RSS

Questioning Assumptions about Portfolio-Based Assessment –> Hamp-Lyons and Condon

29 Oct

 Hamp-Lyons and Condon discuss their process of developing a portfolio assessment at Colorado-Denver. They devote special attention to the ways that portfolios are assessed in the program – [1] how readers see one genre v. multiple genres; [2] what counts as a “broader reading” or a reading that invites judgments that are compatible with holistic scoring (as opposed to paper-by-paper judgments); [3] whether the portfolio makes the students’ process visible; and [4] whether portfolios create a community of assessment on a campus.  

It is a project that they describe having several different iterations. The first iteration of the project was a piece designed to “help faculty reach consensus about what they mean by argumentation” (189). This is important, because two of the four projects included in the portfolio are arguments, so any assessment decision made about the portfolio is significantly informed by students’ argument papers. The second iteration of the project was designed to help faculty “define criteria” for assessing portfolios (189). Through this project, faculty started describing their practices. The third project, the project they represent here, shows that the process of implementing portfolios can have benefits that far outweigh “the assessment reason” — communication among faculty, faculty development as an “outgrowth” of teaching, democratization of faculty (regardless of rank), consensus and collaboration (189). 

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 29, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

One response to “Questioning Assumptions about Portfolio-Based Assessment –> Hamp-Lyons and Condon

  1. sarahm1320

    October 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    My Durst et al. article, “Portfolio Negotiations: Acts in Speech,” also addresses the potential of faculty development through the ePortfolio assessment process. However, I think that Durst et al. were much more vague about their goals regarding which specific points they wanted to build consensus around. Their article mostly focuses on the fact that there are differences in perspective between readers and also on the tension between establishing standards and violating/suppressing individual teachers and their teaching styles. Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be a democratization of faculty occurring through Durst et al.’s portfolio assessment process. They keep the TA assessment discussions separate from the more experienced teachers,and within the more experienced teachers group there are primarily adjunct instructors, not tenured faculty.

     

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: