Your last email said:
>
>The Qualifications and Curriculum Association has recently raised
>concerns about the reliability and validity of the use of simulations in
>assessing competence. Of course the quality of the assessment depends on
>the quality of the simulation and the consistency of the judgements made
>by any assessors. I personally am in favour of the use of high quality
>simulations partly because it enables people to gain NVQ accreditation
>for knowledge and skills which they may not have had the opportunity to
>exhibit in the workplace. Does anyone have any strong feelings for or
>against simulations?
>
>Many thanks
>
Jackie
This is fascinating stuff at many levels. Many would say that much of what students do or what they perceive they must do is a role play - 'me teacher, you learner'. You recall the quote from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance quoted by Paul Ramsden in 'Learning to teach in HE' -
"Schools teach you to imitate. If you don't imitate what the teacher wants, you get a bad grade. Here, in college, it was more sophisticated, of course; you were supposed to imitate the teacher in such a way as to convince the teacher that you were not imitating².
And the evidence from the study published in 1974 by Miller and Parlett, 'Up to the Mark', showing that so-called cue-seekers - the students who purposefully look for hints of what is to come up are likely to more successful in exams than those who are cue conscious or cue deaf. In other words they are learning to play a game whose rules, though not explicit, can be exploited.
Then there is the notion of "serious play" proposed by Donald Winnicott in 'Playing and Reality'. Ask children engaged in 'doctors and nurses' whether they are playing and see what answer you get!
And if you want any more authority on the matter, John Dewey in 'Democracy and Education':
"The difference between play and what is regarded as serious employment should not be a
difference between the presence and absence of imagination, but a difference in the material with which the imagination is occupied. The result (of overlooking this) is an unwholesome exaggeration of the fantastic and 'unreal' phases of childish play and a deadly reduction of serious occupation to a routine efficiency prized simply for its external tangible results".
What simulations do (and I include games and role play in this) is to put students in an arena where they are free to be more experimental and to engage their imaginations in ways that more formal experiences, like a seminar, do not. The reason, I think, is that in traditional situations order and control of behaviour is achieved through unwritten, untested and arcane rules, often stifling to those-who-would-be-more-creative. Simulations, where they make the rules explicit, can both focus and liberate the mind of the student. But what is more important they bring into play (sic) a range skills and values so important to human beings in society that can be regarded as profane by the high priests (another role play?) of academe.
I have also noticed how many of the students we might describe as "serious" find it very difficult to occupy what Winnicot, again, called "transitional space" - the area where play and work encounter each other through suspending disbelief and the medium of the imagination. The more successful players will be able to tackle simulated tasks seriously while maintaining awareness of themselves as actors vis à vis an audience, and make connections in their minds between what they are doing and the world outside.
What better preparation could there be for life's roles and responsibilities?
As for assessment, there are of course problems in that most simulations offer differential opportunities which allow some students great leeway for their talents which could be denied to others in any one simulation. However, over a succession of such experiences and with a really rich set of criteria* clearly understood by the students, a valid assessment can be realised especially if it mixes self, peer and tutor perspectives. Complicated, yes; but boring and predictable, no!
Best wishes
David
* I'll send an example if you're interested.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|