Lectical Scores are subject to change.
We incorporate feedback loops called virtuous cycles in everything we do. And I mean everything. Our governance structure is fundamentally iterative. (We’re a Sociocratic organization.) Our project management approach is iterative. (We use Scrum.) We develop ideas iteratively. (We use Design Thinking.) We build our learning tools iteratively. (We use developmental maieutics.) Conveniently, all of the virtuous cycles we iterate through do double duty as virtuous cycles of learning (our iterative learning model).
One important reason for using all of these iterative processes is that we want every activity in our organization to support continuous improvement. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Most people find this idea attractive—at least until they’re faced with the realization that doing something better tomorrow means acknowledging that what they did yesterday wasn’t perfect. This idea is rather uncomfortable.
My colleagues and I have developed an iterative approach to assessment development that allows us to learn from every single assessment taken in our system. What we learn supports the evolution of our scoring systems and knowledge base, making scores increasingly accurate and precise and continuously improving feedback and resources. There is no doubt that these improvements represent positive change, but they also make it necessary to acknowledge that yesterday’s scores, feedback, and resources were less accurate, precise, or useful. They also make it necessary, at times, to alter earlier scores. Ouch.
In fact, scores are unlikely to change substantially—not enough to affect the feedback received on a given assessment—but changing scores can really shake people up. It just isn’t done.
We’re doing it anyway, because it’s the honest thing to do, and because allowing scores to fluctuate a bit as our knowledge base grows is our way of reminding everyone that there’s uncertainty in any test score, and reminding ourselves that there’s always more to learn about learning. It also allows us to practice what we preach, by modeling the use of methods that support continuous learning and adaptation—even when it hurts.
