ASSESSING ASSESSMENT ASSIGNMENT ASSESSMENTS
Jenny:
Chris, what you have quoted were all, according to your own headers, referring to Q1: benefits and drawbacks. If they are actually referring to Q2: threats and strategies, then please put them in a separate category with the appropriate headers.
Also description of your task is insufficient. You mentioned about using the rubric for oral presentation, but you didn't mention anything about the task description. Please refer to the self assessment form, in particular the 'Procedure' part, and describing the characteristics of your task in writing.
-----------------------
Chris:
Thank you again for the opportunity to clarify.
Task Description:
The assignment handout, under the heading “Procedure”, asks us to describe the task/tool by identifying twelve specific characteristics. Unless I've completely misunderstood something (such as the meaning of the word "describe") I believe this was done in full on page two of my assignment.
Though it does not appear stated on the self-assessment form, and I cannot find it in the assignment handout either, I can further describe the task for you. (I'm not sure what it means to “mention the task description.”)
In fitting with the chosen PLO, students will prepare an oral presentation on a topic of their choosing from our Social Studies unit on Aboriginal cultures. As stated in the description table on page two, the teacher will be using observation and informal interviews throughout the unit to help prepare students for the presentation and to assess their process. It is the criteria found in the final oral presentation marking rubric (developed by students and available to them at all times) that will be used by the teacher during this process of observation and informal interviews. The teacher will reinforce good verbal and non-verbal presentation skills and remind students to focus not only on delivering important content but also presenting it in an engaging manner, and what that might look like. When preparation is complete, students will present their work orally to the whole class. Students will be asked stand in front of the class and present material about their chosen area of expertise. Following the presentation the presenter will do a brief self-assessment and will also meet in small groups to give peer evaluation and feedback of their oral presentations.
If this is an insufficient description of the task could you please provide an example of a passable description, as I am unclear what that would look like based on the two assignment documents, our in-class discussions, and your previous email.
Threats/Drawbacks:
My headings appear to be the problem here. The section headings were not intended to be read as “Benefits” and “Drawbacks” and this is not what I wrote. My headings were written in the form of a question. (“Benefits?” and “Drawbacks?”) This was done because, as stated under each section in the body of my paper, from what I've learned in this course, a discussion of the "benefits and drawbacks” or the “threats to quality inferences” and "strategies for potential solutions" seem misplaced and not the real discussion we need to be having, given the very significant problems inherent to any form of grading – not only with their validity (an obvious and devastating flaw) but also the ethics of doing so (the real nail in grading's coffin.) As I write in my paper, this lack of validity and ethics is something echoed not just by those I chose to cite but by many others, along with being something I take very seriously myself.
Please delete or disregard these obviously misplaced and misleading headings. Or, if you like, I can highlight each of the benefits and drawbacks and each of the threats to quality, and the strategies to overcome them, that are already there in my assignment and – though it was not a stated requirement in the assignment description or on the self-assessment form – place them in point form under four separate headings: benefits, drawbacks, threats, strategies.
Otherwise I can restate them, if that's the problem, with more references to other scholarly research from leading thinkers in esteemed schools of education and psychology.
That being said, I'm mindful that the course has been over for two weeks and we're already on practicum; and as such, my returning to and focusing on this it will necessarily, and seemingly needlessly, take away from my preparedness, lesson planning, and my students as well.
Significantly, my assignment most clearly demonstrates the stated learning outcomes. And unless there are hidden criteria, the assignment I handed in also meets all the criteria on the self-assessment form we were given:
1a) identified the benefits and/or drawbacks of using this type of assessment task/tool
1b) explained why I chose this type of task/tool for the targeted learning outcomes
2a) identified potential threats to the quality of the inferences that could be made about student learning using this assessment task/tool
2b) explained the strategies I will used to ensure that using this assessment task/tool will allow me to make high-quality inferences about the learning of diverse students
3) supported my design choices with references
For my own assessment I've taken each individual sentence of the paper and placed it under each of the five above assessment criteria. I can send you this reorganized assignment if you like. In addition to this, I've now also gotten feedback from two other students to confirm my feeling that not only that I met the above criteria but that the work is also clear. All this leaves me confused.
Given that I and others believe I've met the assignment and larger course requirements – and that there is no reading of this or my previous coursework, or of our in-class discussions, that suggests a lack of understanding of course material on my part (something also implied, however tepidly, by my having been nominated by an instructor for a coursework excellence award at graduation) – I would diagnose the problem here to be not one of scholarship but of politics. That's terrifying.
In my assignment I’ve stated, with reference to current and historical findings – and entirely in keeping with our course content – that the testing and grading still dominant in our schools is not just deeply inaccurate (a more profound problem could not exist for a method of assessment) but also unethical. Neither of these assertions are controversial. According to the very content of our course these are long-established and empirical facts about the nature of these assessment tools, and such ideas fall within the academic research mainstream. However, these ideas are of course absolutely heretical within the school system. Elementary school teachers are simply not allowed to believe, nevermind state publicly, that grading is misguided. And the rationale for this, as I’ve heard it from education instructors, teachers, and admin is: “principals want grades because parents want grades.”
(Please note that nowhere have I said that I wouldn't give grades or follow conventional methods for grading during my practicum, as spelled out in my assignment; only that I and many other researchers and thinkers believe these methods to be ineffective and destructive to learning as well.)
The above suggests to me that either:
A) this assignment is not being assessed by the course instructor (who best knows its content, what was discussed in class, and their students)
B) I’ve stated something that has raised flags and there's some form of gatekeeping taking place
or, perhaps,
C) all of the above
Any of these scenarios would be seriously problematic – even just in light of the very readings from this course on best practices in student assessment.
Extraordinarily concerned,
Chris
