On Formative Assessment, Gamer Profiles, and Not Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater

In last week’s class, we engaged in a fun exercise where we listened to an episode of This American Life while filling out a role sheet from Pam Goble and Ryan Goble’s Making Curriculum Pop. I got both the role of intuitor and the role of the gamer respectively. In the intuitor role, I listened for the different emotions experienced at certain scenes in the program and then made assertions as to why the person in that scene was feeling that emotion. In the gamer role, I drew panels depicting an IF/THEN situation in the episode and I had to particularly pay attention to the rewards that my video game character received. I ended up drawing a box with a question mark on it (a lá Super Mario Bros) and having a “good info” item and a “bad info” item come out of it. In our group discussions about the roles, we had a great time sharing our experiences and ultimately concluded that the roles that made you think to a significant degree were best left as a post-exercise reflection activity.

The stick figure is Ben, just so you know.

            I was a bit frustrated with our sluggish conversation on information literacy, as I have a lot of passion about this topic, but it seemed like everyone else was not in the mood for an extended conversation. Furthermore, I object to the simple answer that in order to combat “truth decay,” we simply have to promote the more “trustworthy sources.” With the huge changes that have occured in the media landscape in the past few decades, I do not think we can keep relying on this dichotomy of “trustworthy sources” and “untrustworthy sources.” It is why I am skeptical of The News Literacy Project, as it seems to make the argument that prestige journalism from The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post will solve the crisis of fake news by promoting its more worthy content. I would argue that “prestige journalism” in not inherently trustworthy just because it comes from a particular source. By putting these outlets on a pedestal, it equates the words expressed in their media channels as fact and encourages the media consumer to forget that they are being sold a product.

According to the American Library Association, two of the main frameworks of information literacy are Authority is Constructed and Contextual and Information Has Value. [1] Without knowing the “publishing practices” of these companies and having “informed skepticism” of the authority these companies tout, a media consumer is left ignorant to the reasons why they are receiving the information they are receiving. Or not receiving. If Jeff Bezos and Amazon, for instance, have an immensely profitable contract with the CIA, why should I trust the Washington Post’s reporting on the CIA? [2] Or believe it can be critical? I think information literacy should involve being knowledgeable about how that information is created, which entails knowing about the nature and practices of the businesses and professions that disseminate that information.The awareness of corporate ownership and the struggles of modern journalism need to be taken into account by today’s media consumer. This raises questions that had Nora previously brought up: are we as citizens supposed to be these expert researchers or invested researchers like Ben from This American Life? What about those of us without all that extra time? Ultimately, I think we need to exercise skepticism with most media outlets, cultivating a knowledge of the journalism profession in the process, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As for today’s readings, I was thrilled that we were tackling the subject of assessment in instruction. During my evaluation internship at the Minnesota Historical Society, it was of utmost importance to include questions on our exhibit surveys that assessed how much someone learned about a historical topic that they did not know before. The data generated from these questions was used to measure whether the MNHS as an organization was meeting its greater mission of “using the power of history to transform lives,” especially in regards to providing learning opportunities for Minnesotans. I am struggling with whether these survey questions were indicative of formative or summative assessment, as the assessment occurred after a visitor attends an exhibit but that assessment continues (with different visitors) across time. In any case, I appreciated the explanations that Greenstein provides about the differences between summative and formative assessment, defining the latter as asking “what route we are taking to reach the goal and in what way the teacher can assist in the journey.”[3] Knowing that formative assessment is student-focused, instructionally informative, and outcomes-based explains why the thinking of students “must be made visible” and why “feedback must be provided.” [4] Formative assessment involves an incredibly active instructor that needs to be effective by “continually attempt[ing] to learn about their students’ thinking and understanding.”[5] I think one of the great implications of this method is constantly viewing students as sources of data to optimize instruction performance. As our classrooms shift more into the digital realm, I believe it is worth examining how our reliance on data-driven instruction changes the dynamic between teacher and learner.

--

[1] “Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education.” From the American Library Association website. Accessed January 31, 2018.

[2] Solomon, Norman. “Why the Washington Post’s New Ties to the CIA Are So Ominous.” The Huffington Post.  Published March 15, 2014.

[3] Greenstein (2010). Chapter 1: “The Fundamentals of Formative Assessment,” from What Teachers Really Need to Know About Formative Assessment. Alexandria, VA. ASCD.

[4] How People Learn, p. 140.

[5] Ibid.