Educational+Reform


 * || ** Literary Review: Designing Learning and Technology for Educational Reform by North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (Beau Fly Jones, Gilbert Valdez, Jeri Nowakowski, Claudette Rasmussen) 1994. **
 * || ** Literary Review: Designing Learning and Technology for Educational Reform by North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (Beau Fly Jones, Gilbert Valdez, Jeri Nowakowski, Claudette Rasmussen) 1994. **

by: Shawn Banks
In 1994 the North Central Regional Laboratory (NCRL) released their finding of a study they completed on “Designing Learning and Technology for Educational Reform.” (Jones, 1) They had recognized a “major paradigm shift from the focus on student achievement defined solely by standardized tests to one of diverse indicators of learning and educational reform defined by recent research on learning and Goals 2000.” This shift involved more student interactivity and the teacher taking a role more as a facilitator of learning. Technology was becoming the vehicle for this change. This paper tries to “make the case” for this as a positive reform and to layout a framework for educators and policymakers for its implementation.

There have been strong reactions from academia that traditional models and definitions of technology effectiveness and cost effectiveness of technology need to be revised. The emerging consensus is that there should be seven indicators to measure effective learning and reform instruction. They are: “authentic and multidisciplinary tasks, performance-based assessment, interactive models of instruction, heterogeneous groupings, collaborative work, student explorations, and the teacher as a facilitator.” (Jones, 10)

They suggest that the most effective schools are ones that utilize collaborative learning, over multiple disciplines, using real world problems. Effectiveness has a direct correlation to the engagement of the student to the content. Engaged Learning strives to use tasks that are challenging and authentic. “Tasks are authentic when they represent projects and problems of relevance and interest to the learners.” (Jones, 12) Engagement is evaluated by performance-based assessments as opposed to standardized tests. Students discover the knowledge and then create an artifact that represents what they have learned.

The teacher and the student both have new roles using the Engaged Learning approach. Students become, in a sense, responsible for their own learning. It is through their work and their discovery that knowledge is learned. Instead of the teacher being the wise sage, imparting knowledge, the teacher becomes a facilitator of learning. The teacher creates the project in advance, researches what is needed to complete the project and then develops the problem for which the students will work. This reverse engineering makes the role of a facilitator, similar to the Easter Bunny. Like the bunny, the teacher leaves eggs of knowledge for others to discover. Through the working of the problem the teacher uses questioning techniques to steer the student onto the right path without them realizing it. It is this self discovery that keeps the students engaged in the process and helps with knowledge retention.

Performance based assessments and effectiveness can be evaluated utilizing a new framework they call the “Learning and Technology Interface.” Artifacts and behaviors can be assessed using two continuums. The first is on technology performance which registers from Low to High. The second continuum measures learning from Passive Learning to Engaged Learning. This quadratic rubric can be used to gauge student performance. It can also be used at the macro level to gauge curriculum effectiveness and to evaluate for the necessities of technology spending. “If the school or group is not using technology to enhance learning and reform, there is little reason to suffer the higher cost for greater functionality.” (Jones, 4)

This kind of paradigm shift, to be effective, must have the support of school districts as well as policy makers. It has the potential to create more effective teachers, a better educated workforce, and use governmental monies more wisely. If policymakers can see empirical data on how effective these programs are, they may be willing to release more funding for program expansion. Likewise local school boards may also see the benefits of technology spending.

To implement these reforms, we have a tough job of convincing teachers, curriculum coordinators and policy makers that standardize testing is not the way to go and that performance-based assessment is. To compound the difficulties of this, most of the policymakers, administrators and teachers grew up in and were exposed to the more traditional methods of assessment. Changing their minds will take more than lofty goals and idealistic supporters. It will take raw data from teachers using technology effectively while engaging their students. Policymakers are always looking for the bargain but, “what is the value of developing or supporting inexpensive technologies if they do not promote engaged learning?” (Jones, 31)

Educators have to get involved in the process. They have protested the use of standardized tests for years, so they must embrace the performance-based/problem-based model. They have to articulate their positions and advocate for policy changes and fiscal spending. They also have to become experiences facilitators and practitioners of the new model. School districts will have to embrace the new model as well by providing opportunities for multidisciplinary collaborations and be willing to spend the money for necessary instructional technologies. Finally, policymakers must forgo their dependence on standardized testing as a reference tool to curry favor with the electorate. Too long have our policymakers used teachers as a scapegoat and used standardized test as a cure-all for all of education’s woes. The public wants education reform but, the government does not want to pay for it. They would rather implement another assessment. Reform begins by changing the way we look at things and the way we do business.

In conclusion, this approach towards technology and educational reform using the NCREL’s multifaceted approach is not one without some challenges. While many of its benefits are obvious to those in the educational field, it will take a lot of convincing to shift their way of thinking and the way they spend tax dollars. Through this new approach, learners are engaged and participatory in the process. Through their engaged learning, they will gain valuable collaborative experiences and work to create authentic artifacts. They will be able to translate this knowledge into highly developed problem-solving capabilities to be utilized in the workforce. They will also be tech-savvy and able to perform advance tasks immediately, with a skill set their coworkers developed over many years.

Jones, Beau F., Gilbert Valdez, Jeri Nowakowski, and Claudette Rasmussen. "Designing Learning and Technology for Educational Reform." 1994. MS RP91002007. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Chicago. ||
 * Bibliography:**