Here, monsters are vindicated, almost universally. There remains the small problem of dino denial, apparently rife among the Tea Party faithful in the GOP.

Perhaps the McCarthy era persecutions of American leftists also figure into this phenomenon of "unmasking" enemies within.

This is true. See Nabia Abbot's interesting account of 'Uyainah, who renounced Islam after the death of the prophet and took up arms against the Caliph, Abu Bakr. When accused of apostasy he was brought before Abu Bakr. 'Uyainah claimed that he had never been a Muslim in the first place but that he was only pretending, and so he was pardoned. Abbot cites Al-Tabari, Baladhuri, and Yaqut.

See Abbot, N. (1941). Women and the State on the Eve of Islam, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 58, No. 3, p 280.

This seems to be a simplification. Shariah, with respect to ritual, is followed in this way, but other aspects are subject to change and revision using tools such as ijtihad and qiyas - granted, these are directed at uncovering the "truth" of the law, assumed to be pre-existing. Still, this analysis does not seem to account for Usul al-Fiqh as the primary activity of legal scholars.

Very interesting point, but it does not explain historical precedent in the exercise of sovereign power by Muslim rulers for over a thousand years, ruling under various interpretations of Shariah law.

This is very important to our ability to respond to the interests that students express, and the directions they begin to take as they become more confident in the social environment of the classroom. Rigid planning and and plotting to "keep with the program" sacrifices students' interests to the perceived interests of instructors and institution.

What is this? Is it an architect who designs "learning spaces" (ie. classrooms / schools) or is it a buzzword for some kind of Instructional Designer?

Here's someone talking about "Architectural Design that transforms learning" - an architect.

https://youtu.be/cjxX0E1fQoU

This would probably undermine student agency in this process. It seems focused on institutional and instructor interests to document and validate assessment. This is a valid concern and students to to institutions for this reason, at least in part. I am wondering how assessment can be made more of a shared responsibility.

This looks like a form of portfolio. The difference could be that while the student portfolio is under the control of the student to assemble and, perhaps, explain, the transcript is an institutionally generated document so rather more like a formal assessment but one which draws on complex evidence. The big question I have is Who should interpret the transcript and how?

This is good if students have a role in evaluation of their progress. Could they build, modify, or hone rubrics or other holistic tools as part of the initial design process. See Dave Cormier's negotiated syllabus...

https://www.beds.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/400743/Key-Pedagogic-Thinkers-Dave-Cormier.pdf

Evidence is for the benefit of whom? Learners need to know that they are making some progress toward their goals, but who is best to mediate this knowledge? If it is totally dependent on instructor evaluation, then learners do not learn to accurately self-evaluate. Knowing where you are at any given point is an essential "21st" century learning skill.

Why does he say "sense of agency" rather than "extend agency" - a sense of something is not the same as having it.

The role of the instructor is to ensure that learner performance is active and dynamic. Is this a type of facilitation?

Many two-year colleges do not use the SAT since they accept all comers. Instead they give placement tests, such as accuplacer, which qualify students to take for-credit courses or remedial courses.

I wonder how well this skill in taking SAT reading comp tests has helped this student at UCLA?

End users are university admissions officers, who need to decide whether this or any other test suits their needs. So long as they are aware that test content is reused overseas, they should be able to establish their admissions policies reliably and fairly. They do not need to accept the SAT, however, if they don't, students with SAT scores may not apply to their institution.

This is probably an old practice. It provided extra revenue for the College Board by reselling tests that could no longer be used in the US. If they stop doing this, they would probably need to raise the price of tests abroad.

This article seems to target the "Asian prep industry" specifically.

But, this exam would not be used again. It may be re-sold as a practice exam but not used in actual testing. So long as it was not available before March 5, the test is still "secure".

Knowing the subjects of the reading section in advance is unlikely to impact scores. Questions about reading do not usually quiz content.

Anyone who's ever been to a "mass exam" could predict this would happen with "connected students". If the College Board did not anticipate this, then they are not living in the same century as the rest of us.

Still the case with TOEFL

"leaked" is an interesting choice of words. Exam questions are normally "leaked" because someone wants to disrupt a test (political), or because money has changed hands for information (corruption).

This may be Trump's main point. He is sticking up for Lewandowski because 'he's right'. A show of loyalty despite the cost - "It would be easier to fire him than sit talking to you about this all night long". The show is political, and appeals to his base.

Isn't this the Jane Fonda doctrine?

The language of commodity again.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/article/dangerous-myth-grade-inflation/

"The fact that people were offering the same complaints more than a century ago puts the latest bout of harrumphing in perspective, not unlike those quotations about the disgraceful values of the younger generation that turn out to be hundreds of years old. The long history of indignation also pretty well derails any attempts to place the blame for higher grades on a residue of bleeding-heart liberal professors hired in the ’60s. (Unless, of course, there was a similar countercultural phenomenon in the 1860s.)"

Rather, what is the value of what you do? Knowledge not acted upon is like the good intention paving the way to hell.

Or replaced by one of the "hundreds of unemployed PhDs looking for work". These are adjuncts haunting the academic equivalent of the "Mexican resort". The PhD does not protect them while tenured faculty circle the wagons.

Yikes!

So, how is that investment working out for les PhD-doués?

Academic excellence as measured by citation counts in high impact journals. No wonder there is rarely any correlation.

True. And least of all, they read textbooks. They're too busy writing, on Twitter, FB, Instagram... They write reams that vanish into the aether.

If education is a commodity then its value should be quantifiable. Otherwise, it is without value. This idea has subverted liberal education for 50 years at least. Eventually it will undermine liberal society, and democratic governance that depends on it.

Here is the problem. If everyone is successful, what does success mean? Universities are not about inclusion, they are about exclusion. If you include everyone, then there is no distinction.

Art. 1er. Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l'utilité commune.

Indeed. There is no pedagogical value. In fact, there may be pedagogical harm. But then, much of what happens in the classroom also has no pedagogical value: sit up straight, don't talk, be on time, don't hand in your work late, don't copy, don't split infinitives.

We need to have an intelligent response to this within institutions. We need to be aware of the use and the misuse of objectives. Even without "measurable objectives" we still need to be able to explain what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it and why it has value to participants and to society.

Possible strawman here. Defenders of learning outcomes normally labor under a requirement to be "transparent" in decision making and to render assessment "defensible" from an institutional perspective. In medieval Muslim scholarship the only degree was the "ijaaza". This was conferred by one teacher on one student, who had often studied for years. The "ijaaza" rested on the reputation of the teacher - there was no institution. This meant that the student must master the work in every possible way. Modern accountability relies on "best practice" and legislation as firewalls to protect the incompetent and unscrupulous.

Indeed. The outcome, being measurable, establishes conditions under which something will happen: Less than three misplaced commas will be "excellent". This encourages a sense of entitlement and undermines the role of the teacher as mentor and guide. The teacher's role is merely to verify that a condition has been met.

Criticality is value laden. Unlike pure receptive and registered knowledge learners, the critical learner must take a position vis-a-vis what is learned, what is known. Instructionism submerges values and makes believe that these do not exist. Beneath this facade, instructionism presents its peculiar worldview as the only one possible. Challenging this is to "invite chaos and destruction". Instructionism is built on a tyranny of thought that must drift into irrelevance, eventually leaving everyone stranded and lost. Criticality remains grounded - aware of contradictions and tensions and able to plot a way forward.

Yes. Thinking defies measurability. How do you quantify a commitment to thinking? Can you stuff this into a rubric? I suspect that the obsession with measurement is linked to demands for "accountability". This is an expression of power over the learner. The accountable teacher is in the same position of subjugation - normally to an institution. This follows an accountancy model where everything is reduced to monetary value and entered into a balance sheet. What is the value of a human being?

This is a very clear explanation of the difference between a "goal" and an "objective". Even within education, people are confused about this. This confusion is probably due to overlapping semantic fields.

Excellent point. Faculty and other stakeholders - including students - should be included in this process. Clearly stated objectives are only restrictive when they are imposed. As with everything else in instruction, objectives should be routinely challenged and those that are not defensible should be replaced or eliminated.

Indeed. It should be possible to get a good idea of the scope and depth of a course by reading the objectives.

Great rationale for using only one main verb - focusing on only one performance.

This gives interesting criteria for module level objectives: specify only one behavior (use one main verb); do not reference other objectives - I'm not sure but what this second criterion means.

This is the third level: 1) Program level; 2) Course level; 3) Unit or Module Level.

This depends on the type of course and its overall intent. These type of objectives can be restrictive or overstated in some contexts. Most instructors do not follow this format when writing objectives, mentioning only performance and sometimes context but omitting criterion / measurement.

This refers to Blooms style taxonomies and makes sense and is a "good general rule" since lower level performance tends to be pretty straightforward - identify, select, describe... while higher-level performance is often more broadly stated.

This is Menger's formula for outcomes: performance, standard, and condition. Menger's outcomes are particularly suitable for training-oriented instruction.

This alignment with program level outcomes is important. Industry relevant performance is also important but course outcomes should not be limited to this alone. By imposing these limitations, we commit HE to job training. This attitude reflects SNHU's corporate identity and should not be generalized to institutions that continue to maintain a commitment to American values embodied in traditional Liberal Arts education.

Employability is an important institutional value. This is one reason why people attend HE institutions, but not the only reason. There are other values that also need to be accounted for. Work is important, but so is quality of life.

The objective is to manipulate students to certain types of performance, to prevent them from "gaming the system". Only institutions are permitted to game the system. This is a power relationship that insists on institutional dominance "for students' own good". It is paternalistic and offensive.

Standardization is important to SNUH because of its "business model" of education as a commodity. This renders a strong institutional focus on "quality" as something we most commonly see in the fruit and vegetable section of the local supermarket: same shape, size, color - free of blemishes and distinguishing marks.

Program outcomes are linked to the mission of the university.

This is important. All abstractions can be grounded in some concrete event or situation. However, the practice of starting with theory often ignores this and students struggle to grasp abstractions that are suspended in space. Given that all abstractions have origins, it should be easy to situate instruction in something concrete.

This example gives a good idea of what LaTour means by "composition".

Research as inquiry and synthesis... this may not lead to totally new knowledge, but it fits well into the more common model of research as a means of exploring a topic and making personal decisions about it.

This is very Dogme-like. Natural and meaningful communication is only possible if students direct, in some way, what is said in conversation. If conversation interests them, then they will uncover vocab that interest them also, rather than just trying to collect words that might appear on a test.

Purposeful and programmed learning leads to trivialization of humanity in a manufactured environment. Illich suggests a natural tension between creative action in the world and the institutionalization of creative force through formal education.

The project of education has been misdirected. Educators and students alike have found themselves more and more flummoxed by a system that values assessment over engagement, learning management over discovery, content over community, outcomes over epiphanies. Education has misrepresented itself as objective, quantifiable, apolitical. - Jesse Strommel, Hybrid Pedagogy. Talk at Western Oregon University 4/29/15

Knowledge is placed in boxes and moderated by experts. Perhaps expansive learning is the antidote? http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Expansive_learning

This is the only time Pullen suggests that online delivery might actually bring something new to student experience, and this is only applicable to "a small fraction of students".

convergent interests of stakeholders does not amount to innovation teaching and learning

What is this theory of participation? Check out Latour and friends.

Is all ict investment directed at producing innovation in learning? What kinds of innovation are expected?

This may situate the problem quite deeply in the history of educational ict and support claims relating to the persistence of this problem in the face of numerous interventions.

Reiterates purpose of online education here. Does not see any other advantage.

This makes sense but the author's evidence here is anecdotal.

This makes sense, but the evidence provided here is anecdotal.

Author suggests that online tools simply "extend" traditional teaching but do not add to it in any way.

Authors appear to seek to duplicate f2f environment online. This ignores additional benefits of online modality that may not extend to f2f students.

Authors appear to seek to duplicate f2f environment online. This ignores additional benefits of online modality that may not extend to f2f students.