In the spring of 2007 I wrote my thesis focusing on a piece of software made by Carnegie Learning called Cognitive Tutor. It was a type of software known as Computer-Assisted Instruction wherein it ould provide numerous practice problems for a student to answer, getting hints on the way, and would spit back data to the teacher as to how long it took to answer the question, how many times s/he pressed the "hint" button, etc. It was sort of a precursor to the more well-known Khan Academy I posted about a few weeks ago.

When I wrote my thesis, I thought this was going to be the future. Much like the episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation where we sometimes saw children learning without the aid of a human, this would create great learners who understood and could apply concepts.

I'm sure you are sniffing the big "but" coming in now.

BUT what I didn't realize then and do now is that this kind of practice may create high ACHIEVEMENT but neglects high LEARNING. The student simply wants to get a higher score in the game-like atmosphere of one of these CAI programs, or wants to master an isolated skill without context in the real world (like the Khan Academy).

I find myself doing the same thing at this point in time, mainly because I don't know any better. For this reason, I've decided to make a MAJOR overhaul on my grading structure for next year. Instead of providing grades for individual assignments or activities, I am going to grade SKILLS. These skills can be mastered at ANY TIME in a number of ways. I imagine a classroom where students constantly ask me if they can demonstrate their knowledge of a particular skill and I have multiple ways in which they can do that, always available.

I think this will shift my student's focus from the activities to the learning. It will hopefully end a lot of cheating because demonstrating knowledge is much harder than simply completing an assignment. And it will be more self-paced because the learners can demonstrate their knowledge at almost any time (during class, before/after school).

With this in my toolbox I think my students will come complaining to me that they haven't mastered skills (LEARNING) instead of demanding their peers show them the assignment to copy and paste (ACHIEVEMENT).
 


Comments

Alon
05/03/2011 13:34

Hey Brian, this is an interesting approach, and it seems so intuitive and common-sense. How come this isn't the standard? Has this been tried before, and with great success or failure? On a large-scale or only on small-scales?

Reply
Brian Cohen
05/03/2011 14:18

This happens in a lot of elementary schools across the Philadelphia area. Some people hate it becuase it's hard to compare kids with all these "standards." I think this kind of system will help the kids focus on the more important thing - the learning.

Reply
NancyLee Bergey
05/03/2011 17:21

This is frequently called mastery learning - you can take as long as you want to learn something and (ideally) you are provided with a number of ways to reach the goal. When you are ready you ask to demonstrate the knowledge. (Remember Simple Machines, Brian?)

Yes, it is so sensible. So as Alon asks, why isn't it the standard?

This would not only allow students who need more time to take it, without penalty, but would allow those who already have the skills being taught to move ahead. How humane for both groups.

Reply
Lonny
05/05/2011 01:27

I wonder - how does direct instruction time fit into this equation?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply