Evaluating the Portfolio

Overview

When a teacher, at any level of learning, establishes a grading rubric – a set of guidelines for assigning points to different aspects of that which is being measured, there are two essential considerations:

1. How well was that which was supposed to have been learned mastered?

2. What part of the greater learning activity (class) does the assignment represent?

If the course is divided into four self-contained units, each taking one quarter of the term and right answer instruments may be developed, there is really nothing to consider.

Logistics

The DCTE course runs 22-weeks, meets for the first week on campus and for 21-weeks online after that. The portfolio, according to the syllabus, is worth 50% of the grade. It represents nine weeks of collaboration and journaling plus one week of reflecting and writing – roughly 50% of the course time.

So far so good – except there should have been some part of the grade reserved for full group collaboration and self-evaluation of participation there as well. Although full group discussion is noted in the assignment, it cannot be measured at this point in the term. There is always the next iteration.

Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of the teaching/learning sessions, the need for multiple new behaviors should be established. The experience is not about mastery; it is about awareness of need for continuing investigation, experimentation, and reflection. Here are some of the issues:

As a teacher,
· Use a chart similar to Gagne’s Events of Instruction for each lesson presented.
· Begin with a process for engaging students; keep the momentum going.
· Participate in the creation and maintenance of real presences across distances.
· Use the online syllabus as a course contract.

As a learner,
· Work with the instructor to maintain an online community.
· Report all technical difficulties immediately.
· Communicate in a professionally responsible manner.
· Adhere to the rules of the course.

Web 2.0 Tools

Traditions evolve rapidly in the age of information. The traditional format of the experience was that the space for experimenting with online teaching and learning was the discussion forum of an electronic classroom. After several years of reporting on how to use the new tools,bits and pieces of literature began to appear about their value in improving learning.

The time had arrived to introduce a new wrinkle to the experience. Each teacher was charged with the addition of web 2.0 tools, namely a blog, wiki or podcast, in the execution of the lesson. No specific conditions of use were provided.

The Portfolios

From the initial week on campus, it was apparent that all 14 class participants were good citizens. Therefore, it was not surprising that 100% of the assignments were submitted in a timely manner. The required parts of the portfolio were:

1. Comprehensive lesson plan using Gagne’s Events of Instruction. Include a discussion of modifications made during implementation.
2. Copy of syllabus posted in topic. Include a brief discussion of modifications made during implementation.
3. One-two page discussion of web 2.0 tool used to include choice for selection, what took place and thoughts for future work with this tool.
4. One-two page evaluation of your performance as a teacher. Include mistakes, triumphs, and plans for the future. Include a statement on each of your students.
5. Two page evaluation of your experiences as learner. Write a paragraph for each session in which you participated. Name the teacher and the subject.

To a greater or lesser extent, everyone complied with all requirements.

An issue that experience has taught me is that peers tend to be generous in evaluating one another and to excuse less-than-acceptable participation. There are always reasons why something is not done or is done poorly.

People who teach adults were not required to undergo teacher education programs. Formal structures for lesson design and implementation are alien concepts. Some of the events charts were marvelous. Others merely echoed the requirements for what kind of experience belonged in each section. Still others were just wrong. Is that some do not believe in the value of structured planning or are lax habits too hard to overcome with one short exposure? This observation, too, occurs each term.

The experiences with the web 2.0 tools were time consuming, frustrating and marvelous. We worked with free tools only and, as experienced computer users, were often dissatisfied with the way things worked out. Many feared the intrusion of outsiders and tried to protect the integrity of their products by setting up requirements for passwords that confounded the process.

A major issue – perhaps one that might be commented upon – is what interaction goes in which tool. How does the teacher organize the online learning space so that students know what to post where and how the tools might be organized so that interaction is most meaningful?

As a computing technology in education discipline, we have a great deal to learn about enhancing teaching and learning with web 2.0 tools. What we have done this term is to get started along the learning curve.

Grading the Portfolios

Many years ago an adult student walked into my office, sat down, and announced that she was going to share a major concern – and she did! It seems that her work was highly superior to that of everyone else, her solutions were more efficient, her procedures were unique, etc. and the “A” she earned was definitely superior to that of other students in the class who had earned the grade. I did not know what she wanted from me then and still do not know. It is a fact of life that very little is equal or fair or truly representative.

Holding on to that notion, I decided to assign full credit for each portfolio submitted. Everyone, to some degree, performed each required part of the assignment, and everyone was more or less pleased with his peers. In personal communications, I will address specific issues. As to fairness, there remains 50% of the grade to be allocated to two formal papers; here is where the stars will shine and the course grades will reflect a somewhat normal curve.

Post-Experimentation Part I

As per the syllabus, I did not expect anyone to participate in the blog or in the full-class discussions in WebCT during the small group experimental activities. The nine weeks have passed as has the week devoted to portfolio-polishing and submission. As a group, the class continues to impress its professor. Every one of the anticipated assignments is on my desk. The queue has a virtual “high priority” stamp upon it; reading shall begin later today. It is important to make some observations and to pose some questions in advance of reviewing the submissions.

I will pick up where I left off at the end of January. During these weeks, I observed some of the interactions on WebCT and others on the various web 2.0 tools, taking great care not to be intrusive. There was not enough time for serious interaction or enough people per group for a dynamic to be built. Both factors were deterrents to the value of the learning experience but considerable learning has occurred in any event. Nevertheless, two-way communication must be learned as a two-way process and the amount of time devoted to an activity should mirror the percentage of the points allotted to it in grading.

Here is a question open for discussion:

Given the need for interaction, an inability to determine enrollment, and the awareness that the small group activity with all its components represents less that half the final grade, how would you structure the teaching/learning activity?

Unstructured activities in the past degenerated into popularity contests. Ungraded activities go ignored by the very people who need the experience the most. Open-ended syllabi contradict the fact that a syllabus is a contract. Is it possible that someone addressed the issue in his reflections and lessons learned? We are at somewhat of a disadvantage here because students are reluctant to appear to be criticizing a professor. Perhaps one of our guests will provide reassurance that the focus is on the subject, not upon me.

Here is a second discussion question:

Should a course, whether totally or partially online, have more than one online tool for interactive discussion? Observing participants as students and as instructors struggle with appropriate placement of different remarks, I formulated my answer which I will share at another time. Here comes the hard part: Assuming you, the instructor, have a range of option, how do you decide which one(s) to use? Please discuss the subject matter of the course in mind when responding to the question. [Yes! The subject matter makes a great deal of difference in the answer. Everything one thinks about needs a frame of reference into which to place one’s thoughts. Same need applies when considering someone else’s thoughts.]

Questions three and four for discussion are carry-over-with-modifications from January 28, 2008. Perhaps, given our limited experience, some answers may be forthcoming. These are important questions. If left unanswered, they may be raised again.

How might thinking skills be developed or extended through collaboration/interaction with any of the web 2.0 tools?

How might a specific learning environment be transformed with a blog, a wiki or another web 2.0 tool?

There are no right or wrong answers. Quickly, before literature on web 2.0 tools becomes established, share your opinions.