“Squishy” is a very squishy word
January 17th, 2008 by Christopher HarrisPaula Yohe wrote a guest blog entry on Doug Johnson’s Blue Skunk Blog about what she refers to as the new “squishy standards” that have been published by AASL and ISTE. In a post based on a dichotomous comparison of the wonderful old versus the horrible new, Paula is building an argument that presents the new standards as unattainable due to their “squishiness.”
The main complaint Paula levels is that she finds the new standards to be non-specific. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) standards she defines as being “clear and concise” as they “give specific examples” and demonstrate how the standards “are integrated into various subject areas.” But there is one small problem with this. The P21 movement doesn’t have a set of standards. This makes a real-world comparison of the “squishiness” of AASL’s new standards versus the P21 standards a bit difficult; a bit “squishy” one might say. Instead of publishing standards, P21 calls for the development of new 21st Century Standards…like maybe the Standards for the 21st Century Learner developed by AASL?
Despite the dichotomous good/bad comparison presented in Paula’s post, in reality the P21 movement is fully supportive of the new AASL standards. P21 defines 21st Century Standards as a document that:
- Focuses on 21st century skills, content knowledge and expertise
- Builds understanding across and among core subjects as well as 21st century interdisciplinary themes
- Emphasizes deep understanding rather than shallow knowledge
- Engages students with the real world data, tools, and experts they will encounter in college, on the job, and in life–students learn best when actively engaged in solving meaningful problems
- Allows for multiple measures of mastery[P21]
I believe that the new AASL Standards for the 21st-Century Learner directly address these P21 identified elements. They are very much focused on P21 identified skills of creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration. Additionally, the two information literacy skills identified in the P21 framework – accessing, evaluating and using information, and ethical/legal use of information – translate almost word for word to the four new AASL standards. So where is the squish?
If the dichotomous approach that dismisses the new standards as being non-specific and vague while placing Information Power on a pedestal is set aside, a second review can reveal some interesting bits of information. First, I would state that the dichotomy of old versus new is especially broken in this instance because the old and the new are in fact quite similar. It doesn’t take much work to find direct alignment between the indicators from the Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning that became Information Power and the new AASL standards. Print off both documents [OLD | NEW] and you too can play along at home with the “Align the New Standards Game!” To make it really easy, sometimes the numbers didn’t even change!
Old
- 1.3 Formulates questions based on information needs.
New
- 1.1.3 Develop and refine a range of questions to frame the search for new understanding.
As far as the purported “squishiness” of the new standards, I find skill 1.1.3 to be a pretty straight forward call to action that, except of the use of different words to impart the same meaning, is at least as specific as the old 1.3 indicator. So where is the squish?
The only squish that might be able to be attributed to the new AASL standards is that they were released early at the biennial conference to build excitement at our infrequent national gathering. This means that we are left comparing 20 years of Information Power to a few months of the new standards. That new standards easily hold their own with respect to the comparable document from the old standards cycle. Now it is our turn as members in the professional organization to spend the next 10 to 20 years building up the support structure that we are familiar with. It is our job to take them, work with them, shape them, align them, draw from them what we can use, embed them in local curriculum documents, and otherwise do to them what we did with the Information Power standards. The new standards might be squishy, but only in the way that bread dough is squishy before it is baked. To continue the metaphor, we are in the punching down stage after pulling the towel off of our newly risen standards. Just remember that we punch down dough to make the bread rise higher and softer – not to beat it out of existence.
So as the person on LM_NET who Paula noted as asking media specialists to sit down with their administrators to discuss the new standards and present a plan on how to use them, here is me putting my vision into action. This is a one-page overview of the new standards that identifies a few key standards (that all happen to address testing skills) and presents a plan of action. Feel free to modify it and use it as desired. If you have a Mac with Pages 08, I would be more than happy to send you the original file for easier editing. And there is nothing squishy about this.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
For me, research is very much a matter of asking and answering questions, looking at and reading multiple sources, and identifying expert sources that at its most fundamental level is “I understand the sources” and “the sources answer the questions I expect an expert to be able to answer on this topic.”
January 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Then compare and contrast. The define problems, reach conclusions, challenge, agree or disagree.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Hi Chris,
Your one-page summary is outstanding! Thanks for sharing this.
My sense is that unease lies not so much with the skills portion of the new standards, but with the disposition, self-assessment and responsibilities. I believe it remains to be seen if these affective behaviors can be taught and assessed – and if so, how.
It’s more than simply a reactionary view on the part of Paula and others. Are we being asked to something very new without much guidance as to how it is to be done?
All the best,
Doug
January 18th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I’m sorry, Doug, but I just don’t buy that as a valid reason for what seems to me to be knee-jerk negativity about the new standards. Just like a comparison of old and new skill indicators reveals that they are very similar in nature, the dispositions, responsibilities and self-assessment items aren’t all that new either.
From Information Power:
“The goal is to assist all students in becoming active and creative locators, evaluators, and users of information to solve problems and to satisfy their own curiosity. With these abilities, students can become independent, ethical, lifelong learners who achieve personal satisfaction and who contribute responsibly and productively to the learning community and to society as a whole” [Page 2].
So that would cover
1.2.1 – investigate answers (i.e. curiosity)
1.2.2 – select resources independently
1.3.1 – respect copyright
1.3.3 – be ethical and legal
1.3.4 – contribute ideas
1.4.1 – be a lifelong learner (in so many words)
2.2.4 – be productive
2.3.3 – make ethical conclusions from information
2.4.1 – acting (i.e. selecting) on information
2.4.3 – be a lifelong learner (in other words)
3.2.2 – be a productive part of an information society
3.2.3 – work together in a learning community
3.3.1 – embrace the diversity of the learning community
3.3.2 to 3.3.7 just be involved in the learning community and society as a whole
3.4.3 – be involved in the learning community at a meta level
4.2.1 – be curious
4.2.2 – seek answers to the satisfy curiosity
4.3.3 – personal satisfaction (in so many words)
4.3.4 – ethical behavior
4.4.1 – lifelong learning and personal satisfaction (at a meta level)
As you can see, most of the new elements have always been a part of Information Power, they were just embedded in the paragraphs and not delineated as numbered bullets for indicators. Librarians have always been expected to take a part in developing the dispositions of students, instructing them on their responsibilities, and encouraging them to be self-assessors (i.e. be their own teacher in a journey of life-long learning).
Again, we can turn to Information Power for examples of this in the definition of the mission and goals of the library media program:
“3. To provide learning experiences that encourage students and others to become discriminating consumers and skills creators of information…” and later,
“7. to provide resources and activities for learning that represent a diversity of experiences, opinions, and social and cultural perspectives and to support the concept that intellectual freedom and access to information are prerequisite to effective and responsible citizenship in a democracy” [Page 7].
The main difference between old and new is a focus on questioning in the new standards. In this age when our government lies to us (not being political, stating facts here), the mainstream news media supports those lies without challenge, and the democratic citizenship is called traitorous for pursuing the truth, maybe we do need to focus on questions. The other noticeable difference is that the phrase “life-long learner” has been removed and replaced with self-assessment strategies that focus on meta-analysis of one’s learning process.
So I will continue to refute what I see as a reactionary response to the new standards. New methods for teaching and assessing these affective behaviors will be developed in time – remember, we are at the beginning here and comparing apples to oranges – but until then, there are perfectly good tried and true methods for assessment covered in Information Power on pages 173 to 182. Examples from the checklist strategy clearly demonstrate assessment of affective behaviors: “1. I chose a topic on ______ that is interesting to me.” and “8. I assessed how well I did each step based on what the research project’s instructions said. [Page 176]. These two examples would certainly allow assessment of self-assessment strategies 4.4.1 “Identify own areas of interest.” and 1.4.1 “Monitor own information-seeking processes for effectiveness and progress, and adapt as necessary.” The other items in the checklist also assess a number of dispositions and responsibilities. To further push this point, I would consider checklists to be the least affective (and effective) ways of assessment presented in this section of Information Power. Using rubrics, conferencing, journaling, and portfolios, teacher-librarians should have no trouble assessing the non-skill elements of the standards.
The real trick will be going through and picking out the ones that really matter in terms of the high-stakes tests we know are running the education process right now. I am working on that with a district next week, want to team up and share (ooohh…that’s standard number 3!)?
January 21st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hi – The February issue of School Library Media Activities Monthly has a wonderful chart correlating the old IP2 skills with the skills portion of the new learning standards. It’s a simple way to see how the new standards grow out of Information Power. The standards can be seen as an extension of the IP2 values, not something completely new. The chart will soon be posted at http://www.schoollibrarymedia.com. Another useful conversation point is whether or not the dispositions are a natural outgrowth of quality instructional design rooted in the skills. If so, then a district can choose to promote the dispositions as a “value-added” outcome to the standards — a bonus rather than a hindrance. Also – the standards are just the tip of the iceberg. Guidelines and assessment strategies are being written by their respective AASL task forces this winter. Those will help us deepen our understandings.
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 am
[...] Kelly Johns. This caused me to read a previous posting from Paula Yohe, and this response from Chris Harris, this previous response from Mike Eisenberg on the AASL blog, and the original post on the AASL [...]