Annotation: Badges for Higher-Ed Assessment

Buell, C. (2013, August 30). Using Badges to Quantify Learning Outcomes at UC Davis. Edcetera. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from http://edcetera.rafter.com/using-badges-to-quantify-learning-outcomes-at-uc-davis/

This article examines the use of badges to measure learning outcomes in higher education, especially as developed by UC Davis and Joanna Normoyle, who won an award for the innovation at the Digital Media and Learning Competition. The idea is to quantify and standardize higher-level thinking skills gained throughout the course of a university degree and award a digital badge for the achievement, potentially making them useful to future employers trying to determine the skill-set of a candidate or even simplifying the process of credit transfer between universities looking for equivalent coursework. Badges in such a system also can be useful for helping learners to track their progress and customize an academic program. UC Davis is officially launching their program with students this fall. By extension, I could see this as an easy, practical way for academic libraries to jump in, partner with departments and get involved in assessing and communicating the information literacy of students.

Setting assessment policies in the syllabus

Part two of the syllabus analysis I began earlier this week…

My sample syllabus (the culinary arts one) addressed assessment as follows:

Assessment Strategies Used: cooking labs in the kitchen, quizzes, tests, homework, and projects.

The instructor neglects to explain if they are using a total points system or are weighting grades based on category. There appear to be 16 course standards, divided into 2-3/unit, sometimes repeating in later units, over 12 units. I suspect that course grades are simply based on competency for each course standard, with each course standard being worth the same value in the final grade.

For example, for this course, Standard 1 is, “Demonstration of proper cooking techniques that result in a quality end product while employing safe and sanitary methods.” Standard 8 is, “Knowledge of food service equipment, including identification and use, mise en place, knife skills, and seasoning.” I am speculating here, but students might be asked to do assignments, tests, quizzes, etc. that give the instructor a piece of evidence/an article that reflects their learning as a competency for each standard–but that it would be at the instructor’s discretion, not pre-announced. The idea is to get kids to focus on learning, not just the acquisition of points.

The syllabus doesn’t actually confirm this thought though. It’s hard to say if it would be a fair assessment of student learning or if it’s qualitative/quantitative assessment without more information on how the gradebook is set up.

To me, removing the points-game is really important. The focus should be on learning, not jumping through hoops. And grades should reflect said learning, not ability to play the game. On the other hand, when students know how they are being held accountable, they have more ownership, which encourages the intrinsic motivation that we want learners to have and leads to real learning!

A look at the instructional design of a syllabus

This week, I chose to look at the instructional design of a syllabus from a high school culinary arts course. (Isn’t it cool that they offer this? It’s a year-long, two-period course.)

First of all, it is worth saying that high school syllabi are typically MUCH different from what people are used to seeing at the university level. Any teacher who is organized enough to lay out course activities/objectives for 180 days is 1) insane and 2) not as good of a teacher as they claim to be because they don’t leave flexibility for responding to formative assessments–like when kids need to be retaught something or to be taught in a different way. That said, I did once work with a middle school science teacher who had her outfits laid out from Christmas through Spring Break. She was 1) hilarious and 2) amazing, so I wouldn’t put it past her to pull off what I just declared impossible. She may have evolved since the outfit planning days. (I sort of hope she sees my shout-out to her here.)

While I appreciate having all of the information up front in a university course, where I’m planning out work schedules and other class demands, in a high school, I think it’s probably not the greatest idea. Kids aren’t usually comforted by information overload; they are stressed. So, if you want to deal with perpetually fielding multiple, individual complaints of “I don’t get it,” try giving all of the information at once. This goes for scaffolding a project just as much as a detailed syllabus. Also, if you want kids to be responsible for the information in the syllabus, you have to go over it with them, and when they sit through that 6-7 other times during the first week of a course, short and sweet is usually good advice. The five pages in my sample syllabus is pushing it, though the “meat” really consists of two pages.

The syllabus I looked at was divided into these sections:

  • course description
  • texts and resources
  • behavior/discipline
  • class units for 1st and 2nd semester (12 in all)
  • standards-based instruction explanation
  • assessment strategies
  • field trip policies
  • contact info

Our school is big on standards-based reporting, assessment and instruction. This seems like a no-brainer, but you’d be surprised how RARE true standards-based reporting and assessment is after elementary school. Elementary schools actually do. Think about your report cards with different skills listed and all the Es, VGs, Ss and Us (or whatever your school called them)–this is standards-based reporting.

How do I know that secondary ed (and higher ed) don’t really do this? Because parents and students continue to be fixated on their percent and letter grade. Also the computerized grading tools out there (PowerSchool, Skyward, Infinite Campus, etc.) don’t really support standards-based reporting yet–though they are very good of showing a list of assignments with a percentage and letter grade. I also see a lot of tests in my role as a support teacher. There are also a lot of teachers out there still giving tests with one grade at the end–not several grades broken down by the standards-based skills.

That said, I believe that our school is ahead of the curve when it comes to standards-based assessment (though standards-based instruction is different–we are still a work in progress there). What I liked in this syllabus is that the standards were listed in the description for each unit, instead of a large list for the whole course (which is sort of what I do :/ for my own syllabi). Raising awareness to the foci of each unit as the unit begins is a great way to plan instruction, because students can reflection on their learning process (metacognition!)

The section on assessment strategies, though brief, was good too, since students want to know how they will be graded and held accountable. The contents of the explanation are pretty predictable, but sometimes students might be surprised by and hostile toward the appearance of an oral presentation or something if they haven’t been warned.

The discipline section is also very important for a high school course. This one refers to the school and district guidelines in the Student Handbook. While this is a sound and clear-cut approach, I think it might also be useful to reference some of the kitchen-specific safety rules in effect in this classroom. However, perhaps the signage in the room and orientation by the teacher to the facility is sufficient.

I already had a lot of respect for the caliber of instructor and the culinary program at this school and was pleasantly surprised by the design of the syllabus and course. If I had to give a “grade,” I’d say that this one’s an A, Exceeds Expectations!

Annotation: Instructional Design

Hovious, A. (2013, September 22). The “Rule of One” and the One-Shot Session. Designer Librarian. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://designerlibrarian.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/the-rule-of-one-and-the-one-shot-session/

This blogger-librarian discusses how librarians often only have one opportunity to reach students in an information literacy training session, requiring the librarian to seriously consider instructional design if he/she wishes the instruction to be effective. The author lays out four guidelines for librarians trying to design a successful stand-alone session: one learning goal, one objective per task, one strategy per objective and one culminating activity. This is an important idea since many students have limited contact with librarians and may not consult with one unless they are required to—the first impression matters for possible future reference desk use, but also for the information literacy skills that are developed/under-developed in the students that the library serves. Even if a teacher-librarian has the opportunity to adjust his/her instruction based on formative assessment or student needs-analysis, the guidelines in this article are worth implementing because they make for a tight, power-packed lesson.