Re: evaluating the informal
Joe Polman (jlpolman who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu)
Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:31:43 -0500
Hi all,
It seems that my use of the word "mastery" has raised numerous red flags. I
was actually trying to use the word in the way that Jim Wertsch uses it
rather than the way that state boards of education might use it. Along with
some of the others who have posted (and certainly Jim himself), I am more
concerned with learning as an achievement IN ACTION rather than a
"possession", so that's what I wish I had conveyed by my use of the term
mastery. Possessions of minds outside of concrete actions seem largely
irrelevant to me. One way I could describe my view of a situation involving
mastery without appropriation is as competent participation in action under
coercive circumstances (e.g., I don't really care about this research, but
I have to do it for a grade in a class and I care about how people would
react to a poor grade). Appropriation, however, would mean participation
involving genuine interest and passion.
I think Mike's point below is part of the reason I nonetheless hope for
some measures along with richer qualitative analyses
>Regardless what we as academic researchers think about such activities,
>local parent/
>taxpayers have to make decisions about where to put their money for their
>kids. We find
>that our LOCAL support committees look for evaluations that are awfully
>similar
>to the NICHD/NSF.
>
>We try to be honest and to please.
The best way I see to be honest AND please broad audiences is to create
measures based on actions that are somehow natural parts of the informal
environments. Coding of interviews and logs of action, possibly including
some planning and reflection pieces that could act as analogs of the
"pre-test" and "post-test" roles, might serve the purpose of creating some
meaningful numbers, while also allowing for richer qualitative analysis.
-Joe