Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘assessing

 
In 1982, the late Prince may have partied like it was 1999.
 

 

But in 2016, why are we assessing like it is still 1999? Or maybe even 1899?

Yesterday I started sharing how one might assess the unGoogleable.

Today I share another idea. Since it is the weekend, it is time for something light yet serious. Seriously cool and for serious consideration.

It is not about what you claim you can do. It is not just how well you perform on tests.

It is about what you can actually do. It is about how you can combine knowledge and skills that schools still offer in separate silos and make your own sense of them.

It is about making your own connections and putting your own take on things.


Video source

It is about pursuing your passions and working on what you are good at so that you become better. It is about sharing what is special and creative about you to the world around you.

It is about leveraging on current and emerging technologies to tell your parents, teachers, and employers what you are learning and what you can do.

It is about showing the unGoogleable and letting others decide what your wares are worth.

Last week Sugata Mitra suggested this at a leadership conference in Singapore:

This is not new to thought leaders and those that follow them.

For example, in 2012 I tweeted a link on the Danish experiment on allowing Internet use during exams. Here are some other links I have been collecting in Diigo.

While there are many good reasons for allowing the use of the Internet for tests and exams, there is common approach among thought and action leaders. If Google can help answer questions, then we should also (only?) test 1) learners’ ability to search, analyze, evaluate, and synthesize, and 2) the unGoogleable.

I illustrate with two recent examples.

A Singapore Math question went viral locally and has gained traction elsewhere. It claims to be about logic and there is apparently more than one solution [1] [2].

I question the logic of such questions, but that is not what this reflection is about. The fact of the matter is that the solutions, the rationales, and their critiques can all be found online.

You do not need to know how to get the answer traditionally. You need only know how to search online for information and people, and decide which return is best. If that is not a 21st century competency, I do not know what is.

Next example. Last week, my wife, an English teacher, received a message containing an English problem supposedly pitched at the Primary 1 level.

It went something like this:

I am a word of five letters and people eat me. If you remove the first letter I become a form of energy. Remove the first two and I am needed to live. Scramble the last three and you can drink me. What word am I?

There are many other variations of this. There are also several reactions that kids and parents can have.

One is panic, as the messenger did. After he calmed down, he reached out to a teacher (my wife) but not his child’s teacher because the latter caused the panic in the first place.

Another reaction was to learn the “logic” of the artificial problem and use either thought finesse or brute force to crack it open.

As much as I might enjoy a puzzle, I do not appreciate fake ones, particularly ones given late at night and not meaningful to me. My reaction was to Google it.

I had barely typed “I am a word of…” and Google’s suggested search phrases appeared. And links. And answers. And variations. And discussions galore!

Is there a need to test? Certainly.

Is there a need to test what we can Google? I think not.

What does a test for the unGoogleable look like? It is difficult to say for sure, but it is NOT a just test.

As challenging as good tests are to create, they are relatively easy to grade because answers fit into as few categories as possible. Preferably two categories: Right and wrong. If you take into consideration different perspectives, answers, or talents, then tests become inadequate.

A look at what happens in online social spaces gives clues as to what assessing the unGoogleable might look like. There are discussion forums where the best answers float to the top by popular vote. There are blogs with explanations and reflections on such problems.

Expand this natural “testing” island to a broader universe and the possibilities are endless. Twitter debates, Facebook critiques, YouTube video challenges, Instagram or Pinterest collections, Vine impressions.

All these and more are already part of digital databases that capture our identities. The Googles of the world use it for research, marketing, and advertising. I say we tame, manage, and organize these data in an online portfolio to showcase what we learn. Then we might stumble on ways to assess the unGoogleable.

 
I finally read a tab I had open for about a week: A teacher’s troubling account of giving a 106-question standardized test to 11 year olds.

This Washington Post blog entry provided a blow-by-blow account of some terrible test questions and an editorial on the effects of such testing. Here are the questions the article raised:

  • What is the purpose of these tests?
  • Are they culturally biased?
  • Are they useful for teaching and learning?
  • How has the frequency and quantity of testing increased?
  • Does testing reduce learning opportunities?
  • How can testing harm students?
  • How can testing harm teachers?
  • Do we have to?

The article was a thought-provoking piece that asked several good questions. Whether or not you agree with the answers is moot. The point is to question questionable testing practices.

I thought this might be a perfect case study of what a poorly designed test looks like and what its short-term impact on learning, learners, and educators might be.

The long term impact of bad testing (and even just testing) is clear in a society like Singapore. We have teach-to-the-test teachers, test-smart students, and grade-oriented parents. We have tuition not for those that need it but for those who are chasing perfect grades. And meaningful learning takes a back seat or is pushed out of the speeding car of academic achievement.

We live in testing times indeed!


http://edublogawards.com/files/2012/11/finalistlifetime-1lds82x.png
http://edublogawards.com/2010awards/best-elearning-corporate-education-edublog-2010/

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code


Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets

Archives

Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: