H817: The Pain of Assessment is related to its meeting non-learning needs
Saturday, 6 Aug 2016, 15:21
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Saturday, 6 Aug 2016, 15:39
On H817
currently with the OU I'm beginning to address Part 2 of the EMA which asks you
to choose 3 elements of a dissemination strategy of Part 1 (an academic
evaluation) and describe each (100 words max each), consider its audience
(40 words max. each) & give an example (60 words max each).
What does such
assessment aim to provide
LEARNING
The case for
this is unproven I think. Even quite old guides to best practice in
dissemination strategy advice that it is inappropriate to choose WAYS of
disseminating before considering and planning an overall strategy. A very
useful document I found on the internet is Harmsworth, S & Turpin, S.
(2001) Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy: An Expanded Interactive
Workbook...
It
advises, with plentiful evidence from effective and ineffective practice that
issues like audience consideration proceed before choice of element for dissemination.
Learners on H817 are unlikely to give that much worth because there are 5 and 2
marks respectively for element description and audience consideration.
Strategic elements are given then less marks than merely descriptive ones. With
40 words, Harmsworth & Turpin’s advice to identify stakeholders and the
reasons why dissemination matters to each kind of stakeholder in enough detail to constitute applicable learning seems hardly
possible. Anyway you would want to plan all this as part of a whole strategy
following their advice than have a mini-strategy for each element chosen to
disseminate the piece. Hence, what we ‘learn’ here, we might have to ‘unlearn’
in actual practice as a disseminator of an innovatory plan.
The
course is about innovation and yet more marks are awarded for considering
already existent examples of using this dissemination element than planning and
justifying by evidence. Of course that such an element ‘might have’ worked at
least once before could be part of such evidence but only part. And meanwhile
what are learners taught about innovative dissemination strategy – they learn
NEVER to use a strategy not tried before. The ‘hidden curriculum’ is that ‘innovation’
is something someone else does not learners – it reinstates with a vengeance
expert-novice learning relationships. This is a pity for my evaluation, which
is, in the main about how & why this model needs de-centering in pedagogy.
MEETING
ASSESSMENT & ASSESSOR’S INDEPENDENT NEEDS
It was once
thought OK to think that it was ‘learners’ who needed standardised assessments –
tasks cut into discrete stages with
discrete marks that could NOT be changed by how the learner conceptualised the
task for themselves. The effect of such static tasks is not only to standardise
the supposed criteria for marking but also the learner’s comprehension of the
task. Pedagogic innovation is a nonsense of course if the static element in a pedagogy
is its assessment practices. Learners are TAUGHT to valorise marks as a
representation of achievement.
These marking
practices do serve the interests of markers and institutions. Take word counts.
These are standardised with no regard to differentials in learner
conceptualisation of a task or innovation, but they do allow educational
employers to argue that they are limiting the workload of their employees. I believe
that maximum word counts have always been more to do with workload management
for teacher / assessors than for any educational reason at all. Their
prominence emerged as education expanded. Now teacher workloads DO have to be
managed but NOT, I hope, at the cost of accepting even a modest divorce of
assessment functions in pedagogy from learning. 3 cheers for Assessment for
Learning. However, I think the divorce may have already happened whilst
lifelong learners were looking the other way.
MY RESOLUTION
I get so
exercised by these things I admit. I calmed down by working on a graphic (based
on 2 suggestions In Harmsworth & Turpin (2001). It worked. It is neither
beautiful nor all that useful for others but it helped me so it stays as a
monument to that – and in the hope it might raise a discussion in our H817
Tutor Group.
H817: The Pain of Assessment is related to its meeting non-learning needs
On H817 currently with the OU I'm beginning to address Part 2 of the EMA which asks you to choose 3 elements of a dissemination strategy of Part 1 (an academic evaluation) and describe each (100 words max each), consider its audience (40 words max. each) & give an example (60 words max each).
What does such assessment aim to provide
LEARNING
The case for this is unproven I think. Even quite old guides to best practice in dissemination strategy advice that it is inappropriate to choose WAYS of disseminating before considering and planning an overall strategy. A very useful document I found on the internet is Harmsworth, S & Turpin, S. (2001) Creating an Effective Dissemination Strategy: An Expanded Interactive Workbook...
It advises, with plentiful evidence from effective and ineffective practice that issues like audience consideration proceed before choice of element for dissemination. Learners on H817 are unlikely to give that much worth because there are 5 and 2 marks respectively for element description and audience consideration. Strategic elements are given then less marks than merely descriptive ones. With 40 words, Harmsworth & Turpin’s advice to identify stakeholders and the reasons why dissemination matters to each kind of stakeholder in enough detail to constitute applicable learning seems hardly possible. Anyway you would want to plan all this as part of a whole strategy following their advice than have a mini-strategy for each element chosen to disseminate the piece. Hence, what we ‘learn’ here, we might have to ‘unlearn’ in actual practice as a disseminator of an innovatory plan.
The course is about innovation and yet more marks are awarded for considering already existent examples of using this dissemination element than planning and justifying by evidence. Of course that such an element ‘might have’ worked at least once before could be part of such evidence but only part. And meanwhile what are learners taught about innovative dissemination strategy – they learn NEVER to use a strategy not tried before. The ‘hidden curriculum’ is that ‘innovation’ is something someone else does not learners – it reinstates with a vengeance expert-novice learning relationships. This is a pity for my evaluation, which is, in the main about how & why this model needs de-centering in pedagogy.
MEETING ASSESSMENT & ASSESSOR’S INDEPENDENT NEEDS
It was once thought OK to think that it was ‘learners’ who needed standardised assessments – tasks cut into discrete stages with discrete marks that could NOT be changed by how the learner conceptualised the task for themselves. The effect of such static tasks is not only to standardise the supposed criteria for marking but also the learner’s comprehension of the task. Pedagogic innovation is a nonsense of course if the static element in a pedagogy is its assessment practices. Learners are TAUGHT to valorise marks as a representation of achievement.
These marking practices do serve the interests of markers and institutions. Take word counts. These are standardised with no regard to differentials in learner conceptualisation of a task or innovation, but they do allow educational employers to argue that they are limiting the workload of their employees. I believe that maximum word counts have always been more to do with workload management for teacher / assessors than for any educational reason at all. Their prominence emerged as education expanded. Now teacher workloads DO have to be managed but NOT, I hope, at the cost of accepting even a modest divorce of assessment functions in pedagogy from learning. 3 cheers for Assessment for Learning. However, I think the divorce may have already happened whilst lifelong learners were looking the other way.
MY RESOLUTION
I get so exercised by these things I admit. I calmed down by working on a graphic (based on 2 suggestions In Harmsworth & Turpin (2001). It worked. It is neither beautiful nor all that useful for others but it helped me so it stays as a monument to that – and in the hope it might raise a discussion in our H817 Tutor Group.