username@email.com
username@email.com
In this workshop, you will familiarize yourself with the concept of classroom assessment. You will develop the ability to discuss the purposes and uses of different types of assessments, the conditions for quality assessments, and multiple modes of classroom assessment. The video will summarize concepts from the written lessons and provide tips for writing strong assessment items.
This lesson will provide an introduction to assessment and its purposes in the classroom. It will also begin looking at the following types of assessments:
Additional types of assessments will be discussed in part two of this lesson.
When I was in elementary school, I found assessments to be very stressful. We always sat in a circle and it seemed as if all of the other students were watching me when it was my turn to respond. Fortunately, I usually provided the correct answer, but there were a number of students who seldom knew the correct answer. I didn’t have time to feel sorry for them, though, because I was too busy dreading my own turn. In fact, I found that I was happy when other students provided an incorrect answer or misbehaved since that distracted the teacher for a while and further delayed my turn in the spotlight.
As a first year teacher, my opinion of tests changed considerably. At first, I was excited to give tests because I thought it would be an easy day of teaching for me. After all, what was there to do if the students were taking a test all class period? Reality set as I soon learned how much time I needed to put in to create a good test and then score it afterwards. Then there was always a student who finished the test with half of the period remaining. Naively, I had thought that students who finished their test early would begin working on their homework, preparing for their next class, or at the very least, would sit quietly and respectfully in their seat. Wrong! As soon as the first students completed their test, they found other ways of entertaining themselves that were counter to my unspoken wishes.This meant that I had to plan and provide meaningful instruction to occupy students who finished their exam early.
Testing day was suddenly more work and less of a day off. Yet, as I became more experienced, I found ways to make my preparation and delivery of assessments more efficient so that testing day was not as burdensome and was sometimes even fun.
Let us begin by examining a few definitions of assessment. Assessment is:
After reading these definitions, it is easy to understand the varied notion of the concept of assessment. In fact, all of these definitions are accurate, useful and compatible with one another. The difficulty in establishing a single, one-sentence definition of assessment speaks to the universality of the concept. There are many ways to use assessment as part of a comprehensive assessment-instruction system.
Assessments help turn the act of presenting information into the science of teaching by creating the feedback loop that connects purposeful instruction to student learning. Teaching and the subsequent assessments are reciprocal in that one affects the other. Effective teachers constantly move between assessment and instruction during their normal teaching sequence. Teachers that integrate the various types of assessment into their instruction to create a comprehensive assessment-instruction system are more successful than teachers who plan blindly and move forward with a lack of supporting data.
There are at least six general purposes for assessment in education which have an obvious relationship with the definitions of assessment that we have already reviewed. Each purpose should be a component of a comprehensive assessment-instruction system. The six purposes are as follows:
A comprehensive assessment plan, whether for an individual teacher or for a school system, should include data that is relevant for each of the categories listed. Assessment is not just testing. Assessment is linked directly with instruction and is an integral component of a comprehensive educational master plan.
When working with assessments, remember that your goal is to collect and use data about your classroom. However, that does not mean that only the measurable aspects of your classroom are important.
Let’s break the concept of assessment into smaller components that are more useful to the classroom teacher. There are a number of different types of assessments. Each has a unique purpose and an appropriate use as a teaching tool. However, like any tool, if used incorrectly, it can do more harm than good.
The major types of assessments include the following:
We should note that it is possible for one assessment instrument to qualify as multiple types of assessments. For example, it is possible for a teacher to use a criterion-referenced, diagnostic assessment or a norm-referenced, summative assessment.
We will now explore each type of assessment in greater depth.
When the average person thinks of a test in school, they are typically recalling a summative assessment. These assessments are content-driven and appear as tests, quizzes, reports, papers, recitals, and competitions. Summative assessments are designed to add up or “sum” the amount of knowledge that the test-taker demonstrates. They are considered “assessments of learning.” For teachers, the summative assessment is usually given at the end of a unit of study, such as a chapter, semester, or year, for the purpose of student evaluation and assigning a grade.
To use a more sophisticated definition, summative assessments are tests that are designed to measure a learner’s understanding following a sustained period of instruction with a focus on identifying the level of mastery and the effectiveness of the instruction. Because of this, summative assessments are measures of outcome that define student achievement rather than student cooperation, aptitude, or effort. As such, they are used to determine if a student or learner has “passed” or reached proficiency in that particular event. Examples of summative tests include the SAT, Advanced Placement tests, as well as high stakes exams such the ABCTE certification exams.
Exams often constitute a student’s score or grade for a particular section of the curriculum. Summative assessment results also help in determining appropriate student placement for future courses or units. Therefore, students tend to focus on summative assessments as an important experience and, as I mentioned in the introduction, they can cause students varying degrees of anxiety.
From a teacher’s perspective, summative assessments serve as instructional guidance. By definition, they yield data relevant to a student’s mastery of specific curricular goals and also provide a basis for comparison to reference or control groups. For instance, how well did the students in class A in an American school perform in comparison to the students in class A in a Japanese school on the SAT?
When the components of an assessment are linked to pre-established criteria (generally, these are learning objectives), the results can be retrieved and organized so that the teacher, student, and parents are able to directly connect achievement to specific goals. This data can then be used to construct lessons that support the child’s needs in a very focused manner. Similarly, the data can be used as a diagnostic tool that uncovers students’ strengths and weaknesses to help guide and personalize instruction before a unit of study has even begun and can provide information to assist parents in their efforts to support their child. We will cover diagnostic tools more in depth later in this lesson.
Summative assessments are also means of accountability. They are often used to hold teachers and schools accountable for their students’ learning. In these situations, certain summative assessments can cause more anxiety for teachers and principals than it does for their students. This is magnified by the fact that the results of these assessments are routinely published in the local media for the community. For better or worse, it is not unusual for the student achievement data from a high stakes summative assessments to cause a principal to be transferred to a different assignment or a teacher to be reassigned to teach a subject that is not required to undergo high stakes testing. The same type of data may also be used to measure the effectiveness of an instructional or curriculum department within a school or district.
One of the methods for establishing accountability is to compare the achievement of the students in a particular program to students in an equivalent (or more unfairly, non-equivalent) program, such as a neighboring school or the other teacher across the hall.
Although summative assessments do provide useful data, there are also several disadvantages. Probably the most common misuse of a summative assessment is the over-reliance and dependence on these assessments to promote learning. There are times when a test will serve to motivate a class or a student. However, tests by themselves are a weak and usually temporary motivator for reluctant learners. Teachers who use quizzes and tests as the primary means for generating student interest in the class are missing an opportunity to provide engaging instruction.
Summative assessments also draw criticism because of the pressure that is placed upon the students by high stakes tests, such as one where passing or failing the exam will have a profound effect on the student’s future. For instance, if a student’s score on the SAT is not high enough, the student may not be able to attend their university of choice. When overriding pressure is placed on certain students, they may resort to cheating on the test or avoiding the situation completely. Either scenario is not a promising one for those students. Pressure of this type forces the teachers and central administration to create excessive levels of security to prevent students, teachers, and administrators from making poor decisions.
Associated with the pressure that is placed on students and teachers, is the assertion that high stakes summative assessments force teachers to “teach to the test” to keep their students’ scores high. This criticism may be true in many areas, especially if no guidance is provided to the teachers and the tests are poorly constructed. However, if the test is based on the curriculum and is well constructed and secure, the teachers are unable to teach directly to the test. Instead they teach students to master the curriculum so they can do well on the test that measures their mastery of the curriculum.
There are a number of factors that a teacher must consider when using summative assessments:
It is unwise to change the weighting scheme once the instruction for a unit has begun. It is even worse to change it after the first assessment.
Summative assessments generally address questions such as, “How well did the students learn the material? Was the instruction effective? Is this program or service worthy of continuation?” Further, summative assessments summarize the development of learners at a particular time. The assessments are designed to measure learning as related to a specific set of curricular topics and allows the teacher to assign a score that reflects the students’ achievement. Summative tests may also be used as a diagnostic assessment to identify weaknesses for further lessons.
Formative assessments are a common form of measurement and are based on the “formation” of a concept. In the simplest terms, a formative assessment includes student practice with constructive feedback and leads to more personalized student practice followed by more personalized feedback. The loop continues until the desired level of student mastery is reached. The feedback provided by formative assessments is designed to help students become aware of any gaps between their current knowledge and their educational goals. Effective feedback also helps students develop a plan to reach their goals and can eliminate students’ errors before they become habitual.
Formative assessments can also be defined as the diagnostic use of assessments to provide feedback to teachers and students for the purpose of providing better instruction so that individual students may reach proficiency. Therefore, formative assessments are goal-directed, linked with instruction, and are typically embedded as part of a sequence of lessons. Classroom examples of formative assessments include anecdotal records, practice tests, classwork, and self-reflection activities. Since a formative assessment is considered practice, teachers do not necessarily count them for grading purposes.
A good way to distinguish between summative and formative assessments is to think of summative assessments as assessments of learning and formative assessments as assessments for learning.
There are several conditions teachers must consider when implementing formative assessments as an instructional component of a lesson plan:
Self-assessments allow the students the opportunity to assume greater control over their learning. They also afford greater privacy and honesty than a more public event might produce.
Another aspect of formative assessments are that they allow the teacher and students to assume different roles. In the assessment for learning process, the teacher and students may become more interactive than a more traditional and distant approach.
During formative assessments, the teacher’s role changes so that the teacher works more closely with individual students to construct lessons targeting their areas of need based on the data generated by the formative assessment. To get to that point, the teacher determines appropriate locations for formative assessments and then allocates time for them within the lesson plan. Based on the results of the formative assessments, the teacher may differentiate his or her approach among the students by selecting new or advanced learning opportunities for certain students and re-teaching some material using a new strategy for other students. The teacher may also decide to use additional formative assessments to monitor the growth of the entire class.
The students’ role morphs into one where they become more involved with their own learning. Since they are able to analyze the results of their own formative assessments, they can and should have a voice in what steps are necessary for their continued development. It is helpful if the students are able to see a model or an example of the completed product or the desired level of mastery so they can visualize the pathway that links their current level to the desired level. As the students become more proficient in analyzing their own situation and constructing bridges to their desired goal, they will be gaining valuable maturity which will help them to assume even greater control over their own destiny. When student are more involved with their own learning, they are more apt to learn from their mistakes and realize ways to do it better next time. These lessons may even be greater than the content they are trying to master.
When using formative assessments, both the teacher and students become consumers of the data generated by the event. Within that relationship, an interesting instructional association should develop where the teacher and students share the responsibility for learning to a greater extent than traditional models have allowed. When students do take partial responsibility, this presents an opportunity for the teacher to become more of a facilitator of learning rather than just a provider.
Yet, in order for this to occur, students must receive useful feedback regarding their performance. Feedback should be personalized and specific to the expectations for that area of study. An example of ineffective feedback would be a situation where the teacher informs the class that 35% of the students got question number 5 incorrect or that there were 12 “A” grades on the last test. This type of information may serve another purpose, but it does not help an individual student understand what he or she did wrong or how to make improvements before the next exam.
Effective feedback is one that connects the individual student with the exact area that needs improvement as well as those areas where the student is considered proficient. For instance, a teacher may inform a student that he performed well on the last arithmetic practice test and showed that he has mastered adding single column numbers, but that he needs to develop a plan to improve his ability to subtract single column numbers.
In order for formative assessments to be most effective, the feedback must be as specific as possible and should become the foundation for future learning events.
One of the goals of education should be to transition students from dependence upon the teacher to interdependence upon peers to independence and self-regulation. Students will need to know how to use all forms of assistance wisely.
While formative assessments are great tools, there are several ways that teachers commonly misuse them. Probably the most common is to weight a student’s grade with data primarily from formative assessments. Formative assessments are a form of practice. Whereas a teacher may be able to derive a score from a formative assessment, it should not be considered in the same manner as a score from a summative assessment. Scoring practice events would be similar to assessing a baby’s ability to walk based on her first shaky steps. Although success comes in time, the first several attempts are not going to be confident and polished…and there may even be a few falls.
Another misconception about formative assessments is that they can stand alone and still provide an effective remedy for students’ shortcomings. Arranging a formative assessment is merely one step in creating a comprehensive assessment-instruction system. Formative assessments work best when they are a natural outgrowth of classroom teaching and provide the teacher and student with renewed direction for continued growth. The teacher and student must analyze and understand the results before they can create or continue the pathway to mastery. A formative assessment without the supporting components becomes a summative test and loses the value unique to formatives.
Yet another misuse of formative assessments is when teachers rely too heavily on them. It is a good idea to provide frequent formative assessments to help guide instruction. However, a formative followed by another formative is like measuring the measuring. It does not allow for the students to receive appropriate instruction before the next assessment. Once an instructional scheme has been developed based on the data generated from a formative assessment, a student must engage in learning before it is practical to measure if the student has learned anything.
Finally, teachers sometimes express reluctance to use formative assessments because they feel they are losing control of the instructional delivery system. For instance, whenever a student is allowed to self-assess or a peer is allowed to review a formative assessment and provide instructional feedback, the teacher is left out of the loop. Yes, this is true. It is also a good thing. The teacher retains control of the overall direction, monitors student achievement, and advances learning by empowering the learner.
When used properly, formative assessments can develop into a self-reflective process for students that encourages their involvement, especially when the feedback from learning activities is actually used to adapt the instruction to meet the learners’ needs. Formative assessments promote student learning and in particular, deep learning. As such, they are intertwined with instructional pedagogy.
An ipsative assessment is a type of assessment in which the student is compared to his best previous attempt within the same curricular concepts. It is also known as a “profiling” type of test. Typically ipsative assessments draw characteristics from both summative and formative assessments. For instance, students may receive a grade for their efforts while the assessment yields data that is helpful in preparation for the next assessment over the same material, skill, or process.
It is important to remember to measure student growth within the same curricular concepts. For instance, comparing a student’s performance on the photosynthesis test with their results on the cell structure test is not ipsative.
Ipsative assessments have several characteristics that make them unique and particularly useful to the classroom teacher. One of the benefits of ipsative assessments is the ease by which the students are able to compare their results with their existing “personal best” within that domain. This unique feature promotes ipsative referencing as a type of self-reflection in which the interpretation of the data is done by the student. Teachers also use ipsative assessments as practice events leading to a demonstration of mastery. This instructional approach is useful as long as the student is making satisfactory progress and consistently surpassing his previous personal best performance.
Ipsative type assessments can be used to motivate and challenge a student to continue to improve. This type of self-competition removes excessive peer pressure and is especially successful with reluctant learners and students with learning disabilities. Another related benefit occurs when the student analyzes his own progress and sets realistic goals and steps for achieving those goals. As a result, student self-determination is escalated. As students become more aware of their own progress and learning styles, they can self-diagnose and provide a personalized plan for reaching or exceeding personal and curricular expectations.
Ipsative assessments are the norm in competitive events, such as athletic or musical contests. The concept of trying to improve on a previous effort is the same in academics as athletics.
There are situations in which ipsative assessments may not be practical nor make good instructional practice. By definition, ipsative events are somewhat personal because they compare a student to himself. Therefore it is not a standard procedure to compare the results of different students. In this sense an ipsative assessment is like a cross country runner who runs every race to beat her own previous best time.
Teachers must also remain vigilant regarding the pacing of the lessons. Excessive use of ipsative assessments may consume a large amount of time that will be needed later to complete the entire curriculum. There may be some situations whereby certain students increase their achievement at such a slow pace that the time available will run out before they have maximized their opportunity. To guard against this, the teacher is advised to determine the length of time available for teaching a particular concept and then plan ipsative assessments within that time constraint. Additional instructional initiatives may be necessary to extend the learning time for students who are unable to meet the pacing demands of the curriculum.
Another consideration for the teacher is how to grade student effort on a series of ipsative assessments. Should the teacher count each one or wait until the student has reached his high mark and then count that one? The answer lies in how the teacher visualizes the ipsative assessment series. Are the assessments designed as practice (formative) or are they intended as a final measure of student performance (summative)? If formative, then the teacher may choose not to count some or all of the assessments. If summative, then the teacher will likely count all of them.
A diagnostic assessment is one that looks back on prior student learning and provides data that connects to new learning. A diagnostic assessment allows a teacher to make judgments regarding how well a student is performing or is likely to perform on a particular curricular topic. Diagnostic assessments are useful to ascertain each student’s strengths, weaknesses, knowledge, and skills prior to instruction of that curricular sequence. Once the data is available the teachers can then remediate students and/or adjust the instructional sequence to meet the specified needs of each student. The data from a diagnostic assessment can also be used to create an instructional target or goal for the students.
Diagnostic assessments are similar to summative assessments in that they are both formal and identify students’ achievement in reference to pre-determined standards. Like formative assessments they presume that an instructional component will connect the needs identified by the assessments with future student growth. In other words, the teacher is expected to adjust lesson components and differentiate lessons as needed in response to the data generated by these assessments. Diagnostic assessments are unique in that they can be used to track student performance, evaluate curriculum, and measure the effectiveness of value-added components in a non-summative manner.
Like other assessments, diagnostic assessments should be conceived during the initial planning stages for a curricular segment. Several fundamental questions need an answer during this initial planning stage:
Thoughtful answers to these questions may determine where and when a diagnostic assessment would be most advantageous in the lesson sequence. The answers may also indicate that the school or class may not have the infrastructure in place to support such an initiative. Fortunately, in a number of schools, diagnostic exams are currently available that have a proven track record and are a useful addition to the overall instructional scheme. When these are absent, the teacher may wish to survey the plethora of existing vendors for a useful tool. An internet search will reveal many proprietary tests to assess virtually any skill or content area. When all else fails, the teacher may have to construct the diagnostic assessment.
Make friends with the teacher that feeds students into your class or program. This will help make sure that the flow of diagnostic and other assessment information is smooth. Expect to be contacted by the teacher that receives any of your students. Open communication between teachers is instrumental in eliminating doubt, uncertainty, and repetition.
The usefulness of diagnostic data is magnified if it becomes incorporated into a historical measure of student performance over time. Schools that utilize a comprehensive assessment-instruction system maintain diagnostic records for every student for the entire time the student is in that school and school system. As diagnostic data becomes more reliable and precise, the principal or teachers may decide that the results indicate that a class reorganization may be helpful with an accompanying redeployment of staff.
When using diagnostic exams, it is important to understand their limitations. First of all, the teacher should clearly identify what is to be measured and make sure that the selected assessment is designed to measure that factor. Often diagnostic tests are given as a pre-test for a curricular unit to determine the entry level knowledge and establish baseline data about the students for measuring their growth. The information gained can become a baseline only if the diagnostic exam is a true representation of future learning. Little useful information is gained if the test is invalid, biased, or inconsistent with curricular intentions. Analyzing and acting on poor data can make a bad situation worse.
Consider the situation where a bright student is penalized because of a low diagnostic test score because he came from a feeder school that did not emphasize that part of the curriculum. Try to avoid labeling students based only on diagnostic exam results. Tests created by the teacher may be better than the tests created by outside vendors, but teachers are advised to create a historical record of proven results before heavily weighting the diagnostic data while making critical judgments.
What are your strategies for incorporating formative assessments into your classroom? What about summative assessments? How will these strategies influence one another, if at all?