Heading into the new year, I thought I’d begin again with a potentially useful post that speaks to the current accountability zeitgeist in education. I have difficulty believing that the benefit of standardized tests outweighs the loss. At the same time, I think it a) helpful to be able to talk about learning in a way that is understood by all; and b) necessary that we pay attention in some way to outcomes.

But as any thoughtful researcher will agree, methodology - the philosophical and theoretical framework that guides data collection - is a crucial part of research design. However, the tests that drive AYP are guided by a methodology that often is not shared by teachers themselves. Maybe some teachers, but certainly not all, would choose similar skill-and-drill assessment tools for tracking learning in their classrooms. I argue that for a classroom-based research design to have integrity, teachers’ own pedagogy should be incorporated into the assessment. This does not mean that we can’t have standards outlining *what* should be counted, but that we should allow teachers and local administrators to come up with the ways most in keeping with their classroom and school philosophies on *how* to count. This is certainly not the direction we’re heading, but to me it’s worth saying. For the time being we can imagine how we would prefer to evaluate as we move forward in the AYP lockstep that dictates how we will.

Happily, I’m as yet aware of no national or state-wide mandated tests for technology standards, although - also happily - we already have some agreement on what should be counted. What follows is a short list of a few indices for technology learning assessment. We’ll try to grow the list this year.

1) Computer (or internet) Outcome Expectancy - the consequences students anticipate from computer or interenet usage, independent of indivudal skill or competency - i.e., what you expect a computer can do for you

2) Computer (or internet) Self-Efficacy - “what individuals believe they can do with the skills they possess”; belief “in one’s own capabilities” (see for example, Eastin and LaRose. ” Internet Self-Efficacy and the Psychology of the Digital Divide.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, v.6, n.1, 2000.)

3) Computer Attitudes - interest and/or enjoyment in technology. For a validated measure (grades 6-8), see the Computer Attitude Questionnaure (CAQ), a 65-item Likert instrument for measuring middle-school students’ attitudes and computer anxiety. As a note, NSF is interested in “student engagement,” (see the recent “Report of the Academic Competitiveness Council” for the STEM education measures federal agencies will be prioritizing moving forward) which is connected with these specific Computer Inventory subscales.

5) Computer Anxiety - self explanatory, and a measure is included of this subscale in the CAQ described above.

6) Student Achievement - quite simply, students’ skill-based or knowledge-based performance. See the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) National Eduational Standards Technology (NETS) for what to date is being included in the developing set of national standards for technology education. See also the ACM’s K-12 Model Curriculum, available at the Computer Science Teacher’s Association (CSTA) website.

7) Computing Career Awareness and Interest - I have been unable to locate a middle school inventory to determine a student’s interest in or even awareness of computer-related careers, but a validated instrument for high school and college students is one developed by Drs. Elizabeth Creamer, Carol Burger and Peggy Meszaros (NSF-funded). Their “Career Decision-Making Survey” (grounded in theories of why women have historically chosen not to pursue careers in computing) looks at parental attitudes and students’ exposure to computers, among other things, to predict interest in an IT / computer-related career. The survey looks at students’ meaning-making during the decision-making process. Computer Career Interest is another measure that NSF and other federal agencies have made a high-priority.

If there are other valuable measures and instruments out there, pass them along.