🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <AC3E83D696685D1E62@204.156.153.170>, dawson@best.com (Dennis Dawson) writes:
> In article <1995Jul27.170529.1@magill.unisa.edu.au>,
> kerrb@magill.unisa.edu.au wrote:
> 
>>Anyone know anything about authentic assessment?

> We have been getting involved with aa for the past few year in my school
> district. While it makes sense in some subjects, this too, has become
> somewhat politicized. 

Thanks for the followup Dennis. In what subjects doesn't it make sense. I am
interested in how the authentic assessment advocates approach maths and
science.

> Many of the advocates of aa also advocate the
> abolition of standardized tests and this is where the battle begins. 

Certainly. Our government in South Australia has recently introduced Basic
Skills TEsting, a standardised test in maths and literacy. Year 3/4 kids are
expected to sit for 3 hours filling out multiple choice questions. In my view
our government's approach is unethical because everyone already knows that kids
from low socio-economic areas will do worse on these tests and everybody also
knows that there will be no extra funding provided for the extra one to one
help that students need, those who come from families who don't have books on
the shelves at home, don't read to their kids etc. I see it as a political
exercise to blame the teachers for parental neglect. What useful purpose do
standardised tests actually achieve? All the government has to do is ask
teachers to identify students who need extra help and all the teachers I know
would have no problem identifying students who need extra ono-to-one help,
whose needs are not being catered for in large classes.

> One of
> the criticisms of aa is that it can lead to a lowering of standards. Also
> tends to be much more subjective than standardized tests.

I teach in a disadvantaged school, low socio-economic area. In my experience
the things that help kids in these sorts of schools are not standardised tests
(which only provides information that teachers already know) but things like
------->>>>>

** staffing the school with teachers who want to be there
** giving the same group of kids the same teacher or teachers for two, threee
or  more years in a row
** curriculum integration
** negotiated curriculum where students have some say or choice in what they
learn -- ie. teacher offers a variety of choices and then develops ways of
keeping track of what is going on in the room as kids work on different
projects
** kids are required to do some sort of "performance" at the end of a unit.
** these assessment procedures -- self assessment, work required (means
negotiated contract), descriptive,  NOT criterion referenced or norm referenced

This sort of approach leads to increased motivation, involvement, participation
and of hence higher standards. But the point is that in a genuine negotiation
those standards cannot be clearly defined at the beginning because the students
have a real input into what they are learning. In this sense the standards are
negotiated too, not prepackaged. 



>>I received an invite to a talk and am wondering whether to go. It sounds
>>interesting. 
>>
>>Talk is by Dinah Gieske of the Coalition of Essential Schools. She is a teacher
>>at University Heights High School, New York.
>>
>>The blurb for the talk goes like this, the expected outcomes from this approach
>>are:-
>>
>>* effective expression and communication
>>* self-awareness and self-esteem
>>* taking responsibility and preparing for the future
>>* social interaction and effective citizenship
>>* critical thinking and problem solving
>>* cultural and historical involvement
>>* valuing and ethical decision making
>>
>>Sounds a bit like what I am trying to achieve anyway ---->>> anyone familiar
>>with this approach? It sounds like a reaction again Basic Skills Testing in the
>>USA (now being introduced in Australia). 
>>
>> Bill Kerr
>> Paralowie R12 School 
>> South Australia
>>