Hello Gordon,

May I ask a question before responding to your question?

In your view what is the need that this tool will be fulfilling.

Looking forward to your responce.

Douglas

It’s not easy to envision how, exactly, the self-paced programs will work at Presque Isle, in part because they are still being developed. But Raymond Rice, the university’s interim provost, gave some clues. The plan is for faculty members to teach in  interdisciplinary “learning communities,” he said, that will feature “credit clumps” of 9 or so proficiencies per 15-week term. Each proficiency would track back to a credit.

A student might earn six proficiencies in a semester, for example, with three more to go in the following term. They wouldn’t flunk a course -- because the clusters wouldn’t be organized around courses -- nor would they pass one. To successfully complete each proficiency, students would need to get at least a three on a four-point scale, Rice said. A one or two would mean more work, while a four would be exceptional.  As a result, students must actually do better than they would on the conventional A-to-F grading scale. “We’ve just raised our standard from a C-,” Rice said of the new proficiency mark. The university’s Faculty Assembly in September 2013 voted unanimously to support the proficiency-based conversion. That doesn’t mean every professor jumped on board without reservation.

http://www.ets.org/c/23853/evolving_curriculum_booklet.pdf

Hello Krishnan,

I still have not herd about the "need". What need does this type of standardization fill or what purpose would it serve? What role does or will this play in the globalization of eurocentric education?

Please clarify... looking foward to your replies,

Douglas

Mr. Gordon,

In my opinion not standardize learning or from person to person, or from classroom to classroom or school to school or from region to region, either internationally unified way. Learning we have to respect the individuality and this is the big reason that justifies that the teacher must have sufficient lift to teach into account the affective sensitivity according Wallon in each case. The relationship with our students may never be seen in Cartesian form, but in an ad hoc manner, despite the prevailing theories of learning. That's what makes the irreplaceable instrument for teacher learning, textbook, computer, among others.

Regards,

prof Paes

Hello José,

It is nice to hear from you.  I think I am getting the picture but still have one last question.

What is your epistamological view on knowledge?

Thanks I look forward to moving on with our discussion.

Douglas

transform raw score (marks) to standard score and calculate compare..

There are two main approaches here: assessment and accreditation. The assessment approach involves asking individuals to produce a portfolio of evidence from their previous experiences that can attest to what they have learned in those settings. The main advantage of this approach is that you get to control the quality. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it is not really recognizing prior experiential learning because people have to produce a portfolio of evidence, which they don't like doing (it's a lot of work) and is also rather counter to the spirit of recognizing the prior learning. The accreditation approach involves trying to work out what it is that someone is likely to have learned given information about their various experiences. This is what people usually want when they talk about recognizing prior experiential learning, and it's a nightmare. Standardization is practically impossible, and immensely time-consuming. My advice: make them do a portfolio and assess that. If they can't produce evidence of their experiential learning, they probably haven't learned that much...

Everyone learns different pieces of information from identical experiences. What two people might learn from an experience might be fairly opposite from each other. If these two individuals are "tested" with the same test, their answers will almost certainly be different but not necessarily wrong.

One way to effectively test one's experience is to recreate his or her experience. Then observe what previous learning they are able to use in this new experience "test".

Even with this model there are huge flaws. Maybe the tested individual can only use their experientially gained knowledge in the an almost identical experience. This would then tell us that even though they have learned from an experience they are unable to transfer this knowledge to new experiences, thus rendering their previous, experientially gained knowledge, useless.

With this in mind, the only way I can see to effectively test one's experiences is to spend a semester or more creating experiences of all sorts. Some that are almost identical to the individuals experience and some that are very different than the individuals experience. Through observation and one on one meetings with the individual about their decision making process during the experiences, one could track the individual's learning and knowledge by how their actions and decisions change or are informed throughout each new experience.

The only way I can see to standardize this method would be to create a semester or year long test that put individuals through a wide range of experiences. (Each test would have to be close to identical.) Through reflection and meetings with the individuals one could then find the value of each individuals previous experiences.                

The Need and role played in the globalization of learning or previous experiential education

The global governance of international development assistance is, at present, undergoing rapid and profound transformations. Added to the mix are the lingering questions concerning the ongoing efficacy and relevance of the multilateral institutions responsible for delivering aid, many of which were established in a different era under circumstances that differ considerably from those of today. Meanwhile, the international community has begun to transition from the controversial Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), set to expire in 2015, to a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which will undoubtedly require high levels of cooperation amongst all stakeholders if they are to have any hope of being realized.

Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order tackles a number of important issues about the future of development aid, issues that must be addressed and quickly.

http://acuns.org/review-of-multilateral-development-cooperation-in-a-changing-global-order/

While I agree with Mr. Umachandran's discription of what is actually happening from a global point of view I must however disagree that all we can do is accept and conform. Mr. Umachandran's pointing out of Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order is correct but look and the last three words (changing Global Order). These words should scare the (fill in) out of all of us. Does it remind anybody of a certain U.S. president remarks about a new world order? This begs the question are we as researchers acting as functionalists?

Mr Krug makes a valid point, and asks a very real question. By standerizing all reasearch in the social sciences are we, as researchers, capitulating to the requirments being demanded by the Changing Global Order? If so the we are in the practice of fatalism. Surrendering our collective power by conformity, and denying the responcibility of our agency in (what I hope is) the pursuit of global eguality. Not by denying past wrongs but finding equitable solutions forthose  past and ongoing issues. 

Any way just some thoughts

Douglas