WWPS (What would Paulo say)?

This past week, we discussed developing criteria for evaluation – those standards by which we measure achievement of learning.  We talked about criterion-, normative- and self-referenced standards of achievement.  And we talked about indicators, too.  Those specific behaviours that tell you learners are meeting the standards of achievement.  Blah, blah, blah. Booooooring.  I know.  I’m yawning as well.  Your standard goals and objectives stuff.  But as it happens, the subject matter this week was fortuitous, for a couple of reasons.  First, I had to hand in my first assignment on Saturday, so if there was a week where I could half-ass it (in terms of my attention to the session content), this was it.  Second, the issue of measurement became a focal point of my research while completing my assignment, and, through that research, I was able to view the session content under a bit of a refreshed lens. 

Here’s what we’ve been tasked to do: describe an issue/problem from our own experience in evaluating adult learning either as a facilitator or student and explain the reason the issue is important.  Not a big deal, but here was the rub.  This assignment would form the basis for the other two assignments in the course: a literature review and a lesson plan to teach our peers about the issue and our research findings. 

So, what issue/problem did I select?  Well, since I’m not currently teaching professionally, I came at it from a learner’s perspective and chose the problem of assessing online asynchronous discussion.  This idea has been bouncing around in my brain for a while now since I started down this road of online learning. 

Prior to starting online studies, with the exception of a brief traditional distance ed course, my experience with adult ed was entirely face-to-face.  In fact, since returning to school in my mid-twenties, the classes that I took were exclusively small and comprised of tight-knit groups that stayed together over a long period of time over many different courses.  This experience has influenced my belief that knowledge is most often created through critically reflective discussion and debate including all of the nuances (read non-verbal) that such discussion entails.  So, when my participation in such discussions were evaluated in the past, it was my assumption and expectation that those nuances were taken into account as well as all of those intangibles that are the hallmarks of good group work.  That belief was further cemented when I read Paulo Freire’s Liberation Pedagogy model.

Put simply, learning happens when we are transformed from a state of being unaware (magical conciousness) to being critically aware (critical conciousness).  When we become aware of a problem, are able to define and discuss it with a common language and act on solutions, then we have liberated our minds, bodies and spirits.  We have truly learned.  And the linchpin in all of this is that group of people and their interactions.  Not just what we say together but how we say it and it what context.  All of those nuanced interactions that take place in and out of the classroom, sometimes heated, sometimes ugly, sometimes light, sometimes hilarious, but always thought-provoking, always transformative.  So, it is these moments that have shaped my evaluation of good discussion.  And, it is from this perspective that I find the evaluation of online, asynchronous discussion troubling and worth more research.   

My experience with online discussion has left me somewhat wanting.  While it is lauded for its flexibility and its ability to aid in the construction of knowledge, I have found it to be stilted, stop-and-go, somewhat canned, and certainly lacking the dynamism that I experienced in the face-to-face environment.  How can you evaluate a learner’s ability to provoke if you can’t see their incredulous eyebrow lift before they challenge an idea or hear the tone of their voice?  How can you assess the leadership of a learner who uses the tenor of their voice and a deliberate, measured vocal pace to bring together a number of opposing views and develop a common understanding? These are just a few of the intangibles, just a few of the nuances that I’m sure Paulo saw in the groups that he was involved in when he was establishing his theory. 

I had to conclude my assignment with a research question.  And, while I crafted something that would “serve as a signpost, guiding my literature review”, as I conducted a cursory scan of the literature and drafted and redrafted this initial assignment, what I really kept asking myself was, “What would Paulo say?”