Gordon's Assessment Philosophy

Academic goals of schooling.

I'd like to draw together two themes in this discussion `Assessment', and `Life-long Learning'. To do this I must begin the arguments separately.

Assessment & Evaluation

There's no pass / fail in life. There is no Higher School Certificate in life, (unless you consider `Judgment Day' an external exam). Why then, do we do assess and evaluate school kids' progress by way of exams and grades? It's no surprise that some of the most successful people in society, weren't necessarily very good at school. Why do we do it then? I think it's the only way we have, of giving credit or credibility to those who can conform to the `standard'.

In assessment there are basically two models (with all the permutations).

Criterion referenced assessment says that, before a student begins a course they should know what they are trying to learn, and that the skills they learn should be measured against the criterion. This is also the basis for `Outcomes Based' assessment. Give the kids a series of goals and see whether they reach the goals. Usually, this method of assessment is qualitative, as one can only guess how another compares with the defined criteria. (The criteria are usually NOT empirical.) This means that a description of the relative comparison is more valuable than a `mark'. We all know the person who has the qualifications, but is of no use. Even so, this method has much to commend it.

Another, more traditional method, is called standardised or normalised assessment. This is when you sit for exams which attempt to interrogate the skills that you've learned. Your results are empirically measured, that is, graded with numbers, and your grade is then compared with an average, or standard. Usually a pass / fail level is built in to this method, so as to give feedback on whether your level of skills is `acceptable'. Over time, this method can produce `relativities', which have value in discrimination. We all know the person who's an expert, but doesn't have the piece of paper, because the skills required to do the job aren't the same as the ones required to pass the test. This method is somewhat surreal.

Both methods have their strong advocates.

Life-long learning

The days of finishing your apprenticeship, business college diploma, or degree, and thereafter being able to ignore vocational, or even basic life skills, are over. Technology has put paid to this idea. We must all get used to the idea of becoming `life-long' learners.

Interestingly, they say that the `big' vocations of the future are in sport and entertainment. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson are certainly very successful, despite what you may think of them. Again, I don't want to argue the point, but it's obvious that the future will not be what it is today, and the wise will prepare for it as best they can.

It follows then, that one of the most useful skills we can teach our kids is that of being able to learn, and to expect to continue learning for the rest of their lives.

One doesn't learn how to tune up their car by reading from a book, and those of us who've learned about computers have combined personal help with personal research. In either case we've learned about it because we wanted to. We did it because it was fun. I gave up on guitar because I found that it wasn't fun, for me. At school and beyond, we like the things we're good at. It follows. Therefore, when we teach our children, we must make their progress both fun, and attainable - at whatever level they're at. This means that we have to give them goals that are achievable for each and every individual, and if this means that they all have different assignments, then so be it. This is very difficult to do in the traditional setting because it presents a huge task for a teacher with 25 students in their charge and we can't compare the relative progress of each student, anyway..... Give up? No, the answer is in giving each student the basic knowledge and then giving them an open ended problem and seeing what they can do with their solution. Everyone enjoys (solving) a puzzle. If the problem is interesting and the student can get a positive solution, then they'll be spurred on to pursue the topic even further. Nothing new in this you say? ... HUH! ... It's my experience that the necessity of standardisation has crippled this ideal approach, and the complexity of it has relegated the outcomes-based implementation of it, straight to the too hard basket. No teacher wants to give 25 different assignments to one class, and even if they prepare and assess 25 different levels, how can the assessments be usefully evaluated?

But surely, what I know about tuning a car isn't often compared with what you know about tuning a car. Life doesn't work that way, and neither does knowledge or learning. I don't need to have a higher qualification than you to make a scientific breakthrough, do I? Shouldn't the school environment be reflecting life's likelihood?

OK. you say. So what? ..... Now I begin to tie the two themes together.

Something different?

When students are led to the unknown and let go, they explore. But when we then tell them to find the known, they aren't exploring anymore. Instead they're following in someone else's well worn trail. How boring! If the student is given instructions on the way to the departure point and then told to go, they will run away. Sound like so many platitudes? Consider this. What did Marco Polo learn when he `discovered' China. What did Madam Curie learn? Did Einstein learn or discover? It seems to me that we've taken exploring and discovering out of learning, and the way to put it back is to make learning fun. Yeah, Yeah, but in true life, who has their fun assessed? And we must assess our students' progress so that we know they've made some.

This is where I have some suggestions to make. Following is an example of how both approaches can be wedded.

Let's assume a semester course (up to 20 weeks) for this example. During the course five major topics will be explored. This provides a range, but also a theme. Less, and there is too little variety. More, and the theme is lost. When one takes time out for tests and presentations / reports, this leaves about 3 weeks for each topic. The first week sees the basics of the `voyage' covered. The second week, is preparation for the `trip'. And the third week is the individual's `free flight'. Please note that there are ten areas of assessment, covering different types of skills and progress. More would mean less than 10% for a task, and little worth. Less would mean the possibility of luck creeping in. On this sheet, both marks, grades and judgments can / could be used in the assessment. Marks in a traditional markbook or spreadsheet could be transferred to the appropriate box. This allows the viewer and the student, a much rounder perspective of the progress. For purposes of a final A-E grade, the guide below the chart serves as an indicator in the traditional sense.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT:

Either numerical marks, grades or ticks can be entered into the appropriate place above.
Each of the above areas has an equal rating (10%).

The final grade:

1) To achieve an "A" the student much have very good achievement in at least 7 of the above (V) areas.

2) To achieve a "B" the student must reach an above average (or better) achievement in at least 7 of the above (G) areas.

3) To achieve a "C" the student must submit satisfactory (or better) work in at least 7 of the above (S) areas.

4) To achieve a "D" grade the student must achieve no more than 4 unsatisfactory grades in the above (U) areas.

5) The student will receive an "E" if she/he receives more than 4 unsatisfactory grades in the above (U) areas.

What then?

When a change like this is made, and the criteria (bounds and goals) for each piece of assessment is spelled out clearly, the kids are given almost free range, and a time allocated is adhered to, fun and a sense of exploration can be returned to the curriculum. There is less competition, more coverage of the topic (through individual presentations) and students understand their own assessment. In fact, students can be encouraged to self-assess their own `work'.

No-one wants to feel they are, `just another brick in the wall'. Allowing kids to chase knowledge and information for the fun of it, must surely be the best way for them to learn.

Does the curriculum change as a result of this pedagogy? Ultimately it must. Learning is not compartmentalised in life. We have only made it this way in schools for our own administrative ends. It hasn't been done to make learning easier. To learn how a carburettor works, one must gain some insight into physics. To learn Japanese, some insight into Japan's society must also be learned. We've made Technology, Science, Language and Social Education highly separated areas of learning. They should be allowed to intermingle again, `cos that's the way it really is - not how we've made it.

Education is a juggernaut, and I've expressed my concern on many occasions that teachers teach what they think is relevant. That's only natural. The concern comes when the teacher teaches what's relevant to them. We must teach our kids what will be relevant to the kids when they leave school. Our skills will be far less relevant to the kids of tomorrow than most of us never consider.

An invitation

Gordon WHITE 13/11/95
grdnwht@iinet.net.au