Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

What Does the Future Hold for e-Assessment?

2,367 views

Published on

Presentation given by Martin Ripley at eAssessment Scotland 2010

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

What Does the Future Hold for e-Assessment?

  1. 1. What does the future hold for e-assessment?<br />Martin Ripley<br />World Class Arena Ltd<br />www.worldclassarena.net<br />
  2. 2. Development and adoption of project<br />Cisco, Intel, Microsoft joint contribution to improve education<br />Joint company taskforce – 9 members<br />Dr Robert Kozma as consultant<br />Aim to improve 21st century skills<br />Define them clearly<br />Make them measurable<br />Connect with the classroom<br />Cisco, Intel Microsoft now supporting an international team<br />
  3. 3. Assessment in 21st Century<br />Existing models of assessment are typically at odds with the skills, knowledge, attitudes and characteristics of self-directed and collaborative learning that are increasingly important for our global economy and fast changing world. <br />New assessments are needed that measure these skills and provide information that is needed by students, teachers, parents, administrators, and policymakers to catalyze and support systemic education reform. <br />These assessments should engage students in the use of technology and digital resources and the application of a deep understanding of subject knowledge to solve complex, real world tasks and create new ideas, content, and knowledge.<br />Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Education Taskforce<br />Transforming Education: <br />Assessing and Teaching the Skills Needed in the 21st Century<br />A Call to Action <br />
  4. 4. Engagement of countries and other companies<br />Founder Countries<br />Australia, Finland, Portugal, Singapore, UK, USA<br />Other countries can join<br />Collaborative electronic space<br />Other companies can fund work<br />If it fits the project’s program<br />If the company has relevant expertise<br />If the company agrees thatall results will be in the public domain, asCisco, Intel and Microsoft have.<br />
  5. 5. White papers developed in 2009 by working groups<br />Defining 21st Century Skills<br />Ms Senta Raizen, WestEd<br />Methodological Issues<br />Dr Mark Wilson, University of California, Berkeley<br />Technological Issues<br />Dr Beno Csapo, University of Szeged, Hungary<br />Classrooms and Formative Evaluation. <br />Dr John Bransford, University of WashingtonDr Marlene Scardamalia, University of Toronto<br />Policy Frameworks for New Assessments <br />Dr Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University<br />
  6. 6. Defining 21st Century Skills<br />
  7. 7. Defining 21st Century Skills<br />
  8. 8. Defining 21st Century Skills<br />
  9. 9. Defining 21st Century Skills<br />Conceptual structure<br />Ways of thinking<br />Creativity and innovation<br />Critical thinking, problem solving<br />Learning to learn, metacognition<br />Ways of working<br />Communication<br />Collaboration (teamwork)<br />Tools for working<br />Information literacy<br />ICT literacy<br />Living in the world<br />Citizenship – local and global<br />Life and career<br />Personal, social responsibility<br />
  10. 10. A framework for 21st century skills<br />Assessments signal priorities for curriculum and instruction <br />Teachers model the pedagogical approach<br />Curriculum developers respond<br />Schools and teachers tend to focus on what is tested rather than underlying standards or learning goals<br />May encourage a one-time performance orientation and transmission-type teaching<br />Instructional/teaching time is diverted to specific test preparation activities<br />
  11. 11. WCAL research<br />Collaborative problem solving<br />
  12. 12. Participation skills<br />Low<br />Peripheral participation<br />Low subjective responsibility for outcomes of collaboration, leading to lurking behaviour<br />Simple epistemological beliefs (knowledge is perceived as fixed and to be transmitted from teacher/textbook to learner)<br />Middle<br />Activity in scaffolded environments <br />Responding to cues in communication<br />Medium subjective responsibility for outcomes of collaboration<br />Developed epistemological beliefs (knowledge is perceived as fixed, but can be elaborated through communication and collaboration)<br />High<br />Initiating and promoting interaction<br />Activating and scaffolding others in participation<br />Ensuring equal participation rates among group members<br />High subjective responsibility for outcomes of collaboration<br />Sophisticated epistemological beliefs (knowledge is perceived as fluid, constructed, and inherently social/collaborative in nature)<br />
  13. 13. Perspective taking skills<br /> Low<br />Low levels of empathy<br />High egocentric bias<br />Social projection (expectation of others as highly similar to oneself)<br />Ignoring contributions from others<br />Contributions are not tailored to participants<br />Middle<br />Medium levels of empathy<br />Medium level of egocentric bias<br />Receptive ability (being able to understand what others want to convey, e.g. from overhearing)<br />Contributions from others are taken into account<br />Contributions are moderately tailored to recipients<br />High<br />High levels of empathy<br />Low or no egocentric bias<br />Contributions from others are embraced and contextualized with respect to collaborators’ opinions and skills<br />Eliciting contributions from others (e.g. through questions)<br />Contributions are tailored to recipients (audience design)<br />
  14. 14. Task regulation skills<br />Low<br />Trial and error hypothesis testing<br />Unorganized sequence of solution attempts<br />Little or no goal setting<br />Variety of taskwork mental models will be ignored<br />Middle<br />Forward search through a problem space<br />Organized sequence of solution attempts<br />Setting of unspecific goals<br />Variety of taskwork mental models will be taken into account<br />High<br />Reflective regulation<br />Forward and backward search through a problem space<br />Strategic oversight over collaborative strategy<br />Setting of specific goals<br />Variety of taskwork mental models will be harnessed productively<br />
  15. 15. Knowledge building skills<br />Low<br />Knowledge telling<br />Sharing of information<br />Isolated contributions<br />Lack of argumentation patterns<br />Middle<br />Critical analysis of information<br />Building on input from others<br />Adding information/data<br />Forming of incomplete arguments<br />High<br />Knowledge transforming<br />Integration and synthesis of multiple artefacts <br />Forming of complete, proper arguments (explanatory coherence) <br />
  16. 16. Social regulation skills<br />Low<br />Low tolerance for ambiguity<br />Competitive or individualistic social value orientation<br />Low readiness to negotiate joint understanding<br />Tendency to withdraw after conflict arises<br />Middle<br />Cooperative social value orientation<br />Attempts to negotiate joint understanding<br />Conflicts will be avoided<br />Initiation of compromises<br />High<br />Pro-social attitudes<br />Strategies for conflict resolution<br />Conflicts are regarded as productive tensions<br />Initiation of successful compromises<br />
  17. 17. WCAL research<br />Collaborative problem solving<br />A simple task (i.e. one we don’t want)<br />
  18. 18. WCAL research<br />More complex problem solving model<br />
  19. 19. WCAL research<br />Collaborative problem solving<br />A complex task (parallel rather than serial processes)<br />
  20. 20. Sample task<br />
  21. 21. WCAL approach<br />
  22. 22. Sample task<br />
  23. 23. Sample task<br />

×