I've been following your discussion of evaluation and assessment. I thought
you might be interested in a model of assessment which addresses and
resolves many points in your posts. Extensive information about the
Learning Record can be found at http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~syverson/olr
and at http://www.electriciti.com/lrorg/
I would be very happy to provide any additional information about the
model. I am also very interested to hear your reactions.
regards,
Peg Syverson
Director
Computer Writing and Research Lab
University of Texas at Austin
>
>Let me go through your message and reply to your thoughtful points.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@lesley.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 9:40 AM
>> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: RE: portfolio assessment
>>
>>
>> Eugene,
>>
>> I respectfully disagree about the usefulness of portfolio
>> assessment. I do
>> have concerns with portfolio assessment being used superficially, but that
>> it another topic for discussion.
>
>So, you believe that in principle the portfolio assessment can be done "in
>the right way." I doubt about that. Saying that, I would like to add that
>so far portfolio assessment is the best that I know out of types of
>assessment divorced from the practice. Moreover, I agree with Bill that it
>can be improved. However, it can't avoid completely pitfalls inherently
>embedded in assessment divorced from the practice and immediacy of the
>educational contexts. Taking into consideration institutionally distributed
>nature of formal education, I also do not think that we can avoid the use of
>learning assessments divorced from the practice.
>
>My "modest" proposal is to acknowledge that:
>1) these types of assessment do not have any inherent link to
>learning-guiding processes and have actual and potential damage inhibiting
>and injuring learning (see recent work of Hugh Mehan and Ray McDermott for
>more discussion of the injuries).
>2) these types of assessments are situated in the (power) negotiation among
>communities-stakeholders that are not involved in working with students in
>the formal educational settings. As such, divorced assessments have dynamic
>properties embedded in the processes of the stakeholders' communication and
>power struggle.
>3) we need to develop protective institutional actions to shield learning
>and guidance within the formal educational setting from harmful influence of
>the divorced assessments.
>
>>I think the development of children is
>> something more than just the teacher and parents are concerned with -
>> recognizing that education, as a means of cultural transmission, is highly
>> political in our society with the result that everybody in the
>> community is
>> a stakeholder in what a child learns.
>
>I agree and I would include the child/student him/herself and the main
>stakeholder. However, is it interesting that informal education often does
>not have its stakeholders expect immediate participants?!
>
>>Unfortunately, partially because
>> education is highly political, and partially because there is such great
>> heterogeneity in opinion about what it is to learn and to
>> develop, we don't
>> have anything near consensus, even among individuals informed by research,
>> about what it is a student is or should be learning.
>
>I'm, on the contrary, happy that there is no a consensus. I think that one
>of the problems that we have too much "consensus" (or monopoly?). That is
>why, I think, traditional educational institutions are so stable. I even
>don't think that consensus should be a goal. I don't trust neither in
>"their" consensus nor in "my" consensus (i.e., when everyone would agree
>with my vision of education). I'm sure that if my vision gets unchallenged
>power it will lead to another disaster. I don't believe in "visions" as
>simple blueprints for actions but rather in a dialogue of them.
>
>>
>> I agree in principle that "authentic" assessment of learning is that which
>> is embedded
>> in the practice itself, but in a manner of speaking, assessment
>> also cannot
>> be separated from the values of the community in which learning takes
>> place.
>
>Which "the community" are you taking about. I see a communal plurality with
>fuzzy boundaries torn by power struggle for domination and resources.
>Assessment is money!
>
>>Unfortunately, not every stakeholder in a childs
>> development can be
>> there to see it happening, and even if they were, they probably would not
>> agree about what they observed.
>
>I can't agree more.
>
>>So 'following kids around' as
>> Latour might
>> suggest, is not even a partial solution - it is completely impractical.
>
>I agree.
>
>> I
>> would modify your statement 2.2 slightly "To have any meaningful
>> portfolio,
>> it should become a means of communication among educational stakeholders
>> [as well as ] a tool of "authentic" learning assessment.",
>> recognizing that
>> each tool has weaknesses as well as strengths.
>
>To say that every measurement has its own limitation was not my point at
>all. I hope I have clarified it by now.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Take care,
>
>Eugene
>>
>> Mediation to the rescue? My opinion is that there must be a great deal of
>> negotiation in a community about these matters, with some measures that
>> people can share and discuss. What are our options? Well, standardized
>> testing does give some measure of how a child is doing, in some limited
>> context, with respect to a greater population. In Massachusetts we are
>> presently dealing with our new state testing and there is great debate
>> about the validity of the tests as well as the results. What portfolio
>> assessement does afford is a better measure of the richness of childrens'
>> performance, from which follows (although i have yet to see evidence)
>> greater validity, but validity is something that there needs to be some
>> agreement on in a community.
>>
>> One tradeoff is ecological, in the sense of the 'economy of instruction'.
>> The production of assessment artifacts takes time, as does its evaluation.
>> Portfolio assessement, being richer, and especially without the efforts of
>> the psychometric Morlocks, takes quite a bit more time and effort to
>> accomplish. It is always asked "Who is going to do it?". But it also
>> means that assessment has to be done more locally, that assessment
>> expertise has to be distributed more widely than just in the testing
>> warrens, and the necessary communication between the stakeholders opens up
>> zopeds everywhere. Just writing about it gives me a thrill! OK, well,
>> backing off from Utopian schemes, there are some advantages that portfolio
>> assessment offers over normed tests, and over immediate/direct performance
>> assessement. I'm especially interested in it as it is an other form of
>> mediated activity.
>>
>> That's what I think. What is your response?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
>> Technology in Education
>> Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>> Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>> http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>> _______________________
>> "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
>> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
>> [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M. A. Syverson, Ph.D.
Director
Computer Writing and Research Lab
University of Texas at Austin syverson who-is-at uts.cc.utexas.edu
Austin, TX 78712-1122 http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~syverson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~