Open Peer Accreditation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with " =Discussion= Stephen Downes(2007) : "Most of the latter part of this post consists of speculation, based on models we have already seen implemented on the web. But the specula...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Discussion= | ==Discussion== | ||
Stephen Downes(2007) : | [[Stephen Downes]] (2007) : | ||
"Most of the latter part of this post consists of speculation, based on models we have already seen implemented on the web. But the speculation nonetheless point to a credible alternative to proprietary testing systems. | "Most of the latter part of this post consists of speculation, based on models we have already seen implemented on the web. But the speculation nonetheless point to a credible alternative to proprietary testing systems. | ||
Specifically: | Specifically: | ||
* credentials are not reduced to necessary and sufficient conditions (competences). Any body of achievement may be posited as evidence for a credential. | |||
* these bodies of achievement - profiles and portfolios - result from interactions with a wide range of agencies and represent a person's creative and skill-based capacities | |||
* considerations of these achievements for credentials are open, that is, the public at large may view the profiles and portfolios being accepted, and rejected, for given credentials | |||
* there is no monopoly on the offering of credentials; any agency may offer credentials, and credibility of the agency will be based on the fairness of the process and the difficulty of the achievement | |||
Yes, this is a very different picture of assessment than we have today. It replaces a system in which a single set of standards was applied to the population as a whole. This was an appropriate system when it was not possible for people to view, and assess, a person's accomplishments directly. No such limitation will exist in the future, and hence, there is no need to continue to judge humans as 'grade A', 'grade B' and 'grade C'." | Yes, this is a very different picture of assessment than we have today. It replaces a system in which a single set of standards was applied to the population as a whole. This was an appropriate system when it was not possible for people to view, and assess, a person's accomplishments directly. No such limitation will exist in the future, and hence, there is no need to continue to judge humans as 'grade A', 'grade B' and 'grade C'." | ||
Latest revision as of 09:09, 10 April 2017
Discussion
Stephen Downes (2007) :
"Most of the latter part of this post consists of speculation, based on models we have already seen implemented on the web. But the speculation nonetheless point to a credible alternative to proprietary testing systems.
Specifically:
- credentials are not reduced to necessary and sufficient conditions (competences). Any body of achievement may be posited as evidence for a credential.
- these bodies of achievement - profiles and portfolios - result from interactions with a wide range of agencies and represent a person's creative and skill-based capacities
- considerations of these achievements for credentials are open, that is, the public at large may view the profiles and portfolios being accepted, and rejected, for given credentials
- there is no monopoly on the offering of credentials; any agency may offer credentials, and credibility of the agency will be based on the fairness of the process and the difficulty of the achievement
Yes, this is a very different picture of assessment than we have today. It replaces a system in which a single set of standards was applied to the population as a whole. This was an appropriate system when it was not possible for people to view, and assess, a person's accomplishments directly. No such limitation will exist in the future, and hence, there is no need to continue to judge humans as 'grade A', 'grade B' and 'grade C'." (http://www.downes.ca/files/FreeLearning.pdf, pp. 164+)