Hello Allen and everyone,

I'd like to copy two statements of Allen's to this post and respond to them.  I'm leaving my and Allen's messages intact below in case some readers are in need of the framework within which this discussion is taking place. 

I need an answer to a ninth question or
else answers to the first eight become less important to me:  (9) What is
to be done with the assessment results?  What interventions can be
suggested to promote improvement in those areas deemed to be inhibiting
learning?  If a program can’t utilize the assessment results then
why have them, no matter how valid, fair and appropriate they may be?

I believe that your ninth question, Allen, is an excellent one, but sequentially needs to follow the eight I have listed. If one indeed performs assessments that yield valid, fair, and appropriate information, then the question as to what to with that information should be self-evident.  This would be a necessary result of properly designed assessment measures, which I have briefly but incompletely alluded to in my eight questions. 

If the information does not transparently inform what needs to be done to help a particular learner, then I would suggest that the information itself is problematic.  Generically speaking, either there is then a problem with the test design itself, and/or an issue with the capabilities or levels of authority among those who administer the tests (precisely with reference to your question about what to do with the results).  

I don’t know if “non-cognitive” is an
appropriate term or not for the traits we have been referring to, but I am not
sure why it is “oxymoronic.”  Nickel and copper are referred
to as “non-ferrous metals.”  Is “non-ferrous” an
oxymoronic label?

Non-ferrous materials contain no iron, if I'm not mistaken.  Simple enough.  If the question arises as to what they do contain, the question is easily answered.  This is one of the relative simplicities of the physical sciences in terms of clearly-delineated and defined investigative procedures. 

Non-cognitive traits or skills are those that are void of cognition. Far from simple enough.  If they are void of cognition, then what are they, what underlies them?  I suggest an exploration of affective states might help inform the answer.  If one says that motivation is a non-cognitive trait, we will get caught up in circular reasoning, one of the cornerstones of oxymora. 

As is, we are caught in a meaningless loop. To say that motivation is non-cognitive, for example, is intrinsically meaningless, in my opinion, and flies in the face of one of the cornerstones of assessment: the need for valid constructs and the ability to validate them.

Michael


 
Michael A. Gyori 
Maui International Language School 
www.mauilanguage.com




________________________________
From: "French, Allan" <afrench at sccd.ctc.edu>
To: The Assessment Discussion List <assessment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Fri, October 9, 2009 8:38:33 AM
Subject: [Assessment 2202] Re: ROI and Non-Cognitive Measures of Outcomes inABE

 
Michael:
 
As I said in a previous post, as a classroom instructor and an
assessment coordinator for my program, I need an answer to a ninth question or
else answers to the first eight become less important to me:  (9) What is
to be done with the assessment results?  What interventions can be
suggested to promote improvement in those areas deemed to be inhibiting
learning?  If a program can’t utilize the assessment results then
why have them, no matter how valid, fair and appropriate they may be?
 
I don’t know if “non-cognitive” is an
appropriate term or not for the traits we have been referring to, but I am not
sure why it is “oxymoronic.”  Nickel and copper are referred
to as “non-ferrous metals.”  Is “non-ferrous” an
oxymoronic label?
 
Yes, I find it interesting to review the origin and evolution of terms and their meanings.  In all areas of life, terminology changes
over time, and the meaning and uses of any given term change over time. 
How do we know what is what Catherine refers to as “the actual”
meaning of a term:  the original meaning (consider the holiday names “Christmas”
and “Halloween”), the most popular meaning and use, the latest
usage (“bad” can mean good in some aspects of popular culture),
whatever some panel of “experts” decide, something particular to
the specific context, or what?  For myself, I am interested in whatever
term proves useful for effectively communicating with my peers.  This
latter often requires some effort at clarification (such as distinguishing
between “appraisal,” “formative,” “summative”
and “high-stakes” when referring to types of assessments) but I don’t
want my colleagues and I to get bogged down in the etymology of the terms
(which may be interesting but in the end not really decisive), I just want us
to be “on the same page.”
 
Allan
 
 
Allan D. French
 
ESL Instructor and Assessment Coordinator
Basic & Transitional Studies Division
South Seattle Community College
206-768-6836
afrench at sccd.ctc.edu
 
 
 
From:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf
Of Michael Gyori
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 10:56 AM
To: The Assessment Discussion List
Cc: The AAACE-NLA Discussion List
Subject: [Assessment 2201] Re: ROI and Non-Cognitive Measures of
Outcomes inABE
 
Hello
Catherine, Tom, and everyone,

I'd like to begin by noting that I wholeheartedly and without reservation agree
with Catherine's words below. Further, I'd like to tie in her words with some
foundational principles of assessment.

We have had quite a lively discussion about the use of the terms
"cognitive," and especially "non-cognitive."  For the
record, and I repeat, there are several subscribers who have problems with the
latter, even dismiss it altogether (as do I).  A response I got during a
telephone conversation yesterday with a non-subscribing professional colleague
of mine to the term "non-cognitive" was that it is oxymoronic. 
I'll leave that one alone for now, but would suggest the response is worthy of
consideration.

Before we even begin designing assessments, there are a few questions we must
continually keep in mind: 
	1. What is the purpose of a particular assessment tool?
	2. Whose interests are being met by an assessment tool?
	3. Are the individuals who are being assessed positively vested in some manner in those interests? 
	4. Are the underlying constructs valid, i.e. do they refer to "something" that the population-at-large (and not only the ivory towers of academia and government) can recognize, accept, and identify with at a given point in time?
	5. Are the results of the assessment useful, meaningful, and sufficiently generalizable (with respect especially to norm-referenced measures) if there are high stakes associated with them (i.e. can result in far-reaching impacts on individual lives)?
	6. Are there other and/or further assessments available and being used that can point test-takers to alternative life choices that ultimately lead to desired life outcomes?
	7. Are ongoing efforts being made with respect to test validation and the reliability of measures (often a daunting task, I might add)?
	8. Is everything being done to control for countless intervening variables that do not relate to the knowledge, skill sets, and performances the assessment tools seek to identify? 
I'll
conclude by saying if there are hidden agenda-free efforts to address traits
such as low-level motivation, they most certainly can be successful if
they address both the underlying affective causes and the need for cognitively
meaningful learning experiences.  The effects of classroom instruction,
for example, can be profound, and much more than academic subject-area specific
(cognitive?) learning and human development can occur in classroom settings. 

Michael
 
Michael
A. Gyori 
Maui
International Language School 
www.mauilanguage.com


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/assessment/attachments/20091011/b23b9449/attachment.html