As I continue through this course I am continuously gathering more and more resources and tool which to implement in my GAME plan. This week's focus was Assessing student learning. Our text resource " Technology Integration for Meaningfull Classroom Use: A standards based approach" By Katherine Cennamo breaks down assessment into 4 major categories, "1) Forces Choice assessments, 2) open-ended response assessments 3) Performance-based assessments, and 4) project-based assessments" (p 143). While it goes through many different pros and cons for each approach I have found that there are two of these options that best fits my classroom and content that I teach.
As a science teacher there is a large databank of multiple Choice questions (forced answer) that are already aligned with the standards and curriculum I am expected to teach. By using technology programs like Gradecam.com I can instantly access my students knowledge and understanding and formulate lesson plans to better address their content needs. I have recently implemented this for review for the state exam. I gave my students a practice exam to complete and as they finished they could instantly grade themselves and begin looking at their wrong answers. In doing so they were able to have technology enhance their learning process. By getting instant results they could correct misconceptions on the stop and start looking for the correct information. I can now further the students immersion "in the light" (Prensky) by providing access to online resources for the correction of wrong answers. I will have the students go through and give a reason as to why they selected the wrong answer; what was it about that answer that made them want to select it. Then, using the internet and resources preselected by me to be on their level and beneficial to their studying, the students will begin documenting the correct information. I can ask them to not only document what the correct answer is, but provide an explanation of why that is the correct answer and supply the resources they used to correct their knowledge. They can then make a new question that will address the same content knowledge. As a summary of their new knowledge they can make a voicethread presentation of their previous misconception and how they came to the correct knowledge. By putting these all together the whole class will have a study resource that addresses the questions they struggled the most with and helps them prepare for the state exam.
In this way what they are doing is aligned with how they will be assessed, their learning is being driven by where they are weakest in terms of content knowledge. I feel that this meets my goal of continuing to immerse the students into a technological and digital age learning process. By using multiple forms of technology in the review process my students will have a learning experience that is similar to the world they live in outside of the classroom, "connected to the entire world around the clock" (Prensky 2008). This process also simulates how students can begin to facilitate their own learning when they have a question that they need or want answered. By modeling this with something that needs to be done in the classroom the students are not only learning content but also 21st century life skills needed to succeed in todays economic climate.
Cennamo, K., Ross, J. & Ertmer, P. (2009). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. (Laureate Education, Inc., Custom ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning
Prensky, M. (2008). Turning on the lights. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 40–45.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChris,
ReplyDeleteI can certainly understand your selection of forced-choice questions. Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2010) point out that one of the benefits to this type of assessment is access to a variety of electronic test-item banks, ease of administration and scoring, and similarity to common paper-and-pencil formats, such as state testing. However, by adding the component for analyzing incorrect responses to determine why they selected that response, and then researching the correct answer, you have moved the assessment into something similar to an open-ended response since it will “facilitate self-reflection and self-assessment” (Cennamo, Ross, & Ertmer, 2010, p. 146). Your ideas for using technology to provide options for sharing that learning with others then adds a project-based component as well. Well done!
I am curious to know how you will administer the initial multiple-choice assessment. Do you have to take the students to a computer lab or do you have access to an adequate number of computers in your classroom? Also, if several students missed the same items, would you allow them to work together to correct their misconceptions, or would you expect them to work individually? Cennamo, Ross, and Ertmer (2010) point out that research has “documented student achievement gains when students work in collaborative small groups. . . At the heart of these collaborative activities is the engagement of students in deep conversations about both the processes and the products of learning” (pp. 38-39). Great plan!
Cennamo, K., Ross, J., & Ertmer, P. (2010). Technology integration for meaningful classroom use: A standards-based approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.