Re: portfolio assessment

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Eugene Matusov: "Re: boundary objects and evaluation, aka portfolios"
• Previous message: Eugene Matusov: "Re: assessment and evaluation"

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BE6421.2CA40E40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Michelle and everybody--

Let me go through your message and address questions you asked.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle Lee & Brad Lambert <ezekiel who-is-at sprint.ca>
To: ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
Date: Monday, March 01, 1999 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: portfolio assessment
=20
=20
=20
=20
----------
From: Michelle Lee & Brad Lambert <ezekiel who-is-at sprint.ca>
To: U of O Learning processes in the educational setting Listserv =
<PED3101-L who-is-at mercury.cc.uottawa.ca>
Subject: Re: portfolio assessment
Date: 1999=A6~3=A4=EB1=A4=E9 AM 09:53
=20
Hi everyone!
I agree with Matusov's take on assessment in general - that is with =
regards to the politics of it - but I don't really understand his =
argument against portfolios in particular. First, how can any assessment =
"be embedded in the practice itself?" Doesn't assessment by definition =
imply some type of reflection on the value of a completed process or =
product even if it is only partially completed?=20

Eugene: In my view, there are different types of reflection: some =
emedded and some disembedded and some probably both. There is a type of =
reflection that is embedded in the flow of activity or events. For =
example, when I drive a car and talk with my wife, I do a lot of =
decision making reflection on how I drive but this type of reflection =
and decision amking is embedded in the flow of events and I may not even =
notice it. Our culture, unlike many others, is not very good on =
recorgnizing importance of embedded type of reflection or =
reflection-in-action. Often we expect reflection to be out-of-action. =
And we (our culture) often value this type of reflection as the only =
possible (and the only visible).=20

Or, doesn't it imply some type of objective or "outside" perspective =
even if it is simply the learner stepping back and looking at the =
practice? Maybe I don't understand Portfolio assessment the way Matusov =
does. Anyway, portfolio assessment seems to be the most fair type of =
assessment I am yet to come across, especially if learners can be =
encouraged to choose their own best loved efforts and submit those =
against assessment criteria which they helped establish (e.g., rubrics). =
What better way is there to engage young learners in a reality they will =
most certainly face as adults seeking employment? And, in asking this =
question I think I see my biggest objection to Matusov's e-mail - he =
doesn't appear to offer any alternative.

Eugene: I did it but in another email. My alternative is to realize =
that so called thrust for assessment does not inherently come out of =
learning/guiding processes but it is a tool of negotation among =
communities-stakeholders for getting resources and support. Realization =
of this fact may lead to different solutions like involving all parties =
(including students) in designing this tool of negotation and expecting =
that this tool of negotation to change with changing the negotiation. =
Anohter implication can be protecting of learning/guiding processes from =
negative side-effects of such negotation tool as divorced assessment =
including protfolio. Let me give, probably, the most bizzare form of =
portfolio assessement of a teaching process is putting video camera in a =
teddy bear to assess how good the babysitter is with your child. On =
smaller scale, in the less bizzare froms of portfolio assessments, the =
survallance and recording of "mistakes" is still there (as well as =
creating a competition). These are negative side-effects. As =
recognized as such, I think it is possible to deal with them (to =
counter-act) by shielding learning/guiding processes as much as =
possible, knowing that the assessment has another important role (i.e., =
negotiation tool). There are porbably some other implications as well.
=20
And so Professor Matusov, we may have not been privy to all of your =
correspondence - could you please enlighten us as to how you think =
assessment should take place in our schools and ultimately our =
workplaces?

Eugene: I'm not sure that I'm "enlightening" anybody (maybe, on the =
contrary, obscuring) but I'm ready to share my thoughts :-) As one of =
educational stakeholders (i.e., as an educator myself, as an =
academician, as a student of Spanish, as a parent, and, finaly, as just =
plain folk), I'm against using divorced assessment for creating (or =
better to say contributing to creating) failure and disabilities in =
students as, I believe, it often occurs now. Divorced assessment can be =
used, for example, to check possibility for discrimantion or some other =
important goals (including accountability). But such "indangarious =
species" as learning and guiding should be preserved. As to workplaces, =
it depends on workplace -- many of workplaces do not have any divorced =
assessments. Many of those that have know that "their bottom line" is =
not assessement but profit or some other "inherent" criteria. =20

What do you think?

Take care,

Eugene
=20
Thank You - Brad Lambert - University of Ottawa
----------
> From: Barbara Graves <bgraves who-is-at UOTTAWA.CA>
> To: Multiple recipients of list PED3101-L =
<PED3101-L who-is-at mercury.cc.uottawa.ca>
> Subject: Re: portfolio assessment
> Date: 1999=A6~3=A4=EB1=A4=E9 AM 06:59
>=20
> Hi Everyone
> For your interest, The following response was sent to a discussion =
group on
> learning and schools by Eugene Matusov an educational researcher =
currently
> at the university of Delaware. He presents a provocative and =
interesting
> take on why he is against portfolio assessment.
>=20
> barbara
>=20
> >Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:59:48 -0800 (PST)
> >X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: procmail set sender to
> >xmca-request who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu using -f
> >X-Authentication-Warning: weber.ucsd.edu: Processed from queue
> >/usr/spool/mqueue/xqueue
> >Reply-To: <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> >From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> >To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> >Subject: RE: portfolio assessment
> >Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:55:26 -0500
>=20
> >> Eugene,
> >>
> >> Can you tell us more about why you're against portfolio =
assessment?
> >>
> >> Charles Nelson
> >> c.nelson who-is-at mail.utexas.edu
> >>
>=20
>=20
> >
> >There are several reasons that I don't like any form of =
predefined
> >assessment in general and portfolio in specific. First, my =
general reasons:
> >
> >1) I think the only "authentic" assessment of learning is that is =
embedded
> >in the practice itself and can't be separated from the =
participants, events,
> >and contexts. When people learn how to speak, to ride a bicycle, =
to become
> >lovers, to tease others, to report on neighbors to the =
authorities (you name
> >it :-) they do not need any "assessment" of their learning. When =
a child
> >learns to read at home, parents know the progress by simply =
perceiving how
> >the child participates in the reading activities: whether s/he =
asks to read,
> >enjoys reading, tries to read him/herself, ask to go to the =
library, talks
> >about the books, tells stories, and so on.
> >
> >2) Any form of inscribing so-called "learning progress" can be =
(potentially?
> >no, actually!) very harmful for the learners by focusing (i.e., =
constructing
> >the focus) on learner's mistakes, monopolizing the definition of =
learning
> >(and non-learning), imposing learning agendas, creating =
disabilities.
> >
> >3) The need for assessment separated from the activities =
themselves is not
> >inherent in learning (as we saw) but in a specific form of =
negations of
> >communities involved in formal education. I have a strong claim =
that any
> >assessment divorced from the activity itself (from its flow) is =
harmful for
> >the learners (newcomers) on way or another (or at least, so far I =
couldn't
> >find any counter example or argument). I can relax my claim a =
bit if we
> >stop searching for "the authentic assessment" (see below).
> >
> >4) Current formal education represents a rather unique situation =
of learning
> >when many people- and communities- stakeholders are not directly
> >present/involved in the learning/guiding processes with the =
students.
> >People who provide kids (i.e., parents), people who control =
resources (state
> >and federal government, districts, boards, taxpayers, business, =
politicians,
> >colleges) are not in the classroom themselves.
> >
> >5) Assessments divorced from the activities are nothing more than =
"boundary
> >objects" of power struggle between education stakeholder =
communities. I my
> >view, there are mainly two players known: government and =
businesses.
> >Parents, college professors, taxpayers are small fish. Currently =
government
> >has much-much more power of control (like a diffuse monopoly) =
than anybody
> >else but businesses in US are getting more and more now (there is =
a momentum
> >building). The issue of assessment is the issue of getting =
resources (cf.
> >current discourses on accountability and quality). The teacher =
is viewed as
> >a conductor (i.e., slave) of the most powerful stakeholders. It =
is
> >difficult for a slave to teach kids to be free (but, of course, =
not
> >impossible).
> >
> >6) It will be much better for learners if all educational =
stakeholders will
> >realize that their thrust for assessment divorced from the =
practice and
> >learning processes is a power and negotiation tool that is NOT =
inherently
> >rooted in the learning processes.
> >
> >7) If this realization happens, people may start thinking how to =
protect
> >learners and learning processes from the assessment so needed by =
the
> >stakeholder communities of practices for their own negotiations. =
Also they
> >may start expecting that the divorced assessment is a very =
dynamic object
> >reflecting a current distribution of power and a state of =
negotiation among
> >them (rather than the "authentic assessment" -- if you want real
> >authenticity, engage with real people, i.e., students).
> >
> >As to why I don't like portfolio assessment is specific:
> >
> >1) It seems to be another way of exploitation of teachers by =
colonization of
> >their time. It also another way to make teachers guilty.
> >
> >2) To have any meaningful portfolio, it should become a means of
> >communication among educational stakeholders rather than a tool =
of
> >"authentic" learning assessment.
> >
> >3) I believe that it is communication creates its tools rather =
than tools
> >create communication. I was really impressed by Yrjo Engstrom's =
work on
> >medical records (i.e., "portfolio assessment of patents' =
disease") in
> >Finland. He showed very convincingly that without institutional =
support of
> >communication among doctors, medical records are not very useful =
(if not
> >harmful).
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >
>=20
> Barbara Graves
> Faculty of Education
> University of Ottawa
> 145 Jean-Jacques Lussier
> Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5
>=20
> email: bgraves who-is-at uottawa.ca
> phone: (613) 562-5800 ext 4106
=20

------=_NextPart_000_0056_01BE6421.2CA40E40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">