Week 11 Post

Hi all, here are my thoughts for this week. All comments welcome, Ryan.

1. Is there a difference between the terms assessment and evaluation for you? Some authors define a difference.

The terms assessment and evaluation are used interchangeably by different authors and teachers. In my opinion assessment refers to feedback, often continuous and formative, that allows the teacher to gain some insight on how the students are doing. It is an informal way of gauging how students are progressing. I interpret evaluation as a more formal means to gage if students have met the instructional goals. It is often represented as formal testing (pen and paper, projects, presentations, etc.) and is usually summative in nature.

2. Do you feel the push toward teaching to the test and the pull of the less measurable, constructivist outcomes? Do you feel torn between the two?

I feel that there is definitely a trend for teachers to be pressured to teach to the test. Societal influences are making teachers more accountable and for most this means improving students marks. Standardized testing is becoming more prevalent and with school rankings becoming public discussion points, there is definitely an over-emphasis on marks. This guides teachers toward a more behavioral teaching style that has clear measurable outcomes. Constructivist outcomes that are more subjective and abstract can be more difficult to assign a numeric mark.
I'm sure that most teachers would prefer to focus on each student learning to the best of his/her potential, and constructivist learning is recognized as one of the best means to accomplish this. However, it would be naive to ignore that society still judges student achievement with high marks. This is nothing new and in my opinion will not be going away any time soon. Teachers must find a balance between doing what's best for their students and keeping our bosses, the public, happy.

3. Is there a difference between the measurement of constructivist and non-constructivist outcomes?

As I mentioned above, non-constructivist outcomes are more behavioral in nature and are easily measured and evaluated. They are less subjective and much easier to assign a numeric mark. Constructivist outcomes are based on prior experience and personal beliefs. Because of this the measure of success will vary on the experiences and beliefs of each student. Outcomes are much more subjective and more difficult to assign a numeric grade.

4. What would a component for and ID model look like for constructivist outcomes assessment? Would there need to be a actual component to the model or could there be an overarching structural, ongoing, awareness for the need to be concerned with constructivist outcomes?

Models should be generic and applied to any one, or a combination, of learning theories (behavioral, cognitive, constructivist, etc.). A system orientation class of model that covers an entire course will have many objectives, some of which will no doubt be constructivist. Smaller ID models will have fewer activities that could be specifically geared toward one particular learning theory / objective. However, I feel that the ID framework should be flexible enough to be applied to any classroom setting. It is in determining the details of each component that the designer must consider the learning theory, constructivist or other, that will best allow the students to reach their instructional goals and learning outcomes.