5.4.5 Assessment

So we have designed our training courses, included all the elements that we feel are important, gathered some enthusiastic students together and we are well on the way to put them into practice.

Now, how do we assess?

The traditional method of assessing has always been for a master or expert to lay out what standard is required and then set an examination so that the specified standard will be attained by a pupil.

This could be an academic assessment that many of us are familiar with, where we sit down and read an unknown question or questions and that draw on what we have learned and studied, and then regurgitate it as faithfully as we can to please the examiner and prove to her that we have a detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

It could also be a physical test, e.g. in the trades, where we have to manufacture an item so that an external examiner will deem it to be of the quality required.  In music it is similar, we play an unknown piece and an examiner decides whether or not we play it with sufficient proficiency to reach a particular standard or grade.

What about self-assessment – where I decide whether or not I have reached the standard that is required? People might immediately think; this is ridiculous – it’s open to all sorts of cheating and is a recipe for not only fooling those who are responsible for our education – but ourselves also!

Well, I propose that if we encouraged self-assessment from a young age, before children learned how to play the game of how to pass examinations, affirming what the child was good at while supportively and collaboratively challenging unrealistic self-assessment, it would lead to a lot more honesty in education in general.

The danger that children would constantly try to fool those who are responsible for educating them would be minimised as they would have a stake in the process themselves. This could be done in very creative ways with younger children and more explicitly as children grow into young adults and then as adults in 3^rd level or as mature students.

Because we are so accustomed to the unknown exam where our competence is assessed by others we might think that self-assessment is a new idea – but actually it has been around for a long time.

One great advantage is that it takes the pressure out of external assessment and examination, and, in places where it has been tried, enhances the quality of education – which, as I mentioned already, comes from the Latin root educare – to draw out.

So in considering assessment during training it is useful to look at two forms of assessment in the world of education – as both are applicable in the world of helping people.  They are Summative and Formative assessment. 

I introduced two forms of assessment at the end of the last post.

Summative assessment is the one that any of us who have gone through the formal education system will be more familiar with.

It is used to evaluate what we have learned at the conclusion of a particular instructional period, or module, semester, school year.

It usually takes the form of the traditional exam or skills test that I described in the previous post and that most of us feel a little trepidation on being reminded of!

I will not dwell on it here because firstly I imagine that most people would be very familiar with it, and secondly, in our kind of training, Formative Assessment will be the more favoured type.

Formative Assessment is a well-tried and tested method of assessment where the learners are at the heart of the process.

It is really a form of self-assessment – albeit guided by and facilitated by the teacher or tutor. If we are learners, it aims to identify areas where we are struggling, and adjust lessons and/or techniques of imparting knowledge in real time so that we feel the benefits immediately.

In non-linear type education (and growth) formative assessment is far more suitable than summative assessment.

In it there is a kind of dance, or continual adjustment, between our understanding and acquisition of skills and the methods of instruction.

In more modern settings, sometimes both formative and summative assessments are used in tandem.  While formative assessments are an integral part of teaching (and we all, I am sure, remember teachers in class encouraging us to be honest and not be fooling ourselves in respect of how competent we are in a particular area) summative assessments are generally separate to the teaching altogether.

That is, we do exams without the assistance of teachers or peers, in a separate room, on our own. When I was in school (and later in university) assessment was virtually all summative and held a lot of fear for all of us – certainly for me anyway.

The education that I received in the Army was (in my view anyway) a lot more progressive than either school or university, in the sense that it was a mixture of formative and summative.  Relationship was important – or, at least, I sensed that it was – as were practical matters.

If we are adults, and we have had poor experiences in education, formative assessment is generally to be favoured.  This is because it facilitates the two-way knowledge flow that I have referred to many times already and that has so much potential (in respect of learning) for both participant and facilitator/tutor.

It allows this because it encourages feedback.  It takes account of the root foundations and the (hoped for) increase in wisdom depicted above.

That is, as we get wiser we know that we are only fooling ourselves if we do not honestly self-assess!

One of the signs of maturity is the ability and/or awareness to know what is nurturing for us and what is debilitating [1].

Self-assessment (and formative assessment) encourages us to gain an understanding of our strengths and weaknesses.  This, in turn, invites us to take responsibility for our learning.

I said already that Formative Assessment favours the root foundations (such as emergence, identity, consciousness, relationship etc.) as people are not as under pressure as in summative assessment to perform or compete with others.

While, as students, we still have to reach a standard of competence, formative assessment encourages (and even inspires) us to reflect on:

1. How we have learned as well as what we have learned.

2. The intrinsic value of the material being learned, that is, why it is of value in itself, rather than having to know it to pass an exam.

3. The value to me of the material being learned.  (This is different to the intrinsic value).

4. Strengths and assets, rather than deficits.

5. Personal as well as professional growth.

6. Personal as well as professional relationships.

7. What we expect from the learning.

8. The pace, or rate at which we are learning – and be able to regulate it to suit our needs.

9. What it feels like to be competent in an environment where people aren’t compared to each other.

10. The validity of the opinion that others have about us, i.e. whether I am intelligent, a good person, a bad parent, etc. etc.

A part of formative assessment, (when classmates know each other well and trust each other) can be peer assessment. This has huge benefits as it enables students to be a resource to each other for learning and up-skilling.

I believe that peer assessment in a trusting environment also enables us to be honest.  This, in itself, further builds trust.  Not all peer assessment has to be formal.  In fact, the best peer assessment in a group situation can take place when someone responds (or even reacts) spontaneously to another.

Sometimes this might be a flash of anger, a bout of sadness, an expression of fear, or a spark of humour.

Spontaneity is particularly valuable, as it can enable growth in real time.  This requires good facilitation and also a safe environment so that both the person who has the courage to be spontaneous and the person against whom the remark is directed (if that is the case) can both take responsibility for their emotional release and/or the reaction to same.

Some of the best learning (and growth) that I have experienced has been in such an environment – but, I repeat, safety is essential.

[1]. Have you memories of times when you came to realise that continual exposure to certain norms was having a negative impact?

Different people learn different things at different rates!

When self-assessment (formative assessment) is coupled with absence of grades, marks, comparison etc. it allows us to grow and learn at the pace that suits us in an area that is of interest to us – or that our heart draws us to. 

And if we don’t learn quickly it doesn’t mean that we will be incompetent as practitioners (indeed I am a slow learner myself – but I hope that I’m a reasonably competent practitioner). I believe that the opposite is true too – if we are very quick in the academic or cognitive sphere it does not automatically follow that we will excel at our job in the field [1].

Self-assessment stimulates a growth mindset, where we begin to appreciate the gifts that we have and learn how to build on our talents.  I also believe that in a supportive environment, because of emergence, taking responsibility for how we are doing encourages us to view failures as opportunities to learn something new both about the subject matter and ourselves.

I believe that we also reach a plateau of competence that we are happy with ourselves.  As I mentioned elsewhere, my plateau of competence in driving my car will be different to that of a Formula One driver.  It is the same in family support work.  Different people have different levels of competences in different areas in keeping with their natural talents and gifts, and what they have formally and informally learned.

[1]. This is not only in the world of helping people – it is true everywhere. For example, I have observed that, in the world of sport, many great team managers were average players – and some great (world-class as they say) players did not make great managers. I believe that this is because those who are world class – who have it naturally – find it difficult to appreciate or empathise with how others struggle, whereas those who were average know all about struggling!

What about work ethic?

Does self-assessment inculcate a good work ethic, so we can develop tenacity, keep our energy and motivation up, and know when to take a break?

Once again I believe that it actually models those very traits that we desire.

All of us have different levels of energy at different times, different skillsets, and different likes and dislikes.

Self-assessment, over time, gives us the confidence to be critical, self-aware and reflective about what we do, how we do it, our effect on others, and their long term effect on us.

Commitment to self-assessment needs to be intentional on the part of the organisation and its leadership. That is, the organisation needs to be pro-active about it.

My personal belief is that perseverance, hard work and effort has far more long term benefits than brilliant insight, outstanding talent or cleverness – so that is probably what I feel needs to be affirmed most.

But perhaps I am letting my own bias interfere a little here!

On a final note on self-assessment, I will revisit the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics, in particular the Sub-Chapter on Narcissism.

Self-assessment will usually not be of much use with the narcissistic student (or, indeed, staff member).

They are doing great all the time and if something goes wrong it is always someone else’s fault!  I will cover this in far more detail (including implications for recruitment) in the Chapter on Organisational Matters – but am mentioning it here as it is a training issue too.

Because 1): attendance (at anything) is always a sign of enthusiasm, and generally of readiness, and 2): the benefits of emotional learning accrue when it is spread over a longish time, (which I mentioned here), I believe that attendance requirements need to be set quite high.

In fact, attendance, punctuality, reliability, attention to detail etc. always speak for themselves!

I believe that 80% attendance across all the different subjects (e.g, skills, emotional etc.) is reasonable in respect of optimising students’ attainment of the standard required.  If students cannot or will not find the time to attend up to 80%, I believe that either life is getting in the way, or there are reasons – perhaps not yet in their consciousness – that are resisting the encounter (and emotionality) that is a necessary part of the training.

It has been my experience that sometimes the interest and commitment of narcissistic people (who, we need to remember, are probably very hurt) wanes and this is reflected in their lower attendance and their subsequent exit from courses on their own volition.

This is a self-assessment of sorts.

However, there are times when it is necessary to ask people to leave courses due to their total unsuitability.  Always, their self-assessment varies widely with facilitators’ opinions and is totally unrealistic.  This is always very challenging for facilitators and participants alike.

It highlights that such a group is a training group, not a therapy group.

It is important that people who leave courses of their own volition, and/or are asked to leave – and particularly those who do not accept the reasons why [1] – are offered emotional support.  This possibility needs to be factored into the planning prior to a course starting, as the organisation has a duty of care.

[1]. This is where responsibility comes in.  It must be remembered that facilitators of training courses have a responsibility to very hurt people in the Focus Group.  To allow people who, obviously, are caught up, or immersed in their own hurt and vulnerability and have too little awareness of it themselves to work in this field would be irresponsible.