Thanks for stimulating message. I have several questions.
Bill wrote,
> Just a quick reply to Nates comments. I first realize that schooling is
> already divorced in many ways from the occupational activities of
> communities (Eugene's caveat noted). So in that sense, assessments are
> going to be divorced also. But reconceptualize - schooling has become
> firmly embedded in our society, with norms, well established practices,
> custom artifacts - it is in itself an authentic a context as any.
What do you mean by saying that school "is in itself an authentic a context
as any" or "schooling has become firmly embedded in our society, with norms,
well established practices, custom artifacts." Sounds like you imply some
recent historical change in schooling that makes you believe that it "has
become" more "authentic" than before. Is what you mean? If so, what is
that historical change? Or, you simple want to emphasize that schools as
institutions are not staying outside of the society but are inherently a
part of it? If that what you mean, I still don't know how this fact solves
problem with mainstream schools in general and with divorced assessment in
specific.
> So for example kids learn fractions in second grade.
As a teacher myself, I can't miss this sentence without an ironic remark
that this is at least wishful thinking. At best we can say that "kids are
taught fractions in second grade." Who knows what they learned from that?!
We can't assume learning from teaching. Also, I have asked many elementary
school teachers in both Russia and the US why fractions are added in that
cumbersome way they are added and the high majority of them replied that it
is a rule. This suggests that we have a disagreement about fractions among
teachers. I wish that instead of teaching how to add fractions teachers
discuss with what addition of fractions meant and why people can to this
need to add fractions. But again, why the teachers should listen to me more
than anybody else (i.e., themselves)? Sorry for a new "educational PC" :-)
>If I took to heart
> that a learning and hence portfolio should represent only the students
> learning goals, and not those of the
> student-in-the-communit(ies),
This is never was my point. By the way, it is never true even for informal
learning either. My points are that:
1) portfolio or any other types of assessment divorced from the immediate
activities are not inherently needed for students' learning and teacher's
guidance.
2) any divorced assessment inherently has negative side-effect for
learning/guiding processes.
3) divorced assessment are situated in the process of negotiation about
resources and support of communities-stakeholders many of which (the most
powerful) do not directly participate in guiding/learning processes and
activities.
4) divorced assessments are shaped by negotiation of involved
communities-stakeholders rather than "scientifically designed" once and
forever.
5) the learning/guiding processes in classrooms should be protected from
negative side-effects of divorced assessments (including portfolio). I
definitely think that Faulcoult's notion of "surveillance" is relevant for
our discussion of divorced assessments including portfolio.
6) I think that some types of divorced assessments are unavoidable in formal
education where resources are so distributed among communities-shareholders.
7) I like portfolio assessments much better than grades and tests. However,
I still think portfolio harms students and inhibits teaching. Just one
example. Many of the xmca-ers are academics. Have you notices that
concerns about your own vita (i.e., academic portfolio) inhibits and
distracts your intrinsic work? I'm not argue that for some people sometimes
vita can be useful tool for self-development as well. However, the benefits
are private and not inherent in our practice while injuries are systematic
and public.
>then the
> kid may never learn fractions. Ask yourself this: why would a second
> grader want to learn fractions,
indeed! :-) Although, I wish the teachers can communicate it to they
students. It is may be a time to start a discussion why kids should learn
fraction in school. The discussion itself may either throw fractions away
from the school curriculum (like mandatory teaching ancient Greek and Latin
in past) or renew our societal motivation that the teachers can communicate
it to kids.
> entirely motivated by his/her own divorced
> interests? We have to recognize the child-in-communit(ies),
> accepting that
> his/her parents and teachers expect him/her to learn fractions, and
> interact in such as way so that the child becomes motivated?
Are parents and teachers motivated themselves about fractions? I doubt
somehow... This is a problem for me and not so much what the teacher does
in the classroom. Teachers are seen as conduits of somebody else's
motivation... well, not even motivation, but ideological directives.
Child's agency can't be guided by a conduit of somebody else's will.
>Part
> of what I
> think is important in a zoped is the appropriation of more than pure
> cognition, but of the much richer array of motivation, curiousity, affect,
> interest, etc. and to blur several categories.
I don't know how this notion of "appropriation" is different form old good
"transmission of basic skills"? But I never liked notions like
"internalization, " "mastery," "appropriation" (see my article on this
critique in the recent issue of Human Development).
>
> I don't see the problem with a portfolio having more than one
> use, meaning,
> or meeting more than one need.
And neither do I.
>Here is a more mundane example -
> a bus. To
> the person who builds busses, or who drives them, or maintains them, the
> bus meets the needs of making a living. To the person who rides the bus,
> it meets the needs of getting from point a to point b, or maybe it is
> freedom to travel. To the city planner, the bus meets the need of solving
> public transportation problems, as well as indirectly making a living. To
> the cigarette company, the bus is a way to advertise their products. To
> the civil rights leader, the same bus may meet the need of mediating a
> discussion on equality. Artifacts, being created in complex social
> settings, are made complex by human activity. They often meet many needs.
> As for portfolios or other assessements, so it goes...
I agree. However, different uses of the bus should be coordinated - an ad
stand on the bus roof should not cause danger when bus rides under bridges.
>
> I have to withdraw from this conversation - sorry to back out - but duties
> and obligations summons.
Bill, I always feel often the same way. I remember several months ago there
was such an interesting discussion on XMCA about boundary object and just
when many people posted such interesting messages I had to reduce my xmca
participation to be a reader like a snail. Like people "optimistically" say
in Utah, life is tough and then we die. It's unfair...
What do you think?
Eugene
> 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."]
>