Abstract
The world is changing and so is Education. Nevertheless, it is important to assure that the educational changes are not only the ones driven merely by technological advances, without considering humanist educational practices.
The indiscriminate use of technologies in educational settings without changes in approaches and pedagogical postures does not promote meaningful changes in students' learning and development (Glover et. al., 2016). Thus, changes must be promoted in the educational paradigm, in the establishment of students' and teachers' roles, as well as in the understanding about knowledge as a result of collective production.
There are two approaches that may provide support for these changes: Student-Centered Education (SCE) and Decolonialism. The first is already well-known in Europe, and the awareness about it has been rising since 2015, with the establishment of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
But after 7 years of its founding and 23 years of the first mentions in Bologna Process documents, SCE is not yet widespread (Klemenčič, Pupinis & Kirdulytė, 2020). The authors attribute this fact to a number of issues, such as teachers' workload, lack of information and lack of interest, despite the relevance and importance of SCE in engaging students and promoting meaningful learning.
The second approach, Decolonialism, may explain bigger obstacles in implementing SCE, once it deals with power structures and prevalence of certain educational models. Decolonialism is finding its way into the European context (i. e.
Monolova, Kusic, & Lottholz, 2019; Bhambra, 2022). And despite the conception of colonial education being related to the European educational framework established mainly during the colonization period by European countries, there are European attempts and studies specifically devoted to decolonial education (Pashby et al., 2020; Schubring, 2021).
From a decolonial perspective, it is possible to understand that colonized processes happen not only among territories, nationalities, races, and genders, but also between teachers/institutions and students (Mignolo, 2009; hooks, 2010; Walsh, 2014). In a colonized education framework, there are only two sources of legitimated knowledge: teachers and academic publications.
Students' knowledge is disregarded and often critical reflection is not stimulated. In conventional forms of assessment, students need to prove the ability to replicate knowledge which was transferred to them.
This promotes anxiety, stress, comparison with peers, low self-confidence, among other negative feelings (Seeley, Andrade & Miller, 2018; Cardozo et. al., 2020). Additionally, assessments that lack critical reflection and require only memorization skills are at the bottom of Bloom's taxonomy and, therefore, are not considered good learning assessments (Cahndio, Zafar & Solangi, 2021).
Based on a decolonial perspective, students' own knowledge should be taken into consideration; besides, educational settings should promote collective production of knowledge, stimulating critical thinking and encouraging students to perceive themselves as epistemological subjects. Decolonial and student-centred learning assessments need to stimulate critical reflection and the development of subjective perspectives.
Additionally, it is important to find a balance between the established curriculum and the knowledge produced by students, through their experiences and reflections. There are specific contents needed for every educational stage and each profession, but the curriculum needs to be open for new perspectives.
In this paper, we aim to propose a new direction for the discussion on learning assessment and didactics, taking into account world changes and raising awareness regarding the educational process and its social actors. The question guiding the research is: How can we develop a learning assessment approach that aims for the understanding of specific topics while promoting students' own production of knowledge in a meaningful way? Method Aiming to promote changes in assessment practices, a Pedagogical Action Research (Norton, 2008) has been carried out at the Faculty of Education of Charles University.
The research has two phases, the first one was conducted in 2021 and the second will take place in April 2022. The research aimed at the Final State Exam (FSE), an obligatory exam at the end of the studies and required to obtain the diploma.
Eight students participated in the first phase of the research. They were interviewed before and after their FSEs in different areas of knowledge.
One student did not answer the follow up emails and was interviewed just once. The interviews were semi-structured, once this interview setting allows for a dialogue in which the information is contextualized and clarified (Zanette, 2017).
They followed Brown and Danaher (2019) recommendations on how to maintain connectivity, humanness and empathy at semi-structured interviews in educational research. These recommendations were important in order to assure the well-being of the participants, already under stressful circumstances due to the exams.
The researchers' postures were based on student-centered and decolonial perspectives, attributing importance to everything that was said, without judgment or hierarchy. The interviews were analysed through Thematic Analysis, considered by Norton (2008) one of the best approaches in order to access content produced at a qualitative Pedagogical Action Research.
The focus of the research was mainly regarding the FSE of a Pedagogical area, since the corresponding Department is pursuing improvements with the use of an e-portfolio that promotes meaningful learning in a student-centred framework. Nevertheless, students reported their feelings and thoughts about the FSE of different areas of knowledge.
The preliminary analysis was presented to the referred Department and initiatives were taken to improve students' experience with the FSE. These changes impact will be assessed in the second phase of the research.
Expected Outcomes The data from the first interviews addressed four themes: lack of information about the FSE; feelings such as fear and anxiety; relationship between theory and practice; and personal experiences teaching and learning. The negative feelings were addressed by all the students, who feared failing.
Some reported being struggling with their mental health. The students addressed the need of memorization instead of showing teaching abilities, feared hard theoretical questions and, regarding the Pedagogical FSE, feared that their Portfolio would not be accepted.
In the current structure, students can choose between submitting a portfolio or taking an oral test. If the portfolio is not accepted, the oral test is mandatory.
The themes addressed in the second interview were: feelings such as relief, fear and anxiety; good and bad experiences regarding relationship with examiners; comparison of postures and approaches among different areas of knowledge; and suggestions for more meaningful and healthy FSE. One aspect highlighted for some students was the positive environment established by some of the examiners, differing from the negative atmosphere generated when the examiners acted as superiors.
Changes were made in the Pedagogical FSE, aiming for a decolonial approach regarding knowledge production. Understanding that in student-centered practices students must have information in order to be active, detailed information about the FSE was designed and shared.
A course about Portfolio was offered, developing critical thinking and own knowledge production. The next step is to promote discussions among examiners about assessments that would allow students to show their own production of knowledge, based on content they learned at university but also in practical teaching experiences, reflections and discussions.
We expect the next research phase will find more healthy and meaningful experiences in their FSE.