I've moved my blog to my own domain: http://www.renemeijer.com
Those of you who have subscribed to my blog via feedburner should be redirected automatically, but if you are seeing this post it means you are not. To update your subscription, please use
http://feeds.feedburner.com/RenesAssessment
You can also subscribe by going to my website, but at the moment that will still give you the wordpress fee, not the feedburner feed (which means that in the unlikely event that I move again, you will be in the same position you are now, and you'll have to move manually).
Thanks to all of you who have bothered to read my ramblings, I do hope you follow me to my new corner on the web.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Monday, 8 December 2008
Are left handed people stupid?
No of course not, would be my first response. However researchers from Bristol seem to disagree, as can be read in an article on the BBC website "Left-handers' lower test scores". In the article researchers seem to conclude that the lower scores obtained by left-handers and mixed-handers mean they are more prone to cognitive developmental problems. They even advise that a test of 'handedness' is administered to guide early intervention strategies.
Now I haven't had a chance to examine this research, but on the face of it this seems a bit odd. As someone with a background in computer based assessment, I am very acutely aware of validity issues. When computers are used to assess, the question 'is this medium disadvantaging students' is asked very regularly (perhaps even somewhat too often). It strikes me that with our pen and paper based assessments, this question is not asked often enough.
Might it be that our traditional assessment system, that has a very high emphasis on writing skills, is disadvantaging students who are not naturally equip ed to deal well with our particular written tradition?
But even if my doubts are unfounded, is pre-emptive testing really the answer to this issue? Are we going to translate this statistical trend into something that is going to stigmatise individuals without them necessarily having any related difficulties? I think that is really taking things a bit too far.
Now I haven't had a chance to examine this research, but on the face of it this seems a bit odd. As someone with a background in computer based assessment, I am very acutely aware of validity issues. When computers are used to assess, the question 'is this medium disadvantaging students' is asked very regularly (perhaps even somewhat too often). It strikes me that with our pen and paper based assessments, this question is not asked often enough.
Might it be that our traditional assessment system, that has a very high emphasis on writing skills, is disadvantaging students who are not naturally equip ed to deal well with our particular written tradition?
But even if my doubts are unfounded, is pre-emptive testing really the answer to this issue? Are we going to translate this statistical trend into something that is going to stigmatise individuals without them necessarily having any related difficulties? I think that is really taking things a bit too far.
Friday, 5 December 2008
Why I prefer open source
I've recently been given a more active role in the ownership of our VLE, Blackboard. And while at heart I am an open source fanatic, I do also believe that in the end the tools aren't necessarily that important, it is how you use them. With that in mind I was planning to take a positive approach to my new-found challenge.
My initial exposure was quite positive. I attended the Blackboard Europe conference 2008 in Manchester in spring, and was positively surprised to hear Blackboard talk about openness, open standards and connectivity to, or even integration with, Moodle and Sakai. I was also very impressed by some of the community work being done, in particular the work around the Assignment submission building block at Sheffield Hallam University. Unfortunately this exuberance was not going to last.
My first frustrations started when trying to get more information in the assignment handler. I was very keen for us to have a look at it, and would have been more then happy to make a case for buying it. However, Blackboard was strangely evasive. The building block wasn't exactly ready, and they didn't really know what they were going to do with it. In our most recent discussion this changed to 'We don't really want to sell it to you, you can hire us to redevelop it'...
What? So you have a great bit of functionality, but in stead of selling it, or helping us integrate it, you want us to actually fork out the full development cost again?
I'm not quite sure how this fit's in with Blackboards new found spirit of openness, but if this is the way in which they see their relation with the community then I think I'll consider myself thouroughly disillusioned. In stead of supporting and empowering their community to build more value around their product, they seem to choose to stiffle innovation and collaboration. Similarly in our own efforts to start upskilling our team to create new functionality through building blocks I have not found a great deal of support either. Blackboard seem to not offer much in terms of training or support here, but in stead offer to build a buildingblock for us and let us watch and learn while they do it, and then leave us to it.
It's a shame that some vendors behave in this way, as it creates such an antagonistic atmosphere. You would think we both have similar goals and interests here, yet we are treating eachother like potential enemies and rivals. For example, I still don't know officially what Blackboard are going to release in version 9, as they feel they need to avoid anything that might be mistaken as a guarantee or legal commitment to deliver. But where does that leave us with our roadmap planning?
And I guess that's why I prefer Open Source software. Not because everything needs to be free, but because I want a mature constructive,collaborative relationship with the partners that we work with. And unfortunately many commercial vendors seem to have great difficulty doing that.
My initial exposure was quite positive. I attended the Blackboard Europe conference 2008 in Manchester in spring, and was positively surprised to hear Blackboard talk about openness, open standards and connectivity to, or even integration with, Moodle and Sakai. I was also very impressed by some of the community work being done, in particular the work around the Assignment submission building block at Sheffield Hallam University. Unfortunately this exuberance was not going to last.
My first frustrations started when trying to get more information in the assignment handler. I was very keen for us to have a look at it, and would have been more then happy to make a case for buying it. However, Blackboard was strangely evasive. The building block wasn't exactly ready, and they didn't really know what they were going to do with it. In our most recent discussion this changed to 'We don't really want to sell it to you, you can hire us to redevelop it'...
What? So you have a great bit of functionality, but in stead of selling it, or helping us integrate it, you want us to actually fork out the full development cost again?
I'm not quite sure how this fit's in with Blackboards new found spirit of openness, but if this is the way in which they see their relation with the community then I think I'll consider myself thouroughly disillusioned. In stead of supporting and empowering their community to build more value around their product, they seem to choose to stiffle innovation and collaboration. Similarly in our own efforts to start upskilling our team to create new functionality through building blocks I have not found a great deal of support either. Blackboard seem to not offer much in terms of training or support here, but in stead offer to build a buildingblock for us and let us watch and learn while they do it, and then leave us to it.
It's a shame that some vendors behave in this way, as it creates such an antagonistic atmosphere. You would think we both have similar goals and interests here, yet we are treating eachother like potential enemies and rivals. For example, I still don't know officially what Blackboard are going to release in version 9, as they feel they need to avoid anything that might be mistaken as a guarantee or legal commitment to deliver. But where does that leave us with our roadmap planning?
And I guess that's why I prefer Open Source software. Not because everything needs to be free, but because I want a mature constructive,collaborative relationship with the partners that we work with. And unfortunately many commercial vendors seem to have great difficulty doing that.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Do essays promote surface learning?
I was reading an article this morning which referred to the book 'Academic Discourse'. The book investigates the importance of language in learning. I think everyone will recognise that language, and in particular the jargon and linked body of concepts in a discipline, are a key part of learning. To engage effectively with a subject, it is important that one is familiar with important constructs and the way they are expressed and referred to. And so it is only logical that an important part of our teaching, and assessment, focuses on those key constructs.
In Higher Education, essays are often the medium of choice to evaluate learning. The wisdom handed down through the ages dictates that essays are suitable to assess higher order skills and understanding. But is that really the case? Of course the freedom to construct your own answer, or perhaps even choose which questions to answer, gives the student maximum freedom in expressing his or her understanding. But that freedom is also very easy to abuse.
Because we must realise that students aren't always looking to express what they learned. They might be looking to meet the expectations that will lead to the desired result, usually a grade. And when pursuing this quest, students often find that writing a good essay is a problem that can be solved with some linguistically skills, and doesn't necessarily require the attainment of any new understanding. And so in this light, perhaps we should investigate the value of very open and unfocused assignments. Because, while in a very different way then for instance multiple choice exams, they too can promote surface learning strategies when not designed with due care.
Furthermore, it also questions the value of computer marked essays. Most of these systems are designed largely around linguistic criteria, and so only exaggerate this problem. This is especially true if we consider the consequences of students understanding how their essays will be marked by such a system.
In Higher Education, essays are often the medium of choice to evaluate learning. The wisdom handed down through the ages dictates that essays are suitable to assess higher order skills and understanding. But is that really the case? Of course the freedom to construct your own answer, or perhaps even choose which questions to answer, gives the student maximum freedom in expressing his or her understanding. But that freedom is also very easy to abuse.
Because we must realise that students aren't always looking to express what they learned. They might be looking to meet the expectations that will lead to the desired result, usually a grade. And when pursuing this quest, students often find that writing a good essay is a problem that can be solved with some linguistically skills, and doesn't necessarily require the attainment of any new understanding. And so in this light, perhaps we should investigate the value of very open and unfocused assignments. Because, while in a very different way then for instance multiple choice exams, they too can promote surface learning strategies when not designed with due care.
Furthermore, it also questions the value of computer marked essays. Most of these systems are designed largely around linguistic criteria, and so only exaggerate this problem. This is especially true if we consider the consequences of students understanding how their essays will be marked by such a system.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
Open accreditation
About 2 weeks ago a very interesting discussion on open accreditation started, I think on D'Arcy Norman's blog. Some of the responses, such as for instance David Wiley's response, are very edupunk. Do we even need degrees? I'm not sure that's a viable position to be honest. I think George Siemens hit the nail on the head when he said that "providing a statement of competence is only value when the provider of the statement is also trusted". Traditionally it has been institutions like our Universities that have instilled that trust. It was against this background that I have argued that accreditation is a key part of the value proposition for HE. But to be honest, I'm not so sure about that anymore.
In a draft of a call for action I read recently, Microsoft, Cisco and Intel are calling for serious reforms to our assessment system, as they feel it no longer assesses the skills that they value (creativity, collaboration and communication to name a few). That is a very serious indictment, but I think not an unjust one. many of these skills are, or should be, implicitly part of what we think of as "a degree". But if they are not assessed, how do we ensure they are taught, and more importantly, learned? This becomes even more important when we are increasingly atomising the curriculum. If we want to let students pick and mix, we should at least be able to ensure that the sum of their choices still adds up to what we consider to be the whole of their degree.
I think a transparent and reliable way to assess these 21st century skills would go a long way to solving some of our problems in lifelong learning. It would make the accreditation of prior learning easier, as in my opinion it is this 'hidden curriculum' that often concerns people when considering accrediting prior learning. And with prior learning, instantly we have a vehicle to enable a flexible curriculum that spans multiple universities, or the incorporation of non-institutional learning into a qualification. But more crucially, if we can measure these things transparently perhaps trust becomes less important. If degrees no longer are black boxes with a reputation, but an open book that we can all evaluate ourselves... Portfolio anyone... ?
In a draft of a call for action I read recently, Microsoft, Cisco and Intel are calling for serious reforms to our assessment system, as they feel it no longer assesses the skills that they value (creativity, collaboration and communication to name a few). That is a very serious indictment, but I think not an unjust one. many of these skills are, or should be, implicitly part of what we think of as "a degree". But if they are not assessed, how do we ensure they are taught, and more importantly, learned? This becomes even more important when we are increasingly atomising the curriculum. If we want to let students pick and mix, we should at least be able to ensure that the sum of their choices still adds up to what we consider to be the whole of their degree.
I think a transparent and reliable way to assess these 21st century skills would go a long way to solving some of our problems in lifelong learning. It would make the accreditation of prior learning easier, as in my opinion it is this 'hidden curriculum' that often concerns people when considering accrediting prior learning. And with prior learning, instantly we have a vehicle to enable a flexible curriculum that spans multiple universities, or the incorporation of non-institutional learning into a qualification. But more crucially, if we can measure these things transparently perhaps trust becomes less important. If degrees no longer are black boxes with a reputation, but an open book that we can all evaluate ourselves... Portfolio anyone... ?
Friday, 3 October 2008
Evidence based teaching
One of the topics that came up several times over the past days in Reykjavik, is that of the differences in culture around assessment. Different countries have different ways in which they perceive and deal with assessment, and this can have a significant impact on the effect of the assessments, and the success of the educational system as a whole.
One particularly interesting approach was outlined by Jakob Wandall, who's work in the Danish national tests I have blogged about last year in High stake national assessments and ranking. I tried to capture Jakob's slide on a picture, but unfortunately that failed rather miserably, so I have tried to recreate his message in the graphic below:
The graph outlines how both the focus of the assessment (on the horizontal axis) and the purpose for which the results are primarily used (on the vertical axis) vary from country to country. I thought the visualisation was very interesting. Comparing this to, for instance, the outcomes of the 2006 PISA, it is interesting to note that neither the approach of the Scandinavian schools (who focus primarily on learner focused formative assessment) nor the Anglo-Saxon approach 9that is much more heavy on the measurements of indicators for performance, tied in to funding) really yields the best results.
The starts of PISA are of course the Finnish, and the unique approach is apparent from this graph. in stead of moving somewhere between the top left and the bottom right of the graph, they sit toward the top right. The Finish system highly values national measurements, evaluating the success of the system by objective measurements. However these measurements are not tied to any control, either through formal channels or more informal ones such as public rankings. In stead the measurements made in the Finnish system have the purpose to inform teaching and learning. An evidence based approach to teaching shall we say.
When I translate this to our own practice, I can't help but relate this to demands to increase the amounts of formative assessment in our teaching. And while I am sympathetic to these demands, these assessments are similar to those in the top left of the above graph, informing and supporting individual learning processes. And so perhaps in stead of focusing primarily on formative individual assessment, we should focus (also) on assessment and evaluation that informs teaching. Building an infrastructure through which lecturers can stay in touch with the progress, successes and difficulties of all their students, and modify their teaching based on this understanding continuously.
One particularly interesting approach was outlined by Jakob Wandall, who's work in the Danish national tests I have blogged about last year in High stake national assessments and ranking. I tried to capture Jakob's slide on a picture, but unfortunately that failed rather miserably, so I have tried to recreate his message in the graphic below:
The graph outlines how both the focus of the assessment (on the horizontal axis) and the purpose for which the results are primarily used (on the vertical axis) vary from country to country. I thought the visualisation was very interesting. Comparing this to, for instance, the outcomes of the 2006 PISA, it is interesting to note that neither the approach of the Scandinavian schools (who focus primarily on learner focused formative assessment) nor the Anglo-Saxon approach 9that is much more heavy on the measurements of indicators for performance, tied in to funding) really yields the best results.
The starts of PISA are of course the Finnish, and the unique approach is apparent from this graph. in stead of moving somewhere between the top left and the bottom right of the graph, they sit toward the top right. The Finish system highly values national measurements, evaluating the success of the system by objective measurements. However these measurements are not tied to any control, either through formal channels or more informal ones such as public rankings. In stead the measurements made in the Finnish system have the purpose to inform teaching and learning. An evidence based approach to teaching shall we say.
When I translate this to our own practice, I can't help but relate this to demands to increase the amounts of formative assessment in our teaching. And while I am sympathetic to these demands, these assessments are similar to those in the top left of the above graph, informing and supporting individual learning processes. And so perhaps in stead of focusing primarily on formative individual assessment, we should focus (also) on assessment and evaluation that informs teaching. Building an infrastructure through which lecturers can stay in touch with the progress, successes and difficulties of all their students, and modify their teaching based on this understanding continuously.
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Hello Reykjavik
I just arrived in Reykjavik for a conference on PISA 2006 and the transition to e-assessment. It's my first time in Iceland, and I must say it was a bit surreal. I'm just reading Green Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, which contains a lot of descriptions of a newly terraformed Mars: cold, lots of rocks and lots of lichen. Trust me, walking around in Iceland came scarily close to how I had been imagining the novel in my head up till then.
I'm hoping to find some time over the next days to post my thoughts on the conference. There is a very impressive lineup of international speakers scheduled to speak, and i am looking forward to exchanging ideas and opinions with them. Pictures will have to wait I'm afraid, as I forgot to pack the cable that connects my camera to my laptop...grrr...
I'm hoping to find some time over the next days to post my thoughts on the conference. There is a very impressive lineup of international speakers scheduled to speak, and i am looking forward to exchanging ideas and opinions with them. Pictures will have to wait I'm afraid, as I forgot to pack the cable that connects my camera to my laptop...grrr...
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Connecting connectivism
The article Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge has been really valuable for me in understanding the ideas behind connectivism a lot better. It is a bit of a read, but in my opinion well worth the time and attention.
What resonated particularly well for me, is the idea of building an emergentist theory of learning. I have always preferred a holistic approach to understanding. One of the major weaknesses in our 'Western' view of the world is the idea that we can understanding everything by reducing it to it's component parts. I suppose it is something that developed with my long term practice of Chinese martial arts and philosophy. More recently I have found tremendous value in 'system thinking' as described by Peter Senge in his book 'The Fifth Discipline'. In this book Senge criticises the reductionist approach to running businesses such as our obsession with KPI's and the like. I think I'm starting to realise that connectivism really is based on similar principles, applied to learning.
Reflecting further on connectivism, and in particular on the idea of 'levels of knowing', there are several other things falling into place as well. I have been a fan of the SOLO taxonomy ever since being introduced to it by Graham Gibbs about 3 years ago. For me it makes so much more sense then the archaic taxonomy of Bloom. It classifies levels of understanding by the amount of connections that a learner makes, and the broadness of those connections (for instance into other domains of knowledge). It seems to me to be an excellent reflection of how learning would develop according to the connectivist model.
So after a somewhat sceptical start, I must say that I'm beginning to warm to some of the ideas behind connectivism. I do still think some of the theory and arguments behind it need more refinement, and perhaps that is something I should try and articulate over the next few weeks to help this discussion along. For the moment though many of the ideas are still somewhat in the 'primordial soup' stage, and so I will give myself a few weeks before venturing down that path further.
What resonated particularly well for me, is the idea of building an emergentist theory of learning. I have always preferred a holistic approach to understanding. One of the major weaknesses in our 'Western' view of the world is the idea that we can understanding everything by reducing it to it's component parts. I suppose it is something that developed with my long term practice of Chinese martial arts and philosophy. More recently I have found tremendous value in 'system thinking' as described by Peter Senge in his book 'The Fifth Discipline'. In this book Senge criticises the reductionist approach to running businesses such as our obsession with KPI's and the like. I think I'm starting to realise that connectivism really is based on similar principles, applied to learning.
Reflecting further on connectivism, and in particular on the idea of 'levels of knowing', there are several other things falling into place as well. I have been a fan of the SOLO taxonomy ever since being introduced to it by Graham Gibbs about 3 years ago. For me it makes so much more sense then the archaic taxonomy of Bloom. It classifies levels of understanding by the amount of connections that a learner makes, and the broadness of those connections (for instance into other domains of knowledge). It seems to me to be an excellent reflection of how learning would develop according to the connectivist model.
So after a somewhat sceptical start, I must say that I'm beginning to warm to some of the ideas behind connectivism. I do still think some of the theory and arguments behind it need more refinement, and perhaps that is something I should try and articulate over the next few weeks to help this discussion along. For the moment though many of the ideas are still somewhat in the 'primordial soup' stage, and so I will give myself a few weeks before venturing down that path further.
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
Yay we won!
Woohoo, our SLAM for ALT-C 2008 on the Digital Divide has been found:
And the organisers have been kind enough to award us their special pick. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside now :)
Do have a look at the other SLAMS, and award winners on the Digital Divide Slam homepage!
And the organisers have been kind enough to award us their special pick. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside now :)
Do have a look at the other SLAMS, and award winners on the Digital Divide Slam homepage!
Monday, 15 September 2008
Free at last?
Research done by PISA has shown convincingly that school systems whit a high degree of autonomy perform better (see my post on SAT troubles for a bit more info) . It seems that the Liberal Democrats have now formally adopted this position, and have outlined plans to scrap the national curriculum. A brave move. It will be interesting to see how this discussion unfolds, and if it will survive the inevitable backlash from the control brigade.
Sunday, 14 September 2008
What is Connectivism?
It's only the first week and I'm already behind schedule, how embarrassing. Either way, here are my reflections on the first week of connectivism:
Levels of analysis
Although not a part of this weeks reading, I did find a lot of value in a video recommended by Clark Quinn: (not Donald Clark as I erroneously said earlier):
It seems to me that a lot of the differences in the various theories and views on learning really boil down to the level of analysis or perspective that you take on the problem. Connectivism in that sense is the result of the analysis of learning within a new level or structure that has been created through new technology.
Analogies
Aside from the level of analysis, analogies can form another perspective on a problem. Often we start employing an analogy because it aids in the representation of an aspect of an idea. However, analogies are always flawed, and so when we start employing our analogy to liberally we inevitably run into problems. Unfortunately our brain seems to like, and need, simplicity and so we often find ourselves stuck in our own analogy.
The brain as a computer is a very obvious analogy. Knowledge as an object that can be internalised is perhaps also the result of a subconscious analogy. In the days where books were not too abundant and the number of views expressed in them relatively limited perhaps it was logical to see the book as a synonym for knowledge. And so reading the book, internalising it, equivalent to learning. the observation had very little to do with what learning really is. It is more an expression of how learning commonly took place.
And so for the blogging, networking and podcasting fanatics amongst us, networked learning has become our preferred mode of learning. And while it serves a lot of us very well, I am not sure it actually makes it a theory of learning, or if it is merely an instantiation of it. And to be very precisely, perhaps it is more a means of sense making, more then learning. Learning, to me, is still something I cannot easily separate from the individual.
Levels of analysis
Although not a part of this weeks reading, I did find a lot of value in a video recommended by Clark Quinn: (not Donald Clark as I erroneously said earlier):
It seems to me that a lot of the differences in the various theories and views on learning really boil down to the level of analysis or perspective that you take on the problem. Connectivism in that sense is the result of the analysis of learning within a new level or structure that has been created through new technology.
Analogies
Aside from the level of analysis, analogies can form another perspective on a problem. Often we start employing an analogy because it aids in the representation of an aspect of an idea. However, analogies are always flawed, and so when we start employing our analogy to liberally we inevitably run into problems. Unfortunately our brain seems to like, and need, simplicity and so we often find ourselves stuck in our own analogy.
The brain as a computer is a very obvious analogy. Knowledge as an object that can be internalised is perhaps also the result of a subconscious analogy. In the days where books were not too abundant and the number of views expressed in them relatively limited perhaps it was logical to see the book as a synonym for knowledge. And so reading the book, internalising it, equivalent to learning. the observation had very little to do with what learning really is. It is more an expression of how learning commonly took place.
And so for the blogging, networking and podcasting fanatics amongst us, networked learning has become our preferred mode of learning. And while it serves a lot of us very well, I am not sure it actually makes it a theory of learning, or if it is merely an instantiation of it. And to be very precisely, perhaps it is more a means of sense making, more then learning. Learning, to me, is still something I cannot easily separate from the individual.
Friday, 12 September 2008
ALT-C 2008
This week I have had the pleasure of attending ALT-C in Leeds. We had an awesome opening by Hans Rosling, but unfortunately I cannot find the recording for that. For those of you who have not heard of Hans, I thoroughly recommend looking at his TEDtalk, and the Gapminder website.
While several papers and presentations were the ussual rehashes and repeats of previous years, there were also some very interesting nuggets. One was from the University of Vienna, who have been looking at the development of an IMS LD design tool for lecturers within the EU funded project Prolix. While I couldn't easily find much documentation on the tool they developed, you can download the source for GLM (based on Eclipse) from sourceforge. I'll certainly be having a look at it over the next few weeks.
Another highlight was the talk by George Siemens. If you are interested you can still look at the recordings for the session in Eluminate (you'll have to download their Java applet for it though). it was a shame I only found out George was staying in the same hotel as I was when I was checking out, and too hung over to try and engage in some conversation.
My third pick would be the SLAM session on the Digital Divide, where we all created small clips on the digital divide in little groups which was a lot of fun. The recordings should all be up on the wiki, although the last time I checked ours still hadn't made it there :( However, I did find this picture by Christina Costa of the group I worked with.
While several papers and presentations were the ussual rehashes and repeats of previous years, there were also some very interesting nuggets. One was from the University of Vienna, who have been looking at the development of an IMS LD design tool for lecturers within the EU funded project Prolix. While I couldn't easily find much documentation on the tool they developed, you can download the source for GLM (based on Eclipse) from sourceforge. I'll certainly be having a look at it over the next few weeks.
Another highlight was the talk by George Siemens. If you are interested you can still look at the recordings for the session in Eluminate (you'll have to download their Java applet for it though). it was a shame I only found out George was staying in the same hotel as I was when I was checking out, and too hung over to try and engage in some conversation.
My third pick would be the SLAM session on the Digital Divide, where we all created small clips on the digital divide in little groups which was a lot of fun. The recordings should all be up on the wiki, although the last time I checked ours still hadn't made it there :( However, I did find this picture by Christina Costa of the group I worked with.
Friday, 5 September 2008
Introduction to Connectivism course
I have enrolled on the Connectivism and Connective Knowledge course, together with many, many of my colleagues (about 1600 in total I think!). This is my introductory post, which is part of the suggested pre-course activities.
My background
My name is René Meijer, and I am currently managing the Educational Development Unit at the University of Derby in the UK. I moved to the UK about 4 years ago from Holland, where I developed IT and e-learning projects and policies for secondary education.
Why I am interested in this course
Firstly I see this as an important part of my own professional development. I am looking forward to meeting new people and learning about new ideas. I am particularly interested in better understanding more about what 'models of learning' and what 'value propositions' are relevant in Higher Education today, and of course tomorrow. Secondly, I am also working on the design of professional development for our own lecturers, and I am very interested in looking at this 'model' of learning to see how appropriate it would be to apply there.
When would I consider this course a success?
I think success for me is very much linked to this model of learning. How will participation be, how valuable is the network and networked information that results from it. In what way are there financially viable ways of using this model in other provision? Success I guess, will be linked to a positive answer on each of those questions
Other random info about me
I suppose there's more then enough random info on this blog, feel free to have a look around.
My background
My name is René Meijer, and I am currently managing the Educational Development Unit at the University of Derby in the UK. I moved to the UK about 4 years ago from Holland, where I developed IT and e-learning projects and policies for secondary education.
Why I am interested in this course
Firstly I see this as an important part of my own professional development. I am looking forward to meeting new people and learning about new ideas. I am particularly interested in better understanding more about what 'models of learning' and what 'value propositions' are relevant in Higher Education today, and of course tomorrow. Secondly, I am also working on the design of professional development for our own lecturers, and I am very interested in looking at this 'model' of learning to see how appropriate it would be to apply there.
When would I consider this course a success?
I think success for me is very much linked to this model of learning. How will participation be, how valuable is the network and networked information that results from it. In what way are there financially viable ways of using this model in other provision? Success I guess, will be linked to a positive answer on each of those questions
Other random info about me
I suppose there's more then enough random info on this blog, feel free to have a look around.
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
Conscious competence and certainty based marking
Certainty based marking (sometimes erroneously refered to as competence based marking) is an advanced scoring strategy that requires learners to classify how certain they are of their response when submitting it. A higher certainty carries a possible higher reward, but also a much higher penalty when the response is incorrect. As such certainty based marking can mitigate guessing on constrained response items, but it is also ver useful as a stimlans for reflection. More information can be found in articles like "Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) for Reflective Learning and Proper Knowledge Assessment".
There are other interesting options to explore however, and I was reminded of one when I read
Conscious Competence - a reflection on
professional learning, which talks about the conscious competence model. In my opinion, these two fit together very nicely, as depicted in the diagram below. Candidates providing the wrong answer, but indicating a high degree of certainty about their answer can be considered as 'unknown incompetent', as they seem unaware of their misconceptions. Candidates providing the wrong answer with a very low degree of certainty have progresssed to 'known incompetence', as they have at least correctly identified their lack of understanding. When providing the correct answer with a low degree of certainty, learners can be assigned to the unknown competence stage untill finally tey progress to known competence if they provide a high certainty correct response.
Although I am still looking for an opportunity to actually try this in practice, I think it has a lot of potential in spporting an integrated formative and summative assessment strategy.
There are other interesting options to explore however, and I was reminded of one when I read
Conscious Competence - a reflection on
professional learning, which talks about the conscious competence model. In my opinion, these two fit together very nicely, as depicted in the diagram below. Candidates providing the wrong answer, but indicating a high degree of certainty about their answer can be considered as 'unknown incompetent', as they seem unaware of their misconceptions. Candidates providing the wrong answer with a very low degree of certainty have progresssed to 'known incompetence', as they have at least correctly identified their lack of understanding. When providing the correct answer with a low degree of certainty, learners can be assigned to the unknown competence stage untill finally tey progress to known competence if they provide a high certainty correct response.Although I am still looking for an opportunity to actually try this in practice, I think it has a lot of potential in spporting an integrated formative and summative assessment strategy.
Friday, 8 August 2008
The value proposition of HE
I have previously expressed some ideas about the value of higher education and how, at least for the less research intensive institutes, it is moving away from content and knowledge, and towards guidance and accreditation. However a few separate experiences this week have lead me to start thinking slightly differently about the future and value of higher education.
It all started with my enrolment on the connectivism course that is being prepared by Stephen Downes and George Siemens. I think it was Stephen who made the case for assessment to be individual. After all learners come to a course or activity with individual goals and ambitions, and so it doesn't really make sense that they would be assessed in the same way. While this doesn't invalidate the importance of assessment and accreditation, it does question the validity of having predefined outcomes and criteria for these perhaps.
over coffee this morning I had a discussion with a colleague, who was explaining to me the importance of the community of practice, and how we needed to find a way to make learners part of a community of practice before and after their actual enrollment on a module or course. He made a very strong case for what should be a major benefit of doing a course with the University: Joining a community of peers and experts. Very consistent with Stephen's ideas I thought.
Then this afternoon, while I was wrestling the backlog in my GReader, I stumbled on a piece on the value of social networks by Engeström (via Grainne's blog) which again confirmed this notion. Basically Engeström explains that a relation, and thus a network, only has value as a result of the object that this relation is built on. In Flickr these are pictures, in Delicious they are bookmarks. Similarly in education, these could be courses or subjects, just like my colleague was proposing with the communities of practice.
And so maybe the value of HE is not primarily around accreditation. Perhaps the most important value we can offer is the organisation and support of learning networks around subjects of interest. In that case, we have a lot of work to do...
It all started with my enrolment on the connectivism course that is being prepared by Stephen Downes and George Siemens. I think it was Stephen who made the case for assessment to be individual. After all learners come to a course or activity with individual goals and ambitions, and so it doesn't really make sense that they would be assessed in the same way. While this doesn't invalidate the importance of assessment and accreditation, it does question the validity of having predefined outcomes and criteria for these perhaps.
over coffee this morning I had a discussion with a colleague, who was explaining to me the importance of the community of practice, and how we needed to find a way to make learners part of a community of practice before and after their actual enrollment on a module or course. He made a very strong case for what should be a major benefit of doing a course with the University: Joining a community of peers and experts. Very consistent with Stephen's ideas I thought.
Then this afternoon, while I was wrestling the backlog in my GReader, I stumbled on a piece on the value of social networks by Engeström (via Grainne's blog) which again confirmed this notion. Basically Engeström explains that a relation, and thus a network, only has value as a result of the object that this relation is built on. In Flickr these are pictures, in Delicious they are bookmarks. Similarly in education, these could be courses or subjects, just like my colleague was proposing with the communities of practice.
And so maybe the value of HE is not primarily around accreditation. Perhaps the most important value we can offer is the organisation and support of learning networks around subjects of interest. In that case, we have a lot of work to do...
Friday, 1 August 2008
The big assessment question
Assessment has been in the news an awful lot lately, albeit not very positively. There is of course the whole SAT's palava, but i will resist the temptation to comment on that. My position on this is outlines in previous posts on this blog, and I can only say that it is good to see that a lot of the momentum around this seems to be finally heading in the right direction. Its a shame we often need some sort of disaster to finally be open to change. A more surprising current issue is that of the Dyslexic student's exams battle. Which deals with a medical student's problems with multiple choice tests, something further clarified by the BBC in a follow-up article: Why can't people with dyslexia do multiple choice?
The comment by the student's solicitor that "Every professional body or employer who relies for a professional qualification, or as a promotional gateway, on multiple choice questions is heading for a fall." is of course a bit of a joke. Quite frankly I am rather appalled by what seems like a rather misguided attempt to 'make a splash' at the expense of something as crucial as our exams system. While there are many gripes that you could reasonably hold against multiple choice question, I don't think the link to dyslexia is really that valid. Considerations around presentation, or even using screen readers, can reasonably address most potential issues that might result from a disability. in addition, I think we should not shy away from critical reflection on the degree of special provisions that we put in place to accommodate students, as these provisions could significantly alter the nature of an assessment and then compromise the validity and equitability of the award. There will always be differences between learners in how well they perform in various types of assessment. This is one of the reasons to make sure there is a variety of assessment methods being used.
The more interesting question though, is around authenticity. The student in question is quoted in the article, saying that "In normal day life, you don't get given multiple choice questions to sit. Your patients aren't going to ask you 'here's an option and four answers. Which one is right?". And to an extend I think she has a point there. While there will always be situations in which we will have to rely on 'proxy's' to infer attainment, I do agree that currently we rely way too much on proxy's that are sometimes quite remote from the competencies that we try to measure. In this sense education system is stuck in it's traditions, in stead of applying the objective and critical reflection that we say we value so much in higher education.
A similar point, and some suggestions for moving forward, are made in the blog post 21st Century Assessment, where this 'formula' is proposed for a modern fit-for-purpose assessment system. Especially the elements of collaboration and peer assessment are extremely important and very much underutilised in our current practice. Partly I suspect that this links in with how uncomfortable we still are with the loss of our position as the holder and tranferrer of all knowledge. This role warranted a 1 to many broadcast model of education. Education today however is moving much more towards a many to many model, whereby the role of the teacher is much more one of guidance, coaching and accreditation of a learning process that involves peers, external resources and actors and experiences from previous professional roles. I'm not quite sure we are really ready to fulfil that role yet though.
The comment by the student's solicitor that "Every professional body or employer who relies for a professional qualification, or as a promotional gateway, on multiple choice questions is heading for a fall." is of course a bit of a joke. Quite frankly I am rather appalled by what seems like a rather misguided attempt to 'make a splash' at the expense of something as crucial as our exams system. While there are many gripes that you could reasonably hold against multiple choice question, I don't think the link to dyslexia is really that valid. Considerations around presentation, or even using screen readers, can reasonably address most potential issues that might result from a disability. in addition, I think we should not shy away from critical reflection on the degree of special provisions that we put in place to accommodate students, as these provisions could significantly alter the nature of an assessment and then compromise the validity and equitability of the award. There will always be differences between learners in how well they perform in various types of assessment. This is one of the reasons to make sure there is a variety of assessment methods being used.
The more interesting question though, is around authenticity. The student in question is quoted in the article, saying that "In normal day life, you don't get given multiple choice questions to sit. Your patients aren't going to ask you 'here's an option and four answers. Which one is right?". And to an extend I think she has a point there. While there will always be situations in which we will have to rely on 'proxy's' to infer attainment, I do agree that currently we rely way too much on proxy's that are sometimes quite remote from the competencies that we try to measure. In this sense education system is stuck in it's traditions, in stead of applying the objective and critical reflection that we say we value so much in higher education.
Monday, 28 July 2008
Michael Wesch and the Future of Education
I completely forgot where I found this, as it's been sitting in my saved Firefox 3 tabs for a few days now, so apologies for the lack of attribution. This excellent talk by Michael Wesch (the guy that brought you the Youtube video "the machine is using us") gives a great view on what learning and teaching really should be like.
If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, at least have a look at the first 10 minutes, which will already give you some great ideas on the paradigms in which education seems to be stuck, an dhow to perhaps get beyond those.
If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, at least have a look at the first 10 minutes, which will already give you some great ideas on the paradigms in which education seems to be stuck, an dhow to perhaps get beyond those.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Towards a research agenda on computer-based assessment
At the EU workshop I attended in Ispra, Italy last year (see blogposts Psychometrics versus pedagogy and High stakes national assessments and ranking) we agreed to write some articles on quality aspects of computer based assessments to go towards a report for the European Commission. I'm glad to say that the report has now been published, and can be accessed online via the following link: Towards a research agenda on computer-based assessment
I think there's many interesting articles and views within the report, and I will certainly be reviewing the interesting perspectives that my colleagues presented at the workshop in this report. Do have a look, I am positive there will be something of interest there for virtually anyone.
I think there's many interesting articles and views within the report, and I will certainly be reviewing the interesting perspectives that my colleagues presented at the workshop in this report. Do have a look, I am positive there will be something of interest there for virtually anyone.
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Review: Classmarker
As we're in the middle of a review of the tools we use in support of assessment, I thought I'd share my analysis of the various tools that we come across. As today is a Sunday, we'll start off with a simple one:
Classmarker
Classmarker is an online quizmaker that offers free quizzes (supported by advertisement) with upgrades (including removing the advertisement) for an additional fee.
Type: online service
Cost: Free with paid upgrades
Features: Multiple choice quiz, free text quiz or punctuation quiz.
Interoperability: None
System requirements: Any browser
The first thing I notice when registering, is that the UK doesn't exist, although the 4 home nations do. A more serious point to note, as with many online services, is that all content (and so that includes all personal information, questions and results) will be the property of Classmarker.
The features of this service are extremely limited. While the Classmarker supports 3 question types, it only allows you to use one of those per test. Options such as randomisation, feedback and branding are all features you will have to pay for. There seems to be no way to import or export your questions.
The site seems to be built mainly around Google Adsense. The advertisement and a Google search box is present on every possible page, and that will include the ones your learners visit. Upgrading to get rid of the advertisements costs $24.95 (or 49.95 for a business account, whatever that means). But then your users will still ave to register with the service before being able to take the test. Allowing for unregistered learners to take a test will cost you $0.10 or more per learner. Not really value for money given the incredibly limited features that are on offer.
Conclusion: I really can't see anything of value here. If you need something that is hosted for you, most survey services offer you more functionality. If you have your own space to host your assessments, even the simpler tools available wil offer more then Clasmarker.
Apologies to have to start of with such a negative review. I just stumbled across this tool today, and I thought I might as well write this up now. Do let me know if you have any comments, or perhaps sugestions for other tools I could review.
Classmarker
Classmarker is an online quizmaker that offers free quizzes (supported by advertisement) with upgrades (including removing the advertisement) for an additional fee.
Type: online service
Cost: Free with paid upgrades
Features: Multiple choice quiz, free text quiz or punctuation quiz.
Interoperability: None
System requirements: Any browser
The first thing I notice when registering, is that the UK doesn't exist, although the 4 home nations do. A more serious point to note, as with many online services, is that all content (and so that includes all personal information, questions and results) will be the property of Classmarker.
The features of this service are extremely limited. While the Classmarker supports 3 question types, it only allows you to use one of those per test. Options such as randomisation, feedback and branding are all features you will have to pay for. There seems to be no way to import or export your questions.
The site seems to be built mainly around Google Adsense. The advertisement and a Google search box is present on every possible page, and that will include the ones your learners visit. Upgrading to get rid of the advertisements costs $24.95 (or 49.95 for a business account, whatever that means). But then your users will still ave to register with the service before being able to take the test. Allowing for unregistered learners to take a test will cost you $0.10 or more per learner. Not really value for money given the incredibly limited features that are on offer.
Conclusion: I really can't see anything of value here. If you need something that is hosted for you, most survey services offer you more functionality. If you have your own space to host your assessments, even the simpler tools available wil offer more then Clasmarker.
Apologies to have to start of with such a negative review. I just stumbled across this tool today, and I thought I might as well write this up now. Do let me know if you have any comments, or perhaps sugestions for other tools I could review.
Thursday, 29 May 2008
New podcast on assessment
I've been toying around with the idea of doing something useful online, in stead of just venting my unsollicited rants here. I've come up with the idea to start a podcast around assessment practice, as I think there aren't nearly enough easilly available resources on the topic. The podcast, and the first test episode, can be found here. Please feel free to have a look and give me some feedbacks or tips, I could really do with some good advice and practical tips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
