We’re not even speaking the same Language

There are several debates around education that seem to be going nowhere. Partly because you have folks with longstanding beliefs but also because the participants are not speaking the same language.

The issue today of course is that many of these debates aren't really debates but exchanges of sound bites in media outlets, comment fields, twitter and passing remarks in a variety of settings. These sound bites become part of the culture and people are often quick to choose sides in efforts to find simple solutions to complex problems

I've been thinking of a few of these issues and without trying to argue further for any position, although I do have my opinions, perhaps it's important to at least frame the issues more clearly. Here goes.

 

Training vs and Learning

In the world of education and professional development the word training is often used to describe a particular event. "We're having Smartboard training". "I've been trained in the Montessori method".  Training is the acquisition of skills toward a competency. Many criticize the use of training as they hear things like "iPad training" which assumes that there are skills needed to be competent in using an iPad. There may be some skills but most would argue they are minimal and likely don't warrant formal training. Training usually doesn't offer a lot of wiggle room. Perhaps you might classify this as the science of teaching.

Other forms of professional development are more intellectually demanding and require much more of a constructivist approach. These are the ones that are about pedagogy and are more complex. There is no prescribed method and thus "training" seems like the wrong word. In fact, even calling it "professional development"  can be less than accurate and to me conjures up a linear approach. In our district we've been using the term "professional learning". For most, the difference is negligible, but I think it's an important distinction. 

By no means I'm I suggesting one is more important. One is certainly more complex and perhaps we're at a point where we need to be focused more on the challenging stuff but I know that I've been guilty of dismissing training as menial and unnecessary at times. That's a somewhat arrogant attitude I need to guard against. 

 

Assessment and Evaluation

These two terms may be interchangeable in some circles but in our district and province and many other jurisdictions, they have an important distinction. We've been using the word assessment to refer to formative assessment. We like to think of the Latin meaning of the word which means "to side beside". This makes assessment the coaching part of teaching where we don't focus on a grade but rather provide meaningful feedback to help the learner learn more. Evaluation is the summative portion where we assign value to the learning. When people use the word assessment, they often refer to assignments and the work that will be evaluated. Again, it may seem like interchangeable terms but when you are trying to make clear distinctions and promote the use of formative assessment, it's important to be clear on the two terms.

 

Homework 

Along with a recent grading policy controversy in our own province, homework is continually a controversial topic. Part of the controversy centers around what homework should be for. Here's a few perspectives:

  • finishing work not done in class
  • practice
  • punishment
  • extending learning/working because there's not enough time in class

Again, homework means very different things to different people. It's a generic term and when debate occurs, people may be thinking very different things. Alfie Kohn writes a lengthy, but valuable article outlying why homework, in most cases, may not be a good practice. It's worth a read and for me, one I'll read more than once.

Other terms of confusion include "Literacy and Skills" and "Cooperation and Collaboration". I'll wait for Ben Grey to blog about those. 

I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on these terms or feel free to add other terms you feel often are either misrepresented or misunderstood. Too often, discussions are taking place and people aren't even speaking the same language. 

Photo: Day 233: Talk to the Hand. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sarahmae/2048336011/

Enhanced by Zemanta

13 thoughts on “We’re not even speaking the same Language

  1. Alan Stange

    Immersed as I am in the same School Division (AKA District), your distinctions seem both logical and relevant. The confusion between terms like assessment and evaluation deepens when we use data from formative assessments as part or all of the summative evaluation appearing on term reports. We are encouraged to use these assessments in reports. It may be that we have not clearly articulated term reports as snapshots of progress. Or perhaps it would be better to define report cards as formative. However we mean them, they are generally taken as grades by students and parents. “Did I pass?” remains a familiar question despite the absence of grading in my room. The paradigm is deeply entrenched. Exceeding, Proficient, Adequate, Limited, Not rated (what we use now); and Exceeding, Meeting, Beginning, Not Yet Meeting (what we formerly used); and A, B, C, D, F (traditional) are seen as analogous I think. Transforming our beliefs about terms like assessment, evaluation and grading will be a long process. I think we all agree on that.

    Incidentally, as a teen I bought into the use of Ms. to denote both married and unmarried females. Forty years later people persist in using Mrs. and Ms. seems relegated to a synonym for miss. Memes are incredibly tenacious (so am I, 45 years later women are still Ms. to me).

  2. Pingback: Edustange » We’re not even speaking the same Language «Ideas and Thoughts from an EdTech

  3. Tony Baldasaro

    Hi Dean,

    I just wanted to offer a couple of thoughts.

    1. I train teachers on how to use new iPads. It’s quite simple and all about helping them develop the technical skills needed to use their new tool. There’s very little “professional” growth here, but it lays the groundwork for that growth later. It’s the very reason why I start each session by telling them that if they bough their iPad for a flashcard app, to go buy flashcards and save $500. I also tell them that no tool has ever changed education, only teachers do. To me, that’s the difference between training and PD.

    2. My only comment on homework is that it should never be used as a punitive measure (you weren’t good in class today, so I am going to pile on the HW tonight) or coercive (if you get your HW done, I’ll add 10 pts on to your test score). Unfortunately, many teachers still use HW in such ways, which in effect creates double jeopardy situations when students do not get their HW done, and rewards students for production rather than understanding and intellectual growth.

    • Dean Shareski Post author

      Thanks Tony,

      I like how you distinguish training from learning. I agree both are necessary. Training is the one that gives us the most “bang for our buck” in terms of results. Easy to measure success. Remind you of anything? 😉

  4. Pingback: Tweets that mention We’re not even speaking the same Language «Ideas and Thoughts from an EdTech -- Topsy.com

  5. Jenny

    I’ve been ranting about the difference between assessment and testing for some time now. I greatly prefer your distinction between assessment and evaluation. It seems clearer to me and easier to explain. Now I’m mulling over how to fit testing in there (although standardized tests and most classroom tests seem to fit under evaluation). I don’t want to assume that all testing is evaluative. Hmmmm….

    • Dean Shareski Post author

      Jenny,

      The interesting thing is that testing can be formative if it’s used to improve learning. Standardized testing rarely is since it never comes back in time to be used with the students who wrote them. This is assuming of course that testing of this nature does a good job of measuring learning. 😉

      • Jenny

        Dean,
        The idea that testing can be formative is one that isn’t discussed much. One of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the idea of assessment vs. evaluation (instead of testing) is that it allows a discussion that doesn’t demonize testing. I’ve done plenty of that but I do realize that it doesn’t allow a useful discussion. Assessment and evaluation both have a place in education (I think) and moving from that point to include testing seems more productive to me.

  6. Chris Craft

    Hi Dean,

    Quickly, the difference between training and learning is one of definition.

    Training is designed to help someone learn a skill.

    Learning is designed to effect a change in long-term memory.

    Sometimes these two overlap.

    And just for the record, no PD ever demands a constructivist approach. In fact, if you’re dealing with novice learners a constructivist approach can be harmful. I’m not saying we shouldn’t look for new and engaging approaches, but that’s a loaded statement you made.

    Yours,

    Chris

  7. Lona

    I have been in many spirited discussions in the staff room to only find out two minutes in that my sparring partner and I were starting to make the same points. This ruins a good debate and so we have to find another topic 🙂 Perhaps we need new rules of engagement that begin with defining any key words we are using. If we are having these language issues, sometimes on the same staff, what is going on when we are speaking to to community members and students?

    Homework is likely the most differently-defined word used in discussions. It is a word that everyone assumes that they know the definition; we have all been to school and whatever we were taught homework was then, it remains today.

    Thanks for the post Dean. I will try to take a few moments at the beginning of discussions to ensure communication can actually take place because everyone can agree on the definitions of the key words of the discussion. (unless I am too busy – sry, couldn’t resist 😉 )

  8. Holly MacDonald

    Dean, I am in workplace learning, not education, so my definitions may not work for you. To me training is the event/activity and learning is the outcome. You don’t need training to learn something and you don’t learn something just because you’ve been “trained” (the bane of my existence is that people think training is transformative – after you’ve been to “training”, you have learned it).

    I tend to focus on behavioural change as a measure of assessment, because in the workworld, I care more about what you do than what you know. Much of this is gathered through observation and correlation of workplace output. I wonder if that is the biggest difference? I’m not sure if that is a reasonable approach in education and if it is at what stage of development. What do you think?

    Holly

    • Dean Shareski Post author

      Holly,

      Training and behavioural is certainly easier to measure which is largely why many institutions, education specifically, leans that way.

      These behaviours are generally not the type of change and shifts needed for teachers to make the required change in today’s new landscape. The type of learning our best, higher level PD attempts to achieve, is long term and messy. Often these changes take a long time and happen as a result of many things outside of s specific PD experience.

      Not to say training is important but the way I see it, it’s very different.

  9. Holly MacDonald

    Dean, I understand – it isn’t a quick fix.

    I’m not sure that you are dealing with just a learning need, though. One method that I use is called the “human performance improvement/technology” approach (http://www.ispi.org/content.aspx?id=54). Basically it says there 6 types of behavioural drivers: expectations, tools & resources, consequences & incentives, skills & knowledge, selection or capacity, motivation. Too often in my world, it is assumed that people don’t do what you want them to do because they don’t know how and a great number of times it is not the reason at all, or only part of the reason.

    But it doesn’t even cover the attitude vs behaviour challenge. Changing attitude is a whole other ball game, isn’t it?

    And Dan Pink says it is about autonomy, mastery and purpose…

    Another perspective to offer is from the world of change management. One of the leading gurus that is referenced by workplace learning folks is John Kotter, who identifies that there are 8 steps for leading change: http://www.kotterinternational.com/kotterprinciples/ChangeSteps.aspx
    The first step is establishing a sense of urgency.

    So, it is one of those big, complicated things, with no one right answer. But, great to have folks like you thinking out loud and inviting input. Maybe none of my suggestions are the “right one”, but ya never know!

    Holly

Comments are closed.