Schmidt - The Diigo Meta page

• 18 Nov 09
  

  Betzi Bateman

  assessment peercritique peergrading

• 

  Joaquin Salvachua
• 09 Nov 09
  

  Theron DesRosier

  "Credentialism theorists agree with human capital theorists that credentials are beneficial to those who receive them and lead to higher salaries and better jobs, but according to Boylan (1993), the link between education and productivity is much weaker than the link between education and rewards; thus, diplomas entitle you to society’s spoils, but you or the credentials are not necessarily responsible for producing them."
  
  
  "As she works on projects in her new job, she links the final versions to her e-portfolio."
  
  No, not scalable, link the process not just the product.

  schmidt credentialism accreditation assessment

  • redentialism theorists agree with human capital theorists that credentials are beneficial to those who receive them and lead to higher salaries and better jobs, but according to Boylan (1993), the link between education and productivity is much weaker than the link between education and rewards; thus, diplomas entitle you to society’s spoils, but you or the credentials are not necessarily responsible for producing them.
  • He argues that factual knowledge becomes less important than mastering the use of networked connections between ever-changing specialized information. He suggests that “[o]ur ability to learn what we need for tomorrow is more important than what we know today.”
  • 5 more annotations...
  • • One effect of the open education movement has been that some parts of the education package typically provided by institutions that drew value from scarcity have become abundant. For example, educational content for many subjects is now freely and openly available online. This has led some open education proponents to speak of the “disaggregation of education” (see blog posts Wiley 2008a, Wiley 2008b, and Norman 2008) and to speculate how other core services of the university might evolve as independent elements in an open education ecosystem. Such ecosystems are typically described as a combination of three areas: content, learning support, and accreditation (integrated with assessment). We will take a closer look at learning, assessment, and accreditation in open education (content holds no particular relevance in the context of accreditation).
    • • Trust: When accreditation needs to provide recognition beyond the community where it is expressed, its value is determined by the trust that is placed in the provider. There are different ways of expressing trust in open source projects, for example through their ability to attract and maintain participants or through the demonstrable quality of the project’s output.
      • Relevance: The assessment and accreditation mechanisms must be appropriate to evaluate and certify relevant learning and skills. Assessment must be an integral part of learning. In open source software, development and assessment are inseparable. The assessment of an individual’s contribution is expressed by its acceptance into the actual software code.
      • Scalability: The model must scale to the demands of the current education environment. A one-on-one system in which a trusted professor manually certifies a student does not scale well. A community-based reputation or voting system scales more easily, but outsiders might question its reliability. Open source software projects have demonstrated an ability to organically develop coordination, quality review, and feedback mechanisms that span communities of hundreds of participants.
      • Transparency: The possibility to examine all elements of the accreditation system increases trust and quality. Accreditation providers that show how they accredit learners with different assessment results reduce the potential for bias and for subjective accreditations. Errors can be identified and corrected easily. Open systems are by definition transparent and encourage inspection and improvements, leading to high standards of accountability.

    • A group of self-learners interested in behavioral economics agrees on a timeframe (6 weeks) and basic communication tools (email, aggregated blog posts, and a shared wiki workspace) to learn about the predictable irrationalities in human behavior. Each week the group members study the list of agreed readings and work through the tasks they have defined for themselves.

      
      
      

      Their work in the group leaves a digital trail. They find useful resources and add them to a social bookmarking service with a short description and rating; when they read a blog post by another group member, they use a web browser plug-in to leave a short rating as well; when they review each other’s assignments, they leave notes and ratings that are intended for both the author and themselves as reminders of especially good work (or of pitfalls to avoid). Others who are not part of the initial group can comment and leave additional feedback, suggest additional readings, or extend the discussions on their own blogs.

    • At the end of the course the group members each create their own personal portfolios in which they compile their best pieces of writing (or those that received positive feedback). They also leave testimonials for each other describing not only each other’s mastery of the subject but also reflections on the experience of working together. In addition, a number of metrics are calculated automatically and included in the portfolio, such as the number of bookmarks that were stored, the number of ratings left, and the average rating received for their own work. There are also indicators of their level of engagement with the group and the particular roles they took on during the process, such as problem solving and peer review roles.
    • As she works on projects in her new job, she links the final versions to her e-portfolio.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.