Building the right assessment

Episode #13 of “Instructional Tech in Under 3 Minutes” is on the assessment tool Formative. Now, according to the Formative’s promo video, this is the perfect tool for you if you love Google Forms and Kahoot. (Which I do…)

So, here’s the deal… it combines the diverse flexibility of Google Forms with the ease of access of Kahoot, which is a nice combination. Real time feedback is a nice touch as well.

This is the third mostly-assessment tool that I’ve highlighted and I do that on purpose. Mostly because building the right assessment can be a little tricky. If you’ve got a well-chosen learning target paired with the appropriate instructional strategies, then it makes no sense to haphazardly build an assessment experience for the students. Kahoot, Google Forms, and Formative all have their unique features. So, with their powers combined, they become a system that can create mostly any kind of assessment questions you might need. Individual or group, performance or self-report, anonymous or named.

It can be tricky to build the right assessment. Have a number of tools in your toolbox is often the first step.

Why Google Forms? Because Legends Never Die

Google forms isn’t a new tool. Not even close. But that doesn’t matter.

A good tool is a good tool (particularly if your school has embraced Google). Particularly a tool that has an ease of use (both for students and teachers), is highly flexible, and can be used on any device.

But, the fact that this tool has been around a while doesn’t mean it’s the same tool it was back in 2010. File uploads and different kinds of gridded responses are among the latest updates.

Plus, adding Equatio to Chrome will make adding math notation much easier, too.

So, give Episode 10 of “Instructional Tech in Under 3 Minutes” a watch and remember Google Forms the next time you need to gather input from your students.

 

Don’t forget Geometry when teaching Algebra

Right now, Michigan educators are trying to sort out the implications of the state switching to endorsing (and paying to provide) the SAT to all high school juniors statewide instead of the ACT as it had previously done. The SAT relies very heavily on measuring algebra and data analysis. This leaves plane and 3D geometry, Trig and transformational geometry under the label “additional topics in mathematics.” The new SAT includes 6 questions from this category. Compared to closed to 10 times that from more algebraic categories.

This comes up in every SAT Info session I lead. Should we just stop teaching geometry? All Algebra? Could geometry become a senior-level elective? If it’s not going to be on the SAT, then what?

These questions reflect a variety of misconceptions about the role of testing in curriculum decisions. In fact, these are the same misconceptions that are driving an awful lot of the decisions that are being made. And in this case, I think there’s more at risk than simply over-testing our students.

It would be a real shame to see Geometry become seen as an unnecessary math class. Because it’s not.

And to illustrate that, I’m going to tell you a story about a conversation I had with my daughter. She’s 6.

She wanted to try multiplication. She’d heard the older kids at school talking about it. So, I taught her about it and let her try some simple problems to see if she understood. And she did, for the most part.

So, I started to not only make the numbers bigger, but also reverse the numbers for some problems that she’d already written down. She had already computed 2 x 3, and 4 x 2, and 5 x 3, but what about 3 x 2, and 2 x 4, and 3 x 5. Were those going to get the same answers as their reversed counterparts?

She predicted no. So, I told her to figure them out to show me if her prediction was right or wrong. To her surprise, she found that switching the factors doesn’t change the product.

“Daddy… why does that happen? It should change, shouldn’t it?”

Translation: Daddy, how do you prove the Commutative Property of Multiplication?

How would you prove it?

The geometry teacher in me thinks about area when I see two numbers multiplied. We can model (and often do) multiplication as an array. It’s just a rectangle, right? A rectangle with an area that is calculated by it’s length and width being multiplied.

What happens if we rotate the rectangle 90 degrees about it’s center point? Now it’s length and width are switched, but it’s area isn’t. Because rotations are rigid motions. The preimage and image are congruent. Congruent figures have the same area.

If l x w = A, then w x l = A. 

Geometry helps prove this. Geometry also helps support a variety of other algebraic ideas like transformations of functions within the different function families. Connections between slope and parallel and perpendicular lines. There’s also the outstanding applications of algebraic concepts that geometric situations can provide. Right triangle trig, for example, is often a wonderful review of writing and solving three variable formulas involving division and multiplication. (A consistent sticking point for lots of math learners.)

As a teacher who spent years watching how Geometry presents such an environment for real, effective and powerful mathematical growth, eliminating it will leave a lot of holes that math departments are used to geometry content filling.

Changing the conversation about testing and data

What if I told you have I know of schools that run through their first grade students through just over an hour of math and reading exercises while recording their results to get a sense of their strengths and weaknesses? These exercises are done a little bit at a time in the first three weeks of school. They do this so that they can make accurate decisions about the ways that each of these students will be properly challenged. This way, each young person gets exactly what they need to grow as learners.

What are your thoughts about these schools? Would you say they care about their students? Would you say that this is a nice approach to education?

Pause here for a moment…

I’m going to start this blog post over again. This time I’m going to tell the same story in different words. I want to see if different words paint a different picture of these schools. Keep in mind that the second set of statements are equally accurate.

Ready?

What if I told you that I know of schools that will give their first grade students eight different standardized tests by the end of September? They do this so that they can record a bunch of data about the students so that they can group them based on the data on those tests.

Sounds a little bit different, doesn’t it? Eight standardized tests sounds like a lot. (Even if the longest of them 8 minutes long. Some are as short as 1 minute.)

So, we’re faced with a decision. Is the first one unrealistically rosy? Or is the second one unnecessarily cold? Your bias will determine which of those viewpoints speak to you most. My bias certainly is.

What isn’t based on a bias is that “standardized test” and “data” have become hot-button, divisive words. And there’s been some backlash. That backlash is captured by posters like these.

important-things-black-flowers-300

Sharing encouraged by Marie Rippel

The message is that our young people are more than a few data points. And that, no matter how much data that we collect, there are important elements to these young people that no test can reveal. That is absolutely correct and if you don’t agree, I’m curious to hear your argument. Post it in the comments and we’ll explore it together.

But that doesn’t mean that the poster (and the related sentiment) are safe from push back. First, there are some things on that list that tests actually could measure. It would be fairly reasonable to collect some data on “determination”, “flexibility”, and “confidence” provided we could all agree on the definitions and manifestations of them.

But secondly, that poster includes items like “spirituality”, “wisdom”, “self-control”, and “gentleness”, which are items that different groups would argue aren’t really the job of the American public school system. That isn’t to say that these groups wouldn’t consider these valuable qualities, just qualities that the schools aren’t on the hook for teaching.

To me, this is an important point. Because there’s a variety of other things your garden variety standardized tests don’t measure. For example, they don’t test a student’s ability to drive a car, their ability to write a cover letter or resume, or their ability to cook a decent meal.

These fit largely into the same category as the items on that poster. Important qualities that are common among successful people, but not qualities that are tested on any of the standardized tests that the students take in the K-12 education. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone use their absence as a support to discount the value of the tests. What makes these qualities different that the ones on the poster?

It could be that the American public and teaching professionals agree that those things are not the job of our public schools. It isn’t their job to teach young people how to drive a car or write a resume, or cook a meal. So, clearly we should be inspecting their ability to do so.

So, would I be safe in assuming that if we could all agree on the job of public schools, then some of the fervor over tests would cease?

Would the authors of that poster be more satisfied if we were collecting data on students compassion?

What are the jobs of our public schools? Frame your answer from the context of what should all students be expected to do when they leave the educational systems after spending 13 years in it.

And how are we going to know if the system is doing it’s job? Listening to a discussion regarding those questions sounds like a huge upgrade compared to listening to hours of endless back-and-forth about whether or not to test, how to test, which tests to use, or what to do with the results of the tests.

What are our goals and how are we going to know if the system is doing it’s job? It’s fine by me if testing students isn’t part of that. But, our educational system has a vital job to play and somehow or another, we need to develop a way to inspect what we expect from the system.

Perhaps the first step of that is coming to consensus on what we expect.

College-readiness, math, and reading… Part II

This is the third in a series of posts where I ask you for help understanding the idea of “college-readiness”.

The first post examines “college-readiness” as one of several competing ideas about the goals of a public school education.

The second post looks at math through the lens of reading and how some pretty influential people seem to support the idea of math and reading being combined for assessment purposes.

Math and reading both have the ability to act as gatekeepers. The ability to read is a classical form of empowerment. It was, for centuries, the primary way that powerful people controlled less powerful groups. In the last century a variety of different folks have suggested that math beyond basic computation is creating unnecessary barriers. (W.H. Kilpatrick was writing about this after WWIAndrew Hacker and Steve Perry are championing this cause in modern times.)

So, combing math and reading together could be troublesome. Kids are having to get through two gates with separate keepers in order to attain this “college-readiness” label that is so important.

And unfortunately, at least some data sets cast some doubt on whether or not our educational structures are properly preparing students to enter high school ready to take on the challenges of a system that is going to require to both read at a high level…

… and to perform mathematically at a high level.

So, we have reason to believe that the majority of our students are entering high school not proficient in math or reading… possibly both. (I am fully aware that this is just one measure… and one that isn’t universal beloved either.)

Let’s recap:

The College Board is writing college-readiness math tests that are written at about an 8th grade reading level to complement their college readiness reading and writing exams. And we are going to give this test to 11th grade students who have a better than 50% chance of entering high school below grade level in either reading or math.

Sounds like those of us in the education profession have a tricky task ahead of us.

I don’t want to make it sound like I’m the first person exploring this problem. Thanks to the work of those who are championing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) we are starting to discover that creating structures, supports, and access points for those who struggle either because of disabilities or lower prerequisite skills improves the experience for everyone.

The idea is that we can flex on the methods, the means, and the tools in order to keep the achievement expectations high. In math, this often means sticking to the learning objective without unnecessarily complicating the task by including areas of potential struggle. For example, students struggle with fractions. When you are introducing linear functions (a topic that doesn’t immediately depend on fractions), don’t use any fractions in your activities, materials, or assessments. In this way, you don’t create an artificial barrier to the learning of new content.

This thought process also applied quite readily to reading. If your students don’t read well, then why make them do it when we are trying to learn math? Dan Meyer suggests that there are student engagement points to be won by reducing, what he terms, “the literacy demand.” Rose and Dalton from The National Center on UDL discuss the variety of benefits of creating opportunities for our students to listen instead of reading. (One of which is creating better readers.)

And all of this makes so much sense…

… until our resident decision-makers decide that reading comprehension (in the traditional sense) is an essential component of a “college-ready” math student.

This puts math teachers between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, we can follow Dr. Meyer’s sage advice to reduce the literacy demand on our students. I’ve done this. He’s darn right about what it does for engagement.

But on the other hand, if the College Board knows what they are talking about (and I’d really like to think they do), do we risk eliminating an essential element from our courses if we work hard to limit the reading?

Perhaps this isn’t as tough a spot as we originally thought. Simply put, the work of the math teacher is complete when the student has developed the ability to solve a targeted set of math problems. This requires helping the students learn certain tools: Equation-solving, data collection and representation, strategic guessing and estimation… These (among others) are all essential problem-solving skills.

Most math teachers have mechanisms in place to support students who are in a variety of developmental levels on the  journey toward proficiency of any of those skills. They aren’t uncomfortable with a student who struggles to solve equations. We see it all the time. We know it’s our job to help support that student. So we do.

What if we looked at reading the same way? What is reading if not an essential mathematical problem-solving skill? A skill that our students are in a variety of different places on?

As math teachers, perhaps it is our job to teach reading.

In my next post, I’ll lay out what it might look like for a math class. I don’t mean a math class with a high literacy component. I mean a math class where the teacher and students all recognize that role of the math teacher is to help the students develop as math readers.