My original project proposal involved the use of technology, the reading/language arts series, and student team work to complete a meaningful activity. My intention was to integrate technology in a logical and meaningful way. I wished to provide students and parents with the opportunity to see published student works in a new and different way via the use of Power Point presentations. As with many new projects, there have been many aspects of this project that have worked well, while some did not.
The successful components of my project include some of the technological and non-technological aspects of the project. Students were to discuss and share there most memorable school days then write about their most memorable school day. As this was being done, I worked with the class as a whole to discuss the five steps of the writing process. This aspect of the project I found to be relatively easy to accomplish and comfortable to complete. This is partially due to the fact that this activity fits comfortably into my districts recommended activities.
I follow the recommended guidelines set by the district as to expectations for the writing process. While this is true, there are still so many personal interpretations of students' works and interpretations of the guidelines for evaluation provided. Some of these multiple interpretations and variables I was aware of before being involved in this evaluation class, but others have come to my attention since taking such a close look at evaluation. I do look at the guidelines and expectations set forth by the state and my district to be reasonable and helpful in guiding students' writing and evaluating them. This is why I find studying evaluation to be quite frustrating. I feel the evaluation used to be valid, yet it still had far to go. There is always an element of interpretation. Even with the best form of evaluation for the best evaluators to use, there are always the components of interpretation no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. Then there is also the question of what to do with those students far above or far below the average fourth grader. Is it fair to either of these groups to evaluate them along the standard goals, objections, and evaluations? Not including the last question posed, I feel comfortable with my interpretation of the wordings of goals and objectives and my interpretation of them at this time.
I found that for the next step of the activity, I needed to rethink my evaluation techniques. The students teamed up, made recommendations to each other for improvements, made necessary improvements, and proofread their works. I found that my method of evaluating these partner activities needed to change. I began with a somewhat structured set of expectations for this activity (a checklist). Then I realized that the meaning of this small activity is lost in my checklist evaluation. While this activity is very meaningful in peer assessment and communication/cooperation skills for the students, it is not meaningful or useful for me to have a rigid form of evaluation here. The expectations of the checklist were valid, but the need for it was not there. As I read about evaluation, I came to the realization that evaluations, especially in the form of checklists, are not always the best means to the end. The students and I gained more by placing this checklist in the "round file," and letting the students naturally discuss as I guided, observed, and/or shared in the process of the student discussions.
Next I worked with individuals to make final revisions. My individual work with students worked well. I kept a running list of most noticeable areas for improvement, weaknesses, and areas of strength in each child's writing. While this was a very informal way to evaluate, I surprisingly found it to be the most useful. I have since referred to this compilation of information more that other evaluations I used in this activity. It is very disorganized in that it is just a bunch of scribbled notes on each child. In retrospect, I could probably have used a more organized, structured evaluation. But, for the moment, I was extremely useful. This is a place where I had no set plan for evaluation, yet I later discovered this to be a very useful source of evaluation material. It leads me to think, "What was I thinking?!" Next time, this will be more central in my evaluation of this project and process writing in general.
My next step was to introduce the technological aspect of the student activities. I wished to create a group of volunteers who would become the experts on Power Point. This proved to be a great learning experience . . . for me. Power Point turned out to be more difficult than I had expected for the students. It was also less exciting and fun for them. At one point in our noon computer club session, a student asked, "Why don't we just use Kid Pix and make Slide Shows?" While I was initially annoyed with his honesty, I realized the reason for my annoyance; he figured out in a matter of minutes what I still had not. He asked a valid question, and he implied a justifiable solution to this unnecessary problem. Out of the mouths of babes . . .
I asked myself why I was so set on introducing Power Point. Was it a simple matter of change is better or was there a real, valuable reasoning for introducing this new technology. As I read during this course, change does not always equal improvement. I realized that I was comfortable with the Kid Pix Slide Show. It is more child friendly and produces the same results I was desiring. So, I scrapped the plans of using Power Point to publish works and instead used Kid Pix Companion. The next session of my expert student group on computers went over much better for everyone. Later the rest of the class was introduced to program with success.
I still find myself with the following questions/concerns regarding my project: I still find it difficult to evaluate creative publications on the computer. I can evaluate the concrete aspects (the written works) more comfortably. I still find evaluation of the Slide Show slides and the team work to be more troubling as to the accuracy and validity of my evaluation. I'm still struggling with the idea that the students need to be accountable for their actions and learned concepts on the computer, yet I do not know how to approach the evaluation of this. Just as great is what I do with this acquired evaluation when I am done. There is no recording process for this evaluation (no computer grades). This is valid and valuable information, yet it's value and validity is not recognized in the forms of recording grades/results.