A lot of my thoughts about assessments have evolved throughout my semester enrolled in CEP 813. While rereading my first post, I realized that the word “assessment” used to be linked to a lot of anxiety for me because the proved difficult to differentiate when preparing students for standardized exams like the AP examination or the New York State Regents. Both of these examples are geared towards students who have strong written skills and reading comprehension, but do not necessarily test all students equivalently on their actual knowledge of other specific skills asked of them in science (or other non-ELA) courses. Similarly, these assessments, especially the regents, measure the memorization of material rather than actual application of content learned or other critical skillsets necessary for the success in a given course. The only positive view of assessments that I really held in the beginning is that student performance on class assessments can guide an instructor to make curricular decisions to make sure all students are achieving content mastery in a course – but with my old methods of designing assessments to look like the standardized test for the course, how accurate was this reflection of student mastery?
New Core Belief #1: Diversity is Key!
Although I still find the above beliefs true for the traditional type of assessment that I was used to, my thoughts have evolved tremendously after being exposed to different theories involving meaningful assessments. The first is – assessments can come in any shape or size, and GOOD assessments are those that test for underlying concepts behind memorization, new applications of material, and draws connections (Shepard, 2000). Additionally, Mishra and Mehta (2017) have reported that meta knowledge and humanistic knowledge are just as important as foundational knowledge. Meta knowledge refers to the transfer of content through creative methods that involve critical thinking, while humanistic knowledge is the necessary emotional intelligence that goes with everyday life skills. The traditional format of assessments only tests foundational knowledge, which cannot necessarily be transferred to everyday skills as easily as meta or humanistic knowledge. Therefore, assessments need to be diverse.
Diverse assessments will not only account for assessing different skillsets, they also take the different learning styles of students into consideration:
“Not all children learn in the same way and follow the same paths to competence. Children’s problem-solving strategies become more effective over time and with practice, but the growth process is not a simple, uniform progression, nor is there movement directly from erroneous to optimal solu- tion strategies. Assessments should focus on identifying the specific strategies children are using for problem solving, giving particular consideration to where those strategies fall on a developmental continuum of efficiency and appropriateness for a particular domain of knowledge and skill” (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
If we focus on the actual strategies that lead to the solution of a given problem, then more data will also be given to the instructor about differentiation needs and WHAT the student actually knows, not what they memorized. Also, especially for specific content courses, the way that the information is delivered is also less important than the students’ ability to actually share their knowledge. Assessments should provide multiple opportunities using different types of media for learners to display their skills (Meyer et. al, 2014). The variability that exists in digital resources makes providing many different methods of delivering responses to an assignment even easier. In the formative assessment design that I created for my CEP813 course, I used Padlet and Google Classroom to allow students to express their knowledge in creative ways, and have choice in how they want to deliver their analyses (via text, video, etc.). Google Classroom has been my go to classroom management system during this pandemic because of the ability to implement different types of media on an easy to use platform.
New Core Belief #2: Effective Feedback Can Do Wonders!
Traditional assessments only have given a brief snapshot of student knowledge, and the learning goals are rarely communicated. “Too often, the power of assessment feedback is aimed to ‘drive’ students toward (often unspecified) goals or to ‘do more’ or ‘do better'” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). This, however, is not likely to lead to any significant learning gains by students because they are unaware of necessary next steps. If the goal is made clear to students, feedback can be more direct and guide future learning steps – in other words, students want to know WHY they’re being tested and the feedback can increase student effort because the learning is more likely to become internalized. Effective feedback “needs to be clear, purposeful, meaningful, and compatible with students’ prior knowledge and to provide logical connections. It also needs to be prompt active information processing on the part of the learners, have low task complexity, relate to specific and clear goals, and provide little threat to the person at the self level” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). This does not mean that MORE feedback is effect, just more direct feedback. Also, a mere “good job” on an assignment provides little information about what students should continue doing and nothing to challenge their thinking and get more insight on the content being assessed.
Furthermore – students appreciate quality feedback! “In one study, Butler (1988) demonstrated that feedback comments alone increased students’ subsequent interest in learning when compared with two other controlled situations, one where only marks were given and the other where students were given feedback and marks” (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). The reason for this is when given a grade, students do not pay attention to the actual feedback and therefore don’t make efforts to improve. Direct, quality feedback has also lead to findings where student growth throughout a semester were significantly greater than when given generic or no feedback at all (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). This unit in the course changed my mindset a lot, even with how I create rubrics. For example, in the formative assessment design mentioned earlier, I added space for more direct feedback to give to students.
New Core Belief #3: We Must Grade Knowledge, Not Privilege!
This quote in the latest unit in my CEP 813 course really changed the way that I was viewing my own grading policies. Throughout my entire teaching career, a large portion of student grades were given for behaviors or participation, both of which do not accurately gauge student knowledge. On top of that, both do not take life circumstances into account. For example, maybe a student was not able to complete their homework because they lack the resources to do so at home (like not owning a calculator), but they understand the material that was taught in class very well. If homework counts as 10% of their grade, then why should that student receive a 90% while another student who has more privilege at home get 100% for understanding the same material? An unfortunate reality in our country right now is that socioeconomic privilege is tied to race, so by using grading policies where outside circumstances are ignored, we add to the racial inequities. I use the word ‘inequities’ here because “Remedies based on equality assume that citizens have the same opportunities and and experiences. Race, and experiences based on race are not equal, thus, the experiences that people of color have with respect to race and racism create unequal situation. Equity, however, recognizes that the playing field is unequal and attempts to address the inequality” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). We MUST use unbiased language on assessments as to give everyone an equitable chance to succeed. Imagine a student having a math example on an assessment that compares the performance of males and females – whatever gender is not being showed to perform as well is going to lower the confidence level of that gender during the test, not allowing them to perform at their highest level. Unfair penalization can result, which is defined as “test items containing content that unjustly prevents one or more subgroups of students from performing well because of those students’ personal characteristics” (Popham, 2012). I speak more about this in the final draft of the Assessment Design Checklist, and I am very grateful to have had this most current unit challenge the way I think about bias within assignments – it is not always blatant, some things may offend students that I may have not considered previously.
I am very excited to be able to implement new types of assessments to where the knowledge and skills students learn in my courses will be transferred to the outside world!
References:
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). So when it comes out, they are’t that surprised that it is there: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26 -31. https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X033005026
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014): Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice.
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning: Results of a survey. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33, 6-19.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Popham, J. (2012). Assessment bias: How to banish it. Pearson. http://iarss.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Popham_Bias_BK04.pdf
Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.
Wiggins, G.P. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/lib/michstate-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3002118
mssinghscience.wordpress.com 