The implementation of the base is strewn with pitfalls that could distort the spirit of work skills, even through the best intentions of the actors. Here are three possible scenarios for the application of the base trying to clear the ground by identifying these pitfalls to avoid sinking into the plant cells, the "évaluationnite" or rejection of an impossible evaluation competency.
the OCNI (common object unidentified)
Certainly the scenario present in most colleges, lack of time for consultation, training and the obligation to assess the base (tier 3 for Grade 3) at the end of this school year. The precipitation driven will merge with a near-perfect improvisation. The base will be validated - or not - while the work skills is not primed. Devices will emerge for a stopgap. So in our school, class councils of the 2nd quarter, 3rd and 4th, and will be preceded by a first meeting of "Council of skills." Teachers are invited to validate in Pronota items (software management facility). What does emerge from these skills councils?
Elsewhere, perhaps no consultation time was even thought to consider the application of common ground, at best, a plenary session, an educational council, that the disciplines share the cake items the base.
improvised approach to evaluation based on the motivation of a team of teachers, the time given by the principals to reflect and capture tools. The goodwill crumble quickly face work overload induced resistance to passive or active (colleagues, or conflicting messages received as such inspection, misunderstanding students ...), the impossibility of final design work by skills and evaluation of the stand as a coherent whole .
Maintaining an improvisation - no training worthy of the name, no time in establishing joint working between colleagues - will cause misunderstandings around the base, seen as a source of conflict OCNI and unnecessary increase in missions teachers.
Transposition Disciplinary
An evolution and a scenario are likely to see teams take over this base with conscience - after all, the idea is generous - with the famous base of the cake : in French Pillar 1, Pillar 3 in Mathematics, the History-Geo Pillar 5 (roughly, no need to send a message to challenge this action, this is an example and not an attack on a particular identity discipline!). A
remarks frequently heard - and I had to say on many occasions - is that one can evaluate this base without a reliable tool. The spring of this idea is that you keep track of all our assessments which will return items from the base and the tool, as notes manager software will simplify the linking of assessments and final validation - or not - the base. These programs exist and currently trying (but not the subject of our ticket). Keep in mind that the power of computing is now serving the assessment base. The grip full and complete base will be increased, and everyone was convinced by a computerized system. Teachers transform their traditional measurements skills assessments, probably with a mixed system (grades and skills). In addition to the notes and comments from end of quarter, they complement the skills assessed regularly. A system like Pronota already offers non-binary valuation methods, with varying degrees of acquisition, which is viewing a color system. During class meetings (or skills ...), the sum of activities dealing with an item will be displayed with the review of the software, and perhaps a threshold of success set by the teaching staff - or I do not know who - result validation - or not - that item!
This work is extremely time consuming and falsely rational . It maintains each distance learning of the disciplinary field nearby, and even more of a global vision of student learning. This system is the perfect of the current system (subjects - notes - counsel). We will discuss in class council control "satisfactory" to a student who obtained 74% success items write the domain of jurisdiction 1. This success will appear visually dominant green in the balance of assessments, barely a trace weighted by an evaluation and orange red, but the history teacher will clarify that this was probably an off topic on a paragraph-argued, and that any how the French colleague is more qualified to judge. The risk is therefore to truncate the competency assessment with a discussion on the percentage of successful items, disconnected from goals and learning situations.
In a more perverse, the cumulative system, determined by an arbitrary numerical threshold, there may invalidate competence yet controlled by a student, but evaluated on inappropriate criteria, unweighted, non-shared. Thus, what is expected of students in front of the item: "To know and be able to evaluate themselves describe their interests, skills and achievements? A student who collects bad grades and was well aware he knows assess themselves? What value will be a series of assessment on this item? One can imagine the motives of many quarrels or misunderstandings between colleagues on the validation of the items.
In trying to support the plant cells, the risk is Box, under the pretext of rationality computerized burst the idea of the base in a évaluationnite acute.
An integrated assessment
In fact, the establishment of the base can not do without the flattening of the content and requirements of work and assessment skills.
Rather than spend (or lose ...) as much time discussing and assessing competency in retrospect it is to devote time to prepare the teams work and evaluation Skills a priori complex, remediation, requirements and progression of learning.
addition productions written summative overvalued in our school system, assessments may include a formative dimension more assertive and develop oral and personal productions (portfolio) .
In our college, following their week business internship, students prepare and present their third report in an oral ten minutes in front of a jury. We assess the mastery of a dozen items from the base where all the items in the domain "Say", a jurisdiction and other specific items of the orientation of the business world in the jurisdiction 7. These items were selected educational advice and are validated or not by collective decision after oral, on common requirements. For students who did not validate an item, we formulate a board for their progress and achieve. Grade 3 will also pass a second oral examination required, the test of art history, where we will renew the assessment skills and a number of items previously evaluated.
This example shows that in addition to regular class hours, can take up institutional mechanisms to assess the base here ultimately in 3rd grade. This example also raises questions: what to do when a student has not approved such item or that area? Can we be satisfied with average production and perfectible? In our case, the jury may have been more demanding items, considering they could still be reworked or assessed in the year. But deep down, we realize that to make demands vis-à-vis the base, we have worked together with skills for the evaluation of third is designed as an outcome that makes sense, not as a grid mapped onto a complex, spoken internship in companies.
Nevertheless, peer review, prepared beforehand, she has clear advantages here: it clearly defines the required level of competence, it aligns its assessment . Valid she once and for all? It is a debate we have.
Let's say the item "Matching his speaking to the communication situation." The Board approves the production of a student, and when the Board, the balance we Pronota displays a percentage of 56%, mixing assessments very different in French, History, Geography, Biology and Technology for example. It opens again on a conflict situation, or not, if arbitrary procedures do not simplify the decision: French teacher slice (since it is the jurisdiction 1), we stick to the threshold of success set (70 % or other), one vote, the head of the school band ... It might be objected a positive point, the fact that the board come to discuss students' skills, but we can not consider such a system as being viable, except to spend a day in each class council to 3rd.
Integrated assessment should be thinking globally in the 6th to 3rd, in terms of labor by skill, progress, assessments that make sense and consensus. These complex tasks must be developed by cross-disciplinary teams with other disciplines. They must fit seamlessly into the academic trajectories of students in the teaching discipline. (I'm not making what can be developed on this official document: benchmarks for the implementation of the LPC ). Rather than share the cake and let each of the items Professor "responsible" a corpus of item, the teaching staff should set the requirements, possible increases depending on the cycles, and regulate the time of validation related programs . This method would thus structured and shared. Far from being revolutionary in our practices, interdisciplinary or cross-cutting devices already dotted across the college: arts history, orientation week, the DLI classified into different themes. Knowing that there can be no turning back, the team thought necessary remediation to the failures. Complex tasks will be varied and will prevent drift evaluation item by item (a control, an item). It seems appropriate to attempt a broad validation after the central phase (5th to 4th) to release the third year of fairly charged.
This integrated assessment of competencies should help:
· teams and mobilize students around situations rich and complex learning, 'meaning
· Addressing the drift of a logic of disciplinary boundaries of the base and assessment items
· not reduce the base to Assessment binary LPC, with the factory boxes
· take the stand as a tool for work and learning
· use the tools of computer validation with measurement in a logic which does not return the skills to work are disparate, averaged percentage of success.
In conclusion, the application of base can be an opportunity to breathe new life in college, more meaning to learning too fragmented, without jeopardizing its overall organization . It can lead to change glance not so much on the students, but on their work and skills, clearly stating what are their skills . It's also a way of certify learning in positive mode and progressive, and not by reference to a constant negative prescribed standard encrypted (the 20/20), which does not refer to Student .
0 comments:
Post a Comment