Showing posts with label dynamic intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dynamic intelligence. Show all posts

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Keep away from Data



While most data is collected on children deals with their learning , the damage is even greater when data is collected  refers to behavior  and used to give kids diagnoses and labels if he does certain things  x times during the last 6 months or used to assess  static skill level.

Back in the 50s, a prominent psychiatrist named Thomas Szasz characterized psychopathology as “problems in living.”  A child's behavior has to be seen in a dynamic environment where the compatibility or incompatibility between parent , teacher and child can be explored and whether the child is developmentally on target with his life skills.




Rachelle Sheely a RDI – Relationship development intervention expert for challenging kids, especially those on the autistic spectrum says in her blog  that we should understand the difference between static –intelligence data and dynamic intelligence  Rachelle Sheelely RDI letter - Data
'Let me begin by saying that there seems to be a strong correlation between high test scores and doing well in school when the basic curriculum is designed for the tests. This makes sense; if you teach that Austin is the capital of Texas and you then ask on as test, "what is the capital of Texas", the group scores in the classroom will indicate that it has been taught and that the children can answer the question.  

Like tests of content mastery, standardized IQ scores also find a place in predicative correlations for large groups of people. But what does each of these measure? They measure static skills - what you know; not how you approach a problem or use the information to approach new problems, how you figure out how to answer a question or what you will do with the information once you know it. Like many of you, I have my own history of cramming and forgetting.

This brief blog today, then, is a warning to be suspicious of the implied meaning of scores. RDI™ is interested in education with a different twist; experience-based learning as it relates to Dynamic Intelligence. We are interested in how persons on the spectrum approach and solve problems and whether or not they can think. While a quantifiable analysis may be difficult to construct, not so difficult is a snapshot of experiential interactions.

Especially important to this discourse is that with very few exceptions, standardized tests don't predict an adult quality of life for a person on the spectrum. Dynamic Intelligence, related to experience based learning and dynamic decision making, much more so. In the end, we concern ourselves with our children's future selves-their executive functioning, self-management, organization, focus and volition.'


Quotes on data from http://joebower.org  blog

Albert Einstein once said, "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." He hung this sign above his desk at Princeton University.


Data is very limiting mostly because it tends to conceal more than it reveals.

If we want to reclaim data, and we do need to, we need to stress that real learning is found in children not data. The best teachers never need tests to gather information about children's learning nor do they need grades to share that information with others. They know that there is no substitute for what a teacher can see with their own eyes when observing and interacting with students while they are learning, and any attempt to reduce something as magnificently messy as real learning will only ever conceal more than it will reveal. I might go so far as to say that the best educators in the 21st Century understand that "measurable outcomes may be the least significant results of learning" except that this has been true in every century. 

This kind of data will only lead teachers to better predict a kid's chances of passing or failing a test  than actually knowing the kid as a human being - as a learner.

There's a reason why Gerald Bracey once said:

There is a growing technology of testing that permits us now to do in nanoseconds things that we shouldn't be doing at all.

The greatest failure of trusting test scores more than teachers is that teachers might know more about how to improve a student's test score than they know the student.

Data is dehumanizing.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

I.E.Ps vs CPS - collaborative problem solving plan


Many teachers and parents of challenging kids need to participate in writing up an I.E.P – an individualized educational plan for the kid. The question asked and addressed in the CPS book for schools             Lost at School

 Is ' How do we incorporate collaborative problem solving into an I.E.P'?

' In the real world, problems, persons and settings continually change. And , attempts to solve problems actually modify the problem itself. Events or activities are inherently dynamic, rather than consisting of static conditions. Change and development, rather than static characteristics, is assumed to be basic..

A problem solving approach places primary emphasis on people's attempts to negotiate the stream of life, to work around or transform problems that emerge on the route to attaining the diverse goals of life '   - Barbara Rogoff


I think the way to go is to understand where traditional IEP and CPS differ.

The IEP may contain useful information such as lagging skills and academic problems that would impact on behavior.  

 IEPs and behaviorism focus on behaviors =static intelligence which makes IEPs static documents. CPS focuses on problem solving =dynamic intelligence which leads to a dynamic CPS plan.


 The goals and benchmarks in an IEP focus on the symptoms of the lagging skills -  behaviors that make the kid look bad – and teaching replacement behaviors for eg using words instead of hitting, stepping back to chill out, and asking for help etc. The focus on behavior is in part due to the way progress is measured and ' data ' collected.  Behaviorism looks at the ' behavior ', because it is easy to measure but ignores the child's feelings, concerns and the role of others in the problem, in other words the specific conditions giving rise to the problem. So IEP goals call for the display of appropriate replacement behaviors when the kid is challenged ignoring the problem

Treating the symptoms of an underlying problem with replacement behaviors or procedures does not deal with the underlying problem and the concerns of the kid. So the crucial components of an IEP and the goals and benchmarks should the pile of unsolved problems and lagging skills that need remediation. Once we have identified the unsolved problems and lagging skills we can use a CPS plan to prioritize problems and lagging skills.  The low priority problems will be put on the back burner - Plan C , and the high priority problems and lagging skills will be addressed by named teachers who will do plan B with the kid.

We can then show how Plan B – the mutually satisfying solution
 1 addresses the both kid's and teacher's solves problems in a realistic and durable way
2. and at the same time how the Plan B process teaches   indirectly the various lagging skills.

When we assess how the Plan B solution is addressing the problem, we are not only evaluating the lagging skills but whether the solution is the appropriate one to address the problem. We also need to reflect on the actual discussions themselves. These discussions are not only revealing about the kids concerns but also give information about how the kid is using his cognitive skills  for e.g– the ability to identify and express his concerns, planning, hindsight and foresight, perspective taking , being  flexible in his thinking.

Behaviorism and IEPs that focus on measuring behaviors gathering  ' static ' information . This leads to ' static' documents. CPS gathers ' dynamic ' information which is more helpful in dealing with the kid's issues.

Ross Greene concludes that since IEPs tend to be static documents, CPS is likely to be more effective at prioritizing and revising goals, tracking a kid's progress, deciding what skills have been satisfactorily trained and problems resolved, and helping kids appreciate the progress that is being made. IEPs become outdated rather quickly – the CPS plan is a living, breathing plan of action.