kalie’s test a workshop for parents on standardized testing master’s project review stanford...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
230 views
TRANSCRIPT
Kalie’s testA workshop for parents on standardized testing
Master’s Project ReviewStanford UniversityMay 17, 2002Michael Griffin
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Presentation overview
• Thumbnail description• Design history• Approach• Next steps
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Kalie’s test: description
• Workshop for middle school parents on standardized testing– Story of a character named Kalie– Structured interrogation of interactive
models– Participation in scenario– Role-playing– Reflection– Discussion
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Kalie’s test: context of use
• Live group setting• Computer-equipped facilities• Disseminated over the web
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Design history
• Primes (NSF-funded)• Early work• Seattle
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Primes
• NSF-funded• Housed at IRL, WestEd, Stanford• Learning goals
– You can do math, important in middle school, today’s classrooms, help your child
• Products– TV special– Parent Guide – 9 workshops (*)
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Primes workshops
• 2-hour experiences• Workshop-in-a-box• Get parents in the door • Build math confidence, understanding
of school setting > more involvement• Middle school math + relevant topics
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Early work
• Testing is relevant topic• Math: percentile• Learn percentile using hands-on
activities (model reform curriculum)• Paper materials• Idea: use simulation
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Early work: simulation
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Seattle
• Met with parents, teachers at a public elementary school in Seattle
• 1st meeting: show-and-tell, listen– “Why percentile?”– “What about big issues?”
• 2nd meeting: informational workshop– Topics: choosing schools? legal issues? what
do scores mean? how to improve scores?
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Rationale
• Learning problem• Learning goals• Conceptual framework
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Learning problem
• Parents need more knowledge to advocate effectively
• No standards for content• Discourse is partisan, controversial• Piecemeal content used to support
opinions• Reasoning requires schematic
understanding
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Learning goals
• Parents need to be able to:– Engage in discourse– Make informed decisions– Develop and defend arguments– Flexibly accommodate new information– Develop informed opinions
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Conceptual framework
• Situative, socio-historic perspective– Social practices of inquiry and learning– Support for identity– Discourse and representation– Realistic problems and settings– Cognitive apprenticeship
• Echoed in Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed– Attention to cultural situation– Encourage voice, criticality, praxis
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Approach
• Workshop overview• Tour
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Workshop overview:Activities
Intro Software ScenarioRoleplays Reflection
20 min 20 min 20 min 25 min 15 min 20 min
Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Introduction
• Personal introductions• QuickTime video viewed as whole group
– Explain learning goals, workshop plan– Overview of testing system– Perspectives of various stakeholders– Why test?– Hot topics
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Software description
• Model stands in for an expert’s understanding
• ‘Glass box’ design, weighting/rationale• Actually useful for understanding NYT!• Doesn’t include
– Situative perspective (e.g., identity); testing is developed and discussed from cognitive/behavioral perspective
– Detailed model of knowledge; ‘alignment’
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Software activities
• Intuition:model is complex to novices (computer users, content learners)
• Short, structured activities– Learn skills, concepts and interface
simultaneously– Staging, bridging
(Roy Pea’s principles for learning from visualizations, WorldWatcher)
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Software activities example
• Small groups explore model• Worksheet scaffolds inquiry
– What happens when Kalie’s knowledge in math increases?
• To her score• In the knowledge map• Does she get a passing grade?
– Can you find a way to improve her score without increasing her knowledge?
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: ScenarioIntro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
• QuickTime video viewed by small groups– Story about Kalie taking a test– Results are low, though she does well in
class
• Worksheet– Structures inquiry– Team builds rationale for confused parents
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Role plays
• QuickTime video viewed by small groups– Stories about Kalie, class taking a test– Each group watches different case– Results are confusing to variety of
stakeholders
• Role play– Individuals take notes, make case– Debate each other– Share experiences across groups
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Reflection
• Worksheet to guide reflection– What new ideas have I come across?– What factors might be at play with my
child?– How do I feel about tests?– What might I try to do to make my child’s
experience better?– Can I help my community?
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Tour: Group discussion
• Discussion, sharing of ideas that come from reflection
• QuickTime video viewed by whole group– Next steps– Resources for more information
• Take-home booklet with resources
Intro - Software - Scenario - Role plays - Reflection - Group
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Next steps
• User studies• Learner study• More content/model vetting• Repurpose for other users?• Expand from glass box > creative tool
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Additional details
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Learner study
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Relationships
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Usability
• Nielsen’s usability measures– Learnable?– Efficient?– Memorable?– Errors?– Satisfaction?
•Nielsen’s heuristics–Simple, natural dialogue–Speak the user’s language–Minimize cog. Load–Consistency–Feedback–Exits–Shortcuts–Good error msgs.–Prevent errors–Help
Michael Griffin / Master’s Project Review / 17 May 2002 / [email protected]
Interface design considerations
• Rao’s heuristics– Graphics first– Use data’s grain– Focus, context– Animate transitions (esp.
for discontinuous changes, on/off)
– Stable, consistent spaces– Direct manipulation– Spotlight computational
results
• Direct manipulation– Bridge the gulfs– Directness– Semantic, articulatory
distance