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 nas, Dire c to r, I ma g ining Ame ric a , UC Da vis E r ic a Kohl- Ar 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 T imothy K. E 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 oup 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 : Asse ssing the ❑ T Pra c tic e s o f ra nsdisc iplina ry re se a rc h g ro up within I ma g ining Ame ric a Pub lic ❑ Ove r o ur histo ry, b le nd o f c o mmunity Sc ho la rship a rts pra c titio ne rs, a c a de mic s, stude nts a nd pra c titio ne rs [APPS] 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 o f c o mmunity e ng a g e me nt.

Asse ssing the Pr ac tic e s of Public Sc holar ship [APPS]: APPS Value s F ull Pa rtic ipa tio n Rig o r [inte lle c tua l a nd VE A—DE A T ime line Co -c re a tio n e thic a l] Ge ne ra tivity Pra c tic a b ility Re silie nc e 2009 2015 2017 2008 “de moc r atic ally “sc hola rship in “inte g ra te d “va lue s- e ng a g e d e ngage d asse ssme nt” public ” a nd “the a sse ssme nt” a sse ssme nt” c urric ulum MJCSL ar tic le Gr e e n Pape r proje c t” 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

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 as ❏ o pe ra te s a c ro ss c o mmunitie s o f learning Assessment pra c tic e of ❏ Pra c tic e o f SL learning CE spa ns multiple a sse ssme nt Co Ps simulta ne o usly Assessment as ❏ “va lue s” va ria b ly unde rsto o d, democratic c o nte ste d & e na c te d practice ❏ re c o g nizing the se fo rc e s a t pla y in Assessment as audit yo ur o wn wo rk is first ste p to re c la iming po we r/ a g e nc y.

Re c laiming asse ssme nt: an ac t of r e sistanc e ? Share authority Work within L A T E N S I Realize ideals in I C established norms A L E C T the world O Within/across N I institutions and systems S D We nudge ourselves toward Self Be efficient Values a better Be efficacious world negotiation N T E In relationship N G with diverse others E O M T S I S A E T E S S A T U G H H R O Be pragmatic in Challenge Norms the world Assessment as/for civic agency, efficacy, solidarity, learning and deliberative decision-making & healing Concentrate authority

“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 APPS’ E vo lving b y va lue s. Re spo nse : • Mo st impo rta nt to a sk “whic h va lue s?” a nd “who de te rmine s De mo c ratic ally the m?” E ng ag e d Asse ssme nt [DE A] • 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.

De mo c ratic ally E ng ag e d Asse ssme nt T a ble 1: Commitme nts of De moc ra tic E ng a g e me nt [DE A] 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 ) Ho w we Multi-dire c tio na l flo w o f ide a s a nd q ue stio ns within a c o mmitme nt to we b o f kno wle dg e c e nte rs de mo c ra tic 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 e ng a g e me nt… po te ntia lly tra nsfo rma tive (o f se lf, o the rs, o 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

F ull Pa r tic ipa tion Se le c te d va lue s Re silie nc e Co-Cr e a tion ne g o tia te d in DE A Pr a c tic a bility Ge ne r a tivity Rig or [inte lle c tua l a nd e thic a l]

“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 I nc lude s multiple kno wle dg e s/ dive rse vo ic e s. E piste mic a lly witho ut re se a rc h e xpe rtise . I nc lude s so me type s o f inc lusive a nd just. kno wle dg e a nd o mits o the rs. E piste mic a lly unjust. 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 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 e xpe rt kno wle dg e . kno wle dg e Va luing o nly thing s yo u c a n c o unt (q ua ntita tive Va lue s multiple me tho ds, fo rms o f da ta me tho ds) 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, F ra me wo rk c o -c re a te d b y sta ke ho lde rs pub lic re la tio ns). Rig g e d! 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 Pr oduc ts & Pe ople Pr oc e sse s Pur pose s E vide nc e ❏ Whose values ❏ Who’s included ❏ What counts? ❏ Why do we do ❏ What has value? guide the project? and excluded? assessment? ❏ What role(s) do I ❏ How are they ❏ Who decides? ❏ Who decides? ❏ How to harvest play in this involved? ❏ When? project? what can’t be ❏ Who decides? ❏ Who decides? counted? ❏ Alignment with values?

❑ Wha t re so na te s with yo u in this ide a ? Re c la iming ❑ Wha t po ssib ilitie s do e s it o ffe r ? va lue s in yo ur ❑ Wha t q ue stio ns do yo u ha ve ? o wn a sse ssme nt wo rk ❑ 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 ?

Conta c t Informa tion te l, Asso c . Dire c to r Anna Sims Bar Julia Me tzke r , E xe c utive Dire c to r Offic e o f E ng a g e me nt I nitia tive s Bro wn Ce nte r fo r F a c ulty Co rne ll Unive rsity I nno va tio n a nd E xc e lle nc e a t a ws4@ c o rne ll.e du Ste tso n Unive rsity jme tzke r@ ste tso n.e du Sylvia Gale , Dire c to r ic e , Dire c to r o f F a c ulty Mar y F . Pr Bo nne r Ce nte r fo r Civic De ve lo pme nt E ng a g e me nt, Unive rsity o f I UPUI Ce nte r fo r Se rvic e a nd Ric hmo nd L e a rning sg a le @ ric hmo nd.e du pric e 6@ iupui.e du