Some of the ideas in these chapters went over my head, as I don’t have direct knowledge of how college teachers interact with each other. However, I can relate to the idea of group and collaborative work and the importance of meeting regularly. Having served on boards of professional associations, I know that teams of people who are planning events need to be with each other, work together, share ideas, and function as a unit. This holds true for Girl Scout leaders, soccer parents, Parent/Teacher associations, and church committees (I have been involved in all of these at one time or another). There are certain advantages to working online, emailing, and phone conversations, but I believe that people need to interact directly as well. In Chapter 9, Wood mentions that new professors need to be exposed to the whole system of collaborative assessment in order to understand how to implement it. The benefits of group work, review of standards and methods, and meeting regularly extend to new faculty as well as established faculty (Driscoll & Wood, 2007, p. 177). I have noticed in my time on committees and boards that a frequent outcome of meetings and planning can be that nothing actually happens. People leave the meetings full of excitement and inspiration, and then they return to the normal routine and get busy, leaving the new plans behind. If the faculty meets often in their collaborative approach, perhaps there would be a better chance for the new system to be implemented. I was interested in Wood’s comment that most faculty tend to be teaching-centered and spend “little time…studying the evidence of student learning: student work.” (Driscoll & Wood, 2007, p. 179) I would imagine that the average professor hurries to finish one class, read and grade work, and prepare for the next class and would not necessarily have time to reflect on student work. A friend of mine who teaches English composition at Auburn University told me that she is teaching five sections this semester. I don’t think she gets much else done besides school work. Where would the time be allocated for collaborative assessment and reflecting? Many professors have other jobs, teach one course a semester, and don’t spend much time on campus.
One method for directly observing and assessing student work is to have individuals, pairs, and small groups present in class. I have taken part in many of these presentations, and I feel that I get an opportunity to show what I know. The professor hears and sees students display their learning more vividly than by reading papers or grading exams. Wood talks about giving students “multiple opportunities to practice [using] different parts of the brain” causing more “neural connections than passively listening to a content-filled lecture.” (Zull, 2002, cited in Driscoll & Wood, p. 184) Class presentations, discussion, and interactive work thus benefit the students’ learning and the teacher’s learning.
I think this collaborative assessment system should be a voluntary one, as the authors noted their program is. Some professors might not want to participate in groups, preferring to work alone. Others might feel defensive or uneasy about having their own teaching methods scrutinized. If those who are interested in collaboration and learning form a core group and benefit from their experiences, perhaps they can encourage reluctant colleagues to join in. Some of the responses from interviews listed on page 206 echo my concerns: “fear and vulnerability, bias, and peer review”. There are positive themes listed as well: “building consensus, aligning teaching and assessment, benefits and value, reflection on pedagogy” (p. 206). Collaborative review and assessment seems to have yielded largely positive results for the authors.
