Assessment - the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

As I read the article and chapter on assessment types and purpose, I reflected back on the assessments I used as a Student Teacher. I tried to be careful and make sure that my assessments matched my instructional techniques. If we focused on oral speech, I administered an oral test. If the focus was writing, I offered a written test. I learned a lot from my cooperating teacher about making sure I was assessing how well students were meeting the course objectives, test design having a lot to do with it all. Our tests were always open-ended. I felt they were too open ended, so much to the dismay of the co-op, I would work in a tiny bit more structure. I felt that as an outsider I could contribute well to his instruction and assessment techniques. After all, he had been using the same method for 20 years. There were bound to be a few bad habits that he had become numb to. Regardless, I felt that our assessment strategy was successful. He chose to focus more on writing, so the majority of our tests involved lengthy writing assignments which were based on student knowledge and creativity. I would have preferred more oral assessments, although we were able to build an atmosphere in which students daily worked with each other offering formative assessments of each other. A solid learning community was built around students assessing each other and offering constructive feedback. Formative assessment interests me the most because I believe we are always learning. I feel that the mindset that accompanies summative assessment is that we are being graded as if all chances for learning that particular set of material is done once the test arrives. Formative assessment, however, offers the opportunity to solidify confidence in what one is learning or redirect learning as needed.

This next blip is related to assessment, but not totally. I have seen in plenty of mission statements and learning goals the word “ensure” or the phrase “not an option”. They are often used referring to student achievement. I have a problem with “ensuring” success and the thought that failure is “not an option”. These phrases either take away accountability from the learner or stupidly assume that all students will do 100% of their part to master every subject. I agree that our goal should be success fir all, but lets not take away a child’s agency. We seem to have done that and instead of penalizing the student we fire the teacher and send the student to the next grade.

Assessments, as I mentioned earlier, must match what students have learned to the situations in which the information may be used. I love the example of the DMV giving strictly written assessments in order to get a driver’s license. It seems foolish, but I remember testing for my license. I drove around in a lot with no cars, only orange cones, and had to pass a computerized test about road rules. The more I think about it (especially when I reflect on some of my friends and their driving habits) it seems that the instruction and assessment weren’t properly aligned. I feel the same about much of my high school experience. I was an A student, but that only means I am an A test-taker/crammer. If I had been placed in positions to use what I “knew” then I would not have skated through school with my eyes closed.

One last thought I had on assessments refers specifically to me as a Spanish teacher. I was thinking about the criteria for oral language assessments when I read a sentence about efficiency and effectiveness. It occurred to me that when assessing language ability there are two key concepts to watch for: Could the person communicate (effectiveness) and how well could they communicate (efficiency)? Usually efficiency is graded in the form of correct grammar, but points are not usually given for overall ability to communicate, which is a big deal.

Much more can and will be said for assessments and testing.

Last Weeks Blog Entry - Oops!

Curriculum development and reform requires an understanding of current unmet needs in the school. The task of designing curriculum becomes more complicated as the needs of various educational stakeholders are assessed (a group consisting of students, society and subject matter). The needs of each stakeholder vary and are multifaceted, and each stakeholder wants priority over another. I question whether the problems in education might stem from one of the following two possibilities: 1) we are trying to accommodate too many “needs” of too many stakeholders, or 2) we are not addressing enough of the “needs” of each stakeholder. (I put quotes around needs because I believe that we live in a day and age when needs are often confused with wants. The types of needs may be real – such as physical, sociopsychological, educational- but the degree to which they are to be met may be unrealistic). The debate of balance in the curriculum is an interest debate: Do societies needs have priority of individual needs? Will individual needs naturally address societal needs? How are subject matter needs discovered and determined? Is it possible to address each type of need equally?

After determining the needs to be met comes the responsibility of determining how to meet and address those needs. The organization and implementation of the curriculum is a whole new battle. (By the way, when we speak we often say “a whole nother”. I mentioned that to someone a few weeks ago, how even the smartest and best educated people say that even though it is wrong. Sure enough, I was told that I was wrong and that “nother is a real word. After convincing them that it is not a real word, I was told that I must misunderstand people because nobody would say “a whole nother”. Within a few minutes the person arguing against me used the phrase naturally and I won the debate. Sorry, that had nothing to do with what I was writing about… but it’s pretty interesting!) Anyways, the issue of coverage creeps up over and over when discussing curriculum. When should content be taught in general terms and when must we dive deep? Can we really separate it out and say that elementary schools are to be taught a mile wide and an inch deep and middle and high schools will deepen our knowledge? Is it possible to have both breadth and deepness in the same course during the same year? In arguments of coverage, I tend to side with the theory of going deep. The question I have had as of late is “What do we consider “deep learning”?” “How deep is too deep?” We can receive the same results from spreading ourselves too wide as we can from diving too deep if we are not careful and mindful of the overall learning experience.

I look forward to the day when I can work with others to address the complications of forming the basis of a curriculum and organizing it. I do wonder, however, how much of the complications could be avoided by a willingness to clarify our needs, distinguish them from wants, and discard that which is not necessary for the overall purposes of student achievement.