2 Understanding Understanding 

This is a chapter that excites my brain, right from the title. One of the hardest things about our profession, especially in the realm of the theoretical, is defining just what "knowing" and "learning" are. I have taken around four years of Education classes, and the only consist definition is "there is no consistent definition."

This is sort of the whole point of assessment: how do you graph/quantify/measure/assess/etc something immaterial and subjective? W hat the heck even IS "understanding" anyways?

I like the examples the books give:
One person can memorise a recipe, but a person who understands baking will be able to replace ingredients as necessary, change the amounts in the correct proportions, knows all the tricks of proper rack placement and timing, and all the other things that the recipe does not include. This backs up what, to me, is a larger educational truth: doing is better then talking. (Don't confuse this for "don't talk"; I'll get to that later.) In some dead words, "Facta Non Verba", Deeds, Not Words, which I would tattoo on my person.

It echoes the same things we've been talking about all dang semester.
 A valuable lesson needs to:
- Be student-centered, with students preforming the actions and uncovering knowledge
- Useful in real-life shit the students actually care about doing
- English must be authentic

The person who goes through 20 different attempts at making cookies probably has a better grasp of the baking process than the person who followed the recipe very exactly, the same way each time. In the same way, the student who's been hitting the gringo bars to chat up the patrons will speak better English than the kid who finished all his worksheets.
Whatever "understanding" is, it seems to come more fully when the learning process involves actually rolling up your sleeves and getting to it, especially when they're your linguistic sleeves.

This, also, I think, is far more observable: did the student understand what I said? Were they able to hold a conversation in English during discussion? Did they get the reading? I find that, a lot of times, we will have a sense of a definite yes or no: yeah, this one gets it. Or, no, this kid is lost. But how can record those results in a definitive, objective way?

Well I'm taking a course on it so I'm developing some ideas on that.


"Misunderstanding is not Ignorance"

Hey, there's another nice tattoo idea.

Here's what I immediately thought after I read that list of student misunderstandings. This is why we should teach what is "wrong" in language. (That is, things that obscure the intended meaning.)
For example, I once taught my students the difference between "pantis" here in Chile and "panties" in English. (If you say "I like your panties!" to someone, you better be sure you're saying what you mean.)

I'm sure we've all been affected by the Expert Blind Spot at one point or another. I've found that seeing things from a student's point of view is a skill that gets developed over time.

Introduction

The introduction ]makes some important distinctions between terminology. It explains the difference between "assessment" and "evaluation."   Assessments are distinct from assessments in that they, well, assess-- they give some score or grade of the task based on standards to be met. I also enjoyed how the author explored the etymology of the word "curriculum." By reinforcing it as the "course to run," it illustrates more effectively the usefulness of a curriculum. It's more than a list of topics to be covered, it's a plan for all the experiences to be had, things to really work through rather than a checklist to be completed. These are useful definitions to have in mind while reading the book.
I am also intrigued by the clarification the authors make, that they are not against traditional testing. I interested to see how their strategies for planning could be applied to testing, even "traditional" testing.

Chapter 1

 There are some key points presented in the opening of the chapter that are at least familiar to me.
First of all, that the lessons should be planned around the desired outcomes rather than a list of topics to be covered. A newer, important distinction is the specification that lessons should focus more on the output rather than the input, and I know I myself have made the mistake of tending too much to the activities rather than the results and what to do with them. Basically, results > content.

Something I already enjoy about this book is the seeming empiricism of the strategy: define the desired outcome, define what is acceptable evidence of understanding, then plan. This allows freedom of specific teaching techniques, as the focus of the strategy is in the first two steps. Also interesting is the inclusion of peer-review and self-assessment as a benefit of the planning template. It makes it easier to examine, review, and change--more of that empiricism I enjoy.