The normally accepted mantra of the distance education community is “anywhere, any time.” Never content to allow the status to quo (because we all know “the status is NOT quo”), I’ve rephrased that to “everywhere, all the time.” This puts a drain on teachers who wind up being “on duty” 24/7 unless they’re willing to tell their students, “No, sorry, my time is more important to me than your learning is.” Of course, nobody’s online 100% of the time. Not even me. But as we consider scope, it’s important to keep in mind.
The following post is a bit dated (the Second Point) but still valid:
On Scope
First, what we’re really talking about is selecting delivery channels that learners can use to develop their own understanding of a topic. To the degree that we, as educators, want them to learn a particular thing, we have to be aware that our goal is not the learner’s goal. When it comes to assessment, the learner may have no desire to prove what they know to us — or anybody else. In fact, they may not be ready or able to demonstrate knowledge until well after the class is over and they’ve had a chance to reflect and practice their knowledge.
Speaking of dated, this class hasn’t had the “If it protects just one child…” discussion yet. Maybe we won’t, but it was an interesting topic to work through as we were discussing the definitions and dangers of internet delivery in 2006. It’s interesting to me to look back two years and see just how little things have changed.
September 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I know that I am guilty of assessing what I want the learner to know, not what the learner is ready to show me. I think that at some point all teachers are guilty of this because we have so much pressure when it comes to testing and students showing us they have learned certain content. We have all of this end of the year testing and by that point the students are burned out on everything. I do not think that it accurately assesses anything. When I was in early elementary I remember the teachers asking us what we wanted to learn that year and we would learn the content of our choices to some extent. Now what the students want to learn is placed on the back burner to what the state says we have to teach. I could talk about this forever, but I won’t
.
In the posting it was mentioned that the learner may not be ready to demonstrate what they learned until well after the class was over. I saw this very thing with a student that I had in class last year. At the end of the year I was very concerned they wouldn’t be ready for 2nd grade because they were not showing they could read. I hesitated to hold them back and I stayed in contact with the parents throughout the summer. I met with the child and the parents a week before school started and to my surprise as well as the parents, the child sat down a read an entire book. He did learn to read in my class, but he was not ready to demonstrate his skills yet. He is not a thriving reader in 2nd grade.
September 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I believe that we are all guilty of assessing what we want our students to learn rather than what they are ready to show us. I have a problem that I am not sure if anyone else is experiencing. My principals claim that all other school districts are following suit and test scores will go up. We spent this summer creating curriculum maps, unit plans, lesson plans and common assessments. We are supposed to follow these plans exactly. My question is, how does this allow me to change assessments to fit the needs of my students? How does this allow me to reteach those objectives that my students did not meet? and how can I wait for students who are not ready to show me what they have learned. I feel like I am like a “core content tornado” who discusses everything so that students hear the content, but master none of it. Thinking about the assessments that I must give, and the idea of assessing what I want them to know made me think about my dilema. I just wanted to share.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
The issue of assesing what we want the learner to know is more or less mandated. We have lessons plans and curriculum maps here in KY that must include essential questions, big ideas, and key concepts and are not to vary from that if we want to keep our job. Education may suffer but test scores should inevitibly go up. How could they not if the only thing that is ever taught is material that is going to be on the end year test. This type of system leaves little room for exploration in the traditional setting. I certainly am not saying it is wrong to have expectations of what students should know when they leave your class, but one of the keys to a sucsessful experience as a students is the ability to gain more insight into ares of your interest. If those opportunities are dampend by continous repetition of testing content, the student suffers, even if scores increase.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I don’t like the statement, all the time, everywhere. I think that education is all the time, everywhere BUT it needs to life lessons all the time, everywhere. My students are actively learning right now and I have no idea how I am going to assess their learning. And the topics they are learning are not greatly tested on. JUst a small portion but do I stop the life learning lessons just because they will not be tested over this. Isn’t active participaton enough, do they always have to assessed?
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I think the “online security” of students working on the internet isn’t being as talked about as often due to people becoming more comfortable with the form of education. The more people use and understand online classes, the more they understand the benefits of it. I’m sure that “protection” will come up eventually, but not as often as it used to because of the sense of “feeling comfortable”.
I think the internet is like anyone entering a new school or work environment. People become uncomfortable in new places or ways because they don’t know what to expect. With expectations being more of the norm, we feel more at ease using the online method of education.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I’m curious as to your “if it protects one child” comment. Could you elaborate? Are you speaking of the fallacy of the dangers of online safety for children or am I missing your point entirely?
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
Carla:
“Everywhere, all the time” has nothing to do with assessment. It’s what educators need to recognize as a legitimate demand from learners who are not tied to a specific space/time location in a course. In the past, it’s been common to refer to online education as addressing the need of “anywhere, any time” but I believe that’s too narrow.
Jenny:
One of the common arguments I hear about various schemes relating to “protecting kids” is the statement “… but if it protects just one kid? Isn’t it worth it?” My problem is that generally these schemes *might* protect one kid, but at the cost of damaging many more. Programs like D.A.R.E. have empirical evidence to support the idea that running these programs in schools actually increases drug use and yet schools continue to run them. Abstinence only programs are in the same boat. The argument for them usually goes something like “Well, yes, they’re not perfect, but we need to address these very serious problems, and if it protects just one kid who may have been harmed, it’s worth it.”
No. It’s not when the cost of maybe protecting one kid causes harm to many others.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I could not agree more with the “protecting the kids” comment. It is amazing to look at the programs like D.A.R.E and Internet Safety Sessions that have actually educated kids to the point that we have practically put the ammunition into their hands. You know that something is wrong when a kid comes out of an internet safety class and brags about learning how to send an anonymous threat to his teacher. The same thing is true about reading. Trying to sensor books because of the ideas that are presented. I am a mother of 3 and my oldest son (age 12) is an avid reader, but not of what he calls “kid stuff”. He likes to read books that make him think or are out of the norm and he is constantly complaining that the school library does not have any good books. Their reasoning, “Oh, that book promotes witchcraft” or “That book focuses on unrealistic worlds,”; give me a break. Ender’s Game, a book for the 688 class, looked interesting so he started reading it in the car the day I got it. Within 3 days, in his free time, he had finished the book and you would be amazed at the questions he asked and the ideas that he had about topics in the book. Was it about a real world or a real experience? No. Did it deal with evil, murder, and computer simulated battles? Yes. Would his school library approved of its content? Probably not but I know what it did do…it made him THINK! Isn’t that the point?
September 12th, 2009 at 8:46 am
[...] via phaedrus » Blog Archive » Scope Redux. [...]