Guiding Questions to Accompany Readings for May 25 & 26 B. Rationale for Change.

You can provide here a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs. Describe what is problematic about these theories-what is missing or misaligned? o What are the anomalies? o What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address? (Other questions ... ) Readings GUIDING QUESTIONS
What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned? What are the anomalies? What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address? Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article.

Eisner

Rationalization is the problem that shapes our uderstandings: I mention the concept of rationalization because I am trying to describe the ethos being created in our schools. I am trying to reveal a world view that shapes our conception of education and the direction we take for making our schools better. Rationalization as a concept has a number of features. First, it depends on a clear specification of intended outcomesi That is what standards and rubrics are supposed to do. We are supposed to know what the outcomes of educational practice are to be, and rubrics are to exemplify those outcomes. Standards are more general statements intended to proclaim our values. One argument for the use of standards and rubrics is that they are necessary if we are to function rationally. P. 1-2 Measuring: specification of units

IE asks us to question current evaluation practices. If we want them to be rationalized, ask for what purpose? Is the goal ONLY to make them employable? Current evaluation procedures are too short sighted.

WE have to ask ourselves first what is our belief? What do we want our students to get out of being in school. That has to happen first before we look at educational and evaluation practices:
What kinds of problems and activities do students engage in? What kind of thinking do these activities invite? Are students encouraged to wonder and to raise questions about what they have studied? Perhaps we should be less concerned with whether they can answer our questions than with whether they can ask their own. The most significant intellectual achievement is not so much in problem solving, but in question posing. What if we took that idea seriously and concluded units of study by looking for the sorts of questions that youngsters are able to raise as a result of being immersed in a domain of study? What would that practice teach youngsters about inquiry? What is the intellectual significance

Rationalization is a process that produces predictability and control

Rationalization allows for comparison and down plays interactions Rationalization leaves very little to the imagination or allows for those unpredictable moments. Does not allow for student communication that allows them to use improvisation. Curriculum gets narrowed down Kids inherently learn that they need to know just enough to get through that grade then move on to the next thing Education has evolved from a form of human development serving personal and civic needs into a product our nation produces to compete in a global economy. Schools have become places to mass produce this product.

of the ideas that youngsters encounter? (I have a maxim that I work with: If it's not worth teaching, it's not worth teaching well.) Are the ideas they encounter important? Are they ideas that have legs? Do they go someplace? Are students introduced to multiple perspectives? Are they asked to provide multiple perspectives on an issue or a set of ideas? My point is that the activities in which youngsters participate in classes are the means through which their thinking is promoted. When youngsters have no reason to raise questions, the processes that enable them to learn how to discover intellectual problems go undeveloped What connections are students helped to make between what they study in class and the world outside of school? A major aim of education has to do with what psychologists refer to as "transfer of learning." Can students apply what they have learned or what they have learned how to learn? Can they engage in the kind of learning they will need in order to deal with problems and issues outside of the classroom? If what students are learning is simply used as a means to increase their scores on the next test, we may win the battle and lose the war. In such a context, school learning becomes a hurdle to jump over. We need to

determine whether students can use what they Plato once defined a slave as someone who executes the purposes of another. I would say that, in a free democratic state, at least a part of the role of education is to help youngsters learn how to define their own purposes. We ought to be providing environments that enable each youngster in our schools to find a place in the educational sun.
What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned? What are the anomalies? What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address? Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article. Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article.

Neufeld
What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned? What are the anomalies? What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address?

David J. Flinders & Elliot Eisner Chapter 12, Educational Criticism as a Form of Qualitative Inquiry

Past studies have focused on reading & writing without the same amount of attention to what is going on in the classroom, the contextual factors that come into play in the curriculum. P. 195 On teaching or education as an artp. 196. The parallels between the 2: -teaching is expressive as art is expressive and skilled performance -require that teachers mediate or transform the experience -teachers make judgments on the quality of the performance The misalignment occurs with the lack of skilled teacher who do not explore the

Educational criticism as anomaly or alternative to measuring or an outcomes based curriculum

Current evaluative procedures neglect the enacted curriculum those qualities, understandings and patterns of meaning that comprise school experience as it is played out in day-to-day levels of classroom practice. P. 196 Rubrics must engage the student in valuable and transformative educational criticism where they can step back at their work, understand the criticism, and give them an opportunity to address it again. Yes, this goes back to process but it also connotes that assignment is ever really finished. If the student takes in the criticism, then they should likely change or add to the work, opening it up again for more criticism. Current evaluative processes dont do that because they are

Educational Criticism as the answer? It emphasizes qualitative assessment allows for subjectivity of the evaluator or research to be conducted, questions generalizability, and addresses validity and rigor, p. 196 To evaluate the program of IE, you have to evaluate how the teacher has become a skilled st performer and artist of pedagogy. (see 1 column) The IE program must be willing to accept criticism of its program by other skilled pedegogues. It must allow for re-education of the perception of what the work or art or unit or program is. P. 197

artistic possibilities of pedagogy. p.197 We ask teachers to see but how much of that seeing is seen freshly? It is nearly impossible to ask them this. There are values and existing perceptions. Its like the term imagination it cant seem to lose its flightiness in some peoples minds. Consider film critics who are deeply interested in what people take away after the film and want to talk with other people on how they understood the film. Film critics do not hand out surveys or give tests. If teachers are educated critics of work, wouldnt it follow that they would engage in a discussion with the student on how they understood the material? P.198 Teaching as orchestrating the classroom learning environment. P. 198 Evaluation must be sensory? P. 199 We need to ask students to be connoisseurs of education (to ask what they know or understand of a topic). By the end the student must know what to look for in or is able to find qualities of p.200

summative rather than formative. Evaluation of students work should involve direct an personal attention to the individuals work. The teachers comments should be rich in description. P. 199 We need to ask students to be connoisseurs of education (to ask what they know or understand of a topic). By the end the student must know what to look for in or is able to find qualities of Are students able to discern the complexities of, nuances, subtleties of the topic they are asked to think about p.200 Current evaluation programs are right to align students with scientific concepts but in the past those have been over-emphasized as absolutes (p.201-202). Instead, we as teachers should expect overlap in the way students describe their understandings of a topic, but we have to also give merit to their divergences as what they really amount to are transformative understandings. In this way we are empowering students in their development of their understandings. P. 202 Students must be given the chance to express their values in the curriculum or at least develop those. The student must have a role in recognizing the achievement and the shortcoming p. 203. Students and teachers should know what constitutes or counts as good p.203 The teacher must evaluate a series of students lessons p.203 to determine the students literacy with the topic. An effective IE program might be one that allows teachers to see to do away with the scales that prevent the eyes from seeing. P. 197 On the film critic analogy, the educational program should engage in dialogue with those who have gone through the program and what their understandings of it or experiences of it meant to them. It should not take survey or test form. Those seem to test recall of the program as they witnessed it as a witness does in a trial. Instead it should unfold as something more personal and transformative. The evaluation of the program should be rich in description. Someone how goes through the IE program should have a rich and deep and have a high awareness of the nuances and educational experiences they were met with along the way. P.199. IE program evaluation must be field focused and sensory IE students should be evaluated on the extent to which they have become a connoisseur of the educational experience of IE or if they know what to look for when it comes to teaching that fosters the imagination if they are able to find qualities of the imagination in students work and their own. The teacher should be able to speak to broad pedagogical themes that others may take for granted p. 201 The teacher must provide vivid renderings of

On the baseball analogy, p. 203. Teachers evaluations must be constant and throughout (not just summative). A true fan of the game of baseball or learning should attend to yes, the final score but also the games and maybe even be better part of the practices that all result in the final score. Educational criticism attempts to identify the major thematic notions the recurring messages and qualities, dominant features, or salient images that come from the study of individual cases p. 203 students must come to naturalistic generalizations about what they now know about a given topic.. .and what they will know in the long run (p. 205) but is more incisive in detail, more so that what they have known of the topic in the past.

their work where the meaning and poignancy must come clear with its articulation p. 201 The ie program must teach teachers to sense the world and then make sense of it p. 201 they must make sense of their performance. So a classroom must be viewed to them as an ongoing narrative with characters, themes, symbols and underlying metaphors, p,. 201 IE students should have some overlap or agreement with existing ideas in the program. There must be alignment and the extent to which the IE student-teacher diverges from this should be indicative of their growth as a pedagogue. P.202 The program values must be made clear upfront p. 202 Recognizes shortcomings and achievement. P 203 Evaluations must be of a series of lessons p.203 after all, a fan of baseball is not just interested in the final score of the game but attends the game to see how it was played. Look for reasonable claims and warranted possibilities p. 205 when we think of addressing credibility and rigor of the program called consensual validation p. 205. The accounts of those going through the IE program must be thick to structurally corroborate what has been learned and give a compelling image of what has been observed throughout the program p. 206 weighed with

evidence. It must re-educate their perception. It must also contain referential adequacy, illuminating aspects of the classroom that would otherwise not be known or apparent p. 206 this will enlarge understandings as well as guide future observations p. 206
What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned? What are the anomalies? What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address? Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article.

Maubry

Outcomes based pursuits within a qualitative field

issues regarding the credibility and feasibility of qualitative methods p. 168

Qualitative data are sometimes relegated to secondary status in other ways as well: considered merely exploratory preparation for subsequent quantitative efforts; mined for quantifiable indications of frequency, distribution, and magnitude of specified program aspects; neglected as inaggregable or impenetrably diverse and ambiguous, helpful only in providing a colorful vignette or quotation or two. Such dismissiveness demonstrates that problematic' aspects remain regarding how qualitative data are construed, collected, interpreted, and reported. P.169 Research requires thick description as one of the evaluation mechanisms but how feasible is it especially when the length of time for research is quite limited (p. 171), Consequently, special care is needed in

Guba and Lincoln (1989) take as their charge the representation of a spectrum of stakeholder perceptions and experiences in natural settings and the construction of an evaluative judgment of program quality by the evaluator, an irreplicable construction because of the uniqueness of the evaluator's individual rendering but trustworthy because of sensitive, systematic methods verified by memberchecking, audit trails, and the like. Also naturalistic and generally but not exclusively qualitative, Stake's (1973) approach requires the evaluator to respond to emergent understandings of program issues and reserves judgment to stakeholders, a stance which critics feel sidesteps the primary responsibility of rendering an evaluation conclusion (e.g., Scriven, 1998). Eisner (1991) relies on the enlightened eye of the expert to recognize program quality in its

Qualitative methods are ethnographic an interpretive which is what current procedures fail to address Mixed-method designs of Data, 1994, 1997; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). See p. 168

Qualitative data better suit educational evaluation because it is expansive in design and reveals more about the complexity of a situation. P. 168 In educational evaluation, qualitative methods produce detailed, experiential accounts which promote individual understandings more readily than collective agreement and consensual program action. P. 168

On Observation as a method of evaluation: Observation is seen as biased but can be prescriptive and informative so dont write it The disclaimer/epistemological orientation off. Current evaluative procedures need to about qualitative assessment in IE: qualitative more value placed on observation. methodologists do not seek to discover, measure, The intent of structured protocols may be to reduce bias, but bias can be seen in the prescriptive categories defined for recording observational data, categories that predict what will be seen and prescribe how it will be documented, categories that preempt attention to the unanticipated and sometimes more meaningful observable matters. P, 171 Interviews provide a means of triangulation p. 172
Current procedures must accept that IE is

and judge programs as objects. They - we - do not believe objectivity is possible. To recognize the program or its aspects, even to notice them, is a subjective act filtered through prior experience and personal perspective and values. We do not believe a program is an entity which exists outside human perception, awaiting our yardsticks. Rather, we think it a complex creation, not static but continuously co-created by human perceptions and actions p. 169 Other disclaimer or provide some epistemological orientation: The program is pliant, not fixed, and more subjective than objective in nature (p. 169)

the selection of occasions for observation and in the selection of interviewees, complemented by alertness to unanticipated opportunities to learn. P. 171 Still, the data collected will almost certainly be too little to satisfy ethnographers, too much to reduce to unambiguous interpretation, and too vulnerable for comfort to complaints about validity p. 171

critical and subtle emanations, not easily discerned from the surface even by engaged stakeholders. These three variations on the basic qualitative theme define respectively naturalistic, responsive, and connoisseurship approaches. P. 170 Patton's approach prioritizes the utilization of evaluation results by "primary intended users" (1997, p. 21) as the prime goal and merit of an evaluation. P. 170 Greenelocal participation House & Howe social justice oriented

experiential and not enough evaluation mechanisms focus on this: Consequently, qualitative representations of programs feature experiential vignettes and interview excerpts which convey multiple perspectives through narratives. Such reporting tends to be engaging for readers and readerly - that is, borrowing a postmodernist term, consciously facilitative of meaning construction by readers.

We also have to accept that the program is evolving and changing: coming to understand a program is less like snapping a photograph of it and more like trying to paint an impression of it in changing natural light (p. 170). Coming to understand a program's quality requires sustained attention from an array of vantage points, analysis more complex and contextual than can be anticipated by prescriptive procedures. P. 170 Puts the onus on evaluators saying, requires the evaluator to respond to emergent understandings of program issues and reserves judgment to stakeholders which sidesteps the primary responsibility of rendering an evaluation conclusion (stake). Eisner relies on the enlightened eye of the expert to recognize program quality in its critical and subtle emanations (being naturalistic, responsive and connoisseurship in their approach (p. 170) Green (1997) presses for local participation in evaluation process to transform working relationships among stake hold groups, especially relationships with program managers. (170)

The data collected by qualitative

methods are typically so diverse and ambiguous that even dedicated practitioners often feel overwhelmed by the interpretive task. The difficulty is exacerbated by the absence of clear prescriptive procedures, making it necessary not only to determine the quality of a program but also to figure out how to determine the quality of a program p. 173

Mertens (1999) as instrumental to the inclusion of the historically neglected, including women, the Length is a deterrant and disadvantage. P. disabled, and racial and cultural 175 minorities p.170

For most qualitative practitioners, evaluation is a process of examination of stakeholders'. subjective perceptions leading to evaluators' subjective interpretations of program quality. As these interpretations take shape, the design and progress of a qualitative evaluation emerges, not preordinate but adaptive, benefiting from and responding to what is

learned about the program along the way. P. 170

For qualitative evaluators, the goal is grounded interpretations of program quality. Evaluation by qualitative methods involves continual shaping and reshaping through parallel dialogues involving design and data. data and interpretation, evaluator perspectives and stakeholder perspectives, internal perceptions and external standards. These dialogues demand efforts to confirm and disconfirm, to search beyond indicators and facts which may only weakly reflect meaning. Interpretation, like data collection, responding to emergent foci and issues, tends to multiply meanings, giving qualitative methods its expansionist character. P.172 The best advice available regarding the interpretive process is rather nebulous (Erickson, 1986; Wolcott, 1994), but some characteristics of qualitative data analysis are foundational: 1. Inductive 2. Phenomenological 3. Holistic 4. Intuitive p. 173-174

Jeanetta Miller, Weaving Imagination into an Academic Framework: Attitudes,

What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned?

What are the anomalies?

What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address?

Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article.

Imagination (at least in the teaching of English) has been limited to the area of inference & interpretation. (p.67) What do we really want from students: cognitive leaps or compliance, passion or five-paragraph essays, innovation or MLA format, wit or rigor? Imagination can be unruly and, worst of all, difficult to

As we met and met again, there was a sense of excitement and satisfaction that we were moving toward consensus as a faculty on interdisciplinary standards for student work. This rubric was one of four that define our standards for graduation in the areas of Information Literacy, Problem Solving, Written Performance, and Spoken Communication. We saw these rubrics as

IE would essentially want the form or products of the imagination to be varied, showing a range of ways to think about a topic. Time: we need to convince students that they have the time and energy to engage imaginatively in the work they do for us. (p.67)

1.

2.

Evaluate the time spent on generating the values of the community and how they articulate them in the activities teachers ask students to engage with in the classroom. Those activities must wrap back to the values. Can these communities provide a justification for their values, beyond creating

Assignments, assess. Page 7. and Shes saying that we want imagination Assessments but the products we ask for are not
imaginative. In fact they are conformist in nature. Schools spend time creating, analytical rubrics to provide students with specific information about how to meet our graduation requirements p.67 An analytic rubric is a scientific approach to something that is not an exact science or even that the tools for analysis of student work arent even the right tools or the tools are too limited for the scope of the imagination. We learned that it is hard to write an analytical rubric that doesnt descend into meaningless increments of few, some, many. (p.67) The problem, of course, is that students will tend to focus on what is explicit in a rubric, such as the number of sources required. p. 67 While I worry about the monster we might create in writing standards and rubrics that make the importance of imagination explicit, I think we owe it to students to set this record straight. However, adding an Imagination row to a rubric is not enough. To rouse imagination in the high school classroom, we need to convince

a way to communicate clearly and consistently to students what we, as a school community, value. P.67 School communities such as this one is an example of the anomaly in that they collectively generate rubrics that reflect the schools values. The Connecticut School uses Howard Gardners five minds of the future, which include the disciplined mind of the critical thinker, the synthesizing mind of the problem solver, the creative mind of the innovator, the respectful mind of the collaborator, and the ethical mind of the leader (Gardner, 7 in Miller p.68) This above is an example of communities taking the opposing view of what the st skills of the 21 century should be. Proteus Project p. 68-69 The challenge for todays heroes is not so much how to obtain information as how to decide what is worth knowing and worth caring about. The Proteus Project is an invitation to embark on a journey of exploration and epiphany, to wrestle ones own Proteus into submission. The project begins with and builds on a significant personal narrative. The writer explores the true subject of the narrative, seeks information from other people about this subject, creates several pieces that grow organically out of the narrative and research, weaves a recurring motif

On time and autonomy IE demands both but the reality is that they simply arent given either. There is broad recognition that we need to maintain a balance between implementation of board-approved curriculum and freedom to experiment with new ideas and new approaches, so teachers will have fresh material to contribute when curriculum comes up for review. P. 68 IE demands a focus on skills that transcend time. It focuses on skills of thinking this is constant. st Whereas 21 century skills are just skills unique to the era such as computer literacy etc they must meet standards established five or more years in the past, standards that tend to focus on the skills that are important to us rather than the skills that will be important to them. P.68 3.

employable graduates of highschool, literacy and numeracy. Evaluate the amount of time a program gives to foster the imagination. The program should be able to justify why there is fewer assignments and justify how those assignments will be marked.

If school is, indeed, to be this training ground, students need relief from the quantity of work they currently produce, so they have the time and the mental and emotional space to think critically, synthesize, innovate, collaborate, and develop the character to ethically lead. (p.68) the new approach, whatever it is must have students buy into it.

students that they have the time and energy to engage imaginatively in the work they do for us. (p.67) Culturally, we have a narrow and shortsighted definition of success. every group defined success primarily as good grades and admission to a respectable college. Some students also mentioned friends, family, being true to oneself, but they are all marching to the same mantra: meet the standards, get the grades, go to college. Because they recognize that we are the gatekeepers, with authority to impose standards and determine grades, they comply with our demands, many of them putting in long hours to do so. P.67-68 Students are not given the time to be imaginative. A student in survival mode looks for the most direct route to the target grade; investing personal passion and imagination in simultaneous assignments from five or six disciplines must seem not only impractical but downright irresponsible. (p.68) We teach skills that are applicable to the economic and political climate. These change every 5 years as economic cycles do. Instead, we need to focus on skills that transcend those climates but are just as applicable. they must meet standards established five or more years in the past, standards

through the evolving project, reflects on findings, and provides a cover and introduction that engage and inform the reader.(p.69) The Occasional Paper: Students dont have to worry about the grade when they present their OPs; they have to worry about something much more important: moving a real audience with trenchant observation and artful use of language p.72

that tend to focus on the skills that are important to us rather than the skills that will be important to them. P.68

Linda Payne Young

Imagine Creating Rubrics That Develop Creativity
What is problematic? What is missing or misaligned? What are the anomalies? What particular demands does IE make that current evaluative procedures fail to address?

Provide a rationale for articulating a new, imaginative approach to evaluate educational programs given what I just read from this article.

From creative problem solving to culminating performance events, curriculum design that includes assessment that captures critical thinking skills, problem solving abilities, and imaginative/creative capabilities is promoted by educators at all levels. P.74 this quote above points to addressing skills that transcend time/space/culture. This is where the misalignment occurs when we focus skills that are too short termed or fanciful Rubrics designed to measure imagination and creativity usually fail because they attempt to quantify the product rather than assess student growth during the creative process. P.74

the anomaly is that there are people who actually believe in cultivating the imagination as tool for thinking Jane Piirto in Understanding Creativity (6061) considers imagination to be a component of creativity. imagination is the the faculty or action of forming ideas or images in the mind; the power of framing new and striking intellectual conceptions; the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful; poetic genius. (P.74) Use positive assessment when assessing creativity. Students will be less afraid to tell you what they think. Simply telling students to be creative may result in their being more creative if they know they will be rewarded and not punished through a lower grade

IE demands that teachers already know the essence of what they are looking for when they say to be creative or imaginative. But they fail to articulate that. IE requires a clear articulation of what creativity or imagination means first but the average teacher may have a limited understanding of that or even a limited buy in to that. Without a clear understanding of the role imagination and creativity play in assignments, students are often blindsided by a grade when teacherseven good teachersattempt to assess creativity as a product. P.74

Evaluation for IE requires that the evaluator know the essence the je ne sais quoi of what they are looking for and the process students should be going through in order to evoke the imagination. In this case, the model for evaluation puts much emphasis on the evaluator himself. It follows then, that the evaluator is just as much part of the process of evaluating an IE program. The evaluator must know the essence of IE in order to be able to evaluate it. Recall the story on p.74-75 about Maggie and her 3/5 mark and comment, If I had known

color was the criteria, I would have used less imagination and more crayons. Teaching requires a commitment to teaching scientific concepts for which to be imaginative about. It must be a productive affair that is grounded in learning about the actual curriculum. Only through knowledge is the imagination actually able to be employed. Sternberg and his colleagues developed the investment theory of creativity, demonstrating that creativity in thinking can be taught and assessed in the classroom (Wisdom). In later work, Sternberg (Nature) identifies six creative

the misalignment of time and time for the imagination The White Queen took the teachers role when she shared with Alice, Why, sometimes Ive believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast (Carroll, Chap 5). Real learning moments occur when we soar and become excited about the possibilities found in the world and in ourselves. But true teaching and learning happen when we imagine how to make at least one of the impossible ideas possible before lunch. p.75 Imagination is the eye of the soul (24), but he also wrote that imagination without learning has wings but no feet. Imagination and creativity can be unproductive daydreams unless students are taught how to use their creative abilities. P.75 Our mission, as teachers, is to develop students creativity, their intellectual insight, and their ability to see beyond limitations. We are also charged with teaching students to apply creative processes to realworld application in the arts, sciences, and social issues butFrench essayist who fi lled notebooks with his

(OHara and Sternberg 198). By providing students with clear criteria for creativity in their writing or other performance tasks, teachers can guide and improve students ability to imagine and create. Instead of limiting creativity, positive assessment in an accepting environment can develop student creativity. P.75 An alternative rubric: Sternberg (Nature) identifies six creative resources that individuals choose to use to be creative thinkers: intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment (8890). P.75 & 76 See Figure 1, Rubric for Creative Thinking p.78 Viewing these attributes as the building blocks for creative thinking and realizing that students must choose to use them encourages students to take control of their learning and creativity. Focus on student control of their internal resources for creative choice frees the imaginative student and encourages and guides the more practical-minded or individual to develop their creativity.

Imagination is the eye of the soul (24), but he also wrote that imagination without learning has wings but no feet. Imagination and creativity can be unproductive daydreams unless students are taught how to use their creative abilities. P.75 IE requires a new rubric, one that is more flexible and process oriented rather than limiting, ready-made rubrics if the imagination is actually what we are after: In developing rubrics and criteria, teachers must believe in the premise that we are not assessing the creativity of the student or the product, but student use of imagination and creative thinking in solving problems, creating an artistic product, or producing an imaginative performance. Teachers must also base the criteria they use to measure imagination and the creative process on sound theory and not items arbitrarily listed on ready-made rubrics. P.75 IE has a particular kind of assessment that requires student voices: Instead, a well-crafted rubric can serve as a heuristic to guide students in their imaginative exploration and teachers in their growing understanding of individual students and their needs. The purpose of using criteria and rubrics is not to dictate the teachers response to student work, but to facilitate a fruitful discussion. P.77

resources that individuals choose to use to be creative thinkers: intellectual abilities, knowledge, styles of thinking, personality, motivation, and environment (8890). Understanding these components is the starting point for creating criteria that enhance development of creativity in student work. The following list, adapted from Sternbergs resources, identifies student choices and actions in each of the six areas that are indicative of creative thinking. P.75
Rubrics must be process oriented. The IE program is deemed a successful one then if, during the process, growth in thinking or creativity or in this case, teaching is apparent. We should expect to see a transformation in the people who undertake in the program and in order to do that we must know intimately of who they were in the beginning, during and at the end how they dealt with new information, did it become part of them, is there evidence of that?

thoughts and imaginings, believed that Imagination is the eye of the soul (24), but he also wrote that imagination without learning has wings but no feet. P. 75 Using rubrics points to the misalignment if rubrics arent created properly: The purpose of using a rubric and criteria is not to put imagination and creativity in a box but to create a framework so that students and teachers can discuss, explore, and discover the limitless possibilities inherent in creatively imagining. The paradoxical nature of using rubrics to assess that which is admittedly often not assessable speaks to the complexity of the teaching/learning experience. P.76 that rubrics focus inappropriately on assessment to justify grades instead of improving teaching or focusing on student learning. P.77 Ready-made rubrics on-line has worsened the problem. Teachers use limited search criteria for creativity and therefore get limited definitions and expectations for students to that end.

p. 79

IE teachers must we must not rate the creative level of the student or the product, but the evidence of students use of creative thinking and skills. Clear criteria for creative thinking in the process can teach students how to be creative and can develop creativity by increasing the rewards and decreasing the costs (Sternberg, Nature 97). The first step in developing the criteria is to select the elements that best fit learning outcomes for the specific assignment. P.77

Donald Schon describes the process of rationalization of behavior as "technical rationality." See Donald Schon, The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals Think in Action (New York: Basic Books, 1983). Nor is this the first time technically rational approaches to planning and assessment have dominated schooling. The efficiency movement in American schools-from about 1913 to about 1930-is one example. The behavioral objectives and accountability movements of the I 960s and 1970s are two more.