Return-Path: <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i4CKh6m13732; Wed, 12 May 2004 16:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 16:43:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <SEA2-F5996PnPlpNvHX0002139d@hotmail.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-assessment@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ASSESSMENT:548] RE: To Standardize or Not To Standardize X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 3276 Lines: 64 Marie and all, Just responding to this part of your message: 2. Eileen writes: >If you decide that certain characteristics of performance are >important, then those become the criteria against which you can judge lots >of different examples of work. For example, if my faculty group thinks it >is important that students write with an awareness of the intended >audience, then we can make that a criterion, describe it at different >levels, and use it to evaluate performance on emails, postings to the >discussion board of the online component of our classes, homework, essays, >a copy of the note the student wrote to her child's teacher, etc., etc. We >can use real-life writing to assess how well the student meets this >criterion, and we don't have to standardize conditions to do so. My question: haven't you just described (part of) a process for standardizing the conditions of "awareness of intended audience"? If not, why not? If yes, why? I think we need to distinguish between standardizing the performance conditions--which this example doesn't do, or address--and standardizing the scoring criteria. If we were to standardize the performance conditions we'd address things like: How much time will students have to produce the writing sample? How will instructor/proctor give directions? Will the proctor answer students' clarifying questions during the performance of the task? What tools will be available--dictionary, thesaurus, word processor, spell-check, etc? Will conditions be different for students with language issues or disabilities? If so, how? And more... But that's <not> what I'm talking about in the example above. I'm saying that if we standardize the criteria for what it means to "demonstrate awareness of the intended audience" then we'd look at any document students wrote to an audience, under whatever conditions and circumstances, and evaluate the extent to which the document meets the criteria. The criterion (or criteria--I thought is was one, but now it seems to have sub-criteria) might be things like: 1. Uses language, tone, conventions appropriate to the audience. We see this all the time at the business college where I'm working when students fill communications to teachers with emoticons, abbreviations, and other chat conventions, unaware that when your "audience" is your teacher, prospective employer, or other recipient who is not your chat buddy, you adjust what/how you write. Do you see what I mean by this? 2. Appearance of the document shows an awareness of audience. You might write a note to your kids--"Be back at 4. Don't eat all the cookies!"--on the back of your grocery list, but you probably shouldn't write a note to your child's teacher, or a memo to your boss, on same. 3, 4, 5. Whatever other criteria you have--I don't have time to write a whole list. Standardizing the criteria you use to score/evaluate a document is different than standardizing the conditions under which the document is produced. So, no, I'm not describing part of the process of standardizing conditions, I'm describing standardizing (agreeing on criteria) for evaluating the product, under whatever conditions it is produced. I'd also welcome hearing from others on this. Eileen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:46:16 EST