Activity 7.4 - An example of self assessment

Source

Ogilvie, Karen (2008) 'Re(2): Activity 7.4 - Robin's self Assess', Open University - H808 aeb324 R self ass forum, 05 December 2008, 11:27 PM

I found Robin's presentation very convincing.. Key for me was drawing on evidence that most of us are already familiar with (so we have some "reasonable" proof that it hasn't been fabricated, perhaps "planted" ;-) ) and we could see the series of related activities evolving (if we were prepared to follow them). In fact the discussion boards offer us a wonderful ability to "follow" at least most of the progression.

However, I can also relate to Karen's earlier comment

Having said that, I'm not convinced that I fully understand what a 'principled appraoch to self-assessment is'... - Karen Ogilvie

Perhaps the principles need to be spelled out so that we're entirely clear about how Robin's self assessment is grounded.

The use of three pieces was significant. Is this intended to be a form of triangulation? I bring this up because I'm recalling my phone interview with Kathy Chang Barker (a Canadian expert on eportfolios) where I asked her a [ fcp://@oufcnt1.open.ac.uk,%231004824/IET%20H808%2008I/H808%2008I%20Tutor%20Groups/H808%2008I%20Annes%20Group/H808%20aeb324%20Ideas/%23156388667 ]similar question. and she came back to me with this answer.

What I'm still not clear on is the relevance of rating one's ability here. That appears to be so subjective .. almost out of the blue .. that it's practically useless to anyone other than oneself. What might be more meaningful to me would be a realization of a new learning objective that relates to this or came out of this exercise... and perhaps over time, one could use the attainment of the these various objectives as evidence of "above average" ability.

Activity 7.2 - relevance to TMA2 Part 1?

Sources

Cheer, Peter (2008) ‘core activity 7.3’, H808 - aeb324 Unit 7, [online] Available from: fcp://@oufcnt1.open.ac.uk,%231004824/H808%20aeb324%20Self%20ass/%23162285826 (Accessed 6 December 2008).

Consider how these notes and FCC messages could be incorporated into TMA2 part 1

Areas where this info might be relevant?

Ways of evidencing my pdp development ...

• connecting with others with similar job title and responsibilities
• sharing personal objectives, evidence, competency frameworks, reflections

Ways of recording & evaluating development

• use of a rubric and then links to evidence to support attainment / progress towards an objective on the rubric

Knowing the different roles that elearning professionals play in this context

• need to identify others who share a similar role or at least others who understand the importance and complexity of the role (Peter Cheer)
  

Peter's idea of blind exchanges within a large organization or association to realize peer reviews of one's pdp efforts .... the advantage being that both parties have a stake in realizing detailed review and feedback .. and thus there's likely to be a higher participation rate.

Activity 7.3 - Assessing PDP

Sources

Burgess, Hilary (n.d.) ‘Assessment: 2. Self and peer assessment’, The Higher Education Academy: Social Work and Social Policy (SWAP), [online] Available from: http://sorubank.ege.edu.tr/~bouo/DLUE/Chapter-08/Chapter-8-makaleler/Assessment%202_%20Self%20and%20peer%20assessment.htm (Accessed 4 December 2008).

Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto ‘Teaching and Learning by Health Professionals:
Practical Issues and Approaches - Sample Learning Contract’, Department of Family and Community Medicine - University of Toronto, [online] Available from: http://dfcm19.med.utoronto.ca/GradStudies/CourseMaterials/t&l/learning_contract1.htm (Accessed 4 December 2008).

Make a note of any of these approaches that you think could be applied to your own context of practice.

I'm in favour of the "learning contract" idea and see the list of competencies that we've come up with from Unit 6 becoming very handy for developing such a contract. To support this would require a fairly standard framework (Burgess) that invites the inclusion of still more frameworks / rubrics that the PLOT tool suggests.

This is very similar to a learning contract idea that I saw implemented in an experiential / alternative education program that I was involved in as a Group Leader some 20 years ago (Katimavik in Canada). Here the participants (a small group of 12 young adults) carried out some personal and group reflection exercises .. and then designed their own mission / values statement .. then personal and/or group objectives. They also knew what resources were available to them so they could map out how they might achieve these objectives (i.e. hiring a nutritionist to learn how to eat properly). Assessment? There wasn't any formal assessment..

As I see it, we've potentially got the same thing going on here. We've looked at the mission / values associated with being a learning technologist.. and are asked to review these to come up with a set of objectives that are aligned with that mission / those values and then plot how we might achieve them .. preferably with input and support from fellow group or team members. Assessment? Part of it might include how successfully aligned one's personal development objectives line up with professional and personal values and principles.

On a related note, I've only recently been advocating the inclusion of pdps at my work as a means to aligning faculty and staff development with the University's mission to promote teaching excellence. I see this being realized so that limited resources are aligned to address University directives but at the same time, the professional or personal objectives of an individual.

In effect, the University's governing board outlines its own strategic goals, then invites the various colleges to interpret those goals as well as their own to create department specific "strategic plans". These in turn could be used by faculty and staff to produce their own pdps that address their specific professional needs but align them once again with those of their department. These could then be included as part of one's annual performance review.

Activity 7.2 - Clegg review - types of cpd

Source

Clegg, Sue, Tan, Jon and Saeidi , Saiedeh (2002) ‘Reflecting or Acting? Reflective Practice and Continuing Professional Development in Higher Education - Reflective Practice’, Reflective Practice , 3(1), pp. 131-146, [online] Available from: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/44605_751304133_713693219.pdf (Accessed 3 December 2008).

My take on the Clegg article?
There is no "one" way or method to realize effective cpd through reflection. In some cases, the argument is made that written reflection may in fact be counter productive - people either approach it as an exercise to meet the expectations of others or do quite alright without it entirely. However written reflection still seems to be used as a means to evidence pd.

Clegg suggests that there are essentially 4 general types of professional development strategies involving reflection and these have come about from research on people engaged in CPD. Key factors that determine selection?

• experience - the person needs to have a degree of experience before they have something to reflect upon
• time pressures - availability to carry out the task properly
• priority - judging when and how frequently such reflective work is required
• thinking styles - ie. one's whole thinking process was difficult to capture via written reflection (writing didn't crystalize ideas but undermined them)

Those 4 types?

• immediate action
• immediate reflection
• deferred action
• deferred reflection
  

This challenged my first interpretation of the chart where I thought that there might be a progression (i.e. encouraging someone to move from A through to D, that the quality and depth of one's reflection improved accordingly). Where did that come from? My assumption that the most meaningful and purposeful reflection would come out of deferment? Apparently not so.

Which perspective do I favour?

I actually favour the Dealtry version... because I believe in the need for some sort of macro view - a continuum for professional development to be purposeful and meaningful - thus most effective. The Clegg article is more of a micro look - important for opening my eyes to how cpd can be realized in any number of ways dependent on a variety of factors. I'm also conscious of how I might be inclined to accept as equally viable all four perspectives in my own professional development now .. when before I would have favoured D as being the most desirable.

In respect to TMA 2 .. ?

The readings point out to me that the road to professional development can take on a variety of different paths - dependent on one's macro view - Dealtry - where I am in my "learning how to learn" / my "incremental learning" .. and dependent on one's micro view - Clegg - where a variety of factors may determine my choice of action and reflection (and evidence of my development). Both perspectives, one explicitly and the other implicitly, promote the notion that such cpd requires our ownership to be most meaningful and purposeful.

Activity 7.2 - Review of Dealtry & the "savvy" learner

Source

Dealtry, Richard (2004) ‘Emerald: Professional Practice - The savvy learner’, Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(1/2), pp. 101-109, [online] Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/Insight/viewPDF.jsp?Filename=html/Output/Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Pdf/0860160110.pdf (Accessed 3 December 2008).

Ogilvie, Karen (2008) ‘Re: Activity 7.2 - Jim's thoughts on Dealtry reading’, H808 - aeb324 Unit 7, [online] Available from: fcp://@oufcnt1.open.ac.uk,%231004824/H808%20aeb324%20Unit%207%20/H808%20aeb324%20Prof%20learning/%23162362990 (Accessed 6 December 2008).

My take on Dealtry reading?
A tremendous focus on empowering each one of us to "learn how to learn" and in the process, realize a form of self actualization that is termed "gradualism" to realize becoming a "savvy" (knowledgeable) learner . Rather than asking the question "what shall I learn?" and waiting for others to answer it... its being suggested that we may be in the best position to answer the question ourselves if we reflect on where we have been, understand / recognize what we have learned, contemplate where we are now .. to then make the next "best" move .. perhaps even contemplating integrating that learning into other aspects of our life - not just for the benefit of ourselves or our organization but beyond to include family, friends and the community in general.

This is more than simply learning through doing.. but integrating our learning with past experiences to make it more meaningful, and purposeful. Sounds almost like a form of meditation.

Karen made a good point when I posted this on the FCC. She noted how much this sounded like the experiential loop that Kolb speaks of.

sounds like something that's been around for quite a while (Kolb 1984 I think) - experiential learning, with a bit if added flair.... sorry, i think I;m turning into a cynical 'Grumpy Old Woman' (BBC TV) but there's so little around that's new - just regurgitated with a bit of glitter on,,,,

don't get me wrong though - meditation is good!

- Karen Ogilvie

Activity 7.1 - another CMALT value?

Sources

Cheer, Peter (2008) ‘core activity 7.1’, H808 - aeb324 Unit 7, [online] Available from: fcp://@oufcnt1.open.ac.uk,%231004824/H808%2008I%20Annes%20Group/H808%20aeb324%20Unit%207%20/%23161962613 (Accessed 4 December 2008).

CMALT (n.d.) ‘CMALT Prospectus ’, [online] Available from: http://www.alt.ac.uk/docs/cmalt-prospectusv4.pdf (Accessed 30 November 2008).

The CMALT Prospectus mentions the following ‘values’

1. A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning.
2. A commitment to keep up to date with new technologies.
3. An empathy with and willingness to learn from colleagues from different backgrounds and specialisms.
4. A commitment to communicate and disseminate effective practice.

The oath of a profession typically dictates adherence to ethical standards, which invariably include practitioner/client confidentiality, truthfulness, and the striving to be an expert in one's calling, all three of these being practiced above all for the benefit of the client. There is also a stipulation about upholding the good name of the profession.

Well out of the wikipedia entry the only one that seems to match is striving to be an expert in one's calling. As a sceptical pragmatic techie who likes things to have practical purpose, well defined meaning and measurable outcome it seems to me that apart from A commitment to exploring and understanding the interplay between technology and learning these ‘values’ could apply to any occupation whether ‘professional’ or not.

- Peter Cheer

I noted in 7.1.1. how we were asked to think of any other values that we perceive to be relevant but are not not included with the 4 in the CMALT prospectus .. and one came to mind

5. a commitment to recognizing how one's work is ultimately intended to serve the best interests of students

It sounds so obvious. I'd argued that it (along with the other 4 values) grounds everything that we do as learning technologists. To not include it .. seems to suggest that it will simply happen .. which I don't believe is necessarily the case.