Please do each part on separate attachement (do them individually .docx

Please do each part on separate attachement (do them
individually as they are not related to each other)
Part1: 2 pages aoa style, reference page required.
The “Average Man”? Daniels (1952)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/010203.pdf
Beyond Average Hough (2020)
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/15/08/beyond-average
Directions:
Please respond to the following prompts. Be sure to copy and
paste the prompts into your report and place your response
directly below the prompt to which you are responding.
Use of complete sentences (minimally 5 - 8 sentences in
response to each prompt) , APA format when referencing either
article, good layout and formatting, and use of a 12 pt font are
expected.
Question Prompts:
1) Considering what you've read in these article, what do you
think of when you hear the term 'individualized (or
personalized) learning'? What do you believe individualized
learning should like for students in an online classroom?
2) Use Google Scholar to find ONE online accessible resources
on the topic of individualized learning in an online classroom.
Cite your resource using APA format. After reading your
resource, summarize in detail at least 2 key take-aways from
your resource.
Part2:
See attached pdf reading for A section and youtube video for B
secontion answer the below in one page (short answers) no
reference page needed for part 2 (discussion style)
A-

(Mertler, 2007) defines data-driven instructional decision
making (or D-DIDM) as a “process by which educators examine
[data] in order to identify student strengths and deficiencies” .
1) What are Mertler's thoughts regarding the history of
instructional decision making? Do you agree? Why or why
not?
2) Mertler refers to the 'art of teaching'. After reading his
thoughts, what do you interpret this phrase to mean? How
might student learning in an online classroom be impacted by
the 'art of teaching'?
3) Review what Mertler implies distinctions between the art of
teaching responsibilities of researchers and those of
practitioners (instructors). If you were advising an online
education practitioner based on Mertler's writings, how would
you describe what ONE of their responsibilities might look
like? Please ensure that your response applies specifically to
the role of a facilitator of online instruction.
B-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHm6YiboHA
1) Discuss your perspective on ONE comparable and/or
contrasted position taken by the two lecturers. Try to provide
perspectives that have not been previously shared by other
student posters to this forum.
2) List ONE characteristic that you believe the 'average online
student' may possess? What could potentially be done within an
online classroom to support a student possessing this
characteristic? How might your suggestion support better
learning outcomes for the student? Try to provide perspectives
that have not been previously shared by other student posters to
this forum.
Part3
Why is it important to learn and know about the history of
education? Either in the United States or anywhere else? What

does that history tell us, and what can we learn from it? Draw
from the supplemental readings in the classroom, or from you
own research.
1- 2 pages at most, and please adhere to the American
Psychological Association (APA) writing styles. Reference
page required
Chamberlain College of Nursing NR341 Complex Adult Health
NR341 RUA Interdisciplinary Care.docx Revised 06
/2016 1
Required Uniform Assignment: Interdisciplinary Care
PURPOSE
The purpose of this assignment is for the student to reflect on th
e nursing care of a critically‐ill individual
from a clinical experience. The student will demonstrate clinical
reasoning skills and will discuss
interdisciplinary care that had been incorporated and/or anticipa
ted during the care of the critically‐ill
individual.
COURSE OUTCOMES
This assignment enables the student to meet the following cours
e outcomes:
CO 1: Provide nursing care to patients and their families in crit
ical and emergent care settings based on
theories and principles of nursing and related disciplines.

CO 2: Initiate the use of appropriate resources in direct care res
ponsibilities within critical‐care and
emergent care settings.
CO 3: Demonstrate effective therapeutic communication and rel
ationship skills in providing care to
patients and families in critical‐care and emergent care settings.
CO 4: Demonstrate effective clinical decision‐making based on
critical thinking skills and legal, ethical,
and professional standards and principles when caring for patien
ts and families in critical care and
CO 5: Implement a plan of for continued personal, professional,
and educational development related to
nursing practice within critical‐care and emergent care settings.
CO 7: Use evidence including research findings from nursing an
d related disciplines to answer clinical
questions related to nursing care of patients in critical care and
DUE DATE: See Course Calendar. This assignment falls within
the college’s Late Assignment Policy.
TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE: 100 POINTS
REQUIREMENTS: THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE I
NCLUDED IN THE PAPER
Background Information Summary:

of present illness
past medical and surgical history
diagnosis (diagnoses)
of current hospitalization to date
Significant assessment findings during day(s) of care. Include vi
tal signs, focused assessment,
and data from monitoring devices. (This information can be pres
ented in a table).
Laboratory and Diagnostic Tests
Identify and list a summary of relevant and significant lab value
s and diagnostic tests/procedures
performed. Include the rationales for performing the tests and fo
r any abnormal results. Provide
an analysis of the relationships between/among the diagnostic te
sts and lab results with the
critically‐ill individual’s current condition(s).
/2016 2
Medications
Identify and list a summary of relevant and significant medicati

ons. Indicate the trade name and
generic name, the medication classification, the therapeutic use,
major adverse effects, timing,
dosage, route of administration, and the nursing implications. A
lso include the rationale(s) as to
why the medication is prescribed for treatment. For example, do
cument the rationale for how the
treatment corrects the critically‐ill individual’s condition or a si
de effect of another drug that is
prescribed for treatment. *This information can be presented in
a table.
Nursing Diagnoses
In order of priority, identify three (3) nursing diagnoses for the
individualized plan of care for this
patient. Two of the nursing diagnoses must address actual probl
ems, and one of the nursing
diagnoses must be a “Risk for” or “Potential Complication” (PC
). For each nursing diagnosis,
include three (3) nursing outcomes, three (3) nursing interventio
ns, and three (3) collaborative
interventions. *This section can be presented as a table or conce
pt map.
Interventions ‐ ROUTINE NURSING MANAGEMENT
Describe independent nursing care you provided in the care of t
he critically‐ill individual.
Examples include, but are not limited to: activity level, position
, ongoing monitoring, and
nutrition (prescribed diet, tube feedings/TPN, formula, rate, and
calculation of basal energy
expenditure (BEE), patient education, wound care etc.). The rati

onale must be included for each
intervention.
Interdisciplinary (ID) Care
Collaborative Management
Identify the members of the interdisciplinary team caring for the
critically‐ill individual. Provide
a brief description of their roles and responsibilities. Interdiscip
linary team members include,
but are not limited to: physician, pharmacist, lab/diagnostic test
s personnel, respiratory
therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy,
social work/case
management, pastoral care, ethicist, etc.
Therapeutic Modalities
Describe the various therapeutic modalities used in the manage
ment of care for the critically‐ill
individual. Discuss the extent of the nurse’s responsibilities and
skills required to manage the
therapeutic modality in comparison to the responsibilities of the
members of the
interdisciplinary team. Therapeutic modalities include but are n
ot limited to: oxygen therapy
(mode, FiO2,), dialysis/CRRT (settings), ventilator therapy (mo
de of ventilation, settings, FiO2).
The rationale must be included for each modality.
Nursing Role Reflection
Provide a brief summary of how your role interacted with the m

embers of the interdisciplinary
team. Include in your summary
Analysis of communication style preferences among interdiscipl
inary team members and with
the critically‐ill individual and family members. What is the im
pact of your own
communication style on others?
System barriers and facilitators. Did the organizational framewo
rk for interdisciplinary
management of care facilitate or hindered the quality of care/out
comes for the critically‐ill
individual? What recommendations can you make to the organiz
ational system for enhancing
/2016 3
interdisciplinary collaboration? Provide at minimum two (2) evi
dence‐based literature sources
to support your recommendations.
Professional Development. Based on your experience(s), write i
deas for your own professional
self‐development plan to enhance your potential for becoming a
n effective member in an
interdisciplinary team.

PREPARING THE PAPER
Style and Format
The paper should be typed and presented in APA format, includi
ng an APA title page, use of headings,
and references with in‐text citations. Spelling and grammar will
be evaluated with this assignment.
Page Limits
The body of the paper should be between 7‐10 pages, NOT inclu
ding the Title and Reference pages.
Summary 1 to 1.5 pages
and Diagnostic Tests 1 to 1.5 pages
1 to 1.5 pages
Diagnoses 1 to 1.5 pages
1 page
Care 1 to 1.5 pages
Role Reflection 1 to 1.5 pages
GRADING CRITERIA
Assignment
Criteria
Points % Description
Background
Information
10 10%
Includes ALL the elements as described in the assignment guide

lines:
of present illness
past medical and surgical history
diagnosis(es)
of current hospitalization to date
Significant assessment findings during day(s) of care. Include vi
tal signs,
focused assessment, and data from monitoring devices.
Laboratory
and
Diagnostic
Tests
10 10%
Identifies and lists relevant and significant lab values and diagn
ostic
tests/procedures performed.
Includes the rationales for performing the tests and for any abno
rmal results.
Provides an analysis of the relationships between/among the dia
gnostic tests
and lab results with the critically‐ill individual’s current conditi
on(s).
Medications 10 10%
Identifies and lists relevant and significant medications.

Indicates the trade name and generic name, the medication class
ification, the
therapeutic use, major adverse effects, and nursing implications.
Includes the rationale(s) as to why the medication is prescribed
for treatment.
Nursing
Diagnoses
15 15%
Identifies three (3) nursing diagnoses in order of priority: 2 actu
al problems
and 1 risk for or potential complications for the plan of care.
Includes 3 nursing outcomes, 3 nursing interventions, and 3 coll
aborative
interventions for each nursing diagnosis.
/2016 4
Interventions:
Routine
Nursing
Management

10 10%
Describes independent nursing care provided in the care of the c
ritically‐ill
individual.
rationales are included for each intervention.
ID Care:
Collaborative
Management
10 10%
Provides a comprehensive list of the interdisciplinary team mem
bers caring
for the critically‐ill individual.
Provides a brief description of the roles and responsibilities of e
ach respective
interdisciplinary team members.
ID Care:
Therapeutic
Modalities
10 10%
Describes the various therapeutic modalities used in the manage
ment of
care for the critically‐ill individual.
Discusses the extent of the nurse’s responsibilities and skills re

quired to
manage the therapeutic modality in comparison to the responsibi
lities of the
members of the interdisciplinary team.
rationales are included for each respective modality.
Nursing Role
Reflection
20 20%
Summary includes:
Analysis of communication style preferences among interdiscipl
inary team
members and with the critically‐ill individual and family membe
rs;
Analysis of the impact of own communication style on others
Description of system barriers and facilitators in relation to the
quality of
care/outcomes for the critically‐ill individual
Discussion of recommendations to the organizational system for
enhancing
interdisciplinary collaboration, which are supported by at least t
wo (2)
evidence‐based literature

Description of ideas for own professional self‐development plan
to enhance
own potential for becoming an effective member in an interdisci
plinary
team.
APA Format,
Spelling,
Grammar,
and
Mechanics
5 5%
Proper APA format for title page, headings, references and in‐te
xt citations.
errors in spelling, grammar, and mechanics
Chamberlain College of Nursing NR340 Critical Care Nursing
/2016 5
GRADING RUBRIC
Assignment
Criteria
Outstanding or Highest Level
of Performance
A (92–100%)

Very Good or High Level of
Performance
B (84–91%)
Competent or Satisfactory
Level of Performance
C (76–83%)
Poor, Failing or Unsatisfactory
F (0–75%)
Background
Information
(10 points)
Includes ALL the guideline
elements:
of present illness
past medical and
surgical history
diagnosis(es)
of current
hospitalization to date
assessment findings

during day(s) of care. Includes
vital signs, focused assessment,
and data from monitoring
devices.
10 points
Does not include 1‐2 elements:
of present illness
past medical and
surgical history
diagnosis(es)
of current
assessment findings
devices.
9 points
Does not include 3 elements:
of present illness
past medical and
surgical history

ng diagnosis(es)
of current
assessment findings
devices.
8 points
Does not include 4 or more
elements:
of present illness
past medical and
surgical history
diagnosis(es)
of current
assessment findings
devices.
0–7 points

Laboratory and
Diagnostic Tests
(10 points)
and lists relevant and
significant lab values and
diagnostic tests/procedures
performed.
discusses the
rationales for performing the
tests and for any abnormal
results.
provides an
analysis of the relationships
between/among the diagnostic
tests and lab results with the
critically‐ill individual’s current
condition(s).
10 points
identifying 1‐2
relevant/significant lab values
and/or diagnostic tests/
procedures performed.
discusses the
results.
provides an

condition(s).
9 points
identifying 3‐4
discusses the
results.
provides an
condition(s).
8 points
identifying ≥ 5
discusses the
results.

provides an
condition(s).
0–7 points
/2016 6
Assignment
Criteria
of Performance
A (92–100%)
Performance
B (84–91%)

C (76–83%)
F (0–75%)
Medications
(10 points)
and lists relevant and
significant medications.
medications listed:
identifies trade name and
generic name, the medication
classification, the therapeutic
use, major adverse effects, and
nursing implications.
discusses the
rationale(s) as to why the
medication is prescribed for
treatment.
10 points
identifying 1‐2 relevant
and significant medications.
medications listed:

discusses the
treatment.
9 points
identifying 3‐4 relevant
medications listed:
discusses the
treatment.
8 points
identifying ≥ 5 relevant
medications listed:
discusses the

treatment.
0–7 points
Nursing Diagnoses
(15 points)
Identifies 3 nursing diagnoses – 2
actual problems and 1 risk for or
potential complication; All the
diagnoses are considered
priorities for the critically‐ill
individual.
For each nursing diagnosis, the
plan of care includes:
nursing outcomes,
nursing interventions
collaborative interventions.
14‐15 points
Identifies 3 nursing diagnoses – 2
actual problems and 1 risk for or
potential complication; Two of the
individual.

nursing outcomes,
collaborative interventions.
13 points
Identifies 2 nursing diagnoses –
actual and/or risk for or potential
complication; Both of the
individual.
nursing outcomes,
collaborative
interventions.
12 points
Identifies nursing diagnoses ‐
actual and/or risk for or potential
complications that are not
relevant OR are not priority for
the critically‐ill individual.
0‐1 nursing outcome, and/or
nursing interventions,

and/or
collaborative intervention.
0–11 points
Interventions:
Routine Nursing
Management
(10 points)
Comprehensively describes
independent nursing care
provided in the care of the
critically‐ill individual.
Adequately describes
Adequately describes
Minimally describes independent
nursing care provided in the care
of the critically‐ill individual.
/2016 7

Assignment
Criteria
of Performance
A (92–100%)
Performance
B (84–91%)
C (76–83%)
F (0–75%)
ALL interventions are referenced,
with use of evidence‐based
literature.
10 points
1‐2 interventions are not
referenced, yet display use of
evidence‐based literature.

9 points
3‐4 interventions are not
referenced, and show minimal use
of evidence‐based literature.
8 points
≥ 5 interventions are not
referenced, with minimal/no use
of evidence‐based
0–7 points
ID Care:
Collaborative
Management
(10 points)
Comprehensively identifies ALL
interdisciplinary team members
involved in the care of the
Comprehensively describes the
roles and responsibilities of each
interdisciplinary team member.
10 points
Missed identifying 1
interdisciplinary team member
who was involved in the care of
Adequately describes the roles

and responsibilities of each
9 points
Missed identifying 2
who were involved in the care of
Minimally describes the roles and
responsibilities of each
8 points
Missed identifying ≥ 3
who were involved in the care of
Inadequately describes the roles
and responsibilities of each
0–7 points
ID Care:
Therapeutic
Modalities
(10 points)
Comprehensive and accurate
description of therapeutic
modalities.
Comprehensive discussion of
nursing responsibilities/skills
required to manage therapeutic

modalities in comparison to the
responsibilities of the
Comprehensive and properly
referenced description of
rationales included for each
respective modality.
10 points
Adequate and accurate
modalities.
Adequate discussion of nursing
responsibilities/skills required to
manage therapeutic modalities in
comparison to the responsibilities
of the interdisciplinary team.
Adequate and properly
9 points
Brief, yet accurate description of
therapeutic modalities.
Adequate discussion of nursing
responsibilities/skills required to
manage therapeutic modalities in
comparison to the responsibilities
of the interdisciplinary team.
Brief, yet properly referenced

description of rationales included
for each respective modality.
8 points
Minimal and/or inaccurate
modalities.
Minimal or inadequate discussion
of nursing responsibilities/skills
required to manage therapeutic
modalities in comparison to the
responsibilities of the
Minimal and/or improperly
0–7 points
Nursing Role
Reflection
(20 points)
For ALL 4 Criteria, summary
provides comprehensive and
insightful reflection on the nursing
For 3 Criteria, summary provides
comprehensive and insightful
reflection on the nursing role
For 2 Criteria, summary provides
comprehensive and insightful

reflection on the nursing role
For 0‐1 Criteria, summary
provides comprehensive and
insightful reflection on the nursing
/2016 8
Assignment
Criteria
of Performance
A (92–100%)
Performance
B (84–91%)
C (76–83%)

F (0–75%)
role within the interdisciplinary
team, which addresses
style and
preferences
barriers and
facilitators
evidence‐based
recommendations for system
enhancements
relevant
professional self‐
development plan
19–20 points
within the interdisciplinary team,
which addresses
style and
preferences
em barriers and
facilitators
evidence‐based
enhancements

relevant
development plan
17‐18 points
within the interdisciplinary team,
which addresses
style and
preferences
barriers and
facilitators
evidence‐based
enhancements
relevant
development plan
16 points
role within the interdisciplinary
team, which addresses
style and
preferences
barriers and
facilitators
evidence‐based

enhancements
relevant
development plan
0– 15 points
APA Format,
Spelling,
Grammar, and
Mechanics
(5 points)
Contains no errors in APA
formatting, spelling, grammar, and
mechanics.
5 points
Contains 1‐2 errors in APA
mechanics.
4.5 points
Contains 3‐4 errors in APA
mechanics.
4 points
Contains ≥ 5 errors in APA
mechanics.

0‐3 points
Total Points Possible = 100 points
12 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 22, Number 1
· Winter 2009
mind·set or mind-set (mndst) n
A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predeter-•
mines a person’s responses to and interpretations
of situations.
An inclination or a habit.•
Introduction
In this address, I plan to discuss some things that I am
very passionate about; some things I think are very important
for professional educators—and education, in general—and
hopefully give you some food for thought as you go forward
in practicing in your specific chosen field. Specifically what I
want to do initially is to “dissect” the notion of data-driven in-
structional decision making by first discussing “instructional
decision making,” then talking about the data-driven aspect.
I’m also going to incorporate a discussion of merging these
concepts as a single broad educational process and argue for
the inclusion of three critical components in that process. I
think I’m correct in assuming that we are all familiar with
these critical components, but that we’ve not really looked
at these concepts as integral parts of a single process. This
is one of the key aspects that I hope you take away from my
talk this morning. Finally, I am going to try to integrate dis-

cussions of the roles and responsibilities of both researchers
and practitioners in these educational processes.
Instructional Decision Making:
The Art of Teaching
Let’s begin by taking a look at instructional decision
making. My working definition for this term is the notion
that all educators are constantly making decisions about
educational programs, curriculum, instructional styles, and
instructional materials. You name it…we make decisions
about it. Hopefully, the reason that we are making those
decisions has its basis in our continuing effort to maximize
student learning. Let’s face it…that’s why we’re in this
business. In the past—and, probably, the not so distant
past—a lot of instructional decision making was based on
“gut instinct.” It was based on that feeling or that sense that,
as educators, we know what works with students; we know
what doesn’t work with students. Let me put that in a more
specific context. We know what works with our students and
we know what doesn’t work with our students. The fact that
we are talking about the students that we teach or of whom
we are in charge is really a key feature of what I want to fo-
cus on. The problem with relying on gut instinct as the basis
for instructional decisions is that it is not a very systematic
process. Teachers, or educators in general, often try different
instructional approaches. Sometimes they work, but most of
the time they do not. Therefore, what we end up with is a sort
of “trial-and-error” process that often results in a good deal of
frustration. I am sure that you can recall examples from your
own teaching. We have sketched ideas out on paper and they
looked great. However, when we ultimately try them with
our students, our ideas have failed miserably. Please note that
I said that our “ideas failed,” not that we failed. The reason
that I say that is because we have to remember that we still

learned something through our trial-and-error process. We
have learned what not to do, what did not work. It is crucial
to remember that this is still beneficial to the teaching and
learning process.
Simply put, what I am referring to with this practice of
“gut instinct decision making” is the art of teaching. Now,
2008 MWERA Presidential Address
A Systematic Approach to Transforming the Art
of Teaching Into the Science of Teaching:
Developing a D-DIDM Mindset
Craig A. Mertler
Bowling Green State University
Abstract
Data-driven instructional decision making (or D-DIDM) is a
“process by which educators examine
[data] in order to identify student strengths and deficiencies”
(Mertler, 2007). My view of the process of
D-DIDM merges three critical educational practices: classroom-
based (or site-based) action research,
assessment of student learning, and reflective practice. Each of
these practices are discussed individually,
followed by an examination of the union of the three into a
comprehensive approach to D-DIDM. The
roles and responsibilities of researchers and practitioners in this
process is also integrated throughout
the discussion. My address is intended to motivate educators at
all levels to seriously and conscientiously
consider integrating D-DIDM into their classroom practice.
(Presidential Address continued on page 17.)

Volume 22, Number 1 · Winter 2009 Mid-Western Educational
Researcher 17
I firmly believe that teaching, at any and all levels, is an art
form. There are some skills that just cannot be taught; there
are some skills that cannot be learned. I am sure that if you
think back, you can recall a teacher that you have had so
much respect for because that teacher just “got” you, helped
you, reached you. When you walked into that teachers’
classroom or out of that classroom on a given day, you were
inspired. You were taught something that you did not know
before and that was a great feeling, wasn’t it? Now, try to
recall a teacher who might be located at the opposite end of
that spectrum. All of us have had teachers who we knew just
did not get it. They were not that “artist” in their respective
classrooms. As students, we could sense that. But remember
how we are sensing that. It is sort of that gut feeling; we just
know it when we see it.
Now, rest assured, I do not ever mean to take anything
away from teachers who possess that art of teaching because
it is a very important and integral part of the educational pro-
cess. In contrast, what I want to do is to take “teaching as an
art form” a little bit further than that and suggest some things
that hopefully build and extend this notion of good classroom
teaching. When it comes to the art of teaching, I believe that
both researchers and practitioners have responsibilities. I
believe that researchers have responsibilities for suggesting
alternatives for educators to examine and consider trying as
part of their trial-and-error process. The reason that I think
that this is an important responsibility for researchers is be-
cause oftentimes, as researchers, we know were to find these
resources; sometimes practicing educators may not know all

of the resource capability and availability that we might. I
think as researchers, we have a responsibility to work with
educators and to suggest various ideas and alternatives, hope-
fully based on existing research. Of course, whenever we do
this and suggest that educators use these alternatives in their
particular settings, we immediately have issues of generaliz-
ability, along with a host of other potential implementation
problems. Simply because an idea worked in the setting in
which we read about it obviously does not mean that it is go-
ing to work in our setting. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect
blending of the responsibilities of researchers and the task at
hand (i.e., helping educators to be more effective).
I think that practitioners also have similar responsibili-
ties, in that they need to consider research-based alternatives,
and to be willing to try them in their settings. Eventually,
educators still must engage in the trial-and-error process,
and this continues to be a frustrating part of the process.
However, I think that both researchers and practitioners
have to be willing to examine resources that they may not
have examined in the past. For example, if there is a great
Web site that you go to for ideas, that is great, but you do not
want to limit yourself to just that one Web site. You want to
expand your options and look at other resources. I think that
both researchers and practitioners have a responsibility to do
these things and to do them collaboratively (I will revisit this
notion of collaboration later…).
Data-Driven: The Science of Teaching
Let’s shift to the other component of “data-driven in-
structional decision making” (i.e., the data driven part). As I
define it, data-driven is the notion that questions or problems
require information in order to be answered appropriately and
to the best of our abilities, and that the decisions that result

from those questions and actions are based on evidence. In
other words, they are based on information that we gather so
that they are not just our gut instincts or reactions. There is
more to it than just gut instinct. Historically, when you see
the term “data-driven” in most of its contexts, it has a very,
very narrow definition. That definition is limited to data
in the form of standardized testing results. Why has there
been such a narrow view? I believe that is because we tend
to equate “data” with numbers, and test scores are numbers
and therefore that’s data-driven. I believe that this is a very,
very limited perspective. Part of the reason that I view this
as a very limited perspective has a lot to do with the types of
things that all of us have likely experienced when it comes
to standardized testing, as a student taking a test, a teacher
trying to prepare students to take a test, an administrator
trying to motivate our teachers to prepare students to take
tests, parents who have to deal with the results of the tests,
etc. It just sort of makes you want to pull your hair out on
a regular basis!
I personally do not hold this narrow view of data-driven
evidence. My approach to the notion of data-driven can be
summarized in the following quote:
I honestly don’t know anyone who loves
standardized testing! But the standardized testing
movement is not going away anytime soon. An ex-
amination of its impact on this country’s educational
system over the past 40 years will confirm that.
Therefore I approach it from this perspective…and
I strongly suggest that all professional educators
adopt a similar attitude. Anytime we are given the
responsibility of making decisions about children,
we need as much information as possible in order
for those decisions to be as accurate as possible. We
ask students questions; we ask them to read to us;

we require them to write for us; we test them over
units of instruction; we observe them; we encourage
them to be creative; we engage them in performance
based tasks; etc. The results from standardized tests
are just another source of information—about stu-
dent learning, about our teaching, and about our
curriculum. Please use them as such—add them to
your long list of various sorts of information about
student learning. They can only help improve the
accuracy of the decisions that we make about our
students, as well as our own instruction. (Mertler,
2007)
(Presidential Address continued from page 12.)
18 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 22, Number 1
· Winter 2009
Therefore, I do not have the limited view that the only
things that can guide data-driven decisions are test scores. In
fact, the way that I view all of this is that nothing should limit
you in terms of the kinds of data that you collect in order to
guide data-driven decisions, provided they are sound data.
They can be based on a wide variety of sources of informa-
tion about students. They can certainly be based on teacher-
developed classroom tests, performance-based assessments,
and informal classroom assessments techniques or tasks.
Consider one of several informal classroom assessment tech-
niques, called a “one-minute paper.” A minute or two before
students leave the classroom, the teacher says “Take out a note
card and complete this sentence: One thing I learned today
that I didn’t know coming in is ___________,” or “The one
thing that I’m still confused about is ___________.” If you
think about it for a moment, a technique such as this provides

a very efficient means of collecting some highly valuable
information. If a teacher did not take that little bit of effort
to collect this information at the end of a class period, there
are potentially lots of things that he or she walked out of class
not knowing about the students and vice versa. Other sources
of meaningful student information include student journals,
student reflections, interviews with students, and surveys of
students (whether they be content-based surveys, attitudinal
surveys, or affective surveys). All of these sources provide
potential information about students and their learning that
can be very beneficial. What I am really encouraging you
to do is to develop an assessment system that includes both
formative and summative assessments. You should not limit
yourself in terms of the kinds of things that you can incorpo-
rate in this overall broad system of data-driven evidence.
Earlier, I talked about “instructional decision making”
comprising the gut reaction aspect in the art of teaching. To
me, the “data-driven” component is the science of teaching.
It provides a more scientific and systematic approach to
this decision making process. I do not think that those two
things—the art of teaching and the science of teaching—are
mutually exclusive. I hope that, as educators, we would do
both of these. First, I would never want to take anything away
from the teacher who is a true artist in his or her classroom,
because that is a rare entity. I would never encourage some-
body not to do those things. However, there are a lot of other
things that we can also incorporate into that process, in order
to improve that process. I believe that both researchers and
practitioners have a great deal of responsibility here as well.
We need to promote the notion of the data-driven science of
teaching from the researcher perspective.
If we extend the idea of considering classroom alter-
natives and options and do so from a data-driven (i.e., the

science of teaching) perspective, what I am really referring
to is focusing on a more systematic approach to weighing
alternatives and options. Employing a systematic approach
implies that we utilize the scientific method. This means that
we’re going to generate ideas, develop hypotheses, design
a scientific investigation, collect data, analyze those data,
draw conclusions, and then start that cycle all over again by
developing new hypotheses. (One of the other things that
I will revisit later is the whole notion of all of these things
being cyclical—this is not a “one time thing and then we
stop” type of approach.) If we examine this from the prac-
titioner perspective again, we will consider alternatives and
options, but will do so in a more systematic fashion. This
improved trial-and-error process is shown in Figure 1. It is
still a “trial-and-error” process, but the “trial” piece becomes
a lot more systematic and incorporates a good deal of profes-
sional reflection.
During the process of reflection, several questions should
be addressed:
How well did the idea work?•
Next time I do this, how am I going to do it dif-•
ferently?
What do I need to do to extend what I have already •
tried?
If my idea did not work, what am I going to do •
differently?
Contrary to the figure, this is not an “end-of-the-road”
kind of process (note the arrow at the bottom). Based on
their relative effectiveness, ideas should be revised and the
revisions implemented again. It is important to recognize
that sometimes the time frame from the first cycle to the
next cycle maybe a year apart, especially if you are teaching
in a K-12 setting. A benefit of finding yourself in this situa-
tion is that you have a year to reflect and generate ideas for

the revised implementation during the subsequent cycle. It
should be fairly obvious that this is a much more systematic
process than just finding ideas on the Internet, throwing them
together, and seeing how they fly. Therefore, the proverbial
bottom line for me is that teaching, and education in general,
Figure 1. A more “systematic” process of trial-and-error.
Figure 1. A more “systematic” process of trial-and-error.

Please do each part on separate attachement (do them individually .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Please do each part on separate attachement (do them individually .docx

Similar to Please do each part on separate attachement (do them individually .docx (20)

More from stilliegeorgiana

More from stilliegeorgiana (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Please do each part on separate attachement (do them individually .docx