New Skills and Learning Assessment
What are the implications of new skills development for learning assessment?
Now this is interesting. I have consistently seen a major difference in processing learned information between my mainstream American students and those born/reared in Third World environments. Basically, the native born ones are much more flexible in their learning, willing to take chances in adding their own input, and may use multimedia more effectively in their presentations. The non-American ones (and I might include Europeans here) tend to be much more rigid, linear, and less likely to add their own input. I think it primarily is a matter of how they were educated, memorization versus creative, or at least open, thinking. (My undestanding is that Japanese kids who go to American schools are ruined for their society--they think for themselves too much.) So this whole topic gets into much bigger issues of traditional versus innovative societies, and may have global implications.
That said, I think one is walking a fine balancing line here. Some topics simply require sitting down and rote learning with only single right answers. Math is a good example; engineering, chemistry and the other hard sciences could be others. Which doesn't mean one can't be innovative in thinking how to phrase or approach problems, just that numbers and the physical world only work in certain ways. Obviously constructive technology can add a lot to how one sees problems, and this gets into the myriad ways that people learn.
I'd rather have a humanistic physician who knows the field but can try different approaches than one who goes in a mechanical fashion. Unfortunately, until fairly recently a field like medicine was designed largely for that linear approach. (It's probably no accident that in China 8 of the 9 top leaders were trained as engineers, but look at how narrowly defined their results are.) The Myers-Briggs test is a good indication of how people fit into different zones by learning style and occupations.
I am seeing much more creative thinking among students thanks to video games that require multidimensional approaches to problems. Really, this sort of creative interactive approach to the world should be going on right from kindergarten, but given the rigidity of many elementary and secondary school curricula it will take a while. Pehaps home schooling will be a path more students will take.
In any case, this short lesson raised a lot of interesting thoughts, although no simple answers. My wife says that most people are not innovators, but I bet more could be if they were encouraged early enough. How our society would change, and what effects that would have on the rest of the world, are somewhat beyond the scope of the initial question.
Hi Richard,
Your observations on cultural differences are really interesting. I do think some cultures in the world have rote learning methods and believe those to be effective. My sense is, however, even in those parts of the world, as new technology is accessed, the same sort of flexibility in thinking will begin to emerge. The influence of new media and new technology is and will continue to change how things are done and how we think and process information. There may still be cultural differences, of course, but overall the possiblities are such that new boudnaries will be reached and surpassed. I have visited several countries in the world and worked with faculty and students...it never ceases to amaze me how the challenged everyone feels with making the most of new technology and accomodating the changes in thinking.
Great points...
Very interesting discussion on rote learning, aka behavorialism. I spent the large part of my military career as a flight instructor/classroom trainer, and unquestionably, our military forces have perfected the art and science of training over the past 200 years. And unquestionably, rote memorization (and behavorialism) not only works, it is very efficient and effective. This is very evident in medical and flying training where immediate and 100% recall of information is vital. Now granted, the majority of training (vis-à-vis education) is not that critical, but rote memorization does play an important role at the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. However, at the higher taxonomy levels (analysis, synthesis, and evaluation), that's where the higher order thinking occurs. In the Air Force, I explained to my [flying] students I was educating them on how an airplane flies (the aero dynamics of flight), but I'm training them on how to fly an airplane.
Yes, Jolly, we are all very relieved when people who need to know it can recall exact information at the right time :) I agree that the higher order thinking skills are developed differently and my sense is that while we might still have a need to include rote learning for some aspects of a course or a program, increasing the thinking skills of our students is central to their ongoing learning and their ability to make sense of what they know quickly and in different contexts of use.
In response to the thread about rote learning, there is still a place for it in language instruction. It is not always necessary to focus on the thinking skills of students -- especially in lower-level language classes. Nevertheless, rote learning does not usually translate into a student being able to use a language in practice. I teach many students from South Korea who studied English for years in a rote manner, took endless grammar-based multiple-choice tests, and as a result, cannot actually use the language in a coherent manner. Their classes lacked meaningful contexts to actually use the language.
This is where project-based learning can be so useful for learning English. A project (collaborative or autonomous) is a way for a student to confront using English actively rather than just responding passively to teachers and tests.
In addition, assessment is key here. If students think of learning the language as little more than acquiring skills to pass a test, the tests in effect become a big part of the problem and have serious consequences for students who waste many years studying the language but are not able to speak it.
Shifting one's assessment emphasis to projects, presentations, and portfolios is essential to breaking the test-oriented vicious circle. One should want to assess a student's ability to use the language and actively engage in the course materials rather than demonstrate that they can simply regurgitate grammatical structures and vocabulary.
Yes, good points, Scott. It is very true that language use is most meaningful in context and those approaches to learning that maximize the whole context tend to be more useful. I would suggest that much language teaching methodology applies well to other disciplines given that language is front and center of communication.
Excellent example Scott, and it highlights a distinction between training and education. One could say that education provides a foundation by which critical thinking skills are developed, while training is more skills based. I was a flight instructor and flight evaluator in the Air Force, and I would tell my students they would be educated in how an airplane flies, but trained in how to fly an airplane...one is skill development, the other is developing critical thinking skills. With that said, what would be the role of rote learning in this specific profession? If a pilot is confronted with an in-flight emergency, as was Capt Scully, one's "training" and instantaneous "rote" recall of emergency procedures kick in...no time to "think", since there is very little time to "react". Control the aircraft and fix the emergency are the first "actions", and then the critical thinking skills come into play. After Capt Scully addressed the emergency first (loss of both engines), he then fell back on his "education" (aerodynamics of flight) and mentally calculated (higher order thinking skills) the glide slope to successfully ditch in the Hudson. Bottom line...both rote learning and developing thinking skills can be integrated into a curriculum/field of study...some more [or less] than others.
As a professor of cross-cultural management, I strongly protest your statement: "My undestanding is that Japanese kids who go to American schools are ruined for their society--they think for themselves too much..."
Do you think American Students think for themselves enough? Maybe about American Idol, and the baseball ligues.
I am not especially an admirer of Japanese culture, but I can assure you their cultural roots are much deeper, than we may assume.
Some of the students I am getting, have a minimal knoweledge of math, chemistry, history and geography, not to mention of basic American Government.
One of our employees was wearing black and red. I asked if she ever heard of Stendhal, the French writer, who wrote Le Rouge et Le Noir. No answer.Find me a humanist student I could talk to.
And I am sorry, but I don't think video games develop imagination. The Chinese are now treating video addicts by sending them to boot camps.
I am very passionate about general education, and I think we make a big mistake, when we let high school kids decide what subjects they want to take for their high school diplomas.
Some interesting and strongly felt ideas here, Jack - good discussion. I agree that assumptions can be made without full understanding of issues and that there can be pros and cons to any technology use depending on the motivation behind that use. Human beings of course can become addicted to just about anything! There is also a fine line between developing individual thinkers and life choices that require more living of life than teenagers have done...yet again, assumptions cannot be made. My sense is that if the system requires difficult choices to be made by high schoolers, then those choices should be supported and students prepared adequately to make those choices.
Yes, Jolly...while there can be recognizeable differences between training and education, there are few instances when rote reaction is completely adequate....at least in dealing with any human element. We are happy when people we depend on know exactly what to do in an emergency or critical situation, but we also want to know that they can think quickly enough to see something different and be able to apply what they know in a slightly different way. Skill development should balance the two.
I think this is the kind of discussion where facilitators can get into trouble. It's very important to bring the "real world" into our classrooms, but not to compare ourselves too literally against other nationalities, races, religions, gender, et cetera. I believe we should be more "generic" in any discussions that might inflame people. Remember that together everyone achieves more (team)!
John
I agree, John, except that I also see value in objective exploration of meaning and language use. As we are being challenged to defne and address the rapid changes in our society as a result of new technology, so our language takes time to catch up and help us explain what we mean :)
Learning assessment has been dramatically chnagesd by the application of technology as has the student's opportunity to learn. The technolgy helps the student to become more in-contact with information, knowledge, and with other students. Technology can improve the students skills but is not not alaways the only opportunity the student has to learn.
Indeed, Francis. The technology does not guarantee the process but the instructional design and intentional use of both technology for delivery and mediation does as well as the clear and relevant intervention of the instructor.
Is it possible that we need to be as flexible in our learning assessment as we are asking our students to be in the learning process? I mean, in many schools we use standardized testing, we use textbook author prepared exams, and we use the same exam year after year. I dare anyone to find a class that learns the way a textbook manufacturer thinks they will, or learns the same way the students in the last class that had a subject does. We need to be flexible. New skills development requires individuality in the assessment process, while some may believe otherwise, all students are not the same and they need to be assessed for themselves. I like portfolios and final projects for this reason, and I do not like multiple choice, matching, and fill-in-the-blank for the same reason.
-Chris
I love your thinking here, Chris. It just reminded me of language classes back in the day where teachers spent time making us memorize textbook sentence constructions and scenarios but did not spend time actually teaching us the language - the result being that we could only quote a textbook! Why do teachers spend so much time still testing students on preset responses to what should be complex problems?
Because its the way most teachers have been taught. We are products sometimes of our own schooling. Also the textbook manufacturers make it so easy... they give us those neat multiple choice tests right on the disks.
-Chris
Indeed, the ease of textbook use can counter the actual learning process that should be taking place. Interestingly, teachers must remain critically engaged themselves with the course content if they want students to develop critical approaches to their own learning.
It is pretty clear that placing emphasis on the process and less dependant on the "required" results will require the instructor to be much more engaged in the evaluation process. The new tools of technology make it much easier to monitor the process than ever before and alloows the instructor to encourage the less innovative students to become more creaqtive in their thinking and application of solutions.
