From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 10:49 PM To: 'Alfred Weinberger' <email@example.com>; 'Guliko Janova' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'Sopiko Lopjanidze' <email@example.com> Cc: 'Eka Tkavashvili' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'hadas huber' <email@example.com>; 'Ina Baratashvili' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: XBL 3nd Meeting :)
Great thoughts and Ideas. Unless you have any objection, we will go with the following which you raised in the few last mails:
Sopiko will choose the three tools considering her experience and according to the guidelines/philosophy, she presented.
In the coming group(zoom) meeting she will present the tools.
In the coming meeting we will also try to think how to follow Alfred’s great idea to combine the three into one tool that incorporates the three and also follows the “philosophy of formative assessment”. We must make some adaptation and this is a great solution that will cover the need to adapt.
In case Sopiko can come up with an idea for that (i.e. adaptation of the three into one) as well, this is great.
Great work, great team, lots of love 😊
Itzkovich Yariv, PhD.
Head, Human Resources Management (HRM) Department,
Head, Human Resources Management (HRM) Division, Department of Multi-Disciplinary Studies,
Kinneret Institute for Applied Ethics in Organizations,
Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee,
Tzemach Junction, MP Jordan Valley 15132, Israel
Mobile- +972 (0)523-975-027
From: Alfred Weinberger [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 6:01 PM To: Guliko Janova <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sopiko Lopjanidze <email@example.com> Cc: Itzkovich Yariv <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Dorit Alt <email@example.com>; Eka Tkavashvili <firstname.lastname@example.org>; hadas huber <email@example.com>; Ina Baratashvili <firstname.lastname@example.org>; email@example.com Subject: AW: XBL 3nd Meeting :)
I agree with Sofiko’s suggestion to the philosophy of formative assessment. We have to keep in mind that each group will prepare at least one tool which will be presented in the consortium meeting in Linz. You can find the tools (or ideas about which tool the group will focus on) on the ASSET homepage (preparation, schedule and materials, Friday).
I think that our tools should be different from those the others are presenting. So, if we choose several tools which are not very common, we should have a good chance that it will be selected for further teacher training at the next consortium meeting. After our final decision about which tools we will choose we have to adapt (and not to adopt! - Yariv has mentioned this already) the tools. I think our aim could be to adapt only a few tools according to the three aims of formative assessment which Sofiko was suggesting.
We are on a good way. And if Sofiko’s group wants to select three instruments for the next Skype meeting I think this is OK. Maybe it is possible to develop one tool which is based on the three tools and which fulfils the “philosophy of formative assessment”.
___________________________________________ Prof. Dr. Alfred Weinberger Institut für Forschung und Entwicklung
Private Pädagogische Hochschule der Diözese Linz Salesianumweg 3 | 4020 Linz | Austria firstname.lastname@example.org
Von: Guliko Janova <email@example.com> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Juni 2018 13:43 An: Sopiko Lopjanidze <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Itzkovich Yariv <email@example.com>; Dorit Alt <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Eka Tkavashvili <email@example.com>; hadas huber <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Ina Baratashvili <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org; Alfred Weinberger <email@example.com> Betreff: Re: XBL 3nd Meeting :)
First, I want to say that t he meeting was productive Thanks to everybody
Second, I miss all of you. I am looking forward to seeing you soon.
Now about a workshop. As I understand we should choose three formative assessments and they should be connected to each other
.I support Sofiko but we should also share European experts' opinion about it. We can select three instruments but give teachers/lecturers the other instruments too. This way they will have a set of formative instruments .
Best regards ,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Sopiko Lopjanidze <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
First of all, I appreciate the collaboration with you. It’s a great pleasure to work with you.
I would like to point out that our XBL team prepared the bank of formative assessment tools designated for use at higher educational institutions. However, now we face a dilemma: how to filter, classify and select several instruments to be presented at the second consortium meeting, which will be used later at the training of the academic staff.
As I have been working on these questions for a long time and I have some methodological publications concerning the topic, I give myself the right to offer my viewpoint for your consideration. Afterward it will be up to the group to decide whether my suggestion is acceptable or not.
While choosing formative assessment tools, it is extremely important to rely on the philosophy of formative assessment. By this, I mean that formative assessment is not a one-way process, nor even two way. It is a three-way process directed both from a lecturer to a student and from a student to a lecturer and between peers as well. With the help of formative assessment, both students and a lecturer should identify their strong and weak points, which will contribute to the improvement of both sides.
This is the reason why we think that while selecting instruments from our bank, we have to rely on the above-mentioned philosophy and to select three instruments for the working meeting: One tool used by a teacher and which is intended for the student’s development, the second one, which is used by students to give feedback to the lecturer and the third one designed for peer feedback.
I think that such an approach is more scientifically grounded.
I would like to know about your opinion concerning this question.
In our last zoom meeting we have decided the following:
Hadas will add her tool to Sofiko’s table- till the end of the week
The Georgian team will discuss off-line in order to decide if we need to divide the tools differently before we decide and will update us all- till the end of the week
Each of the participants will choose a tool that he prefers till the next meeting
Yariv will set a follow up meeting two weeks from Now
*Once we decide about the tools, we need to adjust those a bit (change/add something) to the chosen tools as the mandate of the project was given to develop new tools or adjust existing tools.
After this stage we will start preparing the document we need to upload in August and discuss the skeleton of the workshops.