Introduction
The introduction ]makes some important distinctions between terminology. It explains the difference between "assessment" and "evaluation." Assessments are distinct from assessments in that they, well, assess-- they give some score or grade of the task based on standards to be met. I also enjoyed how the author explored the etymology of the word "curriculum." By reinforcing it as the "course to run," it illustrates more effectively the usefulness of a curriculum. It's more than a list of topics to be covered, it's a plan for all the experiences to be had, things to really work through rather than a checklist to be completed. These are useful definitions to have in mind while reading the book.
I am also intrigued by the clarification the authors make, that they are not against traditional testing. I interested to see how their strategies for planning could be applied to testing, even "traditional" testing.
Chapter 1
There are some key points presented in the opening of the chapter that are at least familiar to me.
First of all, that the lessons should be planned around the desired outcomes rather than a list of topics to be covered. A newer, important distinction is the specification that lessons should focus more on the output rather than the input, and I know I myself have made the mistake of tending too much to the activities rather than the results and what to do with them. Basically, results > content.
Something I already enjoy about this book is the seeming empiricism of the strategy: define the desired outcome, define what is acceptable evidence of understanding, then plan. This allows freedom of specific teaching techniques, as the focus of the strategy is in the first two steps. Also interesting is the inclusion of peer-review and self-assessment as a benefit of the planning template. It makes it easier to examine, review, and change--more of that empiricism I enjoy.
Ana, I agree with you that the focus the author presents it is very interesting and sounds very logical, although in practice it is very hard, especially because it is extremely difficult to create assessments that in the end agree with the set learning objectives.
ReplyDeleteI also like the idea of including more self and peer assessment, although students need to be trained to do it properly. At least in my school peer assessment is a struggle because students tend to evaluate each other with the highest scores as this is seen as being a good friend. We have also tried to implement peer assessment when writing, but students trust more in the corrections of the teacher than the corrections of their peers. Also students with lower levels of English struggle when checking work of more proficient students than them.