Talk:The assessment problem

From The Schommunity Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

It could be done.

A contributer submits a piece of original work on line. This could be a proposed solution to a set problem, or a personal quest.

The work is reviewed by others on line and given scores. Obvious criteria could be: Was this interesting to read/watch/look at? 1-5 Was it easy to read/view and understand? 1-5 Did it help you understand the issue/see it from a different viewpoint? 1-5 How useful will the information gained likely to be to you? 1-5

The work will develop a score - number of pieces of work submitted, number of reviewers and average scores.

To encourage reviews and get the contributer to view a range of work he/she could get a score for the number of reviews he/she submits.

A table of contributers could be split into leagues and ranked according to submissions (work and reviews and scores. In addition to their ranking they would also have the pieces for an e portfolio.


If you extend this to include the possibility of people (peers) also reviewing the process (contribution that each member of the team) made to the production of the work submitted then you get an even richer picture.

I rather like the idea of people moving up levels (like in a computer game)- based on other people's reviews - and of course the higher the level you are at the more credance (weight) other people give to the reviews that you write.

The Wikied mockup is an attempt to start to illustrate what this might look like.

PeterT 20:40, 3 May 2005 (BST)

NB Please end all comments with your username and the date/time (which you can do by inserting four tildes - them squiggly hyphens as I think of them).

Problems with criteria

The criteria I have identified as 'essential' and 'desirable' are obviously contentious. For example, we might think that comparison should be about comparing how a person has done relative to themselves rather than relative to other people (ie showing idividual development).

Indeed you could argue that the criteria I have cited are those for traditional assessment in formal contexts. A colleague yesterday suggested to me that Eraut's work provided an alternative view of what we should be focussing on re assessment.

My suggestion - that we need to be able to meet all of these criteria (both the essential and desirable) in order for assessment to be taken seriously might we inappropriate - do we really want to replicate a system that many of us think is problematic within our new vision of education? Or do we want to change the whole mindset?

This is the tension for schome - on the one hand the wish to develop a system that fits with our visions of what learning should be about vs the need to be taken seriously (by the people who have the power to enable or prevent change on the scale that is required). Is there another way? Can we seperate out the vision building from the strategic thinking about how to achieve that vision?

PeterT 06:45, 18 May 2005 (BST)

Assessment a difficult topic

ASSESSMENT A TRICKY PROBLEM It is indeed nice to have standardised assement that can grade kids from top to bottom. However I have found that students often produce folio work or projects that are outstanding and eclipse their more formal/pen and paper school work.

Perhaps it is more important to grade students on competence to an external standard what they can and cant do.

Interestingly in the workforce few of us have to do tests and are not formally graded in this way, though this is not an arguement against assessment. In my own experience assessment often shows me weaknesses in my own teaching - areas I didn't cover well etc.

Self assesment I have found to work, if you give students clear assessment criteria, I have found that 99% of them grade themselved very accurately, and are even harder on themselves that i am.
Jeansey 25-Mar-06

I agree with you Jeansey - seems to me that the difference here is between short term testing (standardised assessment) and longer term projects, and it is clear that from the learner's point of view the latter is more valueable. The tension is about how easy it is to implement - if you don't trust teacher assessments (which may not mean you don't trust teachers, but that you are concerned about the consistency of the judgements that different teachers make in relation to 'the same set of external standards'.
PeterT 10:09, 25 Mar 2006 (GMT)