Education for higher level capabilities

Cowan, J. (2004). Education for high level capabilities. Beyond alignment to integration? : University of Aveiro and netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

This paper is written from a constructivist point of view where knowledge is generated not transmitted. The driver being that assessment is not in line with learning outcomes and that students are satisfying the assessment but not achieving the outcomes. The following table from Cowan (2004) shows some great examples of misalignment and then contrasted by a triangle diagram showing good alignment.

 
Similar to the previous article discussed, these seems to be a strong focus on evaluating at the end of a design curriculum. But how, is not very clear.

The article talks about a standard of marking where are given 2 examples, one that is sound and one that is above sound and then asked to grade it. Then their own assignments will be graded by the teacher based on the same scale. Feedback provided is minimal if they achieved a sound grade and only points that made them increase or decrease away from sound standard are returned to students. However I feel this isn't the best way to approach things as this doesn't tell the student what they have to do to improve!

A way that I like which could be implemented is the Reflection-for/in/on-action model which is using an activity to promote 3 stages of thinking:

• For - what do I need to know to tackle the question?
• In - what do I currently know, what is the next step?
• On - what did I learn from this, what can I take away to use in future questions? This in particular as this is would appear very outcome orientate for students. What common theme or skill/method occurred in this family of questions? What makes these questions the same?

 It also places emphasis on getting students to evaluate their own work against the criteria as an effective way to learn. Although I foresee logistical issues on how to run such an exercise.

This book also pointed out a glaring weakness in misalignment of assessment for ENGG1100. I'm asking them to show me a PFD but never teach them it.

I think with reflective tasks the most important thing is to link it back to student interests. They need to see how the reflective task will help them get better grades. It also points out that we shouldn't be teaching to try and cover X amount of content but rather to the capabilities of our target audience (i.e. the students).

So many potential issues this book points out, I like it. Things like self-assessment will help lower discontent when students get back their marks, true. Getting students to tell the tutor what they have done that week is also a form of self assessment as well and I can foresee that being effective.

As a finishing statement that I just read by relevant author Paul Ramsden: didactic learning tools such as lectures which can be considered largely transmissive are still relevant and valid, it all depends on how you implement them to achieve your learning outcomes.