The inassessable arts of teaching
The Lost Arts of Teaching reminded me that learning is the result of a complex interaction between one who can teach and one who is willing to learn. An interaction that does not always benefit from the addition of technology, an interaction that is subtle and difficult if not impossible to fully assess.
The Lost Arts of Teaching bemoans the over-dependence on PowerPoint in the modern college classroom. The article calls for instructors to get back in touch with their students, to regain the interactivity that presentation technologies have curtailed.
I am no luddite - at least I do not think I am. I am, however, eclectic. Ordered three of my students to go get an email address. Told my students, leave your cell phone on, just learn to use the # key to set to silent mode when you enter class. I hand code HTML5 with SVG and MathMl. At the same time I do not want air conditioning in A101, let alone a SMART board. And this summer SC 130 is sans computer sessions. Two of the three labs last week were outside, and we did use sticks and stones.
Yet does this return to sticks and stones result in improved learning for students? How to assess whether the technology leaner summer term produces a differential in learning?
When I look at assessment the way I do, my brain jumps to trying to determine how to assess learning differential with technology versus without technology versus a blend. None of what I would want to know is captured by the I,P, D grids I now see appearing on course outlines at the college. When a team of visitors to the college recently noted the need for "authentic" assessment, the issue of what "authentic" might mean was foremost in my mind.
I have a bad feeling that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty principle at the heart of assessment. You can either know the position of a particle precisely (and not know its speed) or you can know its speed precisely (and not know its position). I think you can have awesomely authentic assessment in a course, but it will be unique to the course, resistant to aggregation and institutional level reporting, and not usable for inter-course comparisons. Or you can have more generic I, P, D grids, standardized tests, and five column tables that are not unique, can be aggregated, and used for inter-course comparsion, but which lose the specificity needed to improve a single individual course.
My assessments really help me improve my course, but they are hard to aggregate, very specific, translate poorly to many other courses... The I, P, D type grids provide no specific guidance for my classes, but can be looked at from a higher level and can be aggregated into an institutional picture of assessment.
How to assess the arts of teaching - that almost ineffable quality that generates learning? Education is a science and an art. As science there are measurements that can be made, there are best practices that can be promoted. As an art, there will always be something unmeasurable and inaccessible about what makes a good teacher, something beyond assessment.
The Lost Arts of Teaching bemoans the over-dependence on PowerPoint in the modern college classroom. The article calls for instructors to get back in touch with their students, to regain the interactivity that presentation technologies have curtailed.
I am no luddite - at least I do not think I am. I am, however, eclectic. Ordered three of my students to go get an email address. Told my students, leave your cell phone on, just learn to use the # key to set to silent mode when you enter class. I hand code HTML5 with SVG and MathMl. At the same time I do not want air conditioning in A101, let alone a SMART board. And this summer SC 130 is sans computer sessions. Two of the three labs last week were outside, and we did use sticks and stones.
Yet does this return to sticks and stones result in improved learning for students? How to assess whether the technology leaner summer term produces a differential in learning?
When I look at assessment the way I do, my brain jumps to trying to determine how to assess learning differential with technology versus without technology versus a blend. None of what I would want to know is captured by the I,P, D grids I now see appearing on course outlines at the college. When a team of visitors to the college recently noted the need for "authentic" assessment, the issue of what "authentic" might mean was foremost in my mind.
I have a bad feeling that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty principle at the heart of assessment. You can either know the position of a particle precisely (and not know its speed) or you can know its speed precisely (and not know its position). I think you can have awesomely authentic assessment in a course, but it will be unique to the course, resistant to aggregation and institutional level reporting, and not usable for inter-course comparisons. Or you can have more generic I, P, D grids, standardized tests, and five column tables that are not unique, can be aggregated, and used for inter-course comparsion, but which lose the specificity needed to improve a single individual course.
My assessments really help me improve my course, but they are hard to aggregate, very specific, translate poorly to many other courses... The I, P, D type grids provide no specific guidance for my classes, but can be looked at from a higher level and can be aggregated into an institutional picture of assessment.
How to assess the arts of teaching - that almost ineffable quality that generates learning? Education is a science and an art. As science there are measurements that can be made, there are best practices that can be promoted. As an art, there will always be something unmeasurable and inaccessible about what makes a good teacher, something beyond assessment.
Comments
Post a Comment