GROUP ASIGNMENT #3: WHO IS TO ASSESS? CASE STUDYCourtney Beaulne

Jon Cappello

Karine Cosgrove

EDU 5230

HOW DO WE SEE SUSAN? New, unseasoned teacher Female VS the male antagonist Desire to please and to remain employed Competent but recognizes she is not a “master teacher” yet Her focus is on the qualitative not the quantitative in educating her students Pushed to leave the narrow confines of who

she thinks she is Her “home” is her one-best-way: subjectivity

HOW SUSAN MIGHT FEEL AND PERCEIVE THE INTERACTIONS With Mrs. Cipher & Mr. Donald

Her skills and knowledge are dismissed due to her lack of experience

Her skills and knowledge are undervalued, because she is not perceived as the “expert”

She is being too subjective, and too emotional

With Tony and Sarah She can relate to Tony and

Sarah, being in a new environment

She has taken the time to get to know Toney and Sarah personally, whereas Mr. Donald does not know them

SUSAN’S FINAL VOCABULARY

Fairness and equality is subjective to each student Her role demands that she tailors her instruction

method for each student She is knowledgeable in critical literacy and

alternative assessment (graduate courses)

SUSAN’S VALUES: Understanding and seeing the student as a whole, and

understanding the frames in which they function Not “completely comfortable” with Mr. Donald’s

standardized tests

WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT?

Focus on efficiency, rational, and practicality through technical knowledge

“developing each individual […] so that he can do highest class of work for which

his natural abilities fit him” (Taylor, 1911, p. 3) Rubric of mastery, control and compliance One best approach

“There is always one method and one implement which is quicker and better than the rest” (Taylor, 1911, p. 9)

Depersonalization and objectification

THROUGH THE LENS OF TAYLORISTIC SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT: RUBRIC OF MASTERY

Susan and Mr. Donald both are confined to their own worlds, however broad or narrow

Mr. Donald’s perspective is wrong according to Susan, Susan’s method is the sole best method.

Subjectivity is the only way to proceed efficiently in assessing students such as Tony and Sarah.

THROUGH THE LENS OF ARISTOTELIAN PHRONESIS: NON-RUBRIC OF MYSTERY

Creating dialogue with Mr. Donald, listening with an open mind to his perspective

Moving forward to a consensus with Mr. Donald, understanding the consequences of each action

Understanding Tony and Sarah’s frames will allow Susan and Mr. Donald to collectively find an adequate assessment for each student

Not discounting the subjective while still understanding the value of the objective

BARRY SCHWARTZ: USING OUR PRACTICAL WISDOM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDS-ieLCmS4

FLEXIBILITY... BENDING THE RULES The final solution has Ms.

Cipher dancing around both the subjective and objective approaches, coming up with “just the right combination for this particular moment” or in our case the particular student.

Rule bending or flexibility only happens to service the right purposes, in the right contexts. In our case study, it is to service the students in the best way possible.

FUSION: Blending the Subjective and Objective Susan needs to GIVE a little

(understand the value of objective tests), GAIN a little (demonstrate the uses for her subjective strategies) and GROW (in appreciating the different perspectives in the assessment of students)

Ms. Cipher can bring about this collaboration and open the communication in having both Mr. Donald and Susan communicate the values of their own approaches