and reading. While the correlations with home use were positive, the relationship between performance and school use were negative. Computer availability is associated with more affluent schools providing more positive opportunities and when this connection is accounted for statistically a lack of positive benefits appears.

It will be interesting to see how these correlational results are interpreted as they gain greater attention.

Think computer games are cool and possibly the way to teach/learn? Interested in the reality of what it takes to create games?

Here is an interesting piece from the Dallas Observer describing the process of learning to be a game designer.