Search Results For "mindset"

One of the advantages of posting your ideas to your own journal, blog, or ePortfolio on an ongoing and long-term basis is that you can go back and evaluate and analyze your thinking and then continue to refine and synthesize your ideas. As new data or information comes to light or your research confirms or contradicts your hypothesis you can update your synthesis. The following is a synthesis from the post How to Change the World One Learner at a Time from January 2021 which is an update to a 2015 post Changing the world, one learner at a time as well as many other ideas that I have posted over the years. The higher-order thinking that I referred to in the Owning Your Learning Process video above is also a key function of the Learner’s Mindset which is achieved by a change in thinking about learning, a change in the approach to learning, and a change in the learning environment.

The change in thinking that I refer to requires a move away from lower-order thinking that dominates our society and results in the desire for a quick fix to all our challenges. I often refer to this quick-fix thinking in education because I spend most of my time in this discipline. For example, the educational technology (Edtech) literature for the past several decades is filled with examples of how the application of technology in a learning setting makes no significant difference and has little impact on learning outcomes and that the focus needs to be the learning, not the technology if we want to make a difference (Reich, 2020; Cuban, 2001; Russel, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1998). The research is clear. Edtech is not a quick fix or silver bullet (Thibodeaux, Harapnuik, Cummings, & Wooten, 2017) and the naive notion that one can implement it better than the last group that failed is continually repeated in all levels of classrooms across the nation (Harapnuik, 2021). This is why worksheets and fill-in-the-blank questions even when they are digitized in things like the SAMR model or other quick fixes do not result in deeper learning (Harapnuik, 2017).

When I originally explored why this reliance on lower-order thinking continually persists I naively assumed that we could simply move up to higher thinking to high-order thinking because it incorporates the lower levels and it also has the potential to offer so much more. Unfortunately, the move to higher-order thinking involves more than just the desire to operate at that level. Besides being much easier than higher-order or deeper thinking, lower-order thinking offers a sense of security because it is what our educational system has prepared most people to do. Standardized testing and the competency-based system of education that uses this form of summative assessment exist primarily in the realm of applying, understanding, and remembering which fall into the lower-order thinking in Bloom’s Taxonomy.

While we do have pockets of outcome-based instruction where students are given choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities or project-based learning, for the most part, our system relies on information transfer and competency-based instruction which resides in the realm of lower-ordered thinking which can be easily measured. The philosopher, Steven Hicks (2021) argues that our current education system is one that teaches compliance, and rather than learning that life is about solving problems our students are instructed that authorities have all the answers. We use the rhetoric of Dewey and say we want children to grow to be self-reliant, creative problem-solving adults but we have the reality of Thorndike that promotes the information transfer standardized model of education that can be easily measured and allows us to sort our students into the fixed norms of the industrial age (Labaee, 2005). I have listed several obstacles to higher-order thinking but I think the biggest challenge is that most people don’t really understand the difference between the two levels. Furthermore, many don’t realize that learners are seldom asked to move beyond showing they can remember information, can understand how information is used, and how that information is applied in a different yet similar situation.

Bloom’s Taxonomy
According to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy when people are attempting to carry out a procedure or implement a process or apply an existing model to a new but similar situation they are using lower-ordering thinking in their hopes of applying existing information to their situation (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The category of Applying is at the top of the lower-order thinking within Bloom’s taxonomy but it is still considered lower-order thinking and only facilitates information transfer because there is no analysis, evaluation, or creation which are at the higher order and are essential to deeper learning. Drawing a diagram, making a chart, applying an existing process, and solving a formula are all lower-level skills that do not require higher-order thinking and this is typically as far as our education system goes.

Inverted Bloom's Taxonomy

I prefer to use the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy because it combines higher-order thinking into a continuum and reveals that analyzing, evaluating, and creating must be conducted in conjunction. The notion of using the information in a new but similar situation detailed in the Applying section seems to match the level of thinking that many students are comfortable with.  But, don’t take my word for this.  In the following 3 Learner’s Stories podcast Applied Digital Learning (ADL) students reflect on their learning journey and discuss what they have learned and what they would do differently if there were able to start the ADL program now. One of the most consistent laments is that ADL students wished they would have trusted the ADL process sooner and moved away from expecting to be told what to do and simply giving the instructors what they wanted.

COVA Podcast LM Stories EP08
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/95PpBnkBAxk
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/5M5YnqRzG98l3nSHCCc5LY?si=33d092e4d0c04f9d

COVA Reflection LM Stories Ep 09
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/t4PTGr1WjLI
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/2uumYGwgQkUSnsZc1dTYUu?si=61fdbf1a2bde4ecf

COVA Capstone LM Stories Ep 10
View on Youtube – https://youtu.be/ctaKftOOye8
Listen on Spotify – https://open.spotify.com/episode/39c65g9KB4H1DFL5eofico?si=e9c5fba740b84f97

This desire and comfort level of being told what to do and being given a checklist prescription of what is required to complete an assignment falls directly into the lower-order thinking that most of our learners are accustomed to. The original definition from Anderson, Krathwohl, and Bloom’s (2001) of Bloom’s taxonomy aligns with what I have seen with many students:

Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing or implementing. Applying is related and refers to situations where learned material is used through products like models, presentation, interviews, and simulations.

Many just want to be told what procedure or model they need to execute or implement and believe that all they have to present an existing model to their colleagues or simulate the applied approach, and their innovation process is complete. To be fair to many of these students, this is what they know and simply what their administrators, schools, districts, or other organizations ask them to do. Applying an existing model, presenting a summary, and even creating a simulation or a model is the norm. This ongoing process of identifying a standard to be met, finding the approved or accepted procedure or process being used in the organization to meet this standard, and finally applying a standardized test or other information transfer confirmation tools to confirm that the standard has been met by the students is what most educators are engaged in on a daily basis. For rudimentary knowledge, simple situations, and information transfer this application process does work well and our education system has been relying on this model for over a century. As we move further into the digital information age we are realizing that our challenges are much more complex and require much more than doing what we have done in the past. To address these more significant challenges we need to move beyond applying existing information or processes in a new but similar fashion.

Moving to Higher Order Thinking
We need to move into analyzing, evaluating, and creating new solutions to ever-increasing challenges that we and our learners will face in the future. We also need to look beyond convenient summaries, quick fixes, or “Coles Notes” solutions and go back to primary sources to get the full picture. If we want to address the ever-increasing complexities of the challenges we face in the 21st Century then we must use higher-order thinking. We must continually investigate, explore, analyze and evaluate what we are doing as we begin creating innovations that will enhance learning. Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) explanation of the following three higher thinking levels offers the best starting point for our own analysis, evaluation, and creation of a novel way of integrating these ideas.

Analyzing: Breaking material or concepts into parts, determining how the parts relate or interrelate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose. Mental actions include differentiating, organizing, and attributing as well as being able to distinguish between components.

Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.

Creating – Putting elements together to form a novel coherent whole or make an original product.

Analyzing, Evaluating, and Creating Leads to Deeper Learning and Learner’s Mindset
While the inverted Bloom’s taxonomy is useful for helping us to see the linear relationship between analyzing, evaluating, and creating and also see how higher-order thinking is separated from lower-order thinking, it doesn’t convey the interrelatedness between analyzing, evaluating, and creating. It also doesn’t show how the interrelation between analyzing, evaluating, and creating contributes to deeper learning.
Analyze-Evaluate-Create-Deeper-Learning

The Venn diagram (Harapnuik, 2021) reveals how analyzing, evaluating, and creating come together and at that convergence point is where the learner engages in deeper learning and has then moved into the Learner’s Mindset.

This deeper learning and the adoption of a Learner’s Mindset is realized when you create a significant learning environment in which you give your learner choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA). I have been applying this approach in all the learning environments that I have created and most recently have applied this to the DLL and ADL programs, the Provincial Instructor Diploma Program (PIDP), and all other aspects of my professional and personal life.

In my original post that I referenced at the beginning of this post,  I made the grandiose goal of changing the world one learner at a time. A year later,  I am still sharing this approach with as many people as I can. It is my hope that you too will begin the ongoing process of analysis, evaluation, and creation. Through a continual and iterative process of analysis of your learning environment, the new concepts, theories, and ideas you are exploring combined with your goal of bringing learning innovation to your organization, you too can begin to explore and evaluate how best to synthesize your findings and ideas into an innovation plan which will create the changes you desire and prepare your learners for life.

Please remember that this is only one part of a bigger picture and this synthesis will be continually evaluated and analyzed so explore the following and provide your feedback to help this ongoing process:

Applied Learning
Assessment Of/For/As Learning
Connecting the Dots Vs Collecting, the Dots
Change of Focus
CLSE
COVA
Feedforward
Learner’s Mindset

Continue to Part 2 – The challenges of owning your learning and higher-order thinking (Part 2)

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridge Edition). Addison.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). Analyze-evaluate-create-deeper-learning-cropped.png. [Image] https://www.harapnuik.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Analyze-Evaluate-Create-Deeper-Learning-cropped.png

Harapnuik, D.K. (2021). How to change the world, one learner, at a time. [Blog] Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=5555

Harapnuik, D.K. (2017). Reconsider the use of the SAMR model. [Blog]. Retrieved from https://www.harapnuik.org/?p=7235

Reich, J. (2020). Failure to disrupt: Why technology alone can’t transform education. Harvard University Press.

Labaree, D. F. (2005). Progressivism, schools and schools of education: An American romance. Paedagogica Historica, 41(1–2), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923042000335583

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries, and papers. North Carolina State University.

Thibodeaux, T. N., Harapnuik, D. K., Cummings, C. D., & Wooten, R. (2017). Learning all the time and everywhere: Moving beyond the hype of the mobile learning quick fix. In Keengwe, J. S. (Eds.). Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. ETS Policy Information Center. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTECHNOLOG.pdf

In EDLD 5317 ADL students Pedro Beltran, Colby Clifford, Allison Palmer, and Brianna Rodriguez created a 3 Part Podcast series called Thoughts on Learning where they discuss the following key topics with Dwayne Harapnuik:

Part 1 – ePortfolios as Assessment as Learning EP 36
Explores how educators can move beyond using ePortfolios for assessments for learning to assessments as learning.

Listen on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/10K5bhx13rhOzG3yI7h8lm?si=e7251b4517144482

Part 2 – Blended Learning and COVA EP 37
Explores how giving learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning can have a positive impact on the blended learning environment.

Listen on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/4iW07AwvV7aJdSU81KfsL2?si=1d67c46e20b5467b

Part 3 – Opportunities with ePortfolios Blended Learning and COVA EP 38
Summarizes the opportunities that learning environments that utilize ePortfolios, blended learning, and COVA can offer learners.

Listen on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/episode/0m1A1jBTl5fLqgnWszyKD0?si=ad2b9e8b103e45bc

You can also access the links to these ADL Student Discussions on the Learner’s Mindset Facebook Page – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1391607630957125

If Genius Hour and 20% Time, Passion projects, and other similar project-based engagement activities are so helpful in promoting learning why don’t we spend more time on these activities and not limit them to an hour a week or 20% of our learner’s precious time? Why don’t we flip Genius hour and 20% time with the time we spend on test preparation. Perhaps if we move our learners away from the time-wasters of rereading and highlighting and get them engaged in the effective study skills of self-testing, distributed practice, elaborate interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice we could flip the time we spend on test prep to 20% and spend 80 of our learner’s time engaged in Genius Hour type activities. The research is clear and the Scientific America article on study skills What Works, What Doesn’t – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273626957_What_Works_What_Doesn’t confirms what study skill yields the best results and also points to a large body of research on this topic.

While flipping Genius Hour and improving our learner’s study skills may be a great first step it isn’t enough. Trying to apply a simple solution like flipping Genius Hour to the more complex problem of deeper learning within our current educational system will not work unless we address all the other key factors of this complex problem. We need to help change our educator’s and learner’s thinking about learning, their approach to learning, and we need to change the learning environment. I am not alone in calling into question the use of Genius Hour and 20% Time as a treatment without addressing all the other factors.

In a recent post The Research Behind PBL, Genius Hour, and Choice In The Classroom – https://www.ajjuliani.com/blog/research/ A.J. Juliani argues for the benefits of project-based activities that promote choice and give learner’s the opportunity to engage in learning activities that are important to them. Juliani is an advocate of these useful learning activities and in his post, he points to some research and larger body anecdotal or experiential support for these types of activities. He also deals with some of the objections to challenges to these activities and points to Ewan McIntosh’s 2013 post 20% Time and Schools: not the best of bedfellows – https://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2013/08/20-time-and-schools-not-the-best-of-bedfellows.html where McIntosh points to the problem with our system of education that limits the effectiveness of these types activities in this statement:

The problem is, that students given this open stretch of time often don’t know what to do, or beyond their initial couple of passions they run out of steam. Their end-products are largely under par of their capacity. Sure, there are moments of genius, just as in Google, 3M or any other corporation that introduces 20% time. But, just like them, they are by a small proportion of students, with the vast majority of ideas failing to hit the mark.

McIntosh is pointing out that many, perhaps even most, of our learners are not prepared for this type of deeper learning. He suggests that that experimenting with these individual activities is a start it would be better to include more student autonomy in everything one does. This is not the first time we have heard an educator point to the sobering reality that too many of our students are not prepared to learn. In his book Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education Justin Reich points out that pandemic inspired move to online learning hasn’t worked well because most students are not able to learn online because they are not self-directed and are not able to learn independently. Reich does a good job pointing out the complex problem but doesn’t offer a solution. Fortunately, in the post We Need More Autodidacts we offer a solution to this complex problem.

As you should have heard in the Learner’s Mindset Discussion video above we agree with McIntosh about student autonomy, but once again we go a fair bit further and address all the aspects of this complex problem. Incorporating more student autonomy is a good start and so is Genius Hour. But if these activities are used as treatments or stand-alone activities we argue that they won’t work because the problem that we need to address is much more complex and requires a much broader focus. Unless we adopt a Learners Mindset where you change your thinking and your learner’s thinking about learning, change the approach to learning, and create a significant learning environment in which you give your learner’s choice ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities you run the risk of running an interesting learning activity that will have minimal long term impact.

Related posts:

How to Avoid EdTech Quickfix Traps
How to Change the World One Learner at a Time
Computers in Schools – Not Working…Yet
Why do so many prefer passive learning?

I have been exploring how to bring about effective organizational change for many years. A quick search for the word “change” on my blog will reveal many posts. My analysis and evaluation started back in 2010, when I was still advocating for Kotter’s Eight-Stage Process of Creating Change but I was starting to see that there were some significant challenges to this process. By 2012 I was starting to explore broader ideas and looking for more of a synthesis to leading change as the post Recommended Readings on Leading Change In Education will reveal. I was recognizing that if you really wanted to bring about effective change you had to Practice Change by Living It and you had to acknowledge that The Head Won’t Go Where the Heart Hasn’t Been.

My synthesis of thinking about change started to come together after some significant failures in a few change strategies I had undertaken in 2011-2012. I had religiously used Kotter’s Eight-Stage process and I even focused on creating a sense of urgency but there was something missing. Without going to significant details on the situations my evaluation of what had happened and my analysis of what could be doing better revealed that there were many other factors that all had to come together. The following is an excerpt from a 2014 post I made in reaction to Seth Godin’s post – People Who Like This Stuff. This post is where the synthesis of effective organization change that is outlined in the Learner’s Mindset Discussion had its formation. Most of my thinking is still the same but in the last six years, I have added a Crucial Conversations component to the self-differentiated leader’s section because of the challenges everyone is facing today in trying to have conversations about even the smallest things.

One of the advantages of working through authentic projects is that they force one to continually evaluate what is working and what can be done better. If one hopes to change their own world and the world for their learners one must remain in the higher-order thinking of evaluation, analysis, synthesis, and creation which is also a key aspect of the Learner’s Mindset.

To see the full post you can go to People who like this stuff…like this stuff.

Why is change in education so slow and so difficult? I think Seth Godin offers one of the most simple and elegant explanations…

“People who like this stuff…like this stuff”

Godin goes onto explain that:

“…for those that are already in it, you can’t push too far, because they like the genre. That’s why they’re here.”

Those who have walked away probably aren’t just waiting around for you to fix it. Those who have never been, don’t think the genre has a problem they need solved.”

If we apply this elegant thinking to the challenges we face in improving education, then most educators who like this stuff [traditional learning environments}… like this stuff. Most people who don’t, have walked away as we can see by homeschooling, unschooling, and uncollege movements. Perhaps more importantly, for those (students, parents, and politicians) who have never been behind the scenes of our traditional educational system, there is no problem. Or the problems that they can see are simply ones that appeal to emotions like class size or special needs. These issues become hot buttons for political sound bites and the 6:00 news but sound research by people like John Hattie reveals that student achievement is not impacted significantly by class size but by many other factors that just aren’t as newsworthy.

How then do we get people who like this stuff (traditional education) to like new stuff (digital learning environments)? While innovating the learning environment has been a significant challenge for the past century (John Dewey was calling for a change to progressive education almost 100 years ago) it is possible and involves the following four steps.

1 Start with Why – In his popular TED talk Simon Sinek makes the argument that “people won’t buy what you do they buy why you do it”, so rather than telling traditional educators what they should or need to be doing to improve learning you need to provide a reason why they would want to add to or improve the current system. This has to be an emotional appeal. Sinek provides a fully developed argument for starting with why and how to use the Golden Circle in his book Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action.

2. Identify and enlist key influencers – There are key social leaders within all organizations that have the influence to bring about the small activities that can start the behavioral change that leads to organizational change. Once you can identify one or two key activities and give these influencers the reason why they should be making these changes you can start the process of implementing digital learning to enhance the traditional learning environment. Once these influencers like the new stuff they will give others reason to like the new stuff as well. The book Influencer: The New Science of Leading Change, Second Edition provides an exceptional explanation of how to start behavioral change.

3. Install an effective execution strategy – You can’t change everything within an organization at once. You still have the whirlwind of the day-to-day activities that will consume 80-90% of your efforts. However, the key activities that your influencers are willing to change can become the one or two wildly important goals (WIG) that make up the foundation of The 4 Disciplines of Execution: Achieving Your Wildly Important Goals (4DX) change process that has proven to be an effective strategy in executing organizational change. Once one or two aspects of the traditional environment are changed you can then move on to the next one or two activities and so on. The key is to have an effective strategy and to execute.

4. Enlist and empower self-differentiated leaders – Edwin Friedman in the book A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix posits that having the conviction to keep on moving forward when everyone in your organization is screaming for the status quo is a key ability of the self-differentiated leader. These people do not need validation from the group but are able to see beyond the challenges to the broader goals of serving learners in new and productive ways. These people practice change by living it and have the ability to lead by example and can show people why they like the “new stuff” and why liking the new stuff is better for our learners and for our society as a whole.

This is not an easy process but we owe it to our children and to the young men and women who are going to our universities and colleges with dreams of building a better world.

Even though constructivist learning theorists for many decades promoted the benefits of self-directed learning or autodidactism it wasn’t until the COVID crisis of 2020 and the mass forced remote learning that most educators had realized that too many students were not suited or prepared to learn online. Why? Justin Reich (2020) points to research in his book, A Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education, which shows that the learners who are most successful in an online or blended environment that requires self-pacing and personal motivation are those who are already successful in school. These self-directed, self-motivated, and academically prepared learners will succeed in any learning environment because they know how to learn and assess the quality of their own work. The problem that we face is that the vast majority of students are dependent on their teachers to direct their learning and to administer standardized testing. If autodidactic learners are able to learn in any type of environment then we should be asking how do we help our learners become autodidacts and adopt a learner’s mindset. I have explored this notion further in the post, We Need More Autodidacts and the related Learner’s Mindset Discussion.

Our research in the Digital Learning and Leading (DLL) program at Lamar University, our experience in the School of Instructor Education at Vancouver Community college over the past several years, and several decades of related research and experience in a wide variety of learning environments have confirmed that if you create a significant learning environment where you give your learners choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities (CSLE+COVA) you can incorporate assessment FOR/AS learning which can help shift a learner toward a learner’s mindset. We have also learned through our experience and research that incorporating feedforward or educative formative assessment will also help to continue that shift toward the learner’s mindset. By giving learners choice over most aspects of their learning experience and through the use of authentic learning opportunities and ePortfolios, our students over the past several years have incorporated many aspects of the assessment as learning perspective which are essential to the learner’s mindset.

Unfortunately, all too often there is a very different learning environment that our students experience in the courses and programs I have developed and instructed than the type of the learning environment that my students are able to create for their learners in their organizations. Finding the right balance between assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment as learning is one more factor that plays a significant role in the learning environment. In much the same way that we have explored and differentiated the role of choice, ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities we have to do the same for assessment OF/FOR/AS learning.

Rather than add to the decades of literature on assessment OF/FOR/AS learning I will draw upon the key ideas and summarize the salient points that are most important to contributing to a significant learning environment.

For those who prefer a more typical written definition the New South Wales (Australia) Education Standards Authority (2017) provide a good summary of “assessment for, as, and of learning”

Assessment of learning assists teachers in using evidence of student learning to assess achievement against outcomes and standards. Sometimes referred to as ‘summative assessment’, it usually occurs at defined key points during a teaching work or at the end of a unit, term or semester, and may be used to rank or grade students. The effectiveness of assessment of learning for grading or ranking purposes depends on the validity, reliability, and weighting placed on any one task. Its effectiveness as an opportunity for learning depends on the nature and quality of the feedback.

Assessment for learning involves teachers using evidence about students’ knowledge, understanding, and skills to inform their teaching. Sometimes referred to as ‘formative assessment’, it usually occurs throughout the teaching and learning process to clarify student learning and understanding.

Assessment as learning occurs when students are their own assessors. Students monitor their own learning, ask questions and use a range of strategies to decide what they know and can do, and how to use assessment for new learning.

The following assessment OF/FOR/AS learning table is a compilation of from a wide variety of resources that goes a bit further than simple definitions (Chappuis et al., 2012; Fenwick & Parsons, 2009; McNamee & Chen, 2005; Rowe, 2012; Schraw, 2001; Sparks, 1999):

Assessment Of Learning For Learning As Learning
Type Summative Formative Formative
What Teachers determine the progress or application of knowledge or skills against a standard. Teachers and peers check progress and learning to help learners to determine how to improve. Learner takes responsibility for their own learning and asks questions about their learning and the learning process and explores how to improve.
Who Teacher Teacher & Peers Learner & Peers
How Formal assessments used to collect evidence of student progress and may be used for achievement grading on grades. Involves formal and informal assessment activities as part of learning and to inform the planning of future learning.  Learners use formal and informal feedback and self-assessment to help understand the next steps in learning. 
When Periodic report Ongoing feedback Continual reflection
Why Ranking and reporting Improve learning Deeper learning and learning how to learn
Emphasis Scoring, grades, and competition Feedback, support, and collaboration Collaboration, reflection, and self-evaluation

If we want to encourage our learners to become more autodidactic it would then seem reasonable to shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning and ultimately get to assessment as learning. We see this perspective from Lorna Earl (2012) in her highly cited text Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximise Student Learning.

Earl’s assessment pyramids are featured in many different sources and her argument that the traditional assessment of learning is the dominant form of assessment is widely accepted. Even though she calls for a balance in the use of assessment of/for/as learning her revised assessment pyramid that replaces assessment of learning with assessment as learning as the base of the pyramid still doesn’t represent a realistic balance nor an effective way to incorporate assessment into the learning environment.

Rather than view assessment of/for/as learning as hierarchical it may be more effective to view assessment of/for/as learning more holistically as more of an interplay of assessment within the learning environment. The National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in Ireland (2017) offers a wonderful perspective on assessment of/for/as learning that emphasizes the interplay of the different types of assessment and the key roles that the assessment and the people involved play.

While some learning theorists may desire to craft a potential learning environment that uses assessment as learning, the reality we face, and that our learners face is not theoretical. We live in a world where we use credentialing exams and other forms of standardized testing and while we have seen a recent move toward implementing formative feedback most educators’ reality reveals that assessment of learning dominates. Moving toward assessment for learning and assessment as learning will only be possible if we look at the bigger picture. We need to help educators to recognize that we are not asking for a full pendulum swing away from assessment of learning to assessment as learning with assessment for learning somewhere in the middle. We are acknowledging that an interplay of all three is not only realistic it will be the most productive approach to improving the learning environment.

We must also acknowledge that our teaching and learning environment are dramatically influenced by the assessments we use. If we consider assessment of/for/as learning as an integral part of the learning environment and we look to fully integrate assessment as part of the learning process then we do our learners justice by helping them to experience a balance in the assessment of/for/as learning. If we model an integrated approach to assessment of/for/as learning then we will be equipping our learners so that they too can integrate assessment of/for/as learning into their own learning environments that they create for their learners.

While this more focused examination of assessment of/for/as learning may provide a novel perspective for some, we have been incorporating the assessment of/for/as learning inter-relationship in the creation of our significant learning environments and when we give learners choice, ownership and voice through authentic learning. This assessment as learning perspective is a practical way to move into what the researcher Mizerow would argue is transformational learning. Mizerow (2000 & 2010) argues that you do not learn things until you tell someone about what you have learned. The transformation to deeper learning happens in the reflective process and the sharing of your learning process with others.

The entire shift toward the learner’s mindset includes the shift toward assessment as learning and you and the following posts and video are a few examples of how we have been supporting and exploring how to help learners become self-directed or autodidactic.

Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community

The assessment as learning model is realized in the ADL program and courses through the Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community collaboration and reflection component of each course.

In addition to viewing the Assessment As Learning Video posted at the top of the page, ADL students are required to also view the following video and then consider their contribution to their learning and their learning community.

Contribution to Your Learning and the Learning Community

“At some point, to be powerful performers in life as well as self-directed learners, students must learn how to assess the quality of their own work” Creating Significant Learning Experiences by Fink, L. D. (2013, p. 103).

This critical reflection allows you to evaluate your ability to be a self-directed learner by getting you to self-assess your contributions to your own learning and to the learning of your classmates. Learning to self-assess is an important part of your being a self-directed and lifelong learner.

You will be self-assessing your contributions to your learning and to the learning community at the end of each course.

Directions: (Expectations)

For each course, you are to select a numerical score from the self-assessment marking guide and then write a rationale (min 500-800** words) that supports and justifies the numerical score you have selected. This rationale will address what is working, what you can do better, and will highlight your contributions to your learning and to the learning of the community. Please provide specific details in your rationale. The rationale must also list the 3-5 members of your base group community with whom you consistently collaborate. The rationale must list a numerical score, include links to your work, and be submitted as a link to a post on your ePortfolio.

**Accelerated ADL option: For those who are currently taking two ADL courses at the same time, you can combine the two separate course Contributions to Your Learning Community reflections into one unified reflection on the condition that you reflect on and articulate how your collaborations impact the connecting of ideas from the two courses. This is much more than just stating that you did combine the two reflections; you need to explain how you combined your collaborations and what was the impact of doing so.

Note: If your rationale lacks specific details and does not support your score (too high or too low) you may be asked to redo the rationale before the score is adjusted and is recorded.

Self-Assessment Marking Guide

Score 90-100

Key Contributions

  1. Contributed to and helped build your core collaboration group.
  2. Provided peer feedback to your core group members.
  3. Revised all assignments and reflected on revisions in this contribution to learning activity.
  4. Completed ALL of the course readings, videos and supporting resources.
  5. Met the various course activity deadlines indicated in the calendar.

Supporting Contributions

  1. Took leadership responsibility in your base group and the course.
  2. Contributed to your learning and the learning of your colleagues by participating in ALL activities.
  3. Active contributions in the various course forums.
    • You posted in a timely fashion so others can respond to your posting.
    • Your postings reflect breadth and depth of thinking with research to support your thinking and is cited using APA.
    • Additional postings were made that did not require research but were rather to contribute to the learning.

Score 80 – 89.5

  • All of the key contributions were met.
  • One of the supporting contributions was not met.

Score 70-79.5

  • One of the key contributions was not met or and one or more of the supporting contributions was not met.

Score 0 – 69.5

  • More than one of the key contributions were not met and more than one of the supporting contributions was not met.

This guide is provided in each of the ADL courses.

Related posts:

References

Alberta Education. (2003). Types of classroom Assessment http://www.learnalberta.ca/content/mewa/html/assessment/types.html

Assessment OF/FOR/AS Learning. (2017, March). [National Forum]. The National Forum for the enhancement of teaching and learning in higher education. https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/our-priorities/student-success/assessment-of-for-as-learning/

Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R. J., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right-using it well. Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Earl, L. M. (2012). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Corwin Press.

Earl, L. M., & Manitoba School Programs Division. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning. Manitoba

Education, Citizenship and Youth. https://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/assess/wncp/index.html

Fenwick, T. J., & Parsons, J. (2009). The art of evaluation: A resource for educators and trainers. Thompson Educational Publishing.

McNamee, G. D., & Chen, J.-Q. (2005). Dissolving the Line between assessment and teaching. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72–76.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco, CA.

National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. (2017, March 30). Expanding our Understanding of Assessment and Feedback in Irish Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/publication/expanding-our-understanding-of-assessment-and-feedback-in-irish-higher-education/.

NSW Education Standards Authority. (n.d.). Assessment For, As and of Learning. Retrieved December 7, 2020, from https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/k-10/understanding-the-curriculum/assessment/approaches

Rowe, J. (2012). Assessment as learning—ETEC 510. http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Assessment_as_Learning

Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3–16). Springer.

Sparks, D. (1999). Assessment without victims: An interview with Rick Stiggins. Journal of Staff Development, 20, 54–56.

ADL Links
Applied Digital Learning
DLL Evolves to ADL
CSLE+COVA
ADL Why & Principles
Assessment OF/FOR/AS Learning
ADL Program Map
What You Get From the ADL
How to Succeed in the ADL
ADL Course Goals
ADL Tips & Perspectives

Revised on August 16, 2021