Stephen Ehrmann
Posts: 11
 |
| 29/05/2007 21:29 |
|
One issue that I've not seen addressed (probably because, in skimming this material, I overlooked it!) is whether our assessment procedures ought to be influenced by the nature of what we want students to learn.
To summarize the difference I've got in mind, here's an analogy: suppose you wanted to assess whether members of a community had been exposed to tuberculosis. You'd use a tuberculosis test. The more often it correctly detected TB, w/o giving a false positive about someone actually didn't have TB, the better. I call this a uniform impact assessment because the 'outcome' (TB, or not TB, that is the question)-- the outcome is the same for everyone.
But suppose the question is, "How healthy is this community?" What measures do you use then? If there is no single measure of health, does that mean that the question is illegitimate and thoughtless? No - it just means you have to use a different means of assessment.
In the realm of education, this latter perspective translates to this: instruction is an opportunity. Every potential learner construes that opportunity somewhat differently, may make use of it differently, and, for many reasons, may have QUALITATIVELY different outcomes than other learners.
This perspective, which I've called "unique uses", is common in education (although not given much respect or attention). Recall a time when you graded papers or in some other way assessed student performance. Perhaps you gave 5 students highest marks. It's quite possible that, if someone asked you what those five top students had in common, you would have replied, "Their work had nothing in common; each got an "A" for a different reason." That's a unique uses assessment.
1. The outcomes of almost any educational program can and should be assessed from both a uniform impact perspective AND a unique uses perspective.
2. The more empowering an educational opportunity is, the more weight should be given to the unique uses perspective because empowering experiences are designed (to some extent) to produce divergent and sometimes surprising outcomes.
For more on these two perspectives, and the kinds of assessment appropriate to each, see:
http://www.tltgroup.org/Flashlight/Handbook/UI-UU.htm
I hope this adds even more spice to the discussion! |
|
|
|
|
David Nicol
Posts: 18
|
| 29/05/2007 22:08 |
|
| Derek Rowntree, I think said in his seminal book, that we should assess what students learn not just what we want them to learn. Does this question or comment relate to this? Another view is should we asseess outcomes that cannot be predicted in advance (e.g students going beyond the requirments). Our assessments could in fact ask for this and assess it at some level. For example, Biggs' 'extended abstract' thinking is about students going beyond the question asked to analyse and criticise whether it is a good quesiton in the first place. One problem I forsee is that of thinking you can measure this type of thinking in the same way you can measure whether an answer is wrong or right. I am also reminded by your comment of Sadler's arguments about 'emergent' criteria that arise as you try to do the assessment (ie even the assessor doesn't have them preformulated in advance) and of Eisner's idea of assessment as 'connoisseurship'. I am not sure if this is spice or not at this time of night. |
|
|
|
|
tom cockburn
Posts: 1
|
| 30/05/2007 01:43 |
|
| Probably part of the emergence and connoisseurship David refers to also relates to the 'motivational spice' embedded in the interactive process. That is in the 'emotional structuration' around meaning making and meaning-taking by individuals (and groups) involving tacit and explicit forms of reflection-in-action leading to 'intuitive artistry' as Donald Schon describes it. For these processes something more akin to Cooperider et al's 'appreciative inquiry' process would better suit as an assessment tool--with some modification and 'seasoning to taste'. |
|
|
|
|
Stephen Ehrmann
Posts: 11
|
| 30/05/2007 04:19 |
|
| One way in which David Nicol's framework plays out differently with regard to unique uses has to do with clarity of goals. Under unique uses, the institution and student need to recognize that some of the students' needs may be a) unique, b) emergent, just as you said. (Schon was one of my dissertation advisors; I'm sure he influenced some of this thinking.) |
|
|
|
|
|
