I have been working in the area of assessing progress
of learning in complex problem-solving domains for almost 20 years now (not
much progress I am embarrassed to admit), and I have also been doing evaluations of
university programs, grant projects and large European networks of
excellence for about 15 years. In both cases, I have come to the conclusion
that it is formative assessment (of learners) and formative evaluation (of
programs, projects, and products) that matters most. The primary goals are to
help students progress and develop, and to help programs and projects achieve
their intended goals and objectives. Secondary goals include reporting the extent of progress and success.
In addition, I have been speaking at numerous venues on
emerging educational technologies and have come to adopt the mantra that it is
not about the technology – it is about the learning and instruction. It is not
technology that impacts learning and instruction. It is the use of technology
that might impact learning and instruction – use by teachers and students,
support for effective use by teachers and students, ongoing training for
teachers and students in the effective use of technology … it is how a
technology is used and integrated into learning activities that makes a
difference (when a difference is in fact reported, which is somewhat rare).
One problem that really gets under my thin skin (and skull)
is the advocacy for a particular technology as THE solution. If only every
student had a laptop … or an iPad … or an iPhone … nonsense. If only every
student learned to think critically, to reflect about the problem space and
alternative solution approaches, to question assumptions, to monitor progress
of learning … if only … then there might be some real impact on learning.
Technologies can be used to support those goals (critical thinking, inquiry
learning, reflection, hypothesis testing, self-regulation, etc.), but what
matters are the processes associated with learning … not specific technologies.
Yes, I am a founding member of the national technology geek society … guilty as
charged … but I have seen silly uses and implementations of powerful
technologies that resulted in no significant difference … so I am now
officially a geek drop-out and advocate of the three Rs – reasoning,
reflection, and reliability … I am considering founding a new society to be
called R3-D3 for the three Rs plus doubting, deliberating and determining …
membership is free and open to all.
