F ue ling the Civic Ima g ina tion: E xe rc ising the Value s - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

F ue ling the Civic Ima g ina tion:

E xe rc ising the Value s o f De mo c ratic Civic E ng ag e me nt in Asse ssme nt Wo rk

E r ic a Kohl- Ar e nas, Dire c to r, I

ma g ining Ame ric a , UC Da vis

T imothy K. E atman, Pa st Co -Dire c to r, I

ma g ining Ame ric a ; I na ug ura l De a n, Ho no r’ s L iving L e a rning Co mmunity, Rutg e rs Unive rsity, Ne wa rk

Asse ssing the Pr ac tic e s of Public Sc holar ship [APPS] Re se ar c h Gr

• up

Gro up Re pre se nta tive s to da y: Julia Me tzke r

, Mar y F . Pr ic e , & Anna S. Bar te l

AAC&U Na tio na l Co nfe re nc e Pre c o nfe re nc e , Wa shing to n, D.C., Ja nua ry 24th, 2018

Whe re a re we no w? Whe re a re we g o ing ?

Who we ar e :

❑ T

ra nsdisc iplina ry re se a rc h g ro up within I ma g ining Ame ric a

❑ Ove r o ur histo ry, b le nd o f c o mmunity

a rts pra c titio ne rs, a c a de mic s, stude nts a nd pra c titio ne rs

What we do:

❑ Pro mo te a sse ssme nt tha t re a lize s the

va lue s a nd tra nsfo rma tive po te ntia l

• f c o mmunity e ng a g e me nt.

Asse ssing the Pra c tic e s o f Pub lic Sc ho la rship [APPS]

Asse ssing the Pr ac tic e s of Public Sc holar ship [APPS]:

VE A—DE A T ime line

2008

“sc hola rship in public ” a nd “the c urric ulum proje c t” 2009 “inte g ra te d a sse ssme nt” 2015 “va lue s- e ng a g e d a sse ssme nt” 2017

“de moc r atic ally e ngage d asse ssme nt”

MJCSL ar tic le

Gr e e n Pape r

Ba ndy, J., Ba rte l, A.S., Cla yto n, P. H., Ga le , S., Ma c k, H., Me tzke r, J., ... & Sta nlic k, S. (2017). Va lue s-E ng a g e d Asse ssme nt: Re ima g ining Asse ssme nt thro ug h the L e ns o f De mo c ra tic E ng a g e me nt. Mic hig a n Jo urna l o f Co mmunity Se rvic e L e a rning , 23(1). DOI: http:/ / dx.do i.o rg / 10.3998/ mjc slo a .3239521.0023.110

F ull Pa rtic ipa tio n Co -c re a tio n Ge ne ra tivity Rig o r [inte lle c tua l a nd e thic a l] Pra c tic a b ility Re silie nc e APPS Value s

In your galaxy, who owns asse ssme nt?

Re sisting the “Shutdo wn”…a nd re c la iming a sse ssme nt

Re c la iming a sse ssme nt

❏ mo re tha n te c hniq ue --it’ s so c io -

c ultura l pra c tic e

❏ o pe ra te s a c ro ss c o mmunitie s o f

pra c tic e

❏ Pra c tic e o f SL

CE spa ns multiple a sse ssme nt Co Ps simulta ne o usly

❏ “va lue s” va ria b ly unde rsto o d,

c o nte ste d & e na c te d

❏ re c o g nizing the se fo rc e s a t pla y in

yo ur o wn wo rk is first ste p to re c la iming po we r/ a g e nc y.

Assessment as democratic practice

• f

learning Assessment as audit as learning

Assessment

Re c laiming asse ssme nt: an ac t of r e sistanc e ?

Share authority Concentrate authority Challenge Norms Work within established norms Be efficient Be efficacious Be pragmatic in the world Realize ideals in the world

We nudge ourselves toward Values negotiation Self

In relationship with diverse others Within/across institutions and systems D T E N S I O N S I A L E C T I C L A

Assessment as/for civic agency, efficacy, solidarity, learning and deliberative decision-making & healing

N E I G T O A T E O A E S T H R N E M T S S S U G H a better world

“Asse ssme nt is…

I ma g ine

“a la b o ra to ry to fue l the c ivic imagination.”

• Asse ssme nt is a lwa ys unde rg irde d

b y va lue s.

• Mo st impo rta nt to a sk “whic h

va lue s?” a nd “who de te rmine s the m?”

• Do we de fa ult to a se t o f va lue s,

le t o urse lve s be pre ssure d into

a lig nme nt with o the rs’ va lue s, o r de libe ra te ly c hoose the va lue s

tha t g uide o ur a sse ssme nt.

APPS’ E vo lving Re spo nse :

De mo c ratic ally E ng ag e d Asse ssme nt [DE A]

De mo c ratic ally E ng ag e d Asse ssme nt [DE A]

Ho w we c o mmitme nt to de mo c ra tic e ng a g e me nt…

With (no t me re ly in, o n, to , fo r) Asse t-b a se d (no t me re ly ne e ds-b a se d )

Multi-dire c tio na l flo w o f ide a s a nd q ue stio ns within a we b o f kno wle dg e c e nte rs

Co lla b o ra tio ns tha t invo lve no t me re ly tra nsa c tio na l e xc ha ng e s b ut tha t a re po te ntia lly tra nsfo rma tive (o f se lf, o the rs,

• rg a niza tio n/ institutio ns, syste ms, pa ra dig ms)

Co -ro le s / po we rshift / disruptio ns o f hie ra rc hy – a ll pa rtne rs po sitio ne d a s c o -c re a to rs

T a ble 1: Commitme nts of De moc ra tic E ng a g e me nt

Se le c te d va lue s ne g o tia te d in DE A

F ull Pa r tic ipa tion Co-Cr e a tion Ge ne r a tivity Rig or [inte lle c tua l a nd e thic a l] Pr a c tic a bility Re silie nc e

“I ma g ining ” full pa rtic ipa tio n

What would/ doe s it look like to e nac t “full par tic ipation” in your asse ssme nt wor k?

….

Wr e stling with “Rigor ” as a value

Constr aining Notions of Rigor De moc r atic Notions of Rigor

Rig o r mo rtis, sta tic Do e s no t a ssume limits Ga te ke e ping te rm with a purpo se to e xc lude tho se witho ut re se a rc h e xpe rtise . I nc lude s so me type s o f kno wle dg e a nd o mits o the rs. E piste mic a lly unjust. I nc lude s multiple kno wle dg e s/ dive rse vo ic e s. E piste mic a lly inc lusive a nd just. Co de fo r no t liste ning ; de va luing re la tio na l kno wle dg e . Ca n b ring sta ke ho lde rs to g e the r to liste n, re spe c t o ne a no the r Assume s a hie ra rc hy o f kno wle dg e c re a tio n. Privile g e s e xpe rt kno wle dg e . E nc o ura g e s c o nve rsa tio n, dia lo g ue b e twe e n lo c a l a nd e xpe rt kno wle dg e Va luing o nly thing s yo u c a n c o unt (q ua ntita tive me tho ds) Va lue s multiple me tho ds, fo rms o f da ta Assume s o b je c tivity Que stio ns o b je c tivity Assume s the re is o ne rig ht wa y Que stio ns a ssumptio ns So me o ne e lse ’ s fra me wo rk (a dministra to rs, do no rs, pub lic re la tio ns). Rig g e d! F ra me wo rk c o -c re a te d b y sta ke ho lde rs Offe rs pro te c tio n fro m ske ptic s, c ritic s E nc o ura g e s c o nc e ntra tio n, inte ntio na lity, a mb itio n, a nd tho ro ug h-minde dne ss E thic a l re fle c tio n

Ne g o tia ting & E na c ting Va lue s in DE A

Pe ople

❏ Whose values guide the project? ❏ What role(s) do I play in this project? ❏ Who decides?

Pr

• c e sse s

Pur pose s Pr

• duc ts &

E vide nc e

❏ Who’s included and excluded? ❏ How are they involved? ❏ When? ❏ Who decides? ❏ Why do we do assessment? ❏ Who decides? ❏ What counts? ❏ What has value? ❏ Who decides? ❏ How to harvest what can’t be counted? ❏ Alignment with values?

❑Wha t re so na te s with yo u in this ide a ? ❑Wha t po ssib ilitie s do e s it o ffe r ? ❑Wha t q ue stio ns do yo u ha ve ? ❑Wha t do yo u wa nt to ta ke ho me a nd

try?

❑Wha t’ s o ne pra c tic e yo u wo uld

c ha ng e ?

Re c la iming va lue s in yo ur

• wn a sse ssme nt

wo rk

Conta c t Informa tion

Julia Me tzke r, E

xe c utive Dire c to r Bro wn Ce nte r fo r F a c ulty I nno va tio n a nd E xc e lle nc e a t Ste tso n Unive rsity jme tzke r@ ste tso n.e du

Mar y F . Pr ic e , Dire c to r o f F

a c ulty De ve lo pme nt I UPUI Ce nte r fo r Se rvic e a nd L e a rning pric e 6@ iupui.e du

Anna Sims Bar te l, Asso c . Dire c to r

Offic e o f E ng a g e me nt I nitia tive s Co rne ll Unive rsity a ws4@ c o rne ll.e du

Sylvia Gale, Dire c to r

Bo nne r Ce nte r fo r Civic E ng a g e me nt, Unive rsity o f Ric hmo nd sg a le @ ric hmo nd.e du