"Levels of response" marking scheme (LORMS)

I knew there was a historian in me... Today, I was researching to find out more about social studies assessment in Singapore, in particular, the "levels of response" marking scheme... I found out that we use this to mark social studies essays, but why and how?

Nobody (on Google) seems to know... So I traced it back to its origins... It was designed for GCSE exam for history in the 1980s! Why? It was a way of differentiation by outcome! They wanted a means to use the same question to test students of various abilities and for that to show up through their answers!

Another project...

Writing is so fun...

Just those ideas and seeing how they connect to one another. How they inspire and strengthen, negate and weaken one another...

They drawn upon all your resources, who you are, what you think, what you've read, what you've been through...

I am currently going to write up an article on social studies teacher and high-stakes testing. 

This paper draws upon my current interest in citizenship and social studies education and my past interest in assessment. Also, my experiences with teachers tells me that this is one key issue that constrains them. Also, I have a love-hate relationship with high-stakes examination. I hated it because I felt they couldn't really assess the entirety of what I have learned and forced me to learn to the test but I loved it because they told me where I stood in terms of understanding and I can beat the system. 

I find doing a paper like this or a thesis so much better a way of assessment than tests...

Yes, so I'm bringing together all that I am, to write this paper. Can you imagine how fulfilling that is?

Now, I just need to get down to analyzing the data, which is a massive amount, even though only focusing on four teachers. 

What is a proposal?

Your dissertation proposal is an opportunity for you to present your idea and proposed actions for consideration in a shared decision-making situation. You, with all the integrity at your command, are helping your chairperson and/or doctoral committee to see how you view the situation, how the work you propose fills a need, how it builds on what has been done before, how it will proceed, how pitfalls will be avoided, why pitfalls not avoided are not a serious threat, what the consequences of your efforts are likely to be, and what significance they are likely to have. It is a carefully prepared, enthusiastic, interestingly written, skillful presentation. Your presentation displays your ability to assemble the foregoing materials into an internally consistent chain of reasoning. (p. 5)

Krathwohl, D. R. and Smith, N. L. (2005). How to prepare a dissertation proposal: Suggestions for students in education & the social and behavioral sciences. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Intrigued

I don't know about you. But you know what intrigues me? The lack of information. When I want to study something, but I cannot find much about it... It disturbs me very much.

So it's either that that topic is not worth studying about, so no one wants to do it... OR... I have discovered a huge gap in the field!

So here begins my quest to find articles on teachers as civil servants, whether they face any constraints, particularly when teachers teach somewhat controversial subjects like social studies? ;)

Why should I define my term?

I am always asked how I define patriotism or citizenship. And I always struggle to reply. Because out there in the literature, there are gazillions of definitions, some of them conflicting. I always tell people, the term is defined the way people want to define it, I don't fix the definition... I think... Perhaps I should play the role of a Philosopher and try to define it for myself.

'The nature of citizenship', Aristotle declared, '... is a question which is often disputed: there is no general agreement on a single definition.' Yet the terms 'citizen' and 'citizenship' are in constant use throughout the world today: the concepts are central to everyday political discourse. Is it therefore good enough for 'citizenship' to be a 'Humpty-Dumpty' word, in danger of crashing into fragments while asserting that it means just what it chooses to mean? Surely not. Citizens should know what their status implies; and they should understand when politicians abuse the term by according the whole concept only a partial range of attributes. It is, moreover, important to understand the complexity of the role of citizen and to appreciate that much needs to be learned if civic rights are to be exercised, civic duties are to be performed and a life of civic virtue is to be pursued. The citizen, in short, must be educated; and no teacher can properly construct the necessary learning objectives if semantic confusion surrounds the very subject to be studied.

This is not to argue in a world of richly diverse political traditions that a detailed prescription of universal application is either possible or desirable. Rather to suggest that those who use the words 'citizenship', 'world citizenship' and 'education for citizenship' should be aware of the long history and great wealth of meaning which lie behind them. Furthermore, only confusion and harm can arise from loose employment of the term. If we can but reach an agreement on some definitional highest common factor, political discourse and social education can only benefit from the clarification. To this end the present work is offered as some contribution. (Heater, 2004, p. vii) 

I think one of my goals for my PhD studies must be to come up with an operationally ready to be used definition of patriotism, usable in the educational setting. Yes. Cannot skirt this issue anymore. Difficult to define, so go in and solve the problem, don't avoid anymore.

I just received a book to review (Kleinig, Keller & Primoratz, 2015) and they did define patriotism. Will learn from these philosophers and write one for myself.

References

Heater, D. (2004). Citizenship: The civic ideal in world history, politics and education (3 ed.). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Kleinig, J., Keller, S., & Primoratz, I. (2015). The ethics of patriotism: A debate. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

Word Count Analysis

I thought of doing a little analysis of how an article evolves. This article is still evolving but I am impressed with how it has taken shape so far. You can see the ideal of 6000 words and how I started out with 9540. Also, the most problematic part was the Findings and you can see how it has progressively fall in word count. It fell because of my supervisor's feedback to restructure. So the fastest way to cut word count is to find a neater structure that can contain your ideas. Copyediting will not help much at cutting down the words, it only chips away. So those minor fall in numbers were the results of concision and clarity, the drastic fall was the result of major re-writing. Also, perhaps you can see my struggle with the conclusion, especially at the beginning. So clueless I was, I left it empty. I have consistently found the conclusion one of the hardest sections to write.

I hope this analysis can encourage others who are finding it difficult to write. It's really a matter of perseverance. You keep working at it, and you don't give up, and one day it will be ready to be submitted.

So I am going to give myself some appreciation and validation now (and be self-compassionate). Good job, Shuyi! Nice work you have there. It's not yet completed, but I like the way it's going. :)

Struggles with the third paper

The third paper is much harder to write... It is harder to come up with common themes for four very different and distinct individuals. I struggled so greatly. I thought I could just list them case by case, but my supervisor said that was too boring. It was. It was a chunk full of words. So I re-wrote it into strange dichotomies. There's this inner-quantitative-man in me that likes binaries very much. I have a tendency to do this... My supervisor told me binaries are not themes, themes are focused on a single aspect and don't come in this-or-thats. Today, I tried again... Finally, a semblance of themes. I will need to read through what I wrote and refine it and also adjust my Discussion according to it.

This paper is taking much longer than expected to complete... We were targeting mid-August...

However, I noticed I have really grown in terms of receiving feedback. In the past, when my supervisor had once asked me to make drastic changes like this, I actually broke down and cried, because I did not know how to do it. My dear friend, Glenda, comforted me. Back then, I really had no resources to draw on, because I was doing major re-writing for the first time. But today, when something's not right, I just go back to the drawing board, quite emotionlessly and re-structure, re-work and re-write. It has reached a stage that perhaps I am close to calling it a skill I have mastered... The skill of changing the way I think and write, as others and myself wish and dictate. I no longer find that I am restricted to a set of thoughts or piece or writing because of a lack of ability or resources to change.

So this is something worth celebrating over.

*pats herself on the shoulder*

Good job! :)