Marking from left to right.
Here is a link for the french version:
The group assessment. Individual assessment. The school assessment, classroom assessment, personal evaluation, assessment of risks to throw a ball of paper, the assessment of the chance that we will not miss the next check if we drop Chapters 3 and 4, the assessment of the ability of a student to work in society, evaluation of teachers by students, by the rectors, the evaluation of the education given by the parents, the evaluation of creative, assessing the popularity of a student, the numerical evaluation of a dissertation, the commented evaluation of a mathematical proof …
It will be difficult to address this issue steeped in different schools as the evaluation system is being squeezed by the need for standardization of evaluation. Standardisation guarantees objectivity teacher but also elitist productions.
Ask whether or not it is necessary to evaluate the student would be to ask whether God exists. We could look at what is being evaluated and go back to the revolution to understand why the course of study is shaped like that and not otherwise. It could also address the evaluation criteria, namely what is considered a fault? What is the margin of subjectivity of a teacher?
One can also wonder whether the evaluation can go from left to right rather than up and down? The assessment as a tool to steer between this or that direction rather than punitive instrument between the perfect and the less well? Furthermore we might wonder how you will mark this duty if it presents only unanswered questions.
Finally, it touches something, the evaluation covers only answers. We learn to find answers but not to make a choice. The teacher is regarded as a transmission tool. It is not considered “master” of the knowledge that he transmits and especially as “judge” of our ability. It seems impossible to have course where one teacher marks his students on the quality of their understatement and not on the fact that they have found four of them in the given text. If you try an experiment, that of planning a course in which the professor marks students on their ability to create a problem, to make choices between this or that subject between the inventive use of the concept or not, which would prove that the student understood its course.
The intention in the way the course is transmitted becomes different. We no longer learns by heart a concept to be judged on its use. The student suddenly moved to the status of the creative problems, the researcher who his disposal all the necessary forms to ask the right questions. If at first without radically transform our methods of education, one could ask students to write the problems themselves, then they would feel concerned.
Here the knowledge gained legitimacy, it is not the instrument of intellectual selection. The student becomes a tributary.
There is nevertheless a very strong argument against it. The legitimacy of the teacher to judge a choice. Visceral fear of the value judgment that would tarnish years of standardization of the school system. The teacher have very few privileged place crushed between the school curricula and the students.
There is also the fear that a good student took either set aside by the judgment of his teacher, or a fear of a class is subserviented to the tastes of a single person.
This is the worst scenario. But when we know that school curriculas are already established, elaborately carved, we doubt a lot of leeway as to the subjectivity of a teacher.
The teacher is certainly able to separate a person’s intention and ability to create a case in which she will feel comfortable using a notion.
The judgment of the teacher is objective as it does not undermine the intention of a student.
The reaction of the students would not be surprising in many ways: If you ask a student in which case he could use the Pythagorean wall, it will answer right away that he does not know and frankly he doesn’t really care.
This assumes that fault refer the pupil by offering a pre-project. The leeway to judge a choice becomes low. Because if he wants to make a long term project proposed earlier this year, the student must follow specific steps so it reduces his choice to find problems of his own. It will be at least evidence that the notion that studying will serve him for the resolution of a problem even greater. The calculation, for example, of a fraction has value to him because this calculation participates in the achievement of a goal.
In this system should learn every notion one to another, it looks messy, difficult, but it is activating the best parts of our brain when we want to solve a problem. In this way, the teacher may tell the student that he must go in one direction or another if it wants to find an answer. The teacher then evaluates from right to left his pupil.
It can be established for concluding that the assessment is only useful if it helps guide our choice.