Technology enhanced assessment in complex collaborative settings

Building upon discussions by the Assessment Working Group at EDUsummIT 2013, this article reviews recent developments in technology enabled assessments of collaborative problem solving in order to point out where computerised assessments are particularly useful (and where non-computerised assessments need to be retained or developed) while assuring that the purposes and designs are transparent and empowering for teachers and learners. Technology enabled assessments of higher order critical thinking in a collaborative social context can provide data about the actions, communications and products created by a learner in a designed task space. Principled assessment design is required in order for such a space to provide trustworthy evidence of learning, and the design must incorporate and take account of the engagement of the audiences for the assessment as well as vary with the purposes and contexts of the assessment. Technology enhanced assessment enables in-depth unobtrusive documentation or ‘quiet assessment’ of the many layers and dynamics of authentic performance and allows greater flexibility and dynamic interactions in and among the design features. Most important for assessment FOR learning, are interactive features that allow the learner to turn up or down the intensity, amount and sharpness of the information needed for self-absorption and adoption of the feedback. Most important in assessment OF learning, are features that compare the learner with external standards of performance. Most important in assessment AS learning, are features that allow multiple performances and a wide array of affordances for authentic action, communication and the production of artefacts

The impact of climate change on the balanced growth equivalent: An application of FUND

The Stern Review added balanced growth equivalents (BGE) to the economic climate change research agenda. We first propose rigorous definitions of the BGE for multiple regions and under uncertainty. We show that the change in the BGE is independent of the assumed scenario of per capita income. For comparable welfare economic assumptions as the Stern Review, we calculate lower changes in BGE between a business as usual scenario and one without climate impacts with the model FUND than the Stern Review found with the model PAGE. We find that mitigation policies give even lower changes in BGE and argue that those policy choices should be the focus of the research effort rather than total damage estimates. According to our results, the current carbon tax should be below 55/tC. Sensitivity analyses show that the Stern Review chose parameters that imply high impact estimates. However, for regionally disaggregated welfare functions, we find changes in BGE that are significantly higher than the results from the Stern Review both for total damage as for policy analysis. With regional disaggregation and high risk aversion, we observe fat tails and with that very high welfare losses

The economic impact of substantial sea-level rise

Using the FUND model, an impact assessment is conducted over the 21st century for rises in sea level of up to 2-m/century and a range of socio-economic scenarios downscaled to the national level, including the four SRES (IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) storylines. Unlike a traditional impact assessment, this analysis considers impacts after balancing the costs of retreat with the costs of protection, including the effects of coastal squeeze. While the costs of sea-level rise increase with greater rise due to growing damage and protection costs, the model suggests that an optimum response in a benefit-cost sense remains widespread protection of developed coastal areas, as identified in earlier analyses. The socio-economic scenarios are also important in terms of influencing these costs. In terms of the four components of costs considered in FUND, protection dominates, with substantial costs from wetland loss under some scenarios. The regional distribution of costs shows that a few regions experience most of the costs, especially East Asia, North America, Europe and South Asia. Importantly, this analysis suggests that protection is much more likely and rational than is widely assumed, even with a large rise in sea level. This is underpinned by the strong economic growth in all the SRES scenarios: without this growth, the benefits of protection are significantly reduced. It should also be noted that some important limitations to the analysis are discussed, which collectively suggest that protection may not be as widespread as suggested in the FUND results

The uncertainty about the social cost of carbon: a decomposition analysis using FUND

We report the results of an uncertainty decomposition analysis of the social cost of carbon as estimated by FUND, a model that has a more detailed representation of the economic impact of climate change than any other model. Some of the parameters particularly influence impacts in the short run whereas other parameters are important in the long run. Some parameters are influential in some regions only. Some parameters are known reasonably well, but others are not. Ethical values, such as the pure rate of time preference and the rate of risk aversion, therefore affect not only the social cost of carbon, but also the importance of the parameters that determine its value. Some parameters, however, are consistently important: cooling energy demand, migration, climate sensitivity, and agriculture. The last two are subject to a large research effort, but the first two are not