Skip to main content

Electronic Portfolio for William B. Doyle



Sample works

           I have included some of the work I have done from my classes at Strayer University for your reveiw:

 

The first paper, "Literacy: Government Control and Citizenship" is a history of literacy and the importance of reading in a democratic society.

 

The second paper, "The Effects of Litigation on Public Schools" is an article review on the negative tole that law suits have on schools, and how schools deal with them. It addresses the difference between regular education suits and special education suits. The underlaying motivation of the suits is covered, but left for the reader to decide.

 

The third paper is a case comparison on the topic of school discrimination. It reviews The Regents of California v. Bakke,  Grutter v. Bollinger et al. and Gratz v. Bollinger et al.

 

The fourth paper, Self Directed Learning: Three Perspectives was written for my EDU-500 class. It  compares linear, interactive, and instructional concepts as applied to adult learning. It also shows a growth in my writing ability when compared to some of the other papers here.

 

The last paper, "Formative Assessment"  delves into to value of assessing learning on a continual basis. The focus of the paper can be summized in the following quote. Teacher directed “formative assessments promote learning when they help students answer three questions: where am I going? where am I now and how can I close the gap (Chappuis, 2005, p. 39)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Running head: LITERACY: GOVERNMENT
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Literacy: Government Control and Citizenship
 
William B. Doyle
 
Strayer University
 
EDU 505
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            The definition of literacy is dynamic and has shifted over time. As a culture advances the needs, expectations, and responsibilities of the individuals within it change as well. This rule applies to literacy and education as well as technology. This is as true with our contemporary democratic system as it was with the first civilizations. The ruling class of each of these societies must adapt if it wants to maintain order and control of the masses. Before civilizations were established, generally the power was held by the big man or men within a society. Reading and writing became another tool that the mighty used to manage the masses, yet the people would eventually learn to use this new medium to increase the power of the people. This struggle existed in the theocratic civilizations, and is still present in our modern democracy. The balance of power between rulers and the ruled is directly related to education in general and more specifically to the ability of the people to read, and the government’s control over what is read.
            In order to be classified as a civilization a culture must possess advanced cities (centers for long distance trade), technology, specialized jobs, complex institutions (religion and/or government) and written language. The first civilizations developed along river valleys in Africa, China and India (Bulliet et al., 2001). Shortly after the advent of writing the ruling class began to use the written word to control the masses. The Code of Hammurabi is considered among the first written laws. Using cuneiform, a method of writing that used a stylus to make impressions in soft clay, the Mesopotamians recorded laws that allowed judges to hand out punishments more fairly. The limited uniformity of penalty in these early civilizations favored the ruling class. It was this class that was the most educated, and controlled the scribe’s message. The connection between knowledge and power was established in these early societies (Bulliet et al., 2001).
            Over the next several thousand years the battle between tyranny and the people turned toward the people after it saw its first bright light, democracy. It was in this environment that three of the world’s greatest thinkers thrived. The belief that humans could rule themselves was supported by the democracy that allowed participation by all free males (Bulliet et al., 2001). Bulliet et al. state that, “Socrates himself wrote nothing, preferring to converse with people he met in the street.” (2001, page 133) They go on to compare Plato to Socrates. Plato wrote copiously and founded an academy. It is through Plato that we know of the great Socrates; if it were not for the written word of Plato he may have been lost to future generations.
            Plato also established an academy where he educated Aristotle, who composed some of the most influential writings in history. These writings gave the Catholic Church power over the people and the secular rulers who would come to power in the centuries that were to follow. Aristotle educated Alexander the Great, who would spread the Greek language and culture into modern day Turkey and Russia. The belief in mans’ ability to govern himself was to be communicated to future generations, and the key to this ability was literacy. By writing ideas down one generation was able to pass information onto the next.
            When the Romans ruled the known world, they used literacy to promote trade and power. The Twelve Tables outlined the laws of the republic and were centrally placed so that all citizens had access, and were therefore responsible for adherence. Young children were indoctrinated to the tables as a way of creating loyalty. It was the Romans who first planned loyalty of the masses through literacy. It was the Romans who introduced the world to the republican form of government. It is this elitist concept that has been joined with democracy in our modern world.
            Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers of our country embraced the Greek belief in man’s ability of self-rule and combined it with the selective governmental participation of the Roman’s to create our current system. Jefferson believed that if this system was to work the populous must be educated. He believed that a “meritocracy” of leaders would be determined by those who demonstrate the ability to lead (Tozer, Senese,& Violas, page 41). He believed that an educated electorate would be required to guarantee that the best men were selected for leadership positions. Women have had the rare opportunity to participate in government in history, but like the women of Ancient Egypt, they were drawn from the educated class.
            The government established by Jefferson and his contemporaries is still with us today. Likewise, many of ideas about education remain with us as well. His ideas on education, specifically the belief in the “elementary school, grammar school, university, and lifelong learning are ideas that have stood the test of time as well.” (Tozer, Senese, & Violas, page 38)
            According to Tozer, Sense, & Violas, Jefferson considered education important to the “pursuit of happiness” (2001, page 38). This pursuit was limited to white males in Jefferson’s era, but today the opportunity of an education is open to Native Americans, women, African Americans, and other minorities as well. The concept of literacy and the opportunity of receiving an education in America has changed drastically over the past two hundred years, as has the concept of literacy.
            According to Tozer, Sense, and Violas (2001), contemporary literacy is classified as either conventional literacy, functional literacy, cultural literacy, or critical literacy. As a reader ascends this ladder they bring must carry with them additional tools for deciphering what has been written. They define conventional literacy as, “the ability to read and write” (2001, page 2 72). Prior to our modern society this was the definition of literacy. Functional literacy or functional illiteracy is determined by the reader’s ability to understand and carryout written instructions. According to Tozer, Sense, and Violas, (2001, page 2 73) the term functional literacy was coined by the United States Army during WWII. This more objective classification is a consequence of the increasing complexity on our society and the world.
            This increasing complexity can be seen in cultural literacy as well. Tozer, Senese, and Violas quote E.D. Hirsh when they write, “Hirsch argues that the writers of newspapers, books, magazines, and other scripted material assume certain background knowledge” (2001, page 275). This cultural perspective of literacy requires prior knowledge. A reader must be able to determine what the written words mean in the context of a specific culture. Ignorance of subject matter will prevent the reader from accomplishing this goal. Ethnicity, gender, and environment may have an effect on a reader’s ability to understand what has been written. Cultural literacy is more than, “teaching people to read and write” (Tozer, Senese, & Violas, page 277).
            None of the perspectives covered so far are sufficient to provide the citizen with the education required to fulfill the political responsibilities as described by Jefferson. Critical literature on the other hand is the ability of the citizen to act in a manner that will be in his best interest as well as the best interest of the country. This involves political, economic and social responsibilities. “Advocates of critical literature” agree with Jefferson that liberty can only be served with this level of literacy. Unlike Hirsh they do not believe that cultural literacy is sufficient to make a well rounded citizen and democratic society (Tozer, Senese, & Violas, 2001).
            Thomas Heaney(1990) addresses the literacy problem in America at the most basic level. His paper, “Learning to be Heard: Organization, Power and Literacy” is concerned with the functionally literate or the illiterate. In his view the problem of illiteracy is not an educational problem, but a political one. The government’s attempts at correcting the problem of illiteracy have been unsuccessful because it focuses on the individual and not the collective problem. By addressing the problem in this manner the government has created dependency on assistance. This concept, which was unheard of until the Great Depression, is contrary to the classic liberal belief that individuals of merit will rise to the top. Instead generations have become dependent on governmental intervention that will not advance their cause or that of the collective (Heaney, 1990).
            Rhonda McMillion addresses what she terms “constitutional illiteracy” (1995, page 88) Her article, “Lessons in Citizenship” in the American Bar Association Journal  outlines a program that has attorneys working with educators to improve the level of constitutional literacy in America. To her constitutional literacy is a form of critical literacy, for it goes beyond cultural literacy and requires the student into action based on what has been read. The focus of the exercises are to involve students in our political system. It stresses rule making, conflict resolution, community service, and influencing public policy. These skills are required according to Jefferson. The focus on the article fulfills the political requirements of Jefferson, the cultural literacy required by Hirsch, and the decision making skills required in critical literacy theory. Students apply the Constitution to their daily lives, and connect their daily lives to the Constitution. This paper supports the belief that democracy is best served by a population that is literate, involved, and therefore best suited in making decisions that will benefit their country and community. (McMillion, 1995).
            In the “Politics of Literacy” (2002) John Buell covers literacy in America from the post WWII era until the current day. He addresses the theory, practice, and economics of education in this article. Beginning with the 1955 government report, “Why Can’t Johnny Read” and ending with “No Child Left Behind” he writes how government intervention in education has had a negative influence on education. Arguing that educators do not have sufficient freedom to teach as they would like, he blames poor performance on the politicians.
            Buell ties the old style of teaching reading, phonics, to the school budget. Standardized testing, another economic expense to education additionally limits the resources of educators. He accuses conservative politicians of refusing to allocate the required funds to support teachers, and attempting to control what transpires within every classroom. Buell (2002) states that this “nose to the grind-stone” (2002, page 39) approach is based on rote memorization and limits education. The purpose of this method of training is to develop a class of citizen employees who will do what they are told. According to Buell, our schools are working with business to create these workers. The implied fear that government and business are conspiring to steal the rights of citizens is startling, and is cemented by Buell (2002) when he uses the following quote, “The Bush Administration claims the support not only of the business community but of educational ‘science’ as well.” This of course goes against the concept of democracy as outlined by Jefferson and the founding fathers (2002, page 38).
            In her presentation, “Patriotism and Civic Liberty,” Margret Branson speaks on the increase in patriotism after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade center and Pentagon. She asks, among other questions, what is the role of schools and teachers in teaching patriotism, and what is the role of patriotism in a constitutional democracy? (Branson 2002)  She uses historical events to show that this patriotism is not a new concept but a rekindling of something that has been with the United States since the Revolutionary era. She uses Adlai Stevenson as an example to show the trend of high patriotism during the Cold War era.
            Branson (2002) quotes the writer Chinua Achebe, “Patriotism is an emotion of love directed by a critical intelligence.” (2002, page 9) She believes that the school system is responsible for instilling critical intelligence in its students. By what method does a student develop critical intelligence but through critical literacy (Branson, 2002).
            Branson (2002) goes on to state that the current population has only a superficial knowledge of the Constitution. The use of phrases about the Constitution, such as “freedom of speech” does not guarantee that the citizen understands the depth of the phrase. For example she included the case of West Virginia vs. Barnette, in which the Jehovah Witness challenged the state law requiring all faculty and students to stand and participate in the pledge to the flag. Barnette challenged the law’s constitutionality on the grounds of religious freedom since the mention of “One nation under God” in the pledge went against his religious beliefs about praying to objects. The Supreme Court to decided in favor of the citizen over the state demonstrate, but did so on the grounds of free speech, not the freedom of religion. The fact that the Court ruled on freedom of speech grounds rather than freedom of religion would be lost to citizens who do not possess a critical intelligence. She agrees with the classic liberals in this sense, but she reserves compulsion of patriotism to the individual. In combining the Barnette case with Achebe words she clearly demonstrates that she does not feel that patriotism needs to be mandated, but if students are prepared they will make the choice that is in their best interest. This choice will also be in the best interest of the country. Her philosophy is similar to that of Adam Smith, who published the Wealth of Nations. He believed that the individual, acting on his own best interest would also be working for the good of the whole.
            The future of literacy goes beyond traditional critical literacy, but continues the dynamic mentioned in the introduction. As technology continues to evolve so too must the citizens if they are to be successful. Cathleen Rafferty (2003) shines a beacon at the future of literacy. Computer literacy involves new skills that students must master, but is also offers additional opportunities for learning. The addition of auditory and visual aids will make it possible for students who have not been successful with traditional text to become literate, learn, and be productive members of society. This new medium will benefit democracy by offering more participation options, by a greater number of citizens. 
 
 
 
References
 

Branson. M. (2002). Patriotism and Civic Literacy. Paper presented at the We the People State and District

       Coordinators Conference, Washington DC June 30, 2002. Retrieved from www.civiced.org/speech_

       mb_June02.pdf.  April 15, 2007

Buell, J. (2002). The Culture War: The Politics of Literacy. The Humanist.  May/June 2002. p38-39. Retrieved

       from EBSCO HOST April 15, 2007.

Bulliet, R.W., Crossley, P.K., Headrick, D.R., Hirsch, S.W., Johnson, L.L., Northrup, D. (2001). The Earth and Its

       Peoples: A Global History. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

Heaney, T.W. (1990). Learning to be Heard: Organization, Power and Literacy. Eric Document Reproduction

     

        Service. ED397237. Retrieved April 15, 2007.

 

McMillion, R. (1995). Lessons in Citizenship. ABA Journal. December, 1995. page 88 Retrieved from Academic

      

        Search Premier. April 15, 2007.

 

 

Rachal, J. R. (2000). We'll never turn back: adult education and the struggle for citizenship in mississippi's

        freedom summer. Adult Education Quarterly, May2000, Vol. 50, Issue 3. Retrieved from Academic 

        Search Premier. April 15, 2007.

 
Rafferty, C.D. (1999). Literacy in the Information Age. Educational Leadership. October, 1999.
 
         page 22-25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier April 15, 2007
 
 
Tozer, S.E., Senese, G., Violas, P.C. (2006). School and Society: Historical and Contemporary    
 

         Perspectives. Boston: McGraw Hill.

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
Running Head: MY LAWYER
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Effects of Litigation on Public Schools
William B. Doyle
Strayer University
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What are the Effects of Litigation on Public Schools?
 
Article Summary
           
            This research study explores the liabilities that the fear of litigation has placed on our school systems. According to the authors the anxieties felt in the school system are the result of a system that ensures that all students are protected. The research does not indicate a universal belief among all who were interviewed, but the general consensus is that the potential of a law suit works to protect the students against physical abuse, sexual misconduct and negligence. This consensus can be supported by the interviewee’s desire for slow change to the system instead of a total revamping of how things are done, and by the fact that the minimal solutions did not go beyond the existing structure (Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            In order to raise questions about the effects of litigation on teacher and administrators a pilot survey was conducted. It was this survey that was reported in this article. The survey’s design was to determine if litigation was having a major effect on our school systems and the educators who run and work in them. The authors make this statement and declare that the research done was limited in scope. Only two states New York and Illinois were used and the teachers were all from the New York area. The teachers did represent both urban and suburban schools. The survey was successful in raising questions about the role litigation was having on education (Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            The article addressed six points and reported the results as they aligned with national surveys, previously conducted. As stated above the general consensus between New York and Illinois were similar. Some areas of agreement were that the litigation was often pursued in effort to collect a capital settlement, and not with the best interest of the students; that these suits did protect the students whether that was their primary motivation or not; that these suits were brought on by parents who wanted to get what they wanted whether it was warranted or not; that the frequency was greater with special education students than with regular education students; and that districts were likely to settle cases rather than go to trial. This last statement indicates that the districts believe they can save money by avoiding long court cases, and it can be implied that the schools do not want the publicity (Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            The three points covered by the authors highlighted in this paper include:
            “For many teachers and principals, the possibility of being sued or being accused of physical or sexual abuse of a student is ever present in their minds. Many say they completely avoid toughing students or being alone with them to avoid this hazard (Johnson & Duffet, 2003, p.3).”
                        “According to many teachers and school leaders, litigation and due process requirements often give unreasonable people a way ‘to get their way’ even when their demands are unwarranted. School leaders appeared divided over whether agreeing to an unjust settlement is preferable to going to battle in the courts” (Johnson & Duffet, 2003, p.3).
                        “Despite their concerns, many educators say protecting children from physical or sexual abuse is a higher priority than reducing the threat of litigation. Many appear to believe that lawsuits and procedures are the price we pay for protecting children(Johnson & Duffet, 2003, p.3).”
                                                                                   
            Self preservation is also consistent with the administrators and teachers alike. At the district level procedures are instituted that dictate the teacher’s behavior. This practice can also be found at the classroom level as teachers follow the guidelines established by the administration and protect themselves by using common sense when dealing with students. Two practices that teachers use to promote self-preservation include refraining from any physical contact with students, and never being alone with a student. Not being alone with a student is further conditioned by not being behind a locked door, especially if the teacher is a male teacher(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            Due process and increased expense to the district and the taxpayers is most prevalent in with special education students. These students who already post a higher than average per capita expense to the districts, are more likely to actually sue. When they sue they often sue the district and the individuals independently. The potential for such a law suit affects how students are disciplined and taught. The potential of a law suit is something that the educators all agreed was a constant concern(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            This same due process is often used by parents to get what they want. The paper goes on to explain how this is most prevalent with special education students and cited two main goals of parents. One goal is to have the student placed into a private school at the expense of the taxpayers. The second goal is capital gain. In either of these motivation scenarios the driving force is monetary gain(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            The first goal, to get the child enrolled in a private school at the taxpayer’s expense is often considered unreasonable by school administrators, and they cite that the student is receiving an adequate education at the public school. It is often forced upon the district when specialized education attorneys review the student’s files and find an error in the paperwork. This error or mistake does not prove that the school’s evaluation was incorrect. It is just a formality that the attorneys grasp onto and force a settlement. Often students are sent to private schools at the taxpayer’s expense without a legitimate need(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            The second goal is outright greed. The parents of these children use their children to claim a monetary award. This type of suit can be brought by regular education students as well as special education families. The paper states a physical injury as the excuse used to claim a large settlement from the district, but the supposed injury could just as likely be emotional or psychological. One of the teachers interviewed believes that the students should be evaluated to determine the extent of the injury as a way on justifying and limiting awards that are paid out.
            Litigation is considered the best in not only way of protecting students from either physical or sexual in nature according to many of the teachers interviewed. It is something that educators must accept if they are interested in the welfare of the student’s, seems to be the common belief among educators. This is understandable among people who value both education and student rights as most educators do. The general, taxpaying public may have a different view on this (Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
Reflection on Behavior Observed
            This behavior is easily understood when considering the risks associated with an accusation alone. An allegation of such improprieties as physical abuse or sexual misconduct can drive the administration away from the teacher and the teacher to his or her union, and out of employment. With this in mind it is easy to understand why educator’s act in a manner that will protect them from these pitfalls. Common sense seems to be the general rule of isolation.
            Being alone with a student creates a situation where the word of the teacher is questioned against that of the student. Common sense tells the administration that believing the student is far less dangerous than taking the word of the teacher. If the student is lying the administration my have to face another false accusation down the road, but if the student is reporting a factual account of misconduct by the teacher the administration can look forward to another incident of misconduct to surface. This time the school is responsible for not addressing the problem the first time and their culpability increases. With this increased guilt comes an increase in the chance of legal action(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
            Most educators interviewed believed that the student teacher relationship suffered from the lack of touching policies. These policies can originate in the classroom or in at a board of education meeting. All indications resulting from the interviews lead to the conclusion that the self-preservation stance taken my educators has a negative effect on student education.
 
Significance of Behavior
            These behaviors and acts of preservation work to undermine the education of the students, raise the taxes that are required to run our schools, disconnect the community from the school. They establish a confrontational relationship between the parents and the school and their student’s teacher. This can only feed the problem creating yet more confrontation, increased taxes and weakening ties to the families and the community. One  of the most important factors in building a strong educational system is community support.
            We see this in areas where the income levels are higher. The cost of providing an above average education with many extra curricular activities is a smaller portion of the family income and therefore more palatable by the community. It is this involvement and willingness to pay that builds tracks, swimming pools and buys the latest books and technology for the classroom. This community support helps build a school that students want to attend(Johnson & Duffet, 2003).
 
Proposed Solutions
The heart of this problem is economic. Therefore the solution lays in finding the money to fill the gaps and reducing the expenses the district must face when dealing with court litigation. First we have to look at the distribution of funds to districts. Secondly we must place limits on awards or penalize attorneys who bring frivolous suits to trial. These two simplistic answers to a complex questions offer many ways to not only adjust the issue of litigation, but to fix the disproportionate spending on education that faces our country currently.
 Changing the funding source may require a completely different way of paying for education. Property taxes, the highest local tax are used in most states to provide funds for education. Ideally this is helping to preserve the autonomy of the local school district. In reality this is not the case. As we enter this era of advanced state and federal control over education the local boards are losing power to educate as they wish. If they are losing this power anyway does it not make sense to change the way we pay for education? This will allow students in poverty-stricken urban and rural areas the same benefits that the wealthy suburban students enjoy. 
The state lottery when designed in New York State was promised as a fix for the education funding issue of the time. The lottery continues to grow as does our school funding shortage. If the state spent its advertising budget for the lottery on books there would not be one student in New York who did not have a copy at home as well as one to use in school. Computers and technology would be current state of the art models. Like the research project here this is a subject that requires deeper analysis and action.
 
Personal Reflection
            I work with alternative education students ranging from twelve to seventeen years of age. They are high energy, ADD and ADHD students. Many are on probation, or have been on it at one point in their lives. They come from a variety of schools and we spend the entire day together. I dedicated myself to these students and to doing whatever is in there best interest. I can be confrontational if that is what they need to get moving and I can be compassionate as well. Many of my students do not want to be touched at all. They will not even shake hands everyday, but I will be extending my hand every morning and whenever the situation warrants a congratulatory shake. I play soccer, football and basketball with my students, teach them some basic self-defense moves, and will break up any fight I see.
            Two years ago I was punched in the chest and face on two separate occasions. I was hit with a chair and had a chair thrown at me. I was the target of several books and other objects, some of which hit there mark and others that did not. I am not their friend I am their teacher and no potential law suit will change the way I interact with my students. I will continue to ask their wishes, shake their hands and work and play hard with them. I know this works and I will continue to use this method of being open and honest with everyone of my students.
            Everyone of my students has my cell phone number and email address. I was originally told, by several other teachers, that I was crazy to provide this information to this type of student. I have proven them wrong. I have only been called when I could be of assistance to the student, and have only been threatened over legal action a couple of times. I have developed a relationship with my students and have a reputation with the students that is evident when they show up for class on the first day and they tell me stories about my lessons that their friends told them. These are kids who did not make it in the regular school who talk about my lessons outside of school.
            These accomplishments make me proud, as you can probably tell by my typing, but they are not close to being my proudest moment. That happened on the year that I got punched that I mentioned above. Those events happened earlier in the year and by the years end I was told by the students, in a complaining manner of course, that I was the only teacher who was still teaching them. Many of the others had given up and just let the students watch movies or play games. I could never consider doing such a thing. This is still not the moment I am most proud of. That happened at the very end of the year that I got punched in the face.
            We held an award ceremony for the students. Every student was to be recognized for his or her strength. There was also an award given to each of the teachers from the students. I sat there and listened as my fellow teachers went up and received their superficial awards. Some examples were “longest hair, biggest muscles, best play producer, best painter.” Then the principal called my name and read my award. “The teacher most interested in our success”, was what she called out. By the time I got to the podium to accept my award I was draining my eyes, for I knew that it came from the students that I had butted heads with all year long. That award is hanging in my classroom and will always be there to remind me why I became a teacher at forty-two years of age.
 
 References

Johnson, J., Duffett, A. (2003). I’m calling my lawyer: How litigation, due process and other regulatory

            requirements are affecting public education.[electronic version] retrievedon- line August 25, 2007

            from http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=8

 

 

 

 
 
 
Running Head: CASE COMPARISON                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case Comparisons and Analysis II
 
William B. Doyle
 
Strayer University
 
EDU 520
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary
 
            In the Regents v. Bakke case the issue on discrimination was found for the plaintiff in the district court, supported in the California Supreme Court and eventually upheld in the United States Supreme Court. The circuit court found for the plaintiff, but did not force his admission due to the fact that he had not proven that he would have been admitted if it were not for the Special Admissions policy at the school. This decision was overturned by the California Supreme Court. The state supreme court shifted the responsibility of proof from the plaintiff to the school. The school conceded that they could not prove he would not have been admitted if it were not for the sixteen slots that were reserved for “economically and/or educationally disadvantaged” students in 1973 or as a member of a “minority group” on the 1974 form. (Powell, 1978)  No white students who claimed “economic or educational” distress were accepted. The case was brought before the courts after Allan Bakke was denied entrance into the state university medical school at Davis in both 1973 and 1974. Bakke argued and the courts agreed that he had been a victim of racial discrimination. The suit argued that the school’s policy of providing minority students admittance based on their ethnicity or race was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States supported the California Supreme Court ruling that Bakke was entitled admittance based on the school’s inability to prove he would have been admitted without the two separate but unequal sets of standards (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978)
 
 
            In this case Barbara Grutter sued the ranking administration members of Michigan Law School with discrimination for deigning her entrance into on her race. A white student from the Michigan area she was qualified to attend the school according to her GPA and LSAT scores, but was not admitted. It was the school policy of considering an applicants race as a determining factor that prompted her to pursue her case. The district court found the school use of race as a determining factor unconstitutional and opened the way for Grutter to pursue damages from the school. The Sixth Circuit Court reversed the opinion based on the aforementioned Bakke case, specifically Justice Powell’s praising of the “Harvard admission program”. The circuit court considered the two schools policies similar enough to satisfy the school’s right to follow the precedent set in Bakke of “establishing diversity as a compelling state interest.” The United States Supreme Court sided with the circuit stating that, The Law Schools narrowly tailored use of race In admissions decisions to further the compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI” (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003).
 
.
            Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher filed a class-action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan, its College of Literature, Science and Arts, (LSA), and ranking administrators. Both students are white, were Michigan residents, and fell within the parameters set for acceptance, but were not offered immediate acceptance, for they were not considered “competitive” enough to warrant immediate acceptance (Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003). The court declared the admission system used by Michigan LSA to be unconstitutional because it provided blanket benefits to all minorities. It therefore does not follow the precedent implied by Powell in the Regents of California v. Bakke decision. Such arbitrary and automatic advantage does not demonstrate the required focus on individuals. Adding more minorities does not guarantee a more diverse population. Therefore the individuals, for the Bill of Rights guarantees individual rights, who were denied acceptance based on the lack of the twenty points assigned minority students were discriminated against.
 
Comparisons
            The overriding logic used in determining these cases was that which was established in the Bakke ruling.  This case, as well the other two compared here have seen a highly divided court. The one theme that seems to have set precedent was Justice Powell’s belief that the state could use race to advance the common good of the state. He stressed that an arbitrary selection upon members of a specific race decided on race alone would not guarantee that purpose and would therefore violate the rights of displaced students from such a decision making process. He did provide an example, the Harvard Model, where race could be used to help create a more diverse, and therefore better learning environment for all. This precedent was stated in both Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger et al. and in Justice Rehnquist’s opinion delivered the same day pertaining to Gratz v. Bollinger et al (2003).
 
Beyond the ranking precedent set by Powell’s lone opinion other justices have concurred in part for differing reasons. The belief that past wrongs are still affecting the African American population are shared, but how to deal with this issue is as fragmented as the numerous rulings which have come out of these three cases. Justice Thomas quotes Fredrick in asking for the government to leave the black man alone. He goes on to state that government intervention has caused the black man more harm than good, and that a “meddling” university is not doing African Americans justice by reducing the standards by which he or she needs to qualify for admission. Further, he compares the lowering of admission requirements on African Americans as the equivalent of the reciprocal approach of requiring these same students to possess greater qualifications in order to win acceptance. He insures us that if higher standards were to be required of African American students the public would be outraged and not allow such a plan. Why then does it allow the minority such an advantage when this supposed advantage is doing more harm to African Americans then it is good? (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003)
 
Future Repercussions
            The multiple opinions over nearly three decades have not lead to a clear mandate from the court, but for the Powell Opinion. Affirmative Action, the admission of minorities based on their race or ethnicity alone is over. There remains the state’s right to promote what is best for the people, but even the most structured admission adjustments will come to an end in the next few decades.  Thomas speculates that there will not be a needed for Affirmative Action in the next twenty-five years. (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003)
 
References
 Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) 02-516 539 United States Supreme Court 244. Retrieved on
 
 Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 02-241 539 United States Supreme Court 306. Retrieved on-
            Line July 16, 2007 from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZS.html
  
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 7811 United States Supreme

Court. Retrieved on-line July 16, 2007 from: http://supct.law.cornell.edu /supct /html

/historics/USSC_CR_0438_0265_ZS.html

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
         Running head: SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
William B. Doyle
 
EDU-500
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            This paper will look at three perspectives of self-directed learning. It will compare the linear, interactive and instructional concepts as applied to adult learning (Merriam, Caffarela, & Baumgartner, 2007). The direction of this writing will cover the evolution of adult learning beginning with the linear model of Tough. It will include the interactive models proposed by, Hiemstra and Brockett. It will also address the Instructional theories of Hammond and Collins. The effect of prior research on later researchers as well as the refinement of individual theories will be analyzed. It will take into account the advancement that have been made in both theory and technology. This will allow us to apply the research of self-directed learners to more students.
            Linear models are characterized by the series of steps that the learner must go through in order to achieve his/her goal (Merriam, Caffarela, & Baumgartner, 2007). These steps are similar to those found in a traditional classroom. They differ in the fact that it is the learner who directs the progression. It is the learner who is selecting, organizing and ascending the steps. The majority of the responsibility for learning belongs to the individual learner. This is true with Knowles’ model of andragogy1, and is true with the Adult Learning Project of Professor Tough.
            An early study into self-directed learning was conducted by Professor Allen Tough. This survey, which consisted of 40 college graduates has been duplicated and modified by other researchers as the topic of self-directed learning has increased in popularity. Tough, originally a student of Professor Houle was motivated to select self-directed learning for his thesis after it sparked an intrinsic desire within him. He was able to relate it to how he learned and how others he knew told him they learned (Tough 20003). It was this initial motivation that led Tough to develop The Learning Project.   
Professor Allen Tough concludes that a student who assumes the majority of responsibility for his/her learning by setting goals, deciding how to attain them, and providing the resources to complete the task is in essence a “self-teacher” (Tough, 1967,  p. 3). The student assumes the responsibility of the professional teacher, but is not excluded from referring to one for assistance. The main point stressed by Tough is that the student take charge and responsibility for the entire assignment (Tough, 1967).  In addition to directing the learning process Tough’s survey required that the learner had spent at least eight hours within the past year on the task being learned in order to qualify the lesson as a learning project(Tough, 1967). There were no limitations as to the topic of the lesson.  Learning activities from automobile maintenance to zoology qualify as long as the learner is not using experimentation as his sole means of learning (Tough, 1967).
Looking at the above guidelines it is clear that Tough does not limit learning to that which takes place in formal institutions. He includes any learning that fulfills the above requirements. In his interview with Robert Donaghy (Tough & Donaghy, 2003) he states that self-directed learning is so common in adults that we do not realize how often we do it. He also states that we do not see how much self-directed learning those closest to us conduct either. The survey mentioned above is the only way to assess the vast amount of self-directed learning a person undergoes. He uses an analogy of an iceberg to support this. The largest portion of the iceberg, that which is underwater and invisible to us represents the self-directed learning that we achieve (Tough & Donaghy, 2003). Self-directed learning is not a lonely practice, but a social experience where learners seek the help of others to achieve their goals.
Tough used The Adult’s Learning Project to explore how people were learning, what they were leaning, and how they used resources to promote their goals. His survey also addressed why the individual was learning. All of this information has been instrumental in setting the ground work for other’s to follow.  Using Tough’s Learning Project as a model Guglielmino developed the Self-Directed Learning readiness Scale (SDLRS). (Hiemstra, 1994).
Roger Hiemstra, credits his involvement in self-directed learning to the early work of Houle, Tough, and Knowles (Hiemstra, 2006). This statement supports his humanist model of self-directed learning, as the environment in which he was pursuing tenure as a young associate professor was rich with opportunity due to the work of these men. He actually credits them for motivating him for beginning work that would continue for the length of his career.
It is a short jump from Tough’s social assistance in his theory of self-directed learning to the environmental influence that is the backbone of humanist theory.  Hiemstra & Brockett, quote Elias & Merriam (1994, p. 3), “human beings are capable of making significant personal choices within the constraints imposed by heredity, personal history, and environment.”  They offer five components that they consider important to setting up a learning environment for self-directed learners. (Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994, p. 7)
1.      Learning should focus on practical problem solving.
2.      Learners enter a teaching-learning setting with a wide range of skills, abiities, and attitudes, and these need to be considered in the instructional planning process.
3.      The learning environment should allow each learner to proceed at a pace best suited to the individual.
4.      It is important to help learners continuously assesss their progress and make feedback a part of the learning process.
5.      The Learner’s previous experience is an invaluable resource future learning and thus enhancing the value of advanced organizers of making clear the role for mastery of necessary prerequisites.
Hiemstra and Brockett (1994 p.8) developed the “Personal Responsibility Orientation Model.” The model has three interactive components which are based on the aforementioned items. One component is the learner’s responsibility for his learning. This clearly follows the humanist ideals. The second component is the environment which they label as “social context”. The third component is dynamic depending upon the specific learning situation. This last component is broken down into self-directed learning and learner self-direction.
Learner self-direction includes the learner’s personality traits that make them successful learners. Self-directed learning focuses on the learning process. It is here that the “Personality Responsibility Orientation Model” incorporates the learner with the learning environment. It is from the environment that the student is offered subject matter to study, but it is the individual student’s traits that allow him/her to act on events and circumstances that surround them. The influence that society places on learners is preventative of true individual learning. The potential for individual freedom in learning is addressed by Hammond and Collins.
Hammond and Collins propose the “only [learning] model that addresses the goal of promoting emancipatory learning and social action as a central tenant of self-direceted learning” (Merriam, Caffarela, & Baumgartner, 2007, p.119). Hammond and Collins’ model is also unique in that it promotes both personal and social learning goals (Merriam, Caffarela, & Baumgartner, 2007). Hammond and Collins extended the arena of self-directed learning beyond the college educated, citizens of North America that have been the focus of this paper so far. They have added a responsibility to the educator as well as the learner which is based on the environment in which they live. Their joint work, Self-directed Learning: Critical Practice, uses South African learners. This contradicts the subjects from the other examples used in this paper and is characteristic of self-directed learning research in general. Other researchers have focused on subjects from the United Stated and Canada.
Hammond and Collins propose a seven step model for which the learners must take responsibility. The concluding step is reflecting and evaluating what they have learned. They further propose that educators need to spend more time reflecting on how their students learn. This action by the educator is supported by Brookfield (1993) in his summary of Friere when he states, “As Freire (1970) points out, action springing from an immediate and uninformed desire to do something, anything, to improve one's day to day circumstances can be much less effective than action springing from a careful analysis of the wider structural changes that must be in place for individual lives to improve over the long term”(Brookfield 1993).
This paper has traced the origins of self-directed theory, and in doing so has seen the proliferation of theories relating to this topic. It has relayed how this growth has increased not only numerically, but in complexity as well. Each generation of researchers has added to the knowledge base constructed by their predecessors. It also shows a general trend toward more professionalism on the part of the educator. The original linear models made no mention of educator responsibility, but placed all responsibility for learning on the college educated participants. After Tough we see an increase in the role of the environment added to the practice of self-directed learning. The interactive model of Hiemstra and Brockett took the environment into consideration. In addition they differentiated between self-directed learning and learner self-direction. The final phase of self-directed learning, instructional learning model, as represented by Hammond and Collins provide the educator with more direction while attempting to remove much of the bias associated with society.
In addition to the discoveries that have been made over the past sever decades that relate directly to self-directed learning theory, there have been advancements in technology that have increased self-directed learning opportunity and should continue to do so. The use of computer technology has brought about new methods of teaching/learning that are friendly to more learners. The combination of the Internet and the computer has brought the opportunity of increased education to the door of many who were not able to access the education that they desired just ten years ago. Technology will also assist the self-directed learner is conducting research to aid them learn.
This increase due to technology will lead to an increase in all three of the learning model types discussed in this paper. The linear model will gain many learners as people are able to investigate the non-formal and informal learning they desire. Likewise the interactive and instructional models will gain in popularity. This trend has already established itself and we can expect it to continue. Distance education has allowed students, especially older more settled learners to select from a larger variety of learning opportunities.
From the perspective of the educator distance education will increase the number of and the diversity of learners that will join our classes. It is important that we address each of these students with either the humanist/interactive model or the instructional models in mind. This will allow us to address the needs of our students and apply the techniques that will allow our students to gain autonomy.
 
 References
Hiemstra, R. (1994). Self-directed learning. The International Encyclopedia of Education.
            Retrieved March 4, 2007from http://home.twcny.rr.com/ hiemstra/sdlhdbk.html
Hiemstra, R. (2003). More than three decades of self-directed learning. Adult Learning.  
                 Fall2003, Vol. 14 Issue 4, p5-8. Retrieved from Ebscohost on February, 22, 2007.
Hiemstra, R, Brockett, R.G. (1994). From behaviorism to humanism: Incorporating self-
                                direction in learning concepts into the instructional design process. Retrieved March 4,

                    2007 from http://home.twcny.rr.com/hiemstra/sdlhuman.html

      Merriam, S.B., Caffarella, R.S., Baumgartner, L.M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A

                   comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey:Bass

        Tough, A. (1967). Learning without a teacher: A study of task and assistance during adult self-

                   teaching projects. Ontario: The Ontario Institute for Educational Studies. Retrieved March

                   2, 2007 from http://www.ieti.org/tough/books/lwt/intro.pdf

   Tough, A., Donaghy, R. (2003). Professor Allen Tough reflects on self-directed learning. An

                             interview with Robert Donaghy. Retrieved March 4, 2007 from http://www.ieti.org/tough 

                             learning /donaghy.htm 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

Running Head: FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Formative Assessment:

Knowing What to Teach and How to Teach it

William B. Doyle

 

Strayer University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            The current use of formative assessment in the classroom is a recurring trend that has stood the test of time as well. The belief in using formative assessments is not new, but it is now being tied to preparing students for the high-stakes testing, technological advancements, and human learning as we understand it today. As we learn about learning, gain access to more sophisticated tracking  and monitoring technology, and see the need for formative testing to help our students succeed on the state exams we will also see an need for increased revenue to cover this proliferation of these high tech tools. This paper will explore the foundation of formative assessment as it has been conducted and will evaluate the changes in electronic support and the belief that the cost for such testing should be attached to the summative state testing mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.

            Dekker and Feijs (2005, p. 237) analyze the “CATCH (Classroom Assessment as a basis for Teacher Change) project.” This was a research project that was aimed at increasing formative assessment in the classroom by training educators and measuring the results of student progress. Two school districts were used. There was an initial assessment base-line drawn using the student’s high-stake tests. The students were reevaluated throughout the process, and the teachers’ progress was measured in the change of student performance abilities and a series of structured teacher interviews. The study revealed that all the teachers involved showed an immediate positive change about formative assessment. Virtually all of the teachers showed eventual gains in classroom procedures. This change in attitude and the transformation of the class procedure was based on the use of formative assessment as a tool to aid teachers and students to gauge what they have learned. It is this positioning that allows students to become more active participants in their learning. This makes it easier for them to attain the learning they need to acquire in order to move to the learning objectives. In empowering the students in this manner the teacher has created a student-centered learning environment (Dekker & Feijs, 2005).

            A similar belief of empowering students and allowing them to discover the answers to their questions can be found in, “Helping Students Understand Assessments”. In this work Jan Chappuis states that,  “the teacher must create the conditions for learning, however, students ultimately decide whether they feel capable of learning and whether they will do he work (Chappuis, 2005m, p. 39). Teacher directed “formative assessments promote learning when they help students answer three questions: where am I going? where am I now and how can I close the gap Chappuis, 2005, p. 39) It is a shared belief between Chappuis and Dekker and Feijs that in order to arrive at a destination the student must know where it is located. They must already know where they are. With that information they can determine what needs to be done to get to the desired learning objective. The best way to determine where a student is now is through formative assessment.

            Chappuis has outlined seven strategies for reaching the learning objective. One strategy is providing a clear and understandable vision of the learning target. The student needs to know what the target is if her or she is expected to hit the mark. The teacher should tell the students what is expected of them at the end of the lesson.

            “Second, the teacher must show examples of both strong and weak work.(Chappuis, 2005, p.30).” This not only helps the student better understand the target but provides them examples of how others have attempted to hit the mark. They should be asked to rate the work. This will help them to understand the difference between the two. Chappuis stressed the point of showing poor work as well as strong work. Many teachers do not show weak work and the student does not understand the difference between strong work and his or her work. This will aid the student when he or she is assessing his or her own work, which is another of strategy Chappuis recommends.

            Give descriptive feedback to the students. This is a very specific type of formative assessment that makes the other strategies possible. This will help the students to achieve the desired goal by highlighting where they are weak. The teacher should be as specific as possible and offer advice in terms that the student can understand, and address both strengths as well as areas that the student needs improvement. Numerical grades my tell a student how well he or she did on an assignment, but they do not provide guidance in making improvements, do not help the student get closer to the desired learning objective (Chappuis, 2005). The student can take this feedback and make corrections or adjustments to make the work better.

            The student should be taught to assess his or her own work. Using the skills learned in strategy one, the student should be able to correct his or her own work. Getting the student to consider the teacher feedback and make adjustments will ultimately teach the student to assess his or her work before turning it in for a final grade. With this skill the student should be better able to set learning goals.

            It is important to break learning down into pieces that are small enough for the student to absorb. By doing this the student can focus on one area at a time as they develop the skills required to ascend the steps toward the learning objective.

            The seventh and final strategy is to teach “self-reflection (Chappuis, 2005).” With the skill of self-reflection the student will be able to draw a parallel to the teacher’s rating rubric base upon prior formative assessment. This step allows the student to use all the others to determine the quality of the work, find the weaknesses and make adjustments, all before handing it in for a grade. This final step will allow the student to take charge of his or her learning. This self-directed learner is using formative assessment to make the decisions as to what steps to take to continue to close the gap between where he or she is and the desired learning goal.  

            Marilyn Gogolin, former acting superintendent of the Los Angeles County Schools, has determined that in order to be a high-performance school a school must follow these four guidelines. The guidelines revolve around designing lesson plans that meet the standards. The first step therefore is to define the standard to be addressed. The delivery of the standards needs to be in a student friendly lesson that is paced for the students to learn. Thirdly, regular formative assessments are required to insure that the students have learned what was covered. It does not matter how well you match the standards if the students are unable to grasp the material. Formative assessments can ensure that learning is taking place. Lastly Gogolin suggests that schools provide teachers with adequate planning time. When teachers have time to plan as a group integrated lessons can help student learning Gogolin, (2005).

            Additional support for formative testing can be found in the “A New Kind of Testing” by Julie Sturgeon (2006). This paper merges formative testing with summative testing. It recommends that the formative testing be conducted throughout the year to assure that the students are on track to do well when the high-stakes tests arrive. The paper cites the No Child Left Behind Act and with a satirical tone jests at the president and his power of getting people to listen about testing. It goes on to support scaffolding as a way of building students knowledge. It offers some unique views as to what should be done with the standardized tests (Shepard 2005). After stating that formative assessments will prepare students for the summative assessments generated by the government he suggests only testing a sample of the students, but fails to come up with a fair method of selecting the students who will be tested. There is also the suggestion that the formative testing and training should be tied to the No Child Left Behind Act to secure funding.

            Outside of these aforementioned claims Sturgeon in sync with the other theorists mentioned in this paper. For example, her paper supports the use of standards and of teachers knowing the standards. It supports the use of scaffolding which is similar to the other papers use of student-directed learning, but with the teacher working as organizer. It covers the importance of feedback and teaching the students how to rate their work and the work of their classmates. It also covers barriers to successful formative assessment systems.

The barriers to successful formative assessment systems listed by Sturgeon are:

1.      Professional Development at                                   9%

2.      Lack of clear strategy                                             9%

3.      Technical training                                                    9%

4.      Time constraints                                                      18%

5.      Teacher resistance                                                  21%

6.      Technology Infrastructure                                        30%

While the chart above breaks the factors down into six categories, those groupings could

reorganized to combine Technology Infrastructure, technical training, and part of both Lack of clear strategy and teacher resistance to come up with a percentage exceeding fifty percent that are directly or indirectly related to technology in some way.  There is no argument that technology infrastructure, and technical training are directly related to the use of computers or other technology. We could also infer that some of teacher resistance is due to the increased use of technology, as we could for lack of clear strategy.

            With over fifty percent of assessments hurdles being tied to technology we should find it as no surprise to see the influx of computer technology being developed to aid teachers in formative assessment. Sturgeon quotes Andy Dousis about his mistrust of the corporate interest in formative assessment. In Dousis opinion we do not need technology to improve formative testing we need experienced teachers and a mentor program to pass training on to new teachers so the students benefit.

Herman and Baker (2005) are less wary of corporate intervention in the assessment game. They support business that has already aid assessment. They have six criteria to ensure that the tests being offered accurately judge what the state will be testing . They begin with an insistence the there be an alignment between the standards and the assessment. That diagnostic value cover common errors students make in an effort to improve scoring. Technical quality is also a requirement under their guidelines. The program must be user friendly so as to make the information easily available and understandable to those needing access. Finally it must be accountable for fulfilling it objectives (Herman & Baker, 2005).

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Chappuis, J. (2005). Helping students understand assessment. Educational Leadership.

 November, 2005. Retrieved on-line July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Dekker T., Feijs E.(2005) Scaling up strategies for change: Change in formative assessment

practices. Assessment in Education. 12 (3) 237-254 [Electronic version] Retrieved on-line July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Gogolin, M. (2005) High performance schools. School Executive, September/October 2005

            Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Herman, J., Baker, E., (2005) Making benchmarks: Six criteria can help educators use

benchmark tests to judge student skills and to target areas for improvement. Educational

Leadership. November, 2005. 48-54 Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host

Database.

Shepard, L. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership.

November, 2005 66-70. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Sturgeon, J. (2006). A new kind of testing. Standards and Assessments [electronic version].

August 59-63. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I

Chappuis, J. (2005). Helping students understand assessment. Educational Leadership.

 November, 2005. Retrieved on-line July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Article Overview:

            This article addresses the value of formative assessment to the learning process. It places great emphasis on the importance that formative assessment can have in aiding students to learn. Chappuis (2005, p.39) makes the point that such assessment allows students to answer, “where am I going, where am I now, and how can I close the gap?” Since the student is ultimately the one who decides if and what he or she will learn it is important that the student understand where he or she stands along that path to desired knowledge. Chappuis employs seven strategies to achieve the desired goals stated here.

            In a report by Black and Williams it is stated that schools that allowed students to use their formative assessments showed an increase in learning. The teacher is responsible for setting the eventual goal, but the student must be involved in self-assessment. The desire here is for the student’s assessment to parallel that of the teacher. When this occurs the student can play a greater role in the learning process as it affects him or her.  To get here requires using a seven strategy approach. These steps require that: the teacher give clear “learning target,” shows examples of both “strong and weak work”, provides descriptive feedback, “teach students to self-asses and set goals”, pinpoint instruction/learning on a specific task, teach students to make corrections before handing work in for final grading, and “engage students in self-reflection and let them document and share their learning (Chappuis, 2005).”

 

 

Herman, J., Baker, E., (2005) Making benchmarks: Six criteria can help educators use

benchmark tests to judge student skills and to target areas for improvement. Educational

Leadership. November, 2005. 48-54 Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host

Database.

Article Overview:

            This article addresses outside assessment programs and tells educators how to rate them. Herman and Baker (2005) list how business has used technology to fill the assessment void that many schools are facing. The state assessments are too little too late. Educators need to know where their students stand as the year progresses so that they have time to make adjustments to what or how it is being taught.  They have posted six factors that educators should look for in a quality testing program. They are:

1.      Alignment, how does the testing line up with the standards and the teaching goals?

2.      Diagnostic Value, does the assessment tell us where students are performing below the standards and how to fix the problem?

3.      Fairness, does the test treat students with different cultural and geographic histories the same? How does it compensate for the needs of students with disabilities?

4.      Technical Quality, does the test offer reliable feedback on student performance?

5.      Utility, are the results able to direct the educator in improving teaching and learning?

6.      Feasibility, are the tests improving student performance?

              If the aforementioned factors are not met by the testing program it is not helping

               students and does not represent a proper use of time and money.

 

Odendahl, N.V. (2007) Put your tests to the test. The Journal. 34 (1) 46-47. Retrieved July 14,

          2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

Article Overview

            This article highlights some important characteristics of a quality assessment exercise and displays poorly created assessment questions. The focus of the paper is with the construction of assessments by the teacher. In its discussion of assessments, both multiple choice and constructed-response the author states that the questions should: tests only targeted skills and knowledge, use appropriate language, be factual, use proper grammar and mechanics, engage the learner, and give the teacher an assessment of what is being learned and where the problems are in student errors.

 

Shepard, L. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership.

November, 2005 66-70. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

 

Article Overview:

 

            This article takes Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development” out of the universities and places it in the classroom (Shepard, 2005, p66). One of the main points Shepard (2005) makes is this connection and extension of theory into the practical arena of the classroom. The process of formative assessment in the author’s view should not be limited to pre-test evaluations, but should be a continuing part of the learning process. It is on this premise that scaffolding, constructivism, and socio-cultural learning theories merge.

            Scaffolding is the process that allows teachers to help students over the rough spots. To be effective scaffolding must allow the student to proceed, but the aid from the teacher should be minimal. Just enough help to get the student moving or redirected.  The structure of the lesson is one way that the educator can ensure student success. The teacher can also ask questions that may elicit a response or offer hints that will aid the student in his or her learning. Shepard (2005) uses an example of helping a child thread the needle before teaching him or her to sew, since the threading of the needle is the most difficult part of the project. In order to ensure that the student is on course formative assessments must be done. It is these assessments that tell the teacher and the student where they stand in relationship to the learning goal.

            Prior knowledge is the platform on which students build new knowledge. The search for prior knowledge should be an ongoing quest for the teacher.  The teacher can then develop lessons that the student can understand. Shepard (2005) discusses Ogle’s K-W-L technique. This involves asking what we know (K), what we want to learn (W), and what we have learned (L) (Shepard, 2005, p.68) 

            As a way of motivating student learning and helping the student keep his or her focus Shepard (2005) informs us of research done by Kluger and DeNisi in which they concluded that feedback that addresses the standards and where the student is in relation to them was found to me more helpful than just blanket praise without connecting it to the learning goals. The teacher must elicit additional information from students by asking follow up questions that build on what the student has already demonstrated to know.

 

Sturgeon, J. (2006). A new kind of testing. Standards and Assessments [electronic version].

August 59-63. Retrieved July 14, 2007 from EBSCO Host Database.

 

Article Overview

This article fosters a plan of action that involves many of the components from above, such as: “helping students close the gap,” (Sturgeon, 2006, p.60) “scaffolding and feedback” (Sturgeon, 2006, p. 61). In addition to these items he places more emphasis on the teacher’s understanding of the standards, and a mentoring program to ensure that they are being met district wide. Teachers and administrators need to know how the students are learning in relation to learning goals which are standards based. Like the articles above he calls for formative assessment to ensure that the educators can direct the students toward those goals.

Testing is viewed from two camps according to Sturgeon, the formative and the standardized. the main focus of his paper is on the benefits of formative assessments. One area where formative assessment is falling behind is in the funding it receives. Sturgeon believes that formative assessment should be tied to standardized testing in order to increase the flow of funds to the teacher training programs required.

Currently much of he funding is coming from corporate sponsors, but wherever there is a corporate sponsor there is the potential that the focus of the program will shift to profit, away from the students. Sturgeon (2006) does not believe that an electronic program is needed to do formative assessment successfully. He sees the key ingredients as teacher experience and a mentoring program where the mentors are competent in using formative assessment. The cost of such a program should not be prohibitive.

  

1          (andragogy will not be explored in this paper. It is too broad in its scope, and its validity as a true 

        learning model is highly contested by some, yet applauded by others. To address this properly it would

        require more attention than this paper can offer.) 

 
                                                                                                   
 
 
 

 
 
n16