The teacher’s role in this kind of learning experience is multifaceted, using a combination of techniques: planning, direct instruction, facilitating, challenging, and cheerleading.
So, teaching, only with computer-aligned educational jargon attached. Does New Classrooms know what it's doing? Well, back at the panel discussion,
Rush had a few things to say:
Teachers spend a significant amount of time scoring papers rather than spending time with students
Wait! What? Does Rush imagine that in a traditional classroom, teachers say, "Okay, you students just do some stuff, but I'm going to be sitting at my desk grading things." Seriously? Because my wife, the fourth grade teacher who most daysdoesn't even have enough non-student-interaction time to allow her to pee, would disagree.
Let me be clear. Teachers do not spend time scoring papers
instead of spending time with students. They spend time scoring papers instead of eating or peeing or interacting with their own children at home or instead of sleeping.
Also, leaving notes, explanations, thoughts, responses, and reactions written out on a piece of student work is, in fact, a form of interacting with students.
Automating not only multiple-choice test scoring but the grading of essays and project work would give teachers more time to focus on the student interaction that they’re uniquely capable of.
Automating multiple-choice test scoring is fine but A) good teachers know that multiple-choice tests are the lowest form of assessment and B) they take very little time to score anyway, which is why some teachers use them even when we know better.
Also, and I wan to make sure I'm really clear about this--
Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing. Computers are not capable of assessing writing.
I refer you to the work of Les Perelman for more specifics (
here and
here and
here for starters). But to sum up my point-- computers are not capable of assessing writing.
Up next...
Jonathan Supovitz, director of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, talked about school improvement. Using a sports analogy, he said coaches don’t just look at the game summaries to consider how their players did. They look at videos of each play. Data systems in schools, though, skip straight to the summaries, Supovitz said. The play-by-play is missing.
Supovitz calls that missing data the "next frontier." I call it "what teachers already do."
But when the issue of what teachers will do comes up, the panel has more bosh to shovel. Rather than sidelining teachers, some panel members say that "teacher skills will just need to change." This is, indeed, the oldest ed tech pitch in the book.
Ed tech: We have invented a great new glass hammer for you to buy and use to build birdbaths.
Teacher: We are building great, solid houses for humans with power screwdrivers and wood screws.
Ed tech: Well, once you change your whole methodology, purpose and program, this hammer will be really useful.
What needs to change this time? Supovitz says "there will be a demand for teachers who are more sophisticated about looking at and responding to student performance data."
No problem, because that's what teachers do all day, every day. Except that by "more sophisticated" what he means is "Our system is not designed to give you the data you want and need, but to give you the data we decided to give you, so you're going to have to learn how to dig the data you actually need out of our reports." Gosh, thanks for all your help. I'm sure the company will also sell the professional development needed to "support this additional responsibility."
Put another way, ed tech sees a role for teacher, and that role is not so much "instructional leader" as "meat widget responsible for bridging the gap between the company has figured out how to do and what the students actually need." Ed Tech companies will provide all the glass hammers, and teachers can figure out how to use glass hammers and wood screws to build a solid house.
Hi, Peter.
ReplyDeleteI just skimmed the firs part of this article, as I'm busy right now, but I have a question:
Are computers capable of assessing writing?
If you address that in that latter part of this article, then I guess you can just ignore that question.