Re: [xmca] Evaluation of learning

[Laure Kloetzer <laure.kloetzer@gmail.com>]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your kind answer.

My object would primarily not be the evaluation of the programs in the
accreditation sense, but  the evaluation of their social impact. Yet I
don't want to give up the idea to find some Vygotskian way to conduct
evaluations of the learning outcomes and social impacts of these
projects. Thank you however to attracting my attention to the
normative role of the accrediting process in defining the standards
under which learning outcomes are to be evaluated.

As you correctly highlight, I am mostly interested by the issue of
identifying learning processes, i.e. tracking learning processes
through studying group dialogue using linguistic/interactional data,
in an activity-theoretic approach. Any references welcome. The issue
of evaluating this processes is out of scope for me now. Far too early
to be considered... (if it is to be considered at all).

Best,
LK

2012/10/3 Peter Feigenbaum <pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu>:
> Laure,
>
> I work at a university as an administrator, and I am very much involved in
> the process of accreditation. The Middle States Commission on Higher
> Education (MSCHE) is the accrediting body for all institutions of higher
> education in the northeast region of the US. They set the standards for
> evaluating higher education, and in recent years they have moved the issue
> of "assessment of student learning" to the center and forefront of
> institutional accreditation activities. I am attaching a document they
> produced in which they describe the Standards that all institutions must
> adhere to. Standard 14 (on page 78 of the attached document) has recently
> become the centerpiece of the accrediting process. It lays out the general
> approach to how all student learning outcomes are to be assessed. My own
> opinion is that the Standard is reasonable and practicable.
>
> While there has been a great deal of discussion by colleges, universities,
> and related professional organizations (such as my own--the Association for
> Institutional Research) focused on measuring outcomes, what concerns us
> Vygotskians is really the issue of studying learning interactions and
> dynamics. Reporting the outcomes is more of a common-sense issue. On the
> former issue, I'm afraid I can be of no help. But for the outcomes
> assessment piece, the attached document is a good place to get started.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Peter
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Laure Kloetzer <laure.kloetzer@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Have some of you been working on evaluation of learning outcomes and
>> learning dynamics from a cultural-historical, activity-based
>> perspective?
>> In that case, would you have some ressource people and recent papers
>> to recommend?
>> I would like to build an evaluation framework which is consistent with
>> the learning theory and methodology we believe in (in the Activity
>> Clinic perspective, i.e. Vygotskian, concrete, dialogical) but I don't
>> know any good starting point to do so.
>>
>> What I would like to evaluate is adult learning in free-choice,
>> collaborative learning environments. I am interested (no other choice)
>> in evaluating outcomes but even more on identifying learning
>> interactions and dynamics.
>>
>> I guess some people from the list may have been working explicitly on
>> analyzing interactional data for tracking learning processes. This is
>> also something I am investigating now.
>>
>> Thank you for any clue on these two topics,
>> Best
>> LK
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Feigenbaum, Ph.D.
> Associate Director of Institutional Research
> Fordham University
> Thebaud Hall-202
> Bronx, NY 10458
>
> Phone: (718) 817-2243
> Fax: (718) 817-3203
> email: pfeigenbaum@fordham.edu
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca