Julia Mame Matuga wrote:
>
> Thought I would throw this into the mix with Eugene, Nate, & Bill:
>
> As an artist, former art teacher, and ed. psych. instructor, I have
> utilized portfolio assessment (as my primary method for evaluation) for
> self AND student evaluation. Portfolio assessment,(from my own experience
> and understanding) is asking the "owner" of the portfolio to reflect upon
> their initial goals for the activity, the activity itself, and the final
> product(s) of that activity.
I'm gonna tell you about portfolio assessment on Theater teaching to
first grades class (1st to 4th), after kindergarten, as we have practice
until now.
First of all, we do not work according traditional approach of Drama
such as a way of learning extra theatrical contents. We "teach" Theater
understood as a complexe and symbolic language that can be usefull in
world reads and expression/comunication by students.
We use with children from 7 to 11 Viola Spolin's Theater Games System
structure (play area definition, a scenic problem to be
solved within a traditional child popular game format,group
division into teams, instructions along team's bodily problem solving in
play area, all group evaluation after each team had tryed to solve task)
One by one, one by time, each student is asked to present a
"protocol" that refers to the works done in a session. The "protocol"
can be written, have draws, photos and whatever one think is usefull to
register things happened, eventual insites, discussions, feelings etc.
The student that will do the protocol of a session is defined before
each session by free choice and group decision or by allortment. The
next session is allways iniciated by a student showing to everyone in a
circle discussion - everybody sitting in the floor, without shoes but
with socks, over play area (we generally use a carpet when in
classroom because it is easy to move and re-move or put in any place)-
his "protocol" of last session.
The "protocol" was not used by Viola Spolin but was incorporated to
Theater teaching in Brazil from Brecht Learning play theory and Jacob
Levi Moreno psychodramatic aproach of Theater. When it is possible the
student provides copies of his protocol to everyone in class. The
protocol is the only concrete register of session when it is not
possible to use video-tape or records of people speach.
The teacher does not atribute any mark ("A","B","C" etc) to the protocol
done by oneself. The protocol is seen as a tool to group reflection and
a way of "putting in circle" problems, questions, discoveries etc by
students.
At the end of course each student may have a copy of all "protocols"
presented at each session and a kind of group portfolio. Final
evaluation and use of Theater language assessment is made in a circle
discussion. The group atribute a mark to it itself and to everyone
who is part of it. It's used presence/engagement criteria to final
"judge". What was decided in circle is traslated to school documents.
There is not a "final" product. There is always something that is beeing
produced, there is always in "process", although the are "products"
presented by each team in play area and that are examined by all group.
But those "products" (interaction by Theater language) is not a result
of rehearsal or previous mind planning. It is something that comes up by
improvisational theater, by engagement of each player in play(game).
In the arts, there are perimeters/constraints
> for artistic activity.
In Theater games there are rules: the rules of each game. Those rules
can be respected or not. If not, group generally points it in evaluation
time after each team presentation. Sometimes students propose new rules
for a game and create a new game that can be played by group if majority
wants to play this new game. The group decides all time. There are
always rules, but those rules can be change according to group decision.
It's my understanding that perimeters and
> constraints during activity may be(are?) determined by the teacher (by
> inviting students to participate in an activity), the student,
> co-constructed or negotiated by teacher and student, by the media
> or tool used for the activity, and the social resources available for
> that activity within the context. But in the arts (and perhaps other areas
> as well) the goals of activity are, for the most part, individually
> constructed....a student has an idea, a plan, a thought regarding the
> product of their artistic activity.
In Theater Games System the goals of activity are coletivelly
constructed. Improve theater interactions need the other action and is
developed according to other's response.
I see portfolio assessment as an
> opportunity for students to reflect upon the goal-activity-product process
> and how well I, as a teacher, supported/hindered that process (by
> hindering goals or not providing the social resources needed during the
> activity, etc.).
>
> I usually ask students to include pieces/activities that they felt helped
> them learn most and pieces/activities did not help them learn at all
> or were least helpful. I believe that this activity, in itself, is a
> valuable one for students self-reflection and self-evaluation AND
> help me identify my own strengths/weaknesses as a co-constructor
> of those activities. While I agree with points that Bill, Nate, and Eugene
> made regarding portfolio assessment, I feel that the act of creating a
> portfolio does not grow out of practice, nor does it follow practice but
> it is a practice of self-reflection and self-evaluation.
I think it is itertwined to practice and theory and group/self
evaluation. I cannot see one thing apart from the other.
Ricardo.
>
> -Julia
>
> Julia M. Matuga
> Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology
> School of Education, 4021B
> Indiana University, Bloomington
>
> "The theoretician's prayer: 'Dear Lord, forgive me the sin
> of arrogance, and Lord, by arrogance I mean the following...."
>
> --Leon Lederman