Home » Articles posted by Gabrielle Kahn
Author Archives: Gabrielle Kahn
Session 3
At this session, we continued to consider questions about theory, and how the beliefs underlying learning that inspire our program design/activity should also help guide our assessment-in-community praxis. We additionally talked about next steps we would take over the winter to move our individual research projects forward, and how we might collaborate to seek out possible sources of funding as support for this work.
Session 2
At this session, we turned our attention to theory, asking ourselves what kinds of theoretical frameworks might best ground our assessment-in-community research. We read about, and discussed, the work of Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theoretical scholars, Standpoint epistemologists, and Production of Space theorists, considering aspects of these frameworks that might speak to our program principles and the particular student populations we are working with.
Session 1
At this session, we refreshed our memories about methodology, including possible steps to take in implementing a Peer-to-Peer Reflection Protocol. We considered how we might adapt this Protocol to encourage the students in our individual programs use their voices in meaningful ways for assessment-in-community data collection.
Session 3
At this session, we looked at the components of the data collection protocol for our assessment-in-community methodology. We reflected on each of the elements–which might we keep? Which might we leave out? Which might we adapt to best meet the needs of our particular projects? We agreed that in conducting our assessment-in-community conversations, we need to take an open-ended approach to data collection, based on the feedback we are receiving from participants. The protocol is intended to serve as a guide to conduct meaningful conversations, but there are times when prompts not on the protocol may be more appropriate in facilitating conversations that prompt deep thinking about the principles and practices of our programs and classrooms. We considered this insight in light of our individual assessment-in-community project ideas.
Session 2
At this session, we implemented an assessment-in-community conversation with the group so that they themselves could experience what it was like to engage with a sample protocol based on a dynamic assessment methodology. The principle we asked participants to reflect upon, in individual writing and as part of the group, was: To promote our students’ development at the college, it is important for faculty and administrators to work together. Using the protocol, we led participants in a guided discussion about this principle, asking individuals to share examples from their experience and to generate common themes about what they had heard. Due to time constraints, we briefly reviewed how the conversation might continue using the protocol’s remaining steps.
Session 1
Our plan for this session was to ask participants to experience our assessment-in-community methodology. However, with the presence of a new FIG member, our attention focused instead on the particulars of possible project involving a new group of students on campus. Based on the methodological issues we had been exploring in recent sessions, we worked with this participant to give shape and direction to this evolving project.
Session 3
The focus of this session was program principles. Because our assessment-in-community methodology is based on students’ evaluations whether or not a program’s foundational principles are being reflected in practice, we discussed the importance of making our program principles, not only reflective of the importance of community/collaboration in our respective programs, but also written in accessible language for students. Participants drafted some of these principles, and shared them with the group for informal feedback.
Session 2
At this session, we continued discussing individuals’ progress with their assessment-in-community project ideas. One idea that had emerged in a prior session was the possibility of students becoming facilitators of group assessment conversations. We discussed what a student-led methodology might look like based on the particulars of some participants’ projects. We also raised some additional issues to consider concerning methodology, notably how we might account for participants’ subjectivities in our data analyses.
Session 1
In this session, we followed up on participants’ progress on their Assessment-in-Community projects. We also began to discuss the ins and outs of data collection and analysis that places students’ voices front and center.
Session 3
The aim of this session was to begin to tackle the nuts and bolts of assessment-in-community project planning. We considered issues surrounding participants, research methods, and possible funding sources for our research. FIG participants brainstormed in writing the program/classroom principles they might draw upon as a foundation for their instructional/assessment practices.
