Question 1: What does it mean to align outcomes, assessments, and strategies according to Larson and Lockee (2014)? As an example, describe how this alignment would be presented in your ID project offering details of each one of these three sections. Please, introduce shortly your project at the beginning to understand better your instructional decisions.
As an instructional designer, aligning outcomes, strategies, and assessments means that we are developing these items simultaneously in our design process. Together they are the “essence” of an instructional plan, ensuring that what is covered through the design process is all “essential” information. This clarity and coherence allows an instructor to announce, instruct, and test students on same items of knowledge and skill. This means there are no surprises, and students and teachers have increased accountability in their roles. Not only that, but Larson and Lockee explain that close alignment of these three components provides a way to accurately measure the success of the instruction (p. 115). Therefore planning with the “end in mind” (p. 125) supports learners, instructors, and designers.
As I work through my ID project, I am firstly aiming to ensure that my outcomes and assessments are worthwhile and measurable, and also sound similar to each other. I am trying to make these competencies and activities as precise and observable as possible. Then I am selecting strategies that reflect the outcomes and prepare the students for the assessments (which is the method suggested on p. 128).
The project I am tackling is a short series of lessons on Scratch programming for a small class of boys age 9-13. We are specifically going to focus on using Scratch to enhance “storytelling” literacy skills. The goal is to take a self-authored short story (which has already been turned into a storyboard in a previous activity) and convert at least part of it into a digitally animated scene, complete with a background image, two characters, and computer programming scripts that instruct the sprite to move, talk/think, make a sound, and interact.
The outcomes and assessment for this project include:
- Students recognizing the main parts of the Scratch interface and recalling their purpose
- Students showing how to select/edit/create a ‘”stage” (background) and select/edit/create a “sprite” (character)
- Students manipulating Scratch programming blocks through instructional reference cards and trial-and-error methods
- Students selecting and utilizing the programming “blocks” in a purposeful way, with results that match their intentions
- Students creating a script for two difference characters that allows them to move, talk/think, make a sound, interact, and “change costumes” (optional).
- Students transforming their pen-and-paper storyboard structure to digitally animated sequences of action.
- Students debugging (noticing and correcting) their programming scripts for errors
- Students evaluating peers’ work with a rubric
- Students using the peer evaluation tool to guide their editing before the final presentation
It is my intention that the outcomes will connect to formative assessments (such a quiz, informal observation, self-check and teacher-check (such as with a checklist of requirements), as well as more “formal” summative assessment (the final product via the “debugging” and peer review process (using a rubric)).
In terms of strategies, it is inevitable that there will have to be a large degree of scaffolding required for this project, which is quite constructivist in nature. The students have no exposure to Scratch, and will be learning it through several “instructivist” strategies for the first half of the lesson. These supplantive strategies include more explicit directions and guidelines to help them feel supported in their understanding of the tools and opportunities that the software allows. Quick reference aids will help students remove the stress and distraction of memorizing a large amount of new information (i.e. what all the Scratch buttons do).
The learner-to-instructor interactions will lead to learner-to-content interactions, in which students really get the chance to apply and create with the software. This means that generative strategies will emerge, allowing students to organize, control, and monitor their own learning and product creation. This will culminate with learner-to-learner and learner-to-self interactions in the final steps, in which they will interact with each other as well as think how the content aligns to their individual goals. Hopefully this kind of variety and strong scaffolding from low- to high-order thinking will motivate the students, give them confidence, and allow them to focus on the creativity of the task (rather than the “difficulty” of computer programming). I have a lot of ideas about storytelling with Scratch, and a plethora of strategies that I think would work well throughout an entire Scratch unit. The trick, now, is to refine my focus and ensure there isn’t TOO much going on for a short lesson sequence.
- - - - -
(Responses to specific questions:)
Hi Karin, yes, I am also fearful I have bitten off more than I (or the students) can chew in a few lessons. However, I was planning to split up this lesson series into four 45-minute sessions.
- Learning Scratch terminology and exploring various programming blocks both with learning aids and through trial and error methods.
- Establishing scene background and laying out the programming script for one character in terms of how they move, talk/think, etc.
- Quiz on terminology and programming script for at least one other character in terms of how they move, talk/think, interact with character #1, etc. If time, they can explore and apply the "change costume" command for a character.
- Finalizing scene (ensuring it aligns with storyboard), debugging script, and peer assessment. Final product will be submitted for teacher evaluation and for sharing with peer audience.
I hadn't heard of Scratch before last year when I stumbled upon it and fell in love with it, ultimately teaching a mini-unit to my 7th graders who also enjoyed it. I encourage you to give it a go! http://scratch.mit.edu/
- - - - -
Hi Mike, I haven't actually done much with storyboarding before, but I feel it would be a really helpful transitional step between the written story and the graphic/"animated" production (I say "animated" because I don't think the scope of this project is going to allow for actual frame-by-frame style animation). I was planning for the students to create their storyboard in advance of this project, and was going to keep it low tech with pencil and paper, as it sounds Matt has done before. I think the Scratch platform will be challenging enough, and I don't want to confuse them with another online application to learn as well. I will probably use a template from here: http://www.printablepaper.net/category/storyboard, ensuring these is plenty of space for notes on what the characters will say/think and do in each major "change" within the scene. By doing this all in advance, the majority of their energy and attention will be on actual programming when it comes to Scratch time. In future activities, or with an older group of students, I might try to storyboard using one of these digital tools, which I've yet to explore: http://www.storyboardthat.com or https://www.toonboom.com/products/storyboard. They seem promising! Best of luck with your upcoming unit on video storytelling. Students love being behind the camera and in design mode!
My comments to others:
I agree that digital portfolios that follow you throughout periods of your K-12 educational experience are a fantastic way to keep learning products organized, accessible, shareable, and assessable. Just as portfolios are used in higher ed to showcase work and demonstrate meeting standards, younger students could increase their accountability by showing how they are accomplishing objectives over time. I am curious to learn more about WIX and Bulb. Thanks for sharing those ideas!
* * * * *
Question #2: In your opinion, should anything have been removed from or added to Jackie’s evaluation plan on case study 8? Support your ideas with quotes and/or concepts from the Larson and Lockee chapters.
Yes, I agree with the majority of you who are surprised by the lack of evaluation foresight from the outset of Jackie's ID endeavor. Consequently, in its initial design, there is little accountability on behalf of both the learners (STEM teachers) and the grant recipient (AMTE) project. When it is finally included, the design of the evaluation piece appears to have been conducted independently from (and subsequent to) the design of the instructional piece, and therefore has some connection gaps. (Jackie should have listened to Larson and Lockee, who emphasize repeatedly the importance of developing assessments at the same time as developing learning outcomes.)
The evaluation tools Jackie creates are appropriate for gathering data on KASI's such as the teachers' post-workshop attitude/reaction to the experience, and the degree of attainment of knowledge and skills as well as their reported transfer to students. What I feel is lacking is the (KASI) "interpersonal" piece, and (Bloom's) "creation" piece, which would be an assessment of teachers' ability to actually enhance and advance technology education. Sure, they can pass an objective, knowledge-based test about it, they can discuss how they feel about their learning about it, and they can tick a box to say if they implemented some of it in their curriculum. However, what is lacking here is an evaluation of the success of the overall objective/primary goal of the AMTE mission, which is to extend the technical training of teachers for the benefit of the students. Are and how are teachers "improving the educational opportunities and experiences available to students" (Eval. Plan Overview) as a result of this faculty development program?
This critical piece would require an additional instrument that would require each teacher to engage in a "performance assessment" of sorts, by which they would either: a) showcase their teaching of a sample lesson using the knowledge/skills gained from the workshop (conducted live or via video), b) submit an evaluation feedback form completed by a colleague or administrator who could attest to the teacher's use of the workshops' knowledge/skills in their instruction, or c) submit a unit plan highlighting how and where they have used the knowledge/skills from the workshop. It might also be helpful, if possible, to gain feedback from the teachers' students with regard to if and how their learning opportunities and experiences have improved after their teacher attended the workshop. After all, this is stated as a primary objective of the project design.
Therefore, yes, I believe that Jackie did a fair job at offering a balanced combination of of evaluation instruments that included an assessment of the learners' knowledge (lower-order thinking skills: remembering and understanding), an overall attitudinal reflection of the learning experience, and a quick check of its application and relevance to their performance context. However, it would have helped complete the "bigger picture" of AMTE's project evaluation if the teachers engaged in a higher-order thinking activity that demonstrated their ability to create and showcase a lesson that integrated the application of, say, hydraulics or pneumatic applications in their teaching.
Upon further review, part of the issue is that the instructional goals of the workshop (for example the one reported in Appendix 8-A) do not make reference to the overall project aim of helping teachers help students. They treat the workshop participants (teachers) as the end-learner. Adding and articulating the next step, which is transferring knowledge to others, might help better align the objectives and assessments to the project goal.
My comments to others:
I think the idea of teachers creating a learning log about their implementation of the course objectives would be a fantastic way to increase accountability and receive more valuable qualitative feedback. It would need to be determined how to evaluate the blog contents in advance. Also, would the focus of the blog be on teachers simply reflecting on the value of the workshop or proving that they are meeting the objectives of the workshop (i.e. Is it more pf a self-assessment or a formative assessment of skills?)
Having those two assessments (teachers and students) is a fantastic plan. It would be very interesting to see how well they aligned! I also still feel, though, that a "performance" assessment of sorts, on the part of the teacher, would be a valuable evaluation tool. Self-reporting how well a teacher felt they did with something may not be as reliable as involving a third party to observe/report this information. I realize this becomes a more complicated matter of logistics, but is a perspective worth considering.
No comments:
Post a Comment