There's some good discussion in this post about how the choice of a course assessment framework reveals biases about the sorts of approaches to education are preferred. It is presented in the context of a tweet (and thread) from Stephanie Moore: "When Quality Matters trumps learning sciences as the evaluation framework for course design, then Houston, we have a problem." As Matt Crosslin says, "it is harder for some approaches like heutagogy, ungrading, and connectivism to pass... these are all well-researched concepts that don't always have content, assessment, activities, and objectives in a traditional sense... (but) the institution is going to look at it as a worse course than a traditional instructivist course that scores a 98." And the point here - made quite rightly - is that this is a determination that was made before the assessment, and not as a result of it.
Today: 1 Total: 17 [Direct link] [Share]
