A few days ago, I had the opportunity to tour more Makerspace environments in Calgary, Alberta. Unfortunately, one of our tours got canceled; the one which was set for Roots2Stem, as they were under the impression we were seeking to replicate their makerspace. I had actually been intending to use their Makerspace as the “grande finale” field trip to close off a series of maker dates in our junior/fledgling Makerspace in my own school, but alas, it is not to be. I am certain there is no way my itty bitty junior high budget could ever compete with their capitalist venture, but their message indicated, in no uncertain terms, that if we were going to “copy their space”, they were not willing to share their innovation with us.
But I digress. I came away from these tours with much more than just inspiration and insight into facilitating the maker movement, I also came away with a new insight into assessment in a technological environment. I had the opportunity to speak with Ken Christensen at Robert Thirsk High School in Northwest Calgary. His take on assessment in our field was what he terms “progressive” assessment as opposed to “outcomes-based assessment. Replication -> Modification -> Innovation. Essentially, if you can replicate what the instructor teaches, your grade falls around the 75% range. If you can take the learning and modify it, you move your assessment into the 85% range. And finally, taking the learning and applying it to innovate with something new, or to solve a problem moves you into the 95% range. Of course, these numbers are all “give or take” and are based on each scenario independently and uniquely, but it gave me a new take. Outcomes-based assessment in technology and in maker environments is extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. Many things, are either “can” or “can’t”, with not much in between the two. Bringing the skills into a larger framework of problem-solving and innovative thinking allows for a broader spectrum of achievement.