Free webinar – New Trends in Education: Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning – Implications for Evaluation and Assessment

May 27, 2011

** This event has passed. Check out the recording of this program here: http://youtu.be/6iH_ikNmn9I **

The Ontario Literacy Coalition has a series of professional development webinars for literacy professionals. I met these folks last year when I spoke at their Spotlight on Learning Conference. I was delighted when they invited me back this year to present via webinar. I gave them a few different programs to choose from and they put the topics out for a vote to their stakeholders. The topic that got the most votes was “New Trends in Education: Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning – Implications for Evaluation and Assessment”.

This is a free event for educators and literacy professionals. But there’s one catch. They have a limited number of seats, so if you’re interested, you’ll need to reserve your spot. Their May webinar was filled to capacity. Join us:

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

1:00 – 2:00 p.m. EDT (There is a link to show that in your time zone here).

Feel free to share this post with other literacy advocates. This is an open event. Would love to have you come and be part of the conversation!

_______________

Share this post: Free webinar – New Trends in Education: Formal, Non-formal and Informal Learning – Implications for Evaluation and Assessment http://wp.me/pNAh3-Gj

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.


Appreciative Inquiry: A brief overview

May 22, 2011

In research and in leadership, it’s good to know what your biases and values are. In my own work, I take an asset-based approach, finding the strengths and building on them. I’ve grounded much of my professional, leadership and research work on this philosophy, which is grounded in Appreciative Inquiry (AI). The other day, someone asked me what AI is, so I’m posting a brief overview that I wrote up for another project about a year ago. It’s a “quick and dirty” overview, with some references:

Appreciative Inquiry: An Overview

hands hope sunAppreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach used in academia, business and the not-for-profit sectors. The main pioneer of  AI is widely recognized to be David Cooperrider.

Traditional methods of assessing and evaluating a situation and then proposing solutions are based on a deficiency model. Traditional methods ask questions such as “What are the problems?”, “What’s wrong?” or “What needs to be fixed?” Sometimes such questions are sugar-coated in trendy jargon. Instead of asking “What’s the problem?”, which can seem a little harsh, the question may be couched in terms of ‘challenges’: “What are the challenges?” Regardless of whether the question is asked harshly or softened with less antagonistic language, the model remains as one of deficiency. The thinking behind the questions assumes that there is something wrong, that something needs to be ‘fixed’ or ‘solved’. Business people (especially consultants) like to say they ‘can provide solutions’. The underlying belief is that there is something wrong and it needs to be fixed.

Appreciative Inquiry flips all that on its head. It is an asset-based approach. It starts with the belief that every organization, and every person in that organization, has something good about it. Each person has something valuable to contribute and the organization itself has merit of some kind. It asks questions like “What’s working?”, “What’s good about what you are currently doing?”

AI seeks to uncover the best of what an organization is currently doing, using interviews with its members. The interviews challenge participants to examine and discuss what is good about their current situation and explore what works well within the organization. This approach then utilizes the data collected from those interviews to construct a plan for enriching the organization by building on what is already working and what is already considered to be successful.

An initial reaction for some people is to balk when they hear questions like “What’s working?” An retaliatory answer may follow of “Nothing is working! It’s all a mess!”. People are so used to working within a deficiency framework, that it is almost like the brain can not process questions that are rooted in an asset-based approach. It may take some time for people to come up with an answer to questions based on an AI approach. This is because AI challenges us to shift our paradigm from deficiency thinking to asset thinking. Changing paradigms takes some time, but the results can be worth it.

Appreciative inquiry can be particularly useful in organizations where individuals or group of people are polarized over major issues. Rather than exacerbating the polarization between or among the parties, it assumes that a core of positive traits exist which can be highlighted and expanded up on to create even more success in an organization.

Bibliography

Cooperrider, D. L. (2007). Business as an agent of world benefit: Awe is what moves us forward.   Retrieved February 21, 2008, from http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/practice/executiveDetail.cfm?coid=10419

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2008). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry.   Retrieved March 27, 2008, 2008, from http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook. Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Publishers.

Eliot, C. (1999). Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development / Insitut International du Developpment Durable.

Faure, M. (2006). Problem solving was never this easy: Transformational change through appreciative inquiry. Performance Improvement, 45(9), 22-31.
Murrell, K., L. (1999). International and intellectual roots of appreciative inquiry. Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 49-61.

Download this document from Scribd:

View this document on Scribd

__________________

Share this post: Appreciative Inquiry: A brief overview http://wp.me/pNAh3-FR

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.


How and why my students wrote their own final exam

December 13, 2010

I teach a first-year university course called “Effective Learning”. This semester, topics included managing exam stress, how to prepare for exams and strategies to during a test including such things as reading over the exam before you start writing and answering the questions you know first. Most of the assessment I did for this class was strength-based evaluation such as group projects, evaluated presentations and portfolios. We did one test at the end of the semester.

I decided to engage the students in the exam development process. We spent time in class reviewing what types of exam questions were acceptable (e.g. multiple choice, short answer, essay) and what content would be covered. The questions were based on material from the two textbooks, as well as materials from in-class presentations and discussions. All the material covered from the first day of the semester was to be included in the final exam.

Earlier in the semester students had worked with a partner to present a presentation that was a synthesis of two readings each. For the development of the test questions, students worked with the same partner and prepared questions on each reading they had done their class presentations on some weeks earlier. Students were challenged to come up with at least 5 questions per chapter and to include more than one type of question (multiple choice, short answer, etc.)

Students prepared test questions and handed them in to me.  I compiled them into one document, noting which questions related to which chapters in the text or readings from the course pack. I also noted which students had contributed which questions. The questions were distributed to all students for study purposes. The result was a 10-page study guide comprised of potential test questions that they themselves had generated.

I let them know that I would be selecting from their contributed test questions and that I would also be adding some questions of my own that would not be shared before the exam.

The process of having students develop test questions proved to be a useful learning exercise for them. They got to experience what it is like to write exam questions and the thought-process that goes into it. Knowing that this was not simply an academic exercise but that some of these questions would actually appear on the final exam added a much-needed element of authenticity. Students took the exercise seriously when they knew that it would impact their peers.

Finally, they reported being more engaged with both the material and the study process when they had the opportunity to contribute questions. Suddenly it wasn’t an exam inflicted upon them, so much as a challenge they co-developed and were ready to take on.

Related post:

Course design: 7 ways I engaged my students in the process http://wp.me/pNAh3-nV

_____________

Share or Tweet this post: How and why my students wrote their own final exam http://wp.me/pNAh3-o2

Update – January 2018 – This blog has had over 1.8 million views thanks to readers like you. If you enjoyed this post, please “like” it or share it on social media. Thanks!

Sarah Elaine Eaton is a faculty member in the Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Canada.