Thanks a lot!!!!! for the useful website on alternative forms of learning
assessment. Although, after reading them, I doubt that these cites address
my concerns and issues, I found them extremely useful for my students. I
prepared a problem-based project for my students (preservice teachers).
Since I hate to be agonized with final grading in my classes, I decided to
offer my students a project of development learning assessment for
themselves. For doing that they will have to simulate different groups of
stakeholders interested in teacher education (e.g., parents, state,
businesses, kids, school administration, themselves). I want them to
explore different interests and approaches and come to a form of assessment
recommended to me for them (or to a justification why it is impossible).
This is the first time I'm trying to do that -- I don't know what will come
out of that.
Your website try to describe some types of hybrids between grades (standard
tests) and portfolio assessment and make them easier to use by the teachers.
At least this is my reading of the sites. As I said I don't know how they
address my issues or concerns about assessments separated from practice.
Did I miss something?
Thanks again for useful site. If someone know other good sites on
assessment (e.g., form parents grass root organizations, from school
administration, and so on) or if you know sites describing requirements for
teachers in the area of instructional strategies, please, let me know.
Take care,
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peg Syverson [mailto:syverson@uts.cc.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 1999 6:26 PM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: portfolio assessment
>
>
> Eugene and Bill-
>
> 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
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>