How to waste students’ time

During the last 20 years, children in our public schools have been required to learn important concepts earlier and earlier. This is supposed to speed up learning. But we, at Lectica, are finding that when students try to learn complex ideas too early, they don’t seem to find those ideas useful.

For example, let's look at the terms reliable, credible, and valid, which refer to different aspects of information quality. These terms used to be taught in high school, but are now taught as early as grade 4. We looked at how these terms were used by over 15,000 students in grades 4-12. These students were asked to write about what they would need to know in order to trust information from someone making a claim like, "Violent television is bad for children."

As you can see in the following graph, until grade 10, fewer than 10% of these students used the terms at all—even though they were taught by grade 5. What is more, our research shows that when they are used before Lectical Level 10 (see video about Lectical Levels, below), these terms mean little more than “correct” or “true”, and it is not until late in Lectical Level 10 that people use these terms in a way that suggests they have distinct meanings.

Children aren't likely to find the words reliable, valid, or credible useful until they understand why some information is better than other information. This means they need to understand concepts like motivation, bias, scientific method, and expertise. We can get 5th graders to remember that they should apply the word "valid" instead of "true" when presented with a specific stimulus, but this is not the same as understanding.

Reliable, valid, and credible aren't the only words that students don't find useful. We have hundreds of examples in our database.

Learning in the zone

The pattern above is what we see when students are taught ideas they aren't yet prepared to understand. When children learn ideas they're ready for—ideas that are in "the zone"—the pattern looks very different. Under these conditions, the use of a new word quickly goes from zero to frequent (or even constant, as parents of 4-year-olds know only too well). If you're a parent you probably remember when your child first learned the words "why," "secret," or "favorite." Suddenly, questioning why, telling and keeping secrets, or having favorites became the focus of many conversations. Children "play hard" with ideas they're prepared to understand. This rapidly integrates these new ideas into their existing knowledge networks. But they can't do this with an idea they aren't ready for, because they don't yet have a knowledge network that's ready to receive it. 

If you're a parent, think about how many times your child is asked to learn something that isn’t yet useful. Consider the time invested, and ask yourself if that time was well spent.

 

 

Correctness, argumentation, and Lectical Level

How correctness, argumentation, and Lectical Level work together diagnostically

In a fully developed Lectical Assessment, we include separate measures of aspects of arguments such as mechanics (spelling, punctuation, and capitalization), coherence (logic and relevance), and persuasiveness (use of evidence, argument, & psychology to persuade). (We do not evaluate correctness, primarily because most existing assessments already concern themselves primarily with correctness.) When educators use Lectical Assessments, they use information about Lectical Level, mechanics, coherence, persuasiveness, and sometimes correctness to diagnose students' learning needs. Here are some examples:

Level of skill (low, average, high) relative to expectations

  Lectical Level Mechanics Coherence Persuasiveness Correctness
Case 1 high high low average high
Case 2 high high high low low
Case 3 low average low low high

Case 1

This student has relatively high Lectical, mechanics, and correctness scores, but their performance is low in coherence and the persuasiveness of their answers is average. Because lower coherence and persuasiveness scores suggest that a student has not yet fully integrated their new knowledge, this student is likely to benefit most from participating in activities that require them to apply their existing knowledge in relevant contexts (using VCoL).

Case 2

This student's scores, with the exception of their correctness score, are high relative to expectations. This students' knowledge appears to be well integrated, but the combination of average persuasiveness and low correctness suggests that there are gaps in their content knowledge relative to targeted content. Here, we would suggest filling in the missing content knowledge in a way that integrates it into this students' well-developed knowledge network.

Case 3

The scores received by this student are high for correctness, while they are average for mechanics, and low for Lectical Level, coherence, and persuasiveness. This pattern suggests that the student is memorizing content without integrating it effectively into his or her knowledge network and has been doing this for some time. This student is most likely to benefit from applying their existing content knowledge in personally relevant contexts (using VCoL) until their coherence, persuasiveness, and Lectical scores catch up with their correctness scores.

Leadership, vertical development & transformative change: a polemic

This morning, while doing some research on leader development, I googled “vertical leadership” and “coaching.” The search returned 466,000 results. Wow. Looks like vertical development is hot in the coaching world!

Two hours later, after scanning dozens of web sites, I was left with the following impression: 

Vertical development occurs through profound, disruptive, transformative insights that alter how people see themselves, improve their relationships, increase happiness, and help them cope better with complex challenges. The task of the coach is to set people up for these experiences. Evidence of success is offered through personal stories of transformation.

But decades of developmental research contradicts this picture. This body of evidence shows that the kind of transformative experiences promised on these web sites is uncommon. And when it does occur it rarely produces a fairytale ending. In fact, profound disruptive insights can easily have negative consequences, and most experiences that people refer to as transformational are really just momentary insights. They may feel profound in the moment, but don’t actually usher in any measurable change at all, much less transformative change. 

 

"The good news is, you don’t have to work on transforming yourself to become a better leader."

 

The fact is, insight is fairly easy, but growth is slow, and change is hard. Big change is really, really hard. And some things, like many dispositions and personality traits, are virtually impossible to change. This isn’t an opinion based on personal experience, it’s a conclusion based on evidence from hundreds of longitudinal developmental studies conducted during the last 70 years. (Check out our articles page for some of this evidence.)

The good news is, you don’t have to work on transforming yourself to become a better leader. All you need to do is engage in daily practices that incrementally, through a learning cycle called VCoL, help you build the skills and habits of a good leader. Over the long term, this will change you, because it will alter the quality of your interactions with others, and that will change your mind—profoundly.

 

What PISA measures. What we measure.

Like the items in Lectical Assessments, PISA items involve real-world problems. PISA developers also claim, as we do here at Lectica, that their items measure how knowledge is applied. So, why do we persist in claiming that Lectical Assessments and assessments like PISA measure different things?

Part of the answer lies in questions about what's actually being measured, and in the meaning of terms like "real world problems" and "how knowledge is applied." I'll illustrate with an example from, Take the test: sample questions from OECD's PISA assessments

One of the reading comprehension items in "Take the test" involves a short story about a woman who is trapped in her home during a flood. Early in the story, a hungry panther arrives on her porch. The woman has a gun, which she keeps at her side as long as the panther is present. At first, it seems that she will kill the panther, but in the end, she offers it a ham hock instead. 

What is being measured?

There are three sources of difficulty in the story. It's Lectical phase is 10c—the third phase of four in level 10. Also, the story is challenging to interpret because it's written to be a bit ambiguous. I had to read it twice in order to appreciate the subtlety of the author's message. And it is set on the water in a rural setting, so there's lots of language that would be new to many students. How well a student will comprehend this story hinges on their level of understanding—where they are currently performing on the Lectical Scale—and how much they know about living on the water in a rural setting. Assuming they understand the content of the story, it also depends on how good they are at decoding the somewhat ambiguous message of the story.

The first question that comes up for me is whether or not this is a good story selection for the average 15-year-old. The average phase of performance for most 15-year-olds is 10a. That's their productive level. When we prescribe learning recommendations to students performing in 10a, we choose texts that are about 1 phase higher than their current productive level. We refer to this as the "Goldilocks zone", because we've found it to be the range in which material is just difficult enough to be challenging, but not so difficult that the risk of failure is too high. Some failure is good. Constant failure is bad.

But this PISA story is intented to test comprehension; it's not a learning recommendation or resource. Here, its difficulty level raises a different issue. In this context, the question that arises for me is, "What is reading comprehension, when the text students are asked to decode presents different challenges to students living in different environments and performing in different Lectical Levels?" Clearly, this story does not present the same challenge to students performing in phase 10a as it presents to students performing in 10c. Students performing in 10a or lower are struggling to understand the basic content of the story. Students performing in 10c are grappling with the subtlety of the message. And if the student lives in a city and knows nothing about living on the water, even a student performing at 10c is disadvantaged.

Real world problems

Now, let's consider what it means to present a real-world problem. When we at Lectica use this term, we usually mean that the problem is ill-structured (like the world), without a "correct" answer. (We don't even talk about correctness.) The challenges we present to learners reveal the current level of their understandings—there is always room for growth. One of our interns refers to development as a process of learning to make "better and better mistakes". This is a VERY different mindset from the "right or wrong" mindset nurtured by conventional standardized tests.

What do PISA developers mean by "real world problem"? They clearly don't mean without a "correct" answer. Their scoring rubrics show correct, partial (sometimes), and incorrect answers. And it doesn't get any more subtle than that. I think what they mean by "real world" is that their problems are contextualized; they are simply set in the real world. But this is not a fundamental change in the way PISA developers think about learning. Theirs is still a model that is primarily about the ability to get right answers.

How knowledge is applied

Let's go back to the story about the woman and the panther. After they read the story, test-takers are asked to respond to a series of multiple choice and written response questions. In one written response question they are asked, "What does the story suggest was the woman’s reason for feeding the panther?"

The scoring rubric presents a selection of potential correct answers and a set of wrong answers. (No partially correct answers here.) It's pretty clear that when PISA developers ask “how well” students' knowledge is applied, they're talking about whether or not students can provide a correct answer. That's not surprising, given what we've observed so far. What's new and troubling here is that all "correct" answers are treated as though they are equivalent. Take a look at the list of choices. Do they look equally sophisticated to you?

  •  She felt sorry for it.
  • 􀁳􀀀 Because she knew what it felt like to be hungry.
  • 􀁳􀀀 Because she’s a compassionate person.
  • 􀁳􀀀 To help it live. (p. 77)

“She felt sorry for it.” is considered to be just as correct as “She is a compassionate person.” But we know the ideas expressed in these two statements are not equivalent. The idea of feeling sorry for can be expressed by children as early as phase 08b (6- to 7-year-olds). The idea of compassion (as sympathy) does not appear until level 10b. And the idea of being a compassionate person does not appear until 10c—even when the concept of compassion is being explicitly taught. Given that this is a test of comprehension—defined by PISA's developers in terms of understanding and interpretation—doesn't the student who writes, "She is a compassionate person," deserve credit for arriving at a more sophisticated interpretation?

I'm not claiming that students can't learn the word compassion earlier than level 10b. And I'm certainly not claiming that there is enough evidence in students' responses to the prompt in this assessment to determine if an individual who wrote "She felt sorry for it." meant something different from an individual who wrote, "She's a compassionate person." What I am arguing is that what students mean is more important than whether or not they get a right answer. A student who has constructed the notion of compassion as sympathy is expressing a more sophisticated understanding of the story than a student who can't go further than saying the protagonist felt sorry for the panther. When we, at Lectica, talk about how well knowledge is applied, we mean, “At what level does this child appear to understand the concepts she’s working with and how they relate to one another?” 

What is reading comprehension?

All of these observations lead me back to the question, "What is reading comprehension?" PISA developers define reading comprehension in terms of understanding and interpretation, and Lectical assessments measure the sophistications of students' understanding and interpretation. It looks like our definitions are at least very similar.

We think the problem is not in the definition, but in the operationalization. PISAs items measure proxies for comprehension, not comprehension itself. Getting beyond proxies requires three ingredients.

  • First, we have to ask students to show us how they're thinking. This means asking for verbal responses that include both judgments and justifications for those judgments. 
  • Second, the questions we ask need to be more open-ended. Life is rarely about finding right answers. It's about finding increasingly adequate answers. We need to prepare students for that reality. 
  • Third, we need to engage in the careful, painstaking study of how students construct meanings over time.

This third requirement is such an ambitious undertaking that many scholars don't believe it's possible. But we've not only demonstrated that it's possible, we're doing it every day. We call the product of this work the Lectical™ Dictionary. It's the first developmental taxonomy of meanings. You can think of it as a developmental dictionary. Aside from making it possible to create direct tests of student understanding, the Lectical Dictionary makes it easy to describe how ideas evolve over time. We can not only tell people what their scores mean, but also what they're most likely to benefit from learning next. If you're wondering what that means in practice, check out our demo.

Interpreting CLAS Demo reports

What the CLAS demo measures

The CLAS demo assessment (the LRJA) is a measure of the developmental level of people's reasoning about knowledge, evidence, deliberation, and conflict. People who score higher on this scale are able to work effectively with increasingly complex information and solve increasingly complex problems. 

CLAS is the name of our scoring system—the Computerized Lectical Assessment System. It measures the developmental level (hierarchical complexity) of responses on a scale called the Lectical Scale (also called the skill scale). 

It does not measure:

  • writing mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization)
  • coherence (quality of logic or argument)
  • relevance
  • correctness (measured by most standardized tests) 

These dimensions of performance are related to Lectical Level, but they are not the same thing. 

The reliability of the CLAS score

The Lectical Scores on CLAS demo assessments are awarded with our electronic scoring system, CLAS.

  • CLAS scores agree with human scores within 1/5 of a level about 90% of the time. That's the same level of agreement we expect between human raters. This level of agreement is more than acceptable for formative classroom use and program evaluation. It is not good enough for making high stakes decisions.
  • We don't recommend making high stakes decisions based on the results of any one assessment. Performance over time (growth trajectory) is much more reliable than an individual score.
  • CLAS is not as well calibrated above 11.5 as it is at lower levels. This is because there are fewer people in our database who perform at the highest levels. As our database grows, CLAS will get better at scoring those performances.

Benchmarks for K-12

The figure below shows growth curves for four different kinds of K-12 schools in our database. If you want to see how an individual student's growth relates to this graph, we suggest taking at least three assessments over the course of a year or more. (The top performing school "Rainbow," is the Rainbow Community School, in North Carolina.)

 

Straw men and flawed metrics

khan_constructivistTen years ago, Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark published an article entitled, Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching.

In this article, Kirschner and his colleagues contrast outcomes for what they call "guidance instruction" (lecture and demonstration) with those from constructivism-based instruction. They conclude that constructivist approaches produce inferior outcomes.

The article suffers from at least three serious flaws

First, the authors, in making their distinction between guided instruction and constructivist approaches, have created a caricacture of constructivist approaches. Very few experienced practitioners of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, or inquiry-based teaching would characterize their approach as minimally guided. "Differently guided" would be a more appropriate term. Moreover, most educators who use constructivist approaches include lecture and demonstration where these are appropriate.

Second, the research reviewed by the authors was fundamentally flawed. For the most part, the metrics employed to evaluate different styles of instruction were not reasonable measures of the kind of learning constructivist instruction aims to support—deep understanding (the ability to apply knowledge effectively in real-world contexts). They were measures of memory or attitude. Back in 2010, Stein, Fisher, and I argued that metrics can't produce valid results if they don't actually measure what we care about  (Redesigning testing: Operalizationalizing the new science of learning. Why isn't this a no-brainer?

And finally, the longitudinal studies Kirschner and his colleagues reviewed had short time-spans. None of them examined the long-term impacts of different forms of instruction on deep understanding or long-term development. This is a big problem for learning research—one that is often acknowedged, but rarely addressed.

Since Kirschner's article was published in 2006, we've had an opportunity to examine the difference between schools that provide different kids of instruction, using assessments that measure the depth and coherence of students' understanding. We've documented a 3 to 5 year advantage, by grade 12, for students who attend schools that emphasize constructivist methods vs. those that use more "guidance instruction". 

To learn more, see:

Are our children learning robustly?

Lectica rationale

 

Lectica basics for schools

If you are a school leader, this post is for you. Here, you'll find information about Lectica, it's mission, and our first electronically scored Lectical Assessment—the LRJA.

Background

Lectica, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) charitable corporation. It's mission is to build and deliver learning tools that help students build skills for thinking and learning. These learning tools are backed by a strong learning model—the Virtuous Cycle of Learning (VCoL+7™)—and a comprehensive vision for educational testing and learning, which you can learn more about in our white paper—Virtuous cycles of learning: Redesigning testing during the digital revolution

We have spent over 20 years developing our methods and the technology required to deliver our learning tools—known as Lectical™ Assessments or DiscoTests®—at scale. These assessments are backed by a large body of research, including ongoing investigations of their validity and reliability. Here are some links to research reports:

The following video provides an overview our research and mission:

Current offerings

In the fall of 2016, we introduced our first electronically scored Lectical Assessment—the LRJA (an assessment of reflective judgment/cirtical thinking). The LRJA can be used in research and program evaluation as a summative assessment, or in the classroom as a formative assessment—or both.

The best way to learn about the LRJA is to experience it first-hand at lecticalive. Just click on this link, then select the "go straight to the demo" button. On the next page, fill in the sign up form with the educational level of your choice. Click "submit", then, click on the "autofill" button (top right, under the header) to fill the responses form with an example. 

If you're interested in working with the LRJA or would like to learn more about using Lectical Assessments to optimize thinking and learning, please contact us.

Robust knowledge knowledge networks catalyze development

Lectica's learning model, VCoL+7, emphasizes the importance of giving students ample opportunity to build well-connected knowledge networks through application and reflection. We argue that evidence of the level of integration in students' knowledge networks can be seen in the quality of their argumentation. In other words, we think of poor arguments as a symptom of poor integration. In the research reported in the video below, we asked if students' ability to make good arguments predicts their rate of growth on the Lectical Scale. 

Second language learning predicts the growth of critical thinking

On November 20th, 2016, we presented a paper at the ACTFL conference in Boston. In this paper, we described the results of a 4-year research project, designed to address the question, "Does second language learning support the development of critical thinking as measured by the LRJA?". To learn more, view the presentation below.