Kent’s article Technology For Assessment provides an insight into the technologies that are commonly used in today’s education and ways their utilisation assist learning and improve assessment strategies. I found that most of the modes of technology described proved to be very effective in assisting assessment. These examples mainly focused on technologies associated with Web 2.0, and included: Blogs, Wikis, Youtube, and Google Apps (Kent, 2013). I think these are great assessment tools when used correctly as they share common strengths such as communicating both ‘out of school as well as school hours’ (Taheran, 2010), sharing work, receiving feedback, editing, creating, encouraging collaboration and group work, and organising. Being a teacher with access to these features, you are able to see from the outside, and assess how much is being done and who is contributing.
Of course they also each hold restrictions too causing me to disagree to a certain extent on how effective they are because of the unreliability of online sources and the accessibility of others, which can lead to security issues and false information being contributed. However I believe with these elements considered and the proper steps are taken to prevent them, the technologies’ strengths outweigh their weaknesses.
(TurningTechLA, 2012)
What I did not find to be entirely appropriate were Kent’s’ representations on the modes of social media or Learner Response Systems (LRS). First with social media being Twitter and Facebook, Kent states that these ICTs help to connect with people where you can send, share and discuss practically anything with anyone (Kent, 2013). Whilst these benefits are great aspects in education, I still dislike the idea of adapting them into the assessment process. This is mainly because they were primarily designed for communication, as the social element of their names would suggest.
I believe students of our ‘information age’ (Johannessen, 2013), will misuse these ICTs and become easily distracted from their assigned tasks, being more concerned with their social lives and individual images rather than focusing on their work. It is noted by Kent that they are also used extensively for marketing and business, which creates even more distractions through the constant advertising being displayed on these sites. In this way I think teachers will find it more difficult to use these to assess students as problems in remaining in contact with students while they may be caught up in other activities and prioritise their time ineffectively. This puts strain on both teacher and students as communication is lost.
‘Incorporating Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in assessment that is aligned to teaching and learning has the potential to engage students in higher cognitive processes that lead to increased student achievement’ (Lincoln, 2009). Learner Response Systems are a technology I had particular concerns with. There are many reasons for this but largely due to the applicable responses being a one option answer. By using these ‘clickers’ (Kent, 2013) instead of writing down answers I think both teacher and student are at a disadvantage as students are often guessing answers and not learning in this way. If a student receives a correct answer to a question that was guessed, this is not teaching nor is it learning. Teachers are not marking a students’ work, a computer does it for them.
This does two things: shows the students right and wrong answers which can help show where they are in the course but also creates a barrier in the student and teacher relationship. I think this because teachers need to see and understand a students’ written answers for themselves when assessing in order to understand a student’s individual strengths and weaknesses on a deeper emotional level. LRS would be helpful in subjects such as science and maths which often are associated with one answer questions as ‘significant gains limited to specific courses and question types’ (Ralph W. Preszler, 2007), but not with essays and creative writings you may find in English as there is no discussion as to why a child thinks their answer to be true and therefore an expression of their ideas and interpretations is absent.
(ICT, 2009)
I think they are helpful in the way they can be programed anonymously so students are more comfortable and feeling that it’s ‘ok to be wrong’ and also the ability to give immediate responses but they SHOULD NOT replace a teachers marking of assessment entirely. ‘Optimising opportunities for quality learning in the assessment process also requires attention to alignment with pedagogy and curriculum’ (Lincoln, 2009) and a useful way I’ve found for incorporating both assessment and physical marking through into the assessment process is the use of a rubric. In our ‘Assessment’ tutorial, I discovered there are many websites and software that allow teachers to create their own scaffolding of the way they wish to assess a particular task.
Rubrics are divided into categories to make the assessment process easier to place a students’ knowledge at a certain level. A teacher must physically use the rubric as it highlights areas a child is excelling in and those concepts they may be struggling with. A teacher may also write notes on a rubric and touch on what was well done and what could be improved which gives the students a more constructive form of feedback rather than the teacher receiving a range of feedback from single optioned answers. In this way a teacher demonstrates traditional marking but also through the use of technology to create the rubric and most importantly in my opinion, break that potential barrier between the teacher and student bond that LSRs present.
(Teach-nology, 2008)
In conclusion, all of these technologies are great in assessment when they are used correctly with all their limitations considered and not being overused. ‘To be successful in improving learning for all students, assessment must be closely aligned to instruction’ (Lincoln, 2009) and I believe this to be true as they should not replace teachers and disrupt their directions in learning, but rather teachers should use them to assist their assessment process in a positive and responsible manner.
References
ICT, K. (2009). Using ICT To Enhance Teaching And Learning At Key Stage 4. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from Geographical Association: www.geography.org.uk/projects/ks4ict
Johannessen, C. R. (2013). Changing Assessment-Towards A New Assessment Paradigm Using ICT. European Journal Of Education , 79-96.
Kent, C. C. (2013). Assessment For Teaching Today: A Guide To Assessment Strategies And Activities. Melbourne: Macmillan Education Australia. 34-43
Lincoln, M. (2009). Aligning ICT In Assessment With Teaching And Learning: Enhancing Student Achievment In The Middle Years. Proceeding Of The 2009 Australian Curriculum Studies Association Biennial Conference-Curriculum: A National Conversation , 1-18.
Ralph W. Preszler, A. D. (2007). Assessment Of The Effects Of Student Response Systems On Student Learning And Attitudes Over A Broad Range Of Biology Courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education , 29-41. Taheran, O. A. (2010). Assessment 100% Supported By ICT: Possibilities Offered And Risks. International Journal Of Emerging Technologies In Learning (iJET) , 34-36.
Teach-nology. (2008). Appendix 3: Sample Rubrics For Assessment. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from Convention On Biological Diversity: www.cdb.int/2008/resources/teachers/appendix.shtml TurningTechLA. (2012, August 2nd). Student Response Systems. Retrieved May 24th, 2013, from YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUly1TzHSNQ
No comments:
Post a Comment