Re: tictech: DWA comments

From: Graham Ford (fordgj@u.washington.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 23:37:54 PST

  • Next message: Rowlands, John: "RE: tictech: where you send them?"

    -tictech message:

    Is prohibiting the use of a spellchecker really "holding back" students
    when they are using the test? I can hardly believe that there is
    serious harm done. In fact, it is part of the test. Spelling is an
    inherent part of writing, so it follows that the an assessment of
    writing skills should also evaluate spelling. The intent of a
    spellchecker is to result in 'perfect' spelling, so if spellchecking is
    allowed and used properly the output of the test is devoid of any
    spelling results to evaluate.

    Suppose we do evaluate the DWA differently for spellchecked and written
    tests. This essentially means that the children that use the
    spellchecker are exempt from being graded on their spelling. If they
    don't have to spell correctly to take the test, they therefore are not
    motivated to perfect spelling skills.

    I don't believe that taking automated spellcheckers out of the process
    actually harms those students that would normally use it properly. It
    only serves to help hide deficiencies in spelling ability. The goal of
    the DWA is not to produce a writing sample for the sake of the writing
    sample, but to assess student abilities.

    Using a dictionary is different. Yes, it is less convenient, but that
    is ok because no test is about convenience. Dictionaries are
    universally accessible and they do not do the thinking for the student.
      If a student questions the spelling of a word, the onus is on the
    student to think about the problem and to look up the word. They also
    are critical for making word choice decisions.

    Graham Ford
    Network Administrator
    Highland Park Elementary
    fordgj@u.washington.edu

    On Thursday, March 13, 2003, at 09:39 PM, Crozier, Kevin wrote:

    > -tictech message:
    >
    > The digital divide is real.
    >
    > To "hold back" those who can to "level" the playing field for those who
    > presently lack opportunities in technology use is backwards thinking in
    > itself.
    >
    > Let's not penalize the students for what they have and use, rather,
    > change
    > the system and its use of assessment results to unfairly compare kids
    > (shame).
    >
    > The DWA can be assessed differently for those who use spellcheck, etc.
    > as a
    > part of their present day learning.
    > The DWA can also assessed those who presently don't.
    >
    > In the ITBS, use of a calculator for some parts is allowed and a
    > different
    > norm is used.
    > The same can be done with the DWA.
    >
    > Kevin
    >
    >> Kevin Crozier
    >> Gr. 3 - Lowell School
    >> Seattle, WA
    >> kbcrozier@seattleschools.org
    >> http://www.seattleschools.org/schools/lowell/kevin/index.htm
    >> "Understand the conflict with your brain, but solve it in your
    > heart." -Erin Jones
    >>
    >> ----------
    >> From: Graham Ford
    >> Reply To: tictech@learningspace.org
    >> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 6:18 PM
    >> To: tictech@learningspace.org
    >> Subject: Re: tictech: DWA comments
    >>
    >> -tictech message:
    >>
    >> I am all for using technology and testing students in "real world"
    >> conditions. However I think one major sticking point relates to the
    >> so-called digital divide. I worked last summer for Giant Campus and

    (cut - ma)

    -end tictech message. To join, leave, or visit
    the message archive, go to tictech on the Web:
    http://www.earthdaybags.org/tictech/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 06:53:55 PST


    Learning Space Development Server
    This page under development for The Learning Space
    Copyright ©1996-2000 by the Authors - All Rights Reserved
    Unauthorized use prohibited.
    This site was whacked using the TRIAL version of WebWhacker. This message does not appear on a licensed copy of WebWhacker.