Can you check with the available products? Is it necessary to do this too? But if you want to do them, how do you do them? We do not provide complete answers, but advice that will allow you to test and above all to protect the freedom of the teacher.
Discussion is not limited to DAD
Many colleagues say it is not possible to evaluate remotely:
“Students copy”
“Download answers from the Internet”
“They communicate with each other through WhatsApp”
“They get help from their parents.”
All of this is true if we think about classic verification in terms of simple knowledge and goals.
In fact, many teachers, including myself, create checks and tests that contain all or part of the material available to students – in the classroom.
These are experiments that, at least in part, require explicit manipulation of reflections, links, and content.
For this reason, even if a brief online evaluation is an institutional choice, it should not be ruled out, but DAD is not the central theme of this intervention.
Check with available products!
Carrying out checks with items available in the classroom or computer room is a broad and varied concept that we can represent by a line between two extremes: on the one hand everything is available, with internet access if desired, limited items and / or some cards are available.
With all the products available and the internet – with a portion of the material available
Of all the items available – only a few cards are available
For example
However, knowledge can be thought of as functions that act as a tool. Here is an example of how to evaluate using an analytical rubric.
“Students in Germany email the Minister asking for new classrooms, new desks, funding for student groups and a new canteen“In doing so they have some ingredients in them: different cards and grammar”.
If they wish, they also have Internet access: In this case, check in advance that a similar email does not already exist, and remind students that if it is in Italian, it should not be identical.
Variable time in this type of test
If students have material, the time variation becomes decisive.
With less time, those who do not read and do not fully know the contents, struggle to find and organize them in a short time. Finding knowledge and even copying a sentence becomes difficult.
Take a test or class assignment:
- 90 minutes without ingredients
The
- 50 minutes with objects, in general, intuitively puts the student in front of the same difficulty.
Anti-bending advice
The problem with introducing verifications with materials is wider than one might think and is linked to a shift towards efficiency paradigm.
Teachers feel that we are surrounded.
Everyone talks to us about abilities!
But without backing down from the subjective subjectivity of the 60s and 70s, one can tell us how to evaluate them and above all how to evaluate work processes when creating and drafting cognitive artifacts.
Of course, you can with complete or analytical phases, but what a problem everyone imagines!
Checks varied
Now many will ask:
“And I can no longer do my old checks?”
“Should I always be allowed to use stuff?”
Of course not!
You know how I feel, and if you do not, I will mention my basic idea of creative / inclusion and non-subtraction teaching.
You can perform all types of checks and evaluate everything informally, from test, knowledge to skills, and / or even without checks.
My view on the evaluation method
However, I have a certainty: one goes in the direction of abilities with all or part of the material only available by imagining a test or informal function!
Advice: Thinking about leaving materials available to students while preparing my test allows me to change the types of exercises and activities, even if I have not actually used any material.
Bloom’s taxonomy: Assistance in preparing audits
Without disturbing the paradigm of abilities, I invite you to reconsider the attached Bloom taxonomy, which negates cognitive processes through verbs.
Knowledge, understanding and analysis
If we take a list of verbs that describe cognitive processes, it is easy to understand that if I test knowledge, understanding and “simple” analysis, the available materials will give me many answers.
In this case I used verbs like:
. To remember
To authorize
Say it in your own words
. Identification
Translate
Categorize ify
Subtraction
Analysis, compilation, evaluation and something else
If I test complex processes such as analysis, compilation and evaluation, the products will be less effective or often completely useless.
In this case I use verbs like:
Compare
Planning
Propose Prop
Argue
Generalize
Create
Self (self) evaluation.
In particular, I may ask students:
“Why does this process work so well …?”
“What results cannot be predicted?”
“What happens next?”
“What influence does the Beatles have on today’s music?”
Personally I also add verbs like: delete, exclude, avoid, delete what we do not like or need, rearrange, modify, choose and decide accordingly.
When we do something in real life, we first pick and choose what we don’t like
For those who want to deepen, Eisner (2005) calls on us to mediate between a “goal-oriented” and “object-oriented” teaching.
Author’s freedom
Polyamon, even without disturbing the big Inaki I mentioned in the title.
Why do you check with products?
Because we make students think, we are beyond knowledge.
Why nowadays?
Because in this way we are different, we are differentiated, we give more impulses, we do not get bored, we do not get bored.
Why not?
My rating system is already done, skills are already integrated or they are not, but at will, I compensate for something else.
Can I still be creative?
My students create artwork, work in design mode, no longer carry out checks, they do other things for free and creatively.
The author uses informal evaluation formats or as UNESCO defines continuous and widespread evaluation.
Professional bacon fanatic. Explorer. Avid pop culture expert. Introvert. Amateur web evangelist.
