Today was about the "How to Assess a LE". This is the time I found that the handout was rather not systematic. The handout slide did not follow with the presentation. I have difficulty finding where the slide was.
Btw, the topics for today begin with the area of assessment and it consists of 3 topics;
1) Relationship
2) Personal development and
3) System maintenance and system change.
In assessment, we need to have a good number of sample. The approach to a good assessment is;
1) Naturalistics inquiry
2) Inventories
3) Ethnography
4) Case studies
Using the Moo's table, Quek presented on the overview scales and levels for each instrument. She also suggested that the scale should be about 5.
In an example use, we were introduced the "Actual" and "Preferred" assessment and was used to bridge the gap of each profile/dimension. The survey was suggested to be positive wording. The assessment used a lot of "I" to register the personnal question and answer. It was also suggest to use "Wording of expression" instead of score as the score will make the surveyee thinking of higher scoring. The other school of thought was to have the two survey (Actual and Preferred) at different times. The Actual will be worded as "I am" and the Preferred as "I would like".
We ended the morning session with the Dimension's items used by Chua & Wong in 2001 to assess the Chinese Language classroom.
Btw, the topics for today begin with the area of assessment and it consists of 3 topics;
1) Relationship
2) Personal development and
3) System maintenance and system change.
In assessment, we need to have a good number of sample. The approach to a good assessment is;
1) Naturalistics inquiry
2) Inventories
3) Ethnography
4) Case studies
Using the Moo's table, Quek presented on the overview scales and levels for each instrument. She also suggested that the scale should be about 5.
In an example use, we were introduced the "Actual" and "Preferred" assessment and was used to bridge the gap of each profile/dimension. The survey was suggested to be positive wording. The assessment used a lot of "I" to register the personnal question and answer. It was also suggest to use "Wording of expression" instead of score as the score will make the surveyee thinking of higher scoring. The other school of thought was to have the two survey (Actual and Preferred) at different times. The Actual will be worded as "I am" and the Preferred as "I would like".
We ended the morning session with the Dimension's items used by Chua & Wong in 2001 to assess the Chinese Language classroom.
In the afternoon we have the case study on the YouTube video of "RJC Angry Teacher". Our group did the prespective of the teacher and student. Our conclusion is that the LE relationship was hostile. We think that the environment is wrong to conduct the "lecturing" as there are other students around. We guess that the teacher might use this case to get the message across the class.Personally, I feel sorry for the teacher after the outcome of the YouTube. I believe that my generation "schooling" expectation of teacher and student relationship is different from current generation. Yes the teacher might be wrong to attack the student behaviour. However I believe the teacher was so stress and also angry of the student assisgnment. She had the good intention to help the students.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MZCrHfYGY
As a teacher/trainer, I think we must always keep our temper and emotion in check or it will cause damages not just to others but also to ourselves. I agree that the intention of the teacher was good but her approach could have been handled better.
ReplyDeleteYah lah. But at the spit of the moment when you just need to let go. Sorry to the poor target.
ReplyDelete