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.
Monday, 8 December 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
