Day two begins with presentations on assessment in a post
digital world. The presenters are Associate Professor Phillip Dawson,
Associate Professor Rola Ajjawi and Professor Margaret Bearman (researchers
from CRADLE at Deakin). The discussant is Professor Michael Henderson from
Monash University.
The symposium began with Michael acknowledgement of Country.
Each of the presenters shared their work – which are chapters in the book – reimagining
university assessment in a digital world.
Rola begins by presenting on ‘assessment as portrayal and
the strategic negotiation of persona’. Began with the impact on digital
technology on work – permeates everything, blurring professional and private
life, careers becoming more fluid and greater portrayal of digital identities. Assessments
are for certification, guide learning, help with employability and learning how
to make evaluative judgements. Completing the qualification recognised with
award and transcript but does that portray who the graduate is?? Proposed
assessment-as-portrayal to enable students to portray their achievements in
public ways, communicate directly with others. Examples include the use of graduate
learning outcomes through portfolios/credentials etc. Another pathway may be
through persona studies used by celebrities. Persona can be considered as a
strategic identity (Marshall & Henderson, 2016). Five dimensions of persona
include the public, mediatised, performative, collective and intentional value
and reputation. Reimagining assessments using persona studies involves
introduction of a subjective dimension to assessment practices, a rethink of
how we judge the quality of portrayal for future work; and encouragement of
student agency. Concluded with some important questions on how portrayal may
work.
Margaret covered the topic ‘assessment for an AI-mediated
world’. What does AI do well? – identify patterns more accurately than
humans, faster and at scale. However, this is a myth. Automated essay grading
is available but restricted to appropriate topics and tasks. The systems are
bounded by the quality of the original data set! If a machine is able to grade
a task, then it can do the task. Therefore assessments need to be centred
around unique human capabilities – evaluative judgements, deployment of meta-intelligence
(i.e. knowing about how you know). Assessments that promote EJ is not just about
identifying but the ability to construct their own sense about quality withing
a unique practice environment. Assessments can promote EJ through cycles of
self, peer and educator assessments. Assessment should develop personal
epistemology. Deliberately call attention to the EJ process. Use example
rubrics to form powerful epistemic artefacts. Ask learners to question the role
of rubrics (Bearman & Ajjiwi, 2019). Assessment tasks should prompt
students to answer questions on – what qualities make this a good piece of
work? If I were to set the criteria for success, what will it look like? How do
we know we have achieved?
Phillip presented on ‘surveillance and the weaponization of
academic integrity’. At the moment, Higher ed (HE) assessment has a
surveillance culture, this may be OK but we should fear the weaponization of
surveillance on academic integrity’. Drones, webcams and other tools collect
data on student learning. Argued that presently, a surveillance culture
pervades society and this is seen as acceptable by many ‘for our own good’. Surveillance
culture’s effect on assessments include the creation of a culture of distrust;
frames students as being in need of monitoring; students and their data become
a product; academic integrity becomes a game of submitting to or subverting
surveillance; and there eventuates an acceptance of the surveillance. There needs
to be a balance between surveillance and academic integrity. Assessment security
may be adversarial, punitive and evidence based but academic integrity is positive,
educative and supportive.
Session one DAY 2: Learning through and for work is
with Associate Professor Gloria Dall’Alba from the University of Queensland.
She presents on ‘toward a pedagogy of responsive attunement in educating for
the professions’.
Rhea Liang introduces the session.
Placed the presentation in the current context, where ‘fake
news’ is of concern. Society relies on truthfulness. When fake news disrupts
the standard discourse, it causes frustration and disillusionment. Proposes responsive
attunement as a means to ensure professional are able to evaluate information
in a studied and evidence based approach. Therefore, it is important to ensure
our ‘way of being-in-the-world’ (Heidegger, 1962) is anchored in the ability to
evaluate and respond to information. Advocated for ‘the capacity to care’ (Noddings,
2005) as a mark of personhood. Need to listen to the multiplicity of
perspectives, and to be able to assess their importance. Learning incorporated what
we know and do (epistemological) but also how we are learning to be (ontological).
Being attuned allows professionals to work through complexities and ethical dimensions.
Responsive attunement is responding on the basis of tuning in to others and
things, with reflexivity. Responding includes sensate, motile, emotional – i.e
multimodally. Education needs to begin the process so professionals are
prepared for the challenges posed at work. Implications summarised as – highlighting
tuning in and responding, focus on programme goals, reward in assessment,
address embodied learning, have well-integrated program and ensure epistemological
and ontological dimensions addressed.
Then a session with Dr. Emma Scholz from Charles Sturt
University on ‘Professional identity development : Implications for
sustainable assessments’. Presents on work with Franziska Trede.
Emphasis on professional identity development in the workplace
and the bringing in of Bloom’s taxonomy to assist the process. Presented the
concept of locating professional identity in a practice theory framework – in the
context of first year of practice for new graduate veterinarians. Research focus
needs to be grounded in ‘individuals in their social practice’. Detailed sequential
analysis process to thematically analyse interviews and field notes. Themes
than taken back to the data to construct key stories. These underwent dialogic
analysis to provide for the narratives. Theme on practice capability, the
learning professional, striving to become a capable practitioner, and mobilising
criticality within capability, shared with interview vignettes. A screen shot
of a key story presented. Proposed implications for practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment