In the Winn article, it is explained that embodied learning happens when the learner is able to use all of their body to interact with the environment. “Learning is no longer confined to what goes on in the brain… sometimes the coupling between a person and the environment is so tight that it more convenient to think of person and environment as one evolving system rather than two interacting ones” (Winn, 2003, p. 22). Kinesthetic learning allows the learner to move around, rather than passively listen to lectures or read from textbooks. This creates an environment where student learning is constantly changing and evolving. Students should be provided with opportunities to help them actively participate in projects and problems, while collaborating and communicating with their peers. Knowledge is not constructed in isolation or in a vacuum, but rather through critical thinking with groups of people (Winn, 2003, p. 4). These 21st century skills are what students will need as they enter the workforce and these skills allow them to become lifelong learners. Since technology is evolving at a rapid pace, it is even more important for research to keep up and stay current (Winn, 2003, p. 22).
According to the Winn (2003) article, “[l]earning is best explained in terms of the student’s evolving, contextualized understanding and is valued on that criterion, rather than on the basis of traditional objective assessments” (p. 3). Assessment is a topic that I have spent a lot of time thinking about lately and I’ve decided to include some of that in this week’s post. It has been years since I’ve taught grade 7 and I had completely forgotten about the standardized assessment (FSA) that BC teachers are required to administer to their grade 4 and 7 students. I disagree with this assessment for many, many reasons (I won’t get into all of them).
How can an assessment that is administered to all these students (regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, etc) give us a clear understanding of what our students are able to achieve? According to Cowley and Easton (2017), “[t]he act of publicly rating and ranking schools attracts attention and can provide motivation. Schools that perform well or show consistent improvement are applauded. Poorly performing schools generate concern, as do those whose performance is deteriorating. This inevitable attention provides one more incentive for all those connected with a school to focus on student results” (p. 3). Are we not publicly shaming schools that score poorly on this assessment? It is believed that research needs to focus on student socioeconomic status, ethnicity, family support (or lack of) and quality/preparedness of teachers. Focusing on these areas, will give us a more complete picture as to what happens to students as “they go through the education system” (Winn, 2003, p. 4). None of these areas are accounted for when administering a standardized test. The test does not allow students to collaborate with others, use technology to look topics up or even to type the written components (there are 4 components: one math and one English is done digitally and one math and one English is written in the book provided; most of the questions are multiple choice). When in life, would we have students sitting in isolation without access to technology for support?
In the chapter, “Enhancing math learning for all students,” it is believed that graphing calculators help support higher-level thinking because students are able to solve multi-step problems that otherwise would not be able to be solved in the classroom. The use of these calculators prevents students from being bogged down in the calculations and allows them to focus on the process (p. 951). These tools are relatively inexpensive, which makes them accessible to all classrooms (unlike expensive computers or tablets). Students should have access to these calculators all of the time. Studies show that students who use graphing calculators daily learned more than those students who used them infrequently (Voogt & Knezek, 2001, p. 956). According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 11% of high school math classrooms use computers, whereas 40% use graphing calculators (as cited in Voogt & Knezek, 2001, p. 952). “Cutting edge research is exploring the latest new advance – graphing calculators that are connected via a wireless network. In simple uses, the wireless network can enable teachers to engage in formative assessment. For example, a teacher can take a quick poll of students’ responses to a conceptual question and display the results instantly. Teachers can use this capability to give students feedback and to adjust instruction” (Voogt & Knezek, 2001, p. 952). It is important to note that calculators should not be used for learning basic math skills (mental math, estimation, etc.) as these are still very important skills that are required in our daily lives (Voogt & Knezek, 2001, p. 953). Going back to my assessment piece, if we are allowing our students to use calculators, computers and tablets in our classrooms to enhance their learning, how can we possibly expect them to succeed on a standardized test that does not allow them to use these types of technology?
Questions:
- How can we possibly expect our students to be successful on a standardized test when it’s delivery looks nothing like how we teach our students on a daily basis (little or no technology, no discussion, no embodied learning, no collaboration, etc.)? What does this do to their self-esteem when they get the results back (we have to send home the graded booklets)?
- How can we integrate STEM projects into standardized assessments? Why are math and English the only two subjects represented on these assessments? Doesn’t this make students think that other subject areas are not as important?
Cowley, P., & Easton, S. (2017, February). Report Card on British Columbia’s Elementary Schools 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from Report Card on British Columbia’s Elementary Schools 2017
Enhancing math learning for all students. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.) International Handbook of information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, Springer, 951-959. Retrieved on March 11, 2018, from http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/k044345111t8v102/
Winn, W. (2003). Learning in artificial environments: Embodiment, embeddedness, and dynamic adaptation. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 87-114. Full-text document retrieved on January 17, 2004, from: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/tfurness/courses/inde543/READINGS-03/WINN/winnpaper2.pdf