Assessment of Meaningful Learning Using Technology

Pamela Wilson
Blog 8
LS 589-W1

In our class readings, we have read about ways to implement technology into meaningful learning experiences in the classroom. We have read about pilot programs set up to study the effects of meaningful learning using technology (MLT). However, we haven’t read very much about how to evaluate students learning when they use MLT. In chapter 8 of Ashburn & Floden (2006), one of the “key dimensions” listed as a topic for professional development is “Type of evaluation: descriptive, comprehensive, longitudinal, etc.” (p.171). There was neither footnote nor further clarification as to what these types of evaluation could mean. Since I don’t foresee having professional development on assessing MLT in the near future, some clarification in the book would have been helpful.

When I think of descriptive evaluation, the question arises, whose description? Do the students describe their experience with MLT and the teachers evaluate the description, or do the teachers observe and keep a running record of the student’s MLT experience? Does comprehensive evaluation look at the end product and evaluate the project based upon that? And what is longitudinal evaluation? Does that mean following the project and keeping grades along every step of the way?

I think that the issue of evaluation of MLT should have been handled with more detail. Glenman and Melmed listed problems in 1996 regarding the evaluation of MLT by using traditional methods (Johnston & Cooley, 2001, p. 82). Three major problems are listed. “Many achievement tests do not reliably measure all the outcomes being sought….Assessments of the impact of technology are really assessments of the instructional processes enabled by technology…. The very dynamic nature of technology makes meaningful evaluation difficult….” This indicates that we must come up with new models of evaluation if we intent to teach for MLT.

Johnston and Cooley (2001) quote Herman who stated in 1999 that standardized tests don’t measure learning through technology projects. Herman also states that “Longitudinal studies are difficult to conduct” (pg.83). Again, the word longitudinal is not defined. But the idea conveyed is that it is difficult to concretely evaluate MLT.

Appendix C in Ashburn & Floden (2006) contains three “Historical Narrative Rubrics” (p. 200) which give a guideline for one type of evaluation of a MLT project. This could be adapted to other projects and used as a guideline for assessment. I think that the use of rubrics is a good way to assess MLT because they give guidelines for the students and teachers in completing the project and in assessing the quality of the work. Rubrics could be designed for the different stages of the projects also. In this way the project could be tracked and graded as it evolves. I assume that this is what is meant by longitudinal assessment.

Johnston and Cooley (2001) cite tips that Michael Malone made in 1998 for assessment of the use of technology in the classroom. Malone suggests that the teacher “Establish clear expectations. Get feedback from students, parents, and colleagues. Be willing to change horses in mid-stream. Be your own worst critic. Consider the future needs of students. Consider school, district, and state measures” (p.93). Malone embellishes each of these suggestions to make them more meaningful. These suggestions help to establish a baseline of expectations and behaviors which can be anticipated through the use of MLT. However, the fair assessment of MLT will have to evolve as teachers experiment with and integrate technology into their classroom learning experience. Through collaboration and co-operation a fair system of assessment can evolve, but it will take time and experience. Hopefully teacher colleges will develop and teach assessment strategies for MLT to guide new generations of teachers in this endeavor.

References

Ashburn, E. A., & Floden, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Meaningful learning using technology: What educators need to know and do. New York: Teachers College Press.

Johnston, M. & Cooley, N. (2001). What we know about: Supporting new models of teaching and learning through technology. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.