April 9: Dan's Current Events - Is the future now for A.I.?

As a supported of formative assessing, I agree with Ramaswami that we have a wonderful opportunity to take advantage of aritficial intelligence in education. Imagine personalized and timely assessment for each student. At GHS, we were exposed to an AI solution to individualized tutoring in Chemistry through Quantum Simulations - an AI solution discussed in this article(http://www.quantumsimulations.com). Typically at the time, many tutoring programs were available, but they would store information in a database and not allow for student input beyond multiple choice answers or simple responses. It was left up to the teacher to provide this one-to -one interaction with the students. I understand that in 1998, chemist Benny Johnson founded Quantum Simulations, Inc. with high school mentor Dale Holder and colleague Rebecca Renshaw to create highly interactive tutoring software for the sciences. As the article points out, the approach of the Quantum Tutors is similar in that it "converses" with students, providing real-time feedback. This AI approach responds to student questions, gives hints, shows correct next steps and even explains why a step is correct or incorrect using scientific principles. Students can enter any problem and related work, and the Quantum Tutoring Engines will understand and analyze all of the material. Any mistakes are confronted individually, and the student and the "tutor" provide information to each other throughout the learning exercise. We found that our students not only scored higher on our summative assessments but also were more engaged in learning chemistry.

April 29th - Week 14: What did I learn from the interactive journal process?

Week 14: What did I learn from the interactive journal process?

I suspect that if I review all that is written to date by my classmates and myself the primary outcome is that I have been exposed to other perspectives other than my own. It enriches me to see all the questions, issues, from multiple perspectives based on individual experiences and knowledge.

Prior to taking our course, I did not know how or why I would consider blogging, except in a personal forum. I saw social networking as "something my students do" that I did not wish to participate in. Today, I cannot see how I can continue in education successfully without it. They say, knowledge is power. Understanding the purpose of edublogging and how to effectively use it has been an awakening for me. I feel I have now entered the 21st century. What I need to work on next is how to effectively incorporate the interactive journal seamlessly into my daily instruction and into the lives of my students. I tried to do a little this quarter, with my students, as part of their project, but with much resistance. I am in the process of using edublogging to guide me in this effort, from fellow educators that successfully use this tool in their daily instruction. Edublogging is such a wonderful tool - I wish I had such access to this tool when I was a new teacher years ago. Imagine the support and guidance I would have received!

April 22nd - Week 13:KK Question and Answer

Week 13: Student Generated Post #2 - Your own question and your own answer. Comment on one of your classmate's post.

Question #1: What is meant by "The Flat Classroom"?

I recently came across this concept of a flat classroom and I decided to look into how a flat classroom differs from the traditional classroom. Traditionally, I was told that we teach within the walls of our classroom, providing our students with the tools to focus on concept-based knowledge with a few skills thrown in. Over the past few years education a movement has emerged that is demanding a change in how we teach our students. This new world of education focuses on positive learning experiences and enduring understandings. The goal is to make our students into lifelong learners with critical thinking skills. Simultaneously, the Partnership for 21st century exposed us to the need for 21st century skills. Out of all of these changes,the flat classroom was born. The concept of a 'flat classroom' is based on the constructivist principle of a multi-modal learning environment that is student-centered and a level playing field for teacher to student and student to teacher interaction. Taken from the brochure "The Flat Classroom Project is a global hands-on working together project for middle and high school students". The wikipage discussing this concept was founded by Vicki Davis (Westwood Schools, USA) and Julie Lindsay (Qatar Academy, Qatar) in 2006. The Project uses Web 2.0 tools to make communication and interaction between students and teachers from all participating classrooms easier. It creates a classroom with no walls so students have global access to other students. One of the main goals of the project is to 'flatten' or lower the classroom walls so that instead of each class working isolated and alone, 2 or more classes are joined virtually to become one large classroom. This is usually done through the Internet using sites such as Wikispaces, for example. The topics studied and discussed are real-world scenarios based on 'The World is Flat' by Thomas Friedman. Although I have not as yet read the book it does look interested for my summer reading. Check it out - more information can be found in the following article and brochure.
ISTE's Learning and Leading magazine article: Davis, V. & Lindsay, J. (2007). Flat Classrooms. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(1), 28-30. Available for download from this wiki - Flat_Classroom_LL_August07.pdf
Flat Classroom Project Brochure (updated January 2009) - Brochure_Jan09.pdf


Question #2:
In discussing implementation strategies, both the schools I interviewed used the CIPP evaluation model. Of all the models we reviewed I found this one to be the one I knew the least about. It was because I knew very little about the CIPP Model that I decided to do a little research. My question and answer for this post have been taken from my work.

What exactly is the Daniel Stufflebeam's CIPP Evaluation Model?
My Answer:
The CIPP Evaluation Model Daniel Stufflebeam introduces in his work “Educational Evaluation and Decision Making” provides uses with a conceptual framework for evaluating various educational programs, institutions, systems and even personnel using various methodologies (Stufflebeam, 1977; 2002). Stufflebeam focuses on effecting sustainable improvements in the educational system that may be enjoyed over the long rather than the short term. Stufflebeam’s early model, introduced in 1966 and later revised in 1977 suggests that the need for process and product evaluations were important; later models emphasizes goal setting as important toward contextual evaluation including needs assessment, with even later models illustrating product evaluation in various subparts including through input evaluation, needs assessment, context evaluation and alternative program strategies (Stufflebeam, 2002). The primary focus of the model includes providing timely evaluation reports that are designed to evaluate various programs long term goals and results. The CIPP model is based on the notion that the merit, worth and significance of a given entity must be evaluated using systematic methods (Stufflebeam, 2002). Context, input, product and process evaluation are all critical concepts related to Stuffelbeam’s model. This innovation suggests that the context evaluation can be met by making the decision to adopt or utilize a specific program; the input evaluation may be accomplished by providing goals and objectives for restructuring a model or system; process evaluation may be met through monitoring a defined program during implementation; product evaluations is considered informally or informally based on whether the goals and objectives of a given program are actually achieved (Furner, 1998). Product evaluation may consider multiple components of a system in the educational context, which may include statistical evidence of attendance or achievement rates and other factors directly related to educational program success.
Stufflebeam’s model is unique in that not only does it define the procedures that educational facilities and administrators can adopt to effectively select, implement and evaluate the outcomes of a proposed method or procedure, but also later provides administrators and teachers with the tools necessary to evaluate how successful they are at each stage of the modeling process. This is evidenced by Stufflebeam’s later development of a checklist to assess or complement the CIPP model. The checklist designed by Stufflebeam may be used in conjunction with the model to provide the best possible outcome to educational administrators and authorities (Stufflebeam, 2002).
Stufflebeam’s model has been around for decades, and has been used in many fields including management, though it is most popular within the field of education (Payne, 1994). Most simply it can be defined as a systems model that one can apply to program evaluation. The system that Stufflebeam suggests includes input, process and output, as well as context (Pane, 1994). CIPP in short refers to each stage of the evaluation process, namely context, input, process and product. These varying forms of evaluation may be viewed separately or as stages and steps in the comprehensive evaluation process. During the context stage examination and description of the context of a program must be considered, including conduction of needs and goals assessment. Input evaluation includes describing program resources, inputs and comparing how a program might perform in relation to other similar programs (Payne, 1994). It acts as a sort of checks and balances or benefit cost assessment. Using input evaluation administrators can determine whether the benefits of a program will outweigh any risks including extreme costs associated with implementation and maintenance of a program (Payne, 1994). This step is vital toward determining program structure (Payne, 1994).
Process evaluation will include throughout examination of program implementation, including routine monitoring of the program and auditing to ensure that a program consistently meets regularly and ethical guidelines (Payne, 1994). Process evaluation may also help program administrator’s correct defects in the procedural design or those that occur during implementation (Payne, 1994). Process evaluation is a tool that users can use to implement decisions. Product evaluation requires determination of specific goals, objectives or simply defined, outcomes of the program (Payne, 1994). During this stage of the evaluation process participating will measure the anticipated outcomes of a program with the intent of identifying any outcomes that may be unanticipated (Payne, 1994). This stage may also help evaluate whether a program is cost effective and hence worthy of future consideration or continuance.

The CIPP Model developed by Stufflebeam is best reserved for formative evaluations but may also be useful for summative evaluations (Payne, 1994). The model is comprehensive and useful for comprehensive as well as single analysis of programs and procedures. Administrators and program directors can use the model to help evaluate primary issues and questions as well as consider alternate courses or programs related to a specific set of objectives (Payne, 1994).


References: (a few)
Furner, J.M. (1998). “Curriculum innovation interview: The four period day.” Education,1: 31.

Payne, D.A. (1994). “Chapter 4: Evaluation Models” In, Designing educational project
and program evaluations: A practical overview based on research and experience. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/dr_johnson/660lectures/Lect2.doc

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1977). Educational evaluation and decision making. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa.

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002, June). CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist.” The Evaluation
Center. Available: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.htm

____________________________________________________________________--
Great Question from Erin:How do you make it all work? How do you teach every subject, address all of the NJCCCS, and get it all in within a 10 month time period? With pullouts, differentiated lessons, and constant distractions to your schedule, how do you get it all in and make sure you're reaching every child?

Erin, I agree and often wonder how to bring it all together myself. Flexibility and adaptability is key, but sometimes that is not enough. The last thing I would ever want to do is leave a child behind.

April 4 Current Events- Erin's Article: Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math

Erin's Article : School Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math by Sam Dillon:



The NCLB federal law has created an atmosphere of accountability by school districts. Although in the long run, not necessarily negative, it does however alter how subjects are addressed in the curriculum. These types of decisions by states and districts have a direct impact on subjects such as history and science, which are often placed on the back burner; especially during testing times. This emphasis sends a message to both students and parents that subjects other than math and language arts are not as necessary for a well -rounded education. Dillon cites an example at the Martin Luther King Jr. HS, in a poor neighborhood in Sacramento, CA that "about 150 of the school's 885 students spend five of their six class periods on math, reading, and gym,leaving only one 55 -minute period for all other subjects". Although this represents only 17% of the student body, those students are receiving a limited education and in some ways are being cheated. Not having been exposed, these students do not even know if they would enjoy these other subjects or even understand what it is they are missing. Yet, Mr. Buchanan, the superintendent of the Grant Joint Union HS, that is also responsible for the Jr HS, did receive the CA 2005 superintendent of the year award for successfully raising both math and reading test scores over several years.

April 15th - Week 12 - Evaluating Curriculum

What factors are at stake when evaluating a curriculum? Choose a model for curricular evaluation. How does this model fit (or not fit) with your preferred approach to curriculum?

The factors that I would choose as critical in evaluating curriculum are organized into five categories:

• Content/Alignment with Standards: The content as specified in the NJ Content- Specific Standards and presented in accord with the guidance provided in the NJ Content Framework.


• Program Organization: The scope, sequence and organization of the curriculum that provides structure to what students should learn each year.


• Assessment: The strategies presented in the instructional materials for measuring what students know and are able to do.


• Universal access: The resources and strategies that address the needs of special student populations, including students with disabilities, students whose achievement is either significantly below or above that typical of their class or grade level, and students with special needs related to English language proficiency.


• Instructional planning and support: The instructional planning and support information and materials, typically including a separate edition specially designed for use by the teacher, that enable the teacher to implement the curriculum effectively.
  

There are several approaches to curriculum evaluation such as goal-based, goal-free, and responsive. These approaches are based on the classical curriculum evaluation models as presented by Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (1). There are several curriculum evaluation models that have emerged over time such as Robert Stake's countenance model (1967), Scriven's goal-free model (in the 1970s) (2), Stenhouse's research model (also the 1970s), Tyler's objectives model, and finally, Stufflebeam's model, known as the CIPP Evaluation Model. In 1950, Ralph Tyler of the University of Chicago published a 83-page book entitled "Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction" (3). In this landmark text, Tyler recommended application of the following four basic steps in the design of any curricular project: define the learning objectives, select the learning experiences , organize the learning experiences and evaluate and revise as needed. Although simplestic in some ways Tyler's model is easy to apply to any curricular model such as the UbD model for example. The objective here is to create a curriculum that offers content that adheres to the standards. Embedded in the standards are the strands that dictate learning objectives for the students. Program organization provides the selection of the learning experience and also offers organization to this experience. Assessment leads to reflection, evaluation, and revision. Althoug created in 1949, the Tyler Model has stood the test of time and is still used by many districts to evaluate their curricula.


(1) Stufflebeam, D. L.; Shinkfield, A. J. (1990). Systematic Evaluation. Boston (MA): Kluwer-Nijhoff.
(2) Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(3) Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.