dwell: QCR523 Posting 2: Alternative Assessments

Friday, February 1, 2013

QCR523 Posting 2: Alternative Assessments

Explore in some depth one kind of alternative assessment. You may:

(1) Read one of the optional articles from Weeks 3 to 4.
(2) Google or do a literature search on the same or similar form of alternative assessment.
(3) Explore some other idea not mentioned in your readings.

Share about your readings and your thoughts about the specific form of assessment discussed. You should use this as an opportunity to explore an alternative assessment that you may be interested in for either your essay assignment or for your own classroom execution.

Deadline: 9 Feb 2013, Sat, Noon

41 comments:

Jia MinFebruary 1, 2013 at 9:30 AM
The form of alternative assessment that I am interested in for possible classroom execution in the future is that of “getting students to tell the story” in different ways (Eisvran 158). Eisvran suggested that her students may “act out the scene, do a tableau or even a storyboard” of the literature text they are doing (158), which is an idea that holds countless possibilities for me as I envision my students given such free rein to do what they wish to, in their re-interpretations and re-imaginings of the text. It is an exhilarating thought, for I do want my students to be unencumbered by traditional restraints, and be free to express their viewpoints and depict their analyses of the text in myriad ways – as varied as they can imagine, only bounded by the ends of their imagination. Actually, if given a chance, what I would like to do in terms of alternative assessment would be to put in place a year-long programme for this form of alternative assessment – having my students tell the story of the text, the story behind the story, in myriad ways (I would posit some possibilities such as storyboards, rewritings, journal entries/reflections, performances, debates…) – and have them put together all these pieces of work in a portfolio they will each have. The work done for the alternative assessment will mirror that that is being done for the traditional mode of assessment – say, the thematic concerns being discussed in class will serve as a/the focal point for the alternative assessment as well.

Ultimately, what I am interested – and hopeful – in achieving in my literature classroom is a critical thinking and expressive culture – students who are active pursuers of knowledge, who are motivated in “co-creating their own understanding and co-owning their learning” (Henry 51). If teachers are able to provide the appropriate(ly stimulating) stimulus for their students, sparking off an engaging critical discussion, then the alternative assessment would probably serve as a means to achieving that end. To start it all off, perhaps I might begin with some “wonder questions” (a lovely term) for my students (Adler & Rougle 48-49) and model for them the critical thought process by “thinking aloud” in class (Eisvran 158-59).
ReplyDelete
Replies
damienFebruary 2, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Damien's Post: Part One of Two
My chosen alternative assessment issue is transmediation. McCormick identifies transmediation as a translation of one sign system into another (p. 580). She highlights that transmediation can "foster analytic conversations among middle school students and consequently enhance their ability to engage in a complex language function central to academic discourse" (p. 579). She gives an example of twelve-year-old Melissa writing a poem about immigration, and choreographing a dance with some classmates. In so doing, "[t]hey had to comprehend and review the content conveyed in poetry and then map it to another compositional structure" (p. 579). Further, transmediation "generates new meaning when a student maps the content of one communication system onto the expressive plane of another", one example being the conveying of a "narrative sequence of a written text through a visual representation" (p. 580). If this sounds difficult or abstract, the following page may help illustrate possible products of transmediation: http://iam.colum.edu/janell/exhibits/transmediation/
Before objections about levels of difficulty are raised, I would like to make the following observations: 1. McCormick's study is focused on middle school students, and clearly suggests that this can work in this age group. 2. The example I cited from McCormick earlier shows that a twelve-year-old student managed -- and so did her classmates. 3. How well transmediation works obviously depends on the class. I do not mean whether the class is "high" or "low" in ability, or "mixed". I refer specifically to the readiness of the class to accept such a method -- that could depend on the level of motivation, rapport with and trust in the teacher, openness of colleagues and one's HOD to support this, etc.

ReplyDelete
Replies
kitFebruary 3, 2013 at 12:18 AM
My main concern with alternative assessments as part of Assessment for Learning is whether it will dramatically add to the teacher's workload (it shouldn't!) and whether it will be authentic (Wiggins, 1990). I was thus fascinated by Comers' suggestion of "Assessing students' comprehension via technology: cyber-hunts and Twitter summaries" (Comer, 2011).

Cyber-hunts are basically scavenger hunts where students trawl the Internet for specific answers to questions that the teacher has prepared, while Twitter summaries work by forcing students to summarise key points of the novel to fit the Twitter word count of 140 characters or less.

Both methods leverage on students' tech-savvy skills and engage them to critically think about what they are reading. The use of Twitter, especially, allows them to work as long as they have an internet connection!

I think this could be a radical way of monitoring students' progress in their reading as we get through a novel/play. Twitter would also allow students to feed off each others feeds and hopefully even get a conversation started out-of-class without fierce prompting by the teacher. The teacher could remain invisible and acknowledge in class any pertinent tweets or address misunderstandings that surface from monitoring them.

However, if the alternative assessment is needed for an overall grade, this might not be so ideal as it's hard to calculate and keep tabs on who tweeted better or more (and will that even be a good gauge?). If it's for monitoring the learning of students in day-to-day teaching, I think this could be effective.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 3, 2013 at 5:07 AM
As the article on transmediation had already been written on (and I could not find anything new to add to the rather extensive response to it), I did a search on related articles, and found this: "Multiple Intelligences in the English Class: An Overview," by Peter Smagorinsky. (It is available on jstor, if anyone is interested in reading it.) What interested me most about how the possibility of harnessing multiple intelligences via transmediation as a form of alternative assessment might benefit students who would otherwise be disadvantaged by the traditional forms of assessment we employ.

As we have discussed in class, there is no foreseeable moving away from writing as the main form of assessment in literature, because of the nature of the discipline itself. Moreover, many of us (as the products of the current system) are able to use linguistic and logical intelligences to reasonable degrees of success (at least enough to graduate with bachelor degrees requiring much analytical writing), and have become accustomed, at least, to "writing as thinking," whereby we write in order to think more clearly, and come to privilege this as the more effective method of analytical, if not academic, thinking.

This, however, tends to disadvantage students to whom either or both linguistic and logical intelligences do not come naturally; if we insist that both intelligences develop in tandem in order for successful engagement with literature (however this may be defined) to occur, we might well lose the interest of many students, who might have turned out to be brilliant literature students, if persuaded to apply themselves differently. Smagorinsky's is therefore interesting in that his research suggests that "in composing their [non-traditional] texts, the students engaged in a variety of processes that teachers value in writing [. . .] the process of composing their interpretive texts served to change the way they thought about the story" (22-3). If we were to move away from the assumption that writing is immediately necessary to thinking about literature, and therefore to uncouple these two intelligences (at least insofar as linguistic intelligence is required in the production of linguistic text), we might discover that students we had assumed were unable to engage with literary texts might in fact be able to be analytically engaged with them on other planes of intelligences; the training in writing, as it were, could come later, or at least be less emphasised in the classroom, until after sufficient analytical skill had been developed.

Obviously this would work better in a classroom not geared towards the O levels, such as a lower secondary class, and with the understanding that, with sufficient analytical skill developed, students would be guided in developing the more rigorous productive-linguistic skills necessary for the O levels or other traditional forms of standardised assessment. This would then be a little different from the systems where literature at lower secondary is ungraded (to keep it "fun" as they are not expected to take the subject at the O levels) in that clear rubrics and expectations in the form of assessment (of, possibly, transmediated texts) signal that this is still an academic, albeit non-traditional take on the subject.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rachel KwanFebruary 4, 2013 at 9:25 AM
I am interested in formative self-assessment as an alternative assessment for my own classroom execution. Andrade and Valtcheva define self-assessment as a “key element in formative assessment because it involves students in thinking about the quality of their own work, rather than relying on their teacher as the sole source of evaluative judgments” (12-13). They also state that the “primary purposes of engaging students in careful self-assessment are to boost learning and achievement, and to promote academic self-regulation, or the tendency to monitor and manage one’s own learning” (13) (cf. Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004). Self-assessment can thus be seen as a method of alternative assessment that gets students to reflect on their work and to learn (and improve) while doing so, encouraging students to be more active and involved in their learning, grooming them to be independent learners who are also critical thinkers as well. Andrade and Valtcheva also encourage the use of criteria-referenced self-assessment through the use of rubrics, in order to make (the criteria of) self-assessment clearer easier to follow. They also advocate using it as a formative form of assessment, stressing the need to avoid self-evaluation (summative assessment).

I find their suggestions very useful and practical, and plan to use this form of alternative assessment in my own teaching, because I would like to encourage independent learning in the classroom. I would, however, try to adapt Andrade’s and Valtcheva’s suggestions to suit the local classroom better. For instance, I think that most Singaporean students are (still) fixated on the idea of achieving good grades and aligning themselves with the ‘right’ answer in order to score As in written examinations. (There are, of course, students who do not fall into this category.) Getting these students to participate in formative self-assessment may not be easy as they may think it a waste of time, preferring to have the teacher evaluate their work, or to present them with a set of rubrics from which they can form their evaluations and get a grade. Their focus is on evaluation and not assessment. Perhaps what could be done is to balance the formative self-assessment with written tests (initially), so as to ‘motivate’ and show/explain to students the importance of formative self-assessment – the correlation between self-assessment and improvements in the subject.

Nonetheless, I think that formative self-assessment as an alternative assessment holds a lot of potential for usage in the classroom. As students get better at it as a result of prolonged exposure, they would possibly not only be encouraged to continue this practice, but also cultivate an interest or love for the subject because they are now able to better understand the subject and what it entails. I think that one thing which needs to be made known at the start is the reason(s) behind formative self-assessment and how it relates to Literature, as well as the purpose(s) for studying Literature as a subject. By tying these together, the student will be able to gain a better perspective of what he/she is doing, and the purpose for doing so.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Brennan KwaFebruary 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM
The issue of alternative assessment is an increasingly significant aspect in the literature classroom. Everyone have made interesting cases for different forms of alternative assessment but I find myself gravitating towards Jiamin's and Damien's notion of transmediation. I do agree that transmediation necessitates a deep understanding of the text before the process of transmediation can take place.

This the point whereby I think that Adler and Rouge (2005) can come in to aid in the deeper understanding and critical learning of a text before the transmediation process takes place in a more immersive manner.

Adler’s and Rouge’s idea is that of a discussion based classroom where students and teachers engage in a dialogue where ideas are exchanged freely and a discourse of critical thinking and openness can take place.

One key idea (which seems to keep coming up) is the co-creation of a set of ground rules governing classroom discussion that the teacher makes with the students. This is tied in with the clearly setting out the teacher’s expectations for the class discussion as well. These two ideas are interlinked because it is up to the teacher to ensure that the rules created will be conducive and productive to classroom discussion. When both of these factors are taken into consideration, students will be empowered and more inclined to participate according to the rules that they themselves set up.

Appleby made the point that if conversations in the classroom (critically related discussions not just small talk and gossip) are powerful enough, students will take the initiative to keep working in class even if the teacher is not present in it. While I think the idea is very attractive, I am still unsure if it is perhaps too idealized. But I do agree that I found classes most interesting when I was hearing from all parts of a classroom instead of just the teacher. This is due to the fact that we hear a multiplicity of views instead of just the one monological perspective of a teacher. I particularly like Adler’s and Rouge’s reorganization of the classroom space (p.40-41) into a series of different shapes to improve the conduciveness of classroom discussion. Take the circular classroom arrangement for example, I’ve seen firsthand how sitting in the circle makes each other’s comments more equally weighted and relevant. A teacher is able to become part of the conversation rather than the one who must bear the weight of the soliloquy (which alas is an all too common phenomenon in Singapore classrooms).

So I do think that Adler and Rouge have something to add to our continuing conversation on classroom discussion, their claims might not be as radical as Appleby’s but they provide a lot of useful hints and tips that go toward building a more inclusive and conducive classroom based on sharing and discussion.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Goh Wee KiatFebruary 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM
In the essay, “The Role of Assessment in Learning Culture”, Lorrie A. Shepard writes that assessment should “foster the development of important dispositions” and life-skills, such as the “willingness to persist in trying to solve difficult problems” (7). Summative assessments like written tests tend to place “great faith in externally imposed standards”, even to the extent of becoming a “heavy-handed system of rewards and punishments” (8-9). Should assessment for English Literature remain in the classroom, these “important dispositions” and life-skills will not be developed holistically in the students. So the question remains, what form of alternative assessments should be carried out?

Inspired by Dr. Suzanne Choo’s lecture on teaching global citizenship and ethics through English Literature in QCR520 last year, I started thinking about alternative assessments in the form of equipping students to apply what they learnt through social activism or, in the Singapore context, community involvement project (CIP). Reading an online article, “Cultural Production through Literature as Activism” (http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Cultural_Reproduction_Through_Literature_as_Activism), I sought to understand how such assessment can be created.

In the article, during the 1960s, African-American author, Toni Cade Bambara, has been known to use her writing to celebrate “the tradition of resistance and attempted to tap Black potential, and try to join the chorus of voices that argues that exploitation and misery are neither inevitable nor necessary”. For this to be possible, Bambara ensures that her writing contains “accurate information, verifiable facts, sound analyses, responsible research, principled study, and people’s assessment of the meaning of their lives” (so if we consider Bambara’s writing from the perspective of assessment, the quality of her writing is assessable and quantifiable). This article shows that Literature forms an important component in social justice, hence it is possible that social activism can be a form of assessment in Singapore schools.

A possible assessment can be rolled out this way. After going through Mildred D. Taylor’s “Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry”, the teacher can prepare students to do a class project of doing social work amongst the foreign workers. For six lessons, the teacher can prepare students through researching about the different nationalities who are working as construction workers in Singapore and the problems they have faced. The teacher should also encourage students to compare these issues with those surfaced in Mildred’s novel and have students document them. At the end of the six lessons, the teacher can divide the class into groups and supervise each group to buy groceries and hand it out to foreign workers in nearby construction sites, as CIP. The assessable components can be the documentation of the comparisons between the problems faced by foreign workers and those portrayed in Mildred’s novel, as well as how well they planned for the CIP.

Personally, I feel that to achieve what Shepard believes in, that assessment should help develop important dispositions and life-skills in students, social activism or CIP should be considered as a possible means of alternative assesment for English Literature.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Shu MayFebruary 5, 2013 at 3:56 AM
The article I chose to read was Rupa Beng Choo and Tan Yew Hock's "Harnessing Technology to Make Literature More Engaging and Student-centred in the Integrated Curriculum". They discuss how they successfully melded subjects like Literature, History and English into an integrated curriculum which broadened and deepened the students' understanding of the respective disciplines. They also discuss how they harness technology to come up with creative alternative assessments for the students (e.g. asking them to write blog posts on the character they have chosen, or to design a logo and manifesto for the "political party" or "civil organisation" they have chosen to set up in an imaginary scenario).

In the article, the authors emphasise how using "network learning" is a good way to motivate students to learn as they are able to do work anytime, anywhere. They also talked about self-directed learning and argued that assessments such as forum postings can elicit a range of responses from a greater pool of students.

What stood out to me in the article was how tightly the assessment was integrated into the curriculum. Although some of the tasks were very creative and original (e.g. asking students to design a logo and write a party manifesto), they were still meaningful and tightly linked to what the students had been learning thus far. This reminded me that alternative assessments should not be simply attempts to move away from a pen-and-paper model, but should instead be purposeful and well thought through.

Although I do think that technology does provide the space for students to do more work outside of class time, I wonder whether it really makes them more self-motivated? Moreover, if more and more assignments are being done outside of class time, how does this impact the overall homework load that students have? My personal view is that sometimes such "creative" assignments end up taking more time than a traditional pen-and-paper test. For instance, students might have to discuss with their peers, send various design drafts back and forth and edit them, write out a rationale, write out their individual reflections... As teachers we should also be mindful of how much extra time such activities might take up, and possibly give students the time to complete parts of these assignments during class. Hence, it is not just about designing an alternative assessment that fits in with the rest of the curriculum, but also taking into account practical considerations such as timetabling and the amount of personal time that students might have to give up in order to complete the assignment.
ReplyDelete
Replies
TiyingFebruary 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM
I like the idea of having students’ creative works plastered all over the wall. This will allow them to feel a sense of pride in being able to showcase their works, and not just doing creative tasks for the sake of being assessed for grades. This kind of “physical environment stimulate sharing and invite conversations” (39). The idea of asking them to sit facing each other would be conducive since they have a more “visible” audience than if they sit facing the front and talk only to the teacher. However, I feel that this is workable in a small class, since it may be hard to maneuver the furniture of a typical classroom. This might be more workable in a JC though, for example, in my JC where there were not many tables and chairs, and we used to sit (or lie down) on the floor and discuss our ideas. I find that ideas do flow more naturally, though at times the lack of tables makes it hard to take down useful notes.
One common problem of classroom discussion is that only a few students were actually participating. Passing the hat is a good idea for the more quiet students to let their voice be heard and clarify their questions thus allowing them to have more participation in class. This can also be followed up with another suggestion in the article, where a written evaluation of the discussion for formative purposes can be submitted so that the teachers understand what “students learned from the discussion and who or what influenced their thinking” (71). However, I have an issue with keeping a seating chart to track the contributions of students, since this can create unnecessary pressure. Furthermore, assessing students based on the number of responses they contributed is assessing feels too much like assessing for quantity over quality, and students might “respond for the sake of responding”, thus defeating the purpose of a purposeful discussion.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM
The article that I read was Melissa's Comer "Young Adult Literature and Alternative Assessment Measures". In this article, Comer reiterates a point that we have covered extensively in class about the purpose of assessment and the need to differentiate between assessment for learning and assessment of learning. She posits that through summative assessment practices (i.e. exams and their results) can "enlighten instruction", alternative forms of assessments such as formative authentic assessment will help inform teaching practices and instruction in a "more holistic manner" (239). Comer makes references to Wiggins' term of authentic assessment. According to Wiggins, assessment is authentic when student performance is examine based on worthy intellectual tasks.Unlike traditional tests which tend to only reveal students' ability to recognize, recall and regurgitate, authentic assessment require students to be "effective performers with acquired knowledge". That is to say instead of circling the right responses on a MCQ script or answer questions with only one standard answer, authentic assessment presents the student with a full array of instructional tasks that will reveal his/her ability to craft polished and informed responses.In other words, the students' level of learning is no longer pegged on proxy scores that have no obvious meaning or usefulness, but rather supports learning as authentic assessment engage students in challenges and roles that help them "rehearse for the complex ambiguities of... adult and professional life" (Wiggins). While traditional tests like MCQ can be valid indicators or predictors of academic performance,

"too often our tests mislead students and teachers about the kinds of work that should be mastered. Norms are not standards; items are not real problems; right answers are not rationales...Students come to believe that learning is cramming; teachers come to believe that tests are after-the-fact, imposed nuisances composed of contrived questions--irrelevant to their intent and success. Both parties are led to believe that right answers matter more than habits of mind and the justification of one's approach and results."

Comer uses the concept of authentic assessment in a very practical way in the classroom. I am particularly interested in two applications, namely assessing students' interests via an interest inventory/ survey and assessing students' comprehension via knowledge rating charts.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 7, 2013 at 9:42 PM
The article I chose to read was Tara Leigh Tharp's "'Wiki, Wiki, Wiki - WHAT?' Assessing Online Collaborative Writing". I thought that the idea of collaborative writing is very interesting as this does not seem to be something I have encountered throughout my education.

Although teachers are very fond of collaborative work, this does not usually involve writing tasks and more importantly, I have often found group work to be more cooperative than collaborative (ICT terms are haunting me) as "efficient" students like me prefer to split up the work and do them individually before compiling them into a whole. In her article, Tharp calls this type of work "hierarchical" and quotes the example of Carmen (haha!) who deletes an entire section of a classmate's work because she "didn't want the group to get a bad grade" (42). Of course, actions like that tend to undermine the purpose of collaborative work, and I recognize that this is a common and valid concern for teachers trying to implement collaborative work.

However, I also do feel that collaborative writing work has a lot of values, some of which Tharp stated. For example, in the case of Charlie and Andy, the "lack of structure and the social nature of the project made it meaningful" (43) to the disruptive students, and I personally feel that allowing students to take ownership of their work gives them a lot more motivation to learn. The grouping of weaker and stronger students too, can end up in very different results depending on the attitudes of the group members, but if students are willing to learn from one another, allowing a collaborative writing exercise where students are given the opportunity to edit one another's work and contribute their diverse and differing ideas can definitely benefit all of them.

Personally, I think I would want to try collaborative writing in my classroom as I feel that students can learn a lot from one another in terms of essay writing skills. I remember when I was in JC and failing all my literature essay assignments, it was through self-directed peer learning that I leaned how to write a coherent essay, and this is something that no amount of teacher feedback could help me (back then) as I still was not able to comprehend what I was missing even with repeated feedback. Also, giving students a particular platform for them to do all their discussion and writing could prove to be valuable as the work done is always logged on the page and hence, students can have a record of how things have progressed in their own hands.

I do agree with Tharp though, that a lot of groundwork must be done for this to be successful, as students have to be taught more than just how to work in groups but also the technical parts such as how to navigate the platform, and also reminded of the need to direct all work-related discussion onto this platform etc. Yet at the same time, I feel that this way of working could be effective, especially for social learners as well as students who need a little more reason for motivation.
ReplyDelete
Replies
LizFebruary 8, 2013 at 1:10 AM
After reading Faith Ong's "ICT-infused Learning in a Literature Classroom: Lessons from a "Neighbourhood School", I am now further grounded in my opinion that the use of technology in the classroom can be highly beneficial (especially for weaker students). In my opinion, one of the greatest challenges of teaching literature is trying to teach it to students who refuse to be interested in it. I feel that for students who are weaker in their language skills, they often already walk into a literature class feeling defeated, especially if they were given the impression that literature is a difficult subject. If you top that off with a lack of interest in the subject, these students are doubly hard for the teacher to get through to.

However, with Ms Ong's article detailing her use of Facebook and videos to teach Romeo and Juliet, we are provided with living proof that "it can be a means by which reluctant learners overcome the difficulty of reading a Shakespearean text." (87) Technology, especially when using tools that are popular with students like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or blogs, can be a real bridge between the study of literature and disinterested students. Given too that literature aims to open students' minds and increase creativity and critical thinking skills. It seems almost silly not to take advantage of the myriad ICT tools available to us.

Ms Ong's use of Facebook to teach Romeo and Juliet was quite effective in terms of assessment as well as facilitating class discussions. The differentiation of learning was quite clearly visible in the products created. Her idea of engaging the students in "interactive online play" (87) was also intriguing as the idea of having her assessment method be 'playful' might be the key to drawing in students to the subject as literature becomes not only less difficult and threatening but also fun.

Despite my great belief in technology in the classroom and the article's account of its usefulness, Ms Ong does point out a significant problem, namely the negative attitudes of teachers towards ICT. This might actually be a more significant problem with Literature teachers than other subjects as many lit teachers can be real purists at heart who cannot stand the thought of having Shakespeare bastardized on Facebook. Incorporating ICT in the classroom is definitely time-consuming and will certainly involve more work on the teachers' part. So one can't really hold it against teachers who reject it. As such, perhaps ICT is not for everyone but I suppose one thing I wonder about is whether then the choice to incorporate ICT should just be left to the discretion of teachers or does it possess such a great amount of potential for producing miracles in the Literature classroom that it should definitely be used?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Edward ChngFebruary 8, 2013 at 1:33 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Edward ChngFebruary 8, 2013 at 1:35 AM
Hi Everyone,

I read Carmen's post and I was thinking that collaborative writing is definitely something new and refreshing that I might explore. Indeed, as Tharp and Carmen both point out, there are plenty of challenges, as writing is already a complex and open-ended task and the presence of multiple collaborators definitely adds to the complexity of writing. I did a quick search and my research points out some 5 practical considerations for the groundwork that is necessary:

1. establish agenda or goal of the collaboration effort

2. identify writing tasks and dividing those tasks among group members

3. tracking individual idea generation, defining rules for document management

4. identifying roles for group members, communicating ideas

5. managing conflict

(from: Universiy of Pittsburgh http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~spring/cas/node31.html)

Practaical considerations aside, I personally agree with Carmen that collaborative writing can be very beneficial for all parties involved. In my personal experience, writing and organisation was never my strong suit until the later years of my university times, even in the times I did possess the necessary knowledge or "raw material" to write any particular piece of essay. As mentioned in my previous blog post on feedback and assessment, I would get an A and never really know why, and I would fail and also be none the wiser. It was only when I got to university and recieved the help of a highly accomplished senior that I managed to pin down how to write forcefully and with organisation, and be able to know with confidence when I will get an A and when I would not.

In many ways , what we have learnt about scaffolding and Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development applies here, in that weaker students in a collaborating group get the opportunity to learn from the stronger ones. In the beginning they get to mimic, just as I did in year 1 looking at my friend's papers and trying my hardest to copy the style and even some phrases, and later on (theoretically, anyway) as students gain confidence in their own writing they can be freed and able to write proficiently on their own (movement to a higher ZPD). In addition, when the teacher gives feedback to the group (as he should, periodically and frequently enough) as the project is progressing, students will be able to learn not only what they themselves are doing well or badly, but also what their peers are doing well or badly.

Of course, this will not work if the weaker students just decide to freeload, and close monitoring by the teacher and a clear designation of roles and parts is therefore necessary.

There are also other fringe benefits, such as students learning how to work with one another on collaborative projects (needed for the workplace), and also less time spent grading and marking for the teacher ;)

Ed
ReplyDelete
Replies
markgohFebruary 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM
The article i'm commenting on is Tara Leigh Tharp's "'Wiki, Wiki, Wiki - WHAT?' Assessing Online Collaborative Writing". I decided on this article as I feel that collaborative learning is becoming quite an important component in teaching and learning these days.

As Tharp puts it, we live in an era of networked pedagogies (sounds fanciful but it's true) as the way people gather information and learn about things has evolved from the written/printed word on paper to that of words/pictures exchanged/shared on the internet. Because of that, we as educators have to play catch-up with how our students learn, be it scholastic materials or things of personal-interest.

In my opinion, collaborative learning is essential in this globalised age where everyone is interconnected in some way or another because it prepares our students for the modern world out there. Students will in turn, be thrusted into a glimpse of "working life" where they have to deal with the information they put online for others to read and more importantly, deal with people they are working with. Having said that, although Tharp has raised good points about the concerns of collaborative learning on wiki such as, students deleting the work of their peers because they deem it as "not good enough", it is essential to point out that these are part and parcel of life (talk about real world context). Hence, i do believe that students should be given exposure to all forms of collaborative learning as it teaches them values such as respect (for each other's opinions), team work, patience and so on. It also grants weaker students the opportunity to learn from their peers rather than having them work in a competitive environment where each student is solely concern for his/her own well-being.

Having said that, there are also some qualms that i personally have towards collaborative learning such as assessment and fairness. Because of its nature, it is hard for teachers to give a fair assessment of a students' work and learning. Hence, I believe that more ground work has to be implemented on the part of the teacher in order for the assessment to be a fair one. These could include: regularly checks on wiki page, regular consultation and even peer evaluation which might potentially turn group mates into enemies because there might be a tendency for "backstabbing to take place". Then again, this is what happens in real life as well and teachers can use this as a learning point for students in preparation for their working life in future.

-mark
ReplyDelete
Replies
Miss GingerFebruary 8, 2013 at 6:08 AM
Like Rachel, I am interested in how self-assessment can help my Literature students. Whilst the Andrade and Valtcheva article strongly recommends self-assessment ought not be a form of evaluation (ie. a graded exercise), the article does suggest that self-assessment will naturally result in better performance. It is noted that “self-regulation and achievement are closely related: students who set goals, make flexible plans to make them, and monitor their progress tend to learn more and do better in school than students who do not.” Better grades may be a by-product of self-assessment, but more importantly, it is not the only one. Encouraging self-assessment also encourages students to be more independent, self-directed learners (which is what we want, don’t we!).
One useful example of self-assessment that was cited was the example from writing (p.14) that got students actively involved in identifying whether their work met the criteria stated in the rubrics; put in other (nicer) terms, this involved students “seeking evidence of success in their draft [pieces of work] (p.14)”. In this activity, students use colored pencils or highlighters to underline key phrases in the rubrics with one color, then underline in their drafts the evidence of having fulfilled the standard set out by the key phrase. I think this is a good way for teachers to find out if students indeed comprehend the requirements set out by the rubrics – in my experience as a student, teachers did not spend much time explaining and checking if students understood rubrics at all. As noted in the article, “simply handing out a rubric does not guarantee much of anything” (p.14). Students need to be actively involved in actually using the rubrics as a guide or a self-assessment tool for rubrics to be meaningful to them. This colored-pen/highlighter exercise may be time-consuming initially, but it certainly requires students to be more conscious of their writing; after some practice, students might even gradually internalize these requirements and find themselves bearing these rubrics in mind when writing in future.
That said, I think there are some limitations to students’ ability to self-assess. When the standards demanded by rubrics are objective or technical ones (I’m thinking of say, the use of quotations from a set text to support an argument; or the use of correct format in situational writing), there would be less ambiguity when a student assess his/her work. But when the standards demanded concern issues of fluency or coherence, for instance, I foresee that students may lack the skills and experience needed to assess accurately. In this respect, the limitations of self-assessment are much more pronounced in humanities subjects than in subjects like the sciences. Unlike the solving of equations which can be deconstructed in a step-by-step manner, writing a fluent, coherent or persuasive essay often involves elements that are not so tangible – I am thinking of writing Style, which cannot be so easily deconstructed. As such, teachers should be aware that whilst self-assessment encourages student reflection and self-directed learning, it must be coupled with peer-assessment and teacher feedback.
ReplyDelete
Replies
priyankaFebruary 8, 2013 at 5:57 PM
While reading "Wiki, Wiki, What?" the first clear phrase that struck a cord with me, was "freedom of choice" and authority of a student over his/her own work. These two ideas are often reiterated by pedagogical discourse and oft neglected by teachers in the classroom. How do we offer students real ownership of their work? How in collaborative writing can there be the question of authority? The idea of authority and authorship are cloely tied. If a piece of writing is truly collaborative, then there is no question of there being a single "author" who holds the authority over that writing. Michel Foucault writes that the very birth of the author is connected to a "privileged moment of individualization" (Foucault, 1969). How then does collaborative writing provide the instance of authority to all students? Often sweeping statements are made by scholars regarding certain terms, overgeneralization of ideas abound. While reading this particular article, while on one hand the ingenuity of engaging students using ICT seemed applaudable, I found problemmatic the uncritical hyperbole of the Tharp in oversimplifing the real obstacles that a teacher may find in actually piloting such an endeavour. The article seems to be a glorified presentation of her successful class project than a critical deconstrution of the use of Wikis or any such ICT tool in the classroom.

However, wikis as a collaborative learning tool is no longer a novel idea and has been used and tested. Parker and Chao (2007) quoting Jonassen et al (1999) proclaim that wikis with their "unique and powerful information sharing and collaboration features... [act] as cognitive reflection and amplification tools, aiding the construction of meaning through the act of self-design of knowledge databases". They also maintain that such "social software" enable to confirm the view of the WEB as a space where anyone can participate. And perhaps it is this spirit of egalitarianism that I want to promote in the classroom rather than the idea of authority over one's work. Using a collaborative writing platform such as this I would like students to believe that everyone has a view and that everyone has the right to express that view. While reading the Cormick essay on Transmediation, I was reminded that analysis can be expressed in any number of sign systems and wikis provide a good platform through which students of different propensities can come together and collaborate on their own analysis of a text, in whatever sign system they value, because it is not just a space where one can write but also upload other media such as videos or pictures. So a student's expression is not necessarily lexical, and but can include diverse sign systems.

Another important aspect of using wikis is that it establishes a community of practice where students come together and exchange and even create knowledge, collaboratively (Schaffert, Bischof, et al., 2006). It is also constructivist, as it allows learners to manipulate and engage in the process of meaning making and learning, it is as Tharp puts it learn by doing than a passive building of schema.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Jodee YapFebruary 9, 2013 at 12:59 AM
One important point that Comer makes in the article YAL and alternative assessments is the fact that students' interest is one key component to take into account when teachers try to determine inclusion of a text. This is because the choices that are made regarding what text to teach ultimately has "the ability to impact motivation, influence comprehension and ... affect lifelong reading and learning
habits" (Comer, 2011). I agree with Liz that if we want more students to have a positive viewpoint regarding literature, so that they dont come into the class both feeling defeated and inept, then it is important that alternative forms of assessment are used to so that the focus is on documenting individual student's growth rather than pitting students against students.

When posed the question asking for a the number of students taking literature today, as compared to in the past 10-20 years, Mr Heng Swee Keat revealed these startling numbers:

Literature at ‘O’ level in 1992 was 16,970 (47.9% of the Secondary 4 cohort).
Literature at 'O' level in 2001 the candidature decreased to 7322 (21.8% of the cohort)
‘N(A)’ candidature also decreased from 3,383 (26.5% of the Secondary 4 cohort) to 428 (4.2% of the cohort) in 2001.

Whatever the reasons may be for this drastic drop in candidature, be it school ranking, or parent/student perception, that the number of students taking literature is indeed declining at a exponential rate is undeniable, and hence it is all the more important for teachers to relook and reassess out methods, before we lose our students (and therefore our jobs haha).

Although it may be possible to determine inclusion of text based on interest at the lower secondary level, (Swiss Cottage is using Shrek as a lower secondary text), choosing the text at the upper secondary level would prove more difficult because of the list of set text that schools have to adhere to. Perhaps students could be the set text and asked to pick the text they are more interested in so and that these children have a "vested interest" in designing the class content, that would hopefully make them more motivated to read and henceforth learn. ( Comer, 2011)

Comer also discusses the use of cyber haunts and twitter summaries as a method of engaging students and simultaneously assessing their learning. This form of assessment for learning is necessary if we want to remain relevant and ICT would provide us with that entry point into the world of the adolescents. The knowledge rating chart is also a great diagnostic test that teachers can give out in order to figure out what students know, do not know, or want to know, instead of relying on a verbal method or interpretation of non-verbal cues to pinpoint their level of understanding. Such a test is more accurate as it gives students the anonymity and spares students the embarrassment of admitting publicly the things that they are unsure of.

- Jodee
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 9, 2013 at 2:01 AM
In his article on Transmediation, McCormick lauds the immense benefits of transmediation in the classroom, citing its inherent ability to make students “read the central concept... identify separate ideas, and recognise how they form a whole”, essentially forcing them to “reexamine the central concept of the original composition” (580).

Under ideal circumstances (assuming that the students are self-directed learners who are intellectually hungry and willing to challenge themselves in probing deeper into the essence of a text), I can foresee transmediation providing students with a highly engaging and enjoyable classroom experience insofar as it challenges them to reassess all that they know about a text (or a certain aspect of the text) in order to reconceptualise it in the (in the case of paintings, music, and mime) non-verbal and (in the case of videos) performance mediums. Apart from getting students to rethink concepts, the act of getting them to represent their ideas in a medium of their choice allows the students to tap on their learning styles, allowing them to express concepts in the most comfortable way possible, ensuring that students who are weaker in writing will not be disadvantaged by an inability to express their ideas to maximum effect. The teacher can later help to tie these generatedideas back to the form of literary writing, which may prove more useful in helping students to write well than if the teacher were to keep getting the students to write without first letting them develop a solid understanding of literary concepts.

However, taking into consideration the nature of institutionalised education in Singapore, there still remain many crippling obstacles to the place of transmediation as an established part of classroom assessment. Firstly, secondary school students who have undergone mainstream education throughout primary school will not be equipped with the disciplinary skills required to translate a concept into another medium. Secondly, teachers themselves, who will be unfamiliar with transmediation themselves, will face challenges when guiding the students in the practice of transmediation.

Essentially, I believe that transmediation still holds enough benefits to be useful in the classroom. Perhaps, with a bit of time and an increased emphasis on cross-disciplinary training in the classroom, transmediation may just become an essential and beneficial part of mainstream education.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 9, 2013 at 7:52 AM
I tried to read some of the other posts on Transmediation, and particularly agree with Damien's post in that practising it in higher degrees of expressiveness and kinesthesia than our students are accustomed to will take scaffolding and encouragement. At lower levels however, such as the drawing exercise, I feel that there should be no problems in eliciting class participation.

A memorable experience during ESE supports this. Students were tasked with illustrating the poem "Giant Thunder" by James Reeves, in which Thunder had been personified as a surly, irascible figure. One particularly mischievous group first drew the standard thunderstroke, a zigzag, and clearly realised while in the act of drawing that it resembled another figure - The Thinker. Associations multiplied, and the final product was an anthropomorphic thunderstroke crouched in the unfortunately constipated posture of The Thinker, its face locked in a grim frown, as ambiguous matter, perhaps rain, hail or cloud, poured out rudely from its posterior. As typical of 13 year old male humour as this product was, it offered a unique interpretation of Giant Thunder's cantankerous personality. More importantly, it underscored their ability and willingness to participate in association and metaphor: "the invention of new connections and meanings" (Mccormick citing Siegel 1995). Such levels of critical thinking are the wet dreams of teachers, such as myself, frustrated at our inability to engage the higher critical faculties of our students.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownFebruary 10, 2013 at 6:35 AM
The article I read was Melissa Comer's "Young Adult Literature and
Alternative Assessment Measures". In her essay, she states that assessment is meant to "aid the teacher in determining what should be taught and when" (Comer 2011). She also quotes Wiggins' definition that an authentic assessment provides "observable products and comprehensible evidence regarding students' performance." (Comer 2011) Ultimately, it is meant to be a tool that will allow the teacher to "[adapt] teaching strategies and/or students... choose learning strategies in which they are engaged" (Comer 2011).

I believe the keyword here is "engaged", because really, how many students are actually engaged and interested in learning when the word "assessment" comes up in the local context? To them, teachers usually use assessment as a means of calculating their CA and that's... it. Half the time, they're not actually interested in knowing what goes on in the lit classroom anyway.

Moving on, I think what attracted me to this article was that Comer used Twitter as one of the tools for assessment in her classes. What the students do is that they "summarize the storyline from a particular character’s point of view through short and succinct tweets, forcing them to look at the key points." (Comer 2011)
It's a good way of getting students to articulate their points in a concise manner as they are faced with a 140-character limit. This ensures that they only take what is important in the text, while leaving our other irrelevant information.
(Sidenote: There's actually a book called Twitterature, where plays and other classics are turned into tweets instead. It's hilarious but straight-to-the-point, and students will be able to understand easily.)

Comer also mentions something called cyber-hunting, where the students have to "think and search for responses and apply existing schema" (2011) to answer the probing questions. Both cyber-hunting and Twitter make use of technological platforms to assess students, and I feel that this is a good way of engaging them. Students are already familiar with such technology and using them for school will be a bonus rather than a boon (hopefully).

The two assessments that Comer introduced reminds me of another online tool called Edmodo, which most of us are familiar with thanks to ICT lessons. Edmodo is basically a censored version of Facebook. Similar to what Comer did with her Twitter assessment, students can pretend to be different characters and communicate with other characters by posting on each others' walls. Through their responses, teachers can quickly gauge how much students know or do not understand and adapt different strategies to help guide them in their understanding.

However, I think these assessment activities should be restricted to lower secondary school students as it's a quick way of ensuring their engagement. Upper secondary students would probably need to articulate their thoughts in a more 'proper' setting where their words are not restricted as much.
ReplyDelete
Replies
VandathielFebruary 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM
One of the most common gripes about Alternative Assessments for Literature is that methods such as Transmediation do not prepare students for the variants of academic writing called for in the major school examinations and beyond.

The main assumption that this critique operates on is that the proper (and only valid) methodology of literary studies revolves around writing of essays; that to give our students a good grasp of what literature is about is then to give them an introduction into the art of the essay (while claiming -- not entirely wrongly -- that it also helps in their english skills). It also happens to be very intimidating to literature students at all levels.

In Tara Leigh Tharp's "'Wiki, Wiki, Wiki - WHAT?' Assessing Online Collaborative Writing", Tharp brings forth the point rather convincingly that it is the collaborative construction of a body of knowledge that is important in literature, not merely the writing of essays. The wiki method of assessment can essentially be employed as a representation of literature as a consortium of knowledge that is brought about by the tabling and debating of ideas. This collective body is not unlike what is being done at the highest levels of academia, minus the fancy writing and humongous page counts. Taken with this perspective, this type of collaborative assessment is actually a better representation of literature than essay writing portrays.

My only concern is one that already has been raised by other posters and Tharp herself: that it is neigh impossible to grade the contributions of each member in an objective manner. Perhaps the solution to this is to scaffold the entire assessment not as a group project where they each are working to produce a single product, but instead an individual project where their work will looked at, responded to and eventually be pooled into a giant collective. This ensures that each students work is gradable, easily traceable and that their work engages each other instead of compromising the learning of individuals for the sake of the end product.

-Jason
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment