Assessing Different Assessment Strategies - Research Paper Example

Assessments are an important part of the education system. They inform teachers progress and the extent of the effectiveness oftheir teaching strategies. This paper looks into different kinds of assessments used in the K12 setting and evaluates their advantages, disadvantages, and the roes they play in the overall evaluation plan, in day-to-day and weekly instructional decisions, and in effective planning for future assessments. A closer look at standardized tests, teacher-made tests, authentic assessments, and informal assessments provides a deeper insight on the importance and relevance of these assessment strategies and validates the idea that each assessment strategy has its own purpose to serve. Key words: K12, assessment strategies, standardized tests, teacher-made tests, authentic assessments, informal assessments Introduction Assessments are a vital part of the education system and a crucial element in tracking students’ progress inside the classroom. Not only do they allow teachers to evaluate how much students have learned, but they also provide an idea in terms of the extent of the effectiveness of their teaching strategies. Recent developments in the educational system have been a double-edged sword in such that while they aim to improve the teaching and learning dynamics, they likewise tend to open a Pandora’s box of unwanted consequences (Guskey, 2003). With all the requirements for overall standardized performance and individual skills improvement, teachers are usually caught in the middle of a hodge-podge soup of teaching strategies and assessment requirements trying to please everybody and adhere to such requirements. For these reasons, a closer look into the different assessment strategies employed in learning institutions provide a clearer view of exactly how learners should be assessed and which strategy truly serves its purpose. Areas that are to be noted are the advantages and disadvantages of each type of assessment, including the elements that they intend to measure. The immediate use of assessment techniques come in the instructional instructions that are made by teachers on a day-to-day or weekly basis. Beyond that, assessment strategies likewise play a role in the academic institution’s future assessment strategies. Separately and taken together, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment strategies play a role in providing a valid evaluation of a student, teacher, learning institution, and learning population (Guskey, 2003). Standardized Tests A standardized test is a statistically reliable, valid, and norm-based assessment that is administered in a consistent manner (Warren, 2010). The uniqueness of standardized tests lies in the fact that it does not measure the outcomes of a particular classroom but was rather designed to be a valid assessment tool that looks into the general skill level for a number of different classrooms. Prior to administration of a standardized test, it has already been tested itself for its ability to produce consistent results, homogeneity, and measure what it is supposed to measure. In effect, standardized tests measure a test-taker’s capacity against the other members of his or her reference group (Snowman, McCown, & Biehler, 2011). This inherently structural and consistent nature of standardized tests results in both beneficiality and shortcomings. The reliance of the federal government on standardized testing was brought about by the establishment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Since then, scores from standardized testing determined crucial outcomes such as whether or not a child will be promoted to the next grade or allowed to graduate from high school, the extent of state funding that will be provided to the institution, and school accreditation (Ibid.). As such, proponents of standardized testing advocate its use because of the number of studies which have shown the correlation of actual classroom performance and standardized test scores (Martinez, Stecher, & Borko, 2009) and the reliability of standardized test scores in predicting a test-taker’s performance in future endeavors (Irving & Bell, 2004; Kuncel & Hezlett, 2007). Advocates of standardized testing likewise believe that educational institutions should be afforded a certain level of accountability in its capacities to deliver the appropriate level of education among its students. However, when accountability is based entirely on the results of standardized tests, such accountability may be considered incomplete and reductive especially when one considers the extent, numerosity, and complexity of the objectives of school education (Alfonso, 2009). The great dependence on standardized test scores may lead to the overlooking of important areas of concentration and may thus muddle the planning process for future assessments. Experts believe that the greatest danger of such reliance on standardized test scores is the tendency to conform to a teach-to-pass-the-test phenomenon rather than teaching to actually produce the necessary skills and outcomes in learners (Wraga, Hlebowitsh, & Tanner, 2000; Marzano, 2003). As such, education leaders warn against the over-emphasis on standardized test results and advocate assessment strategies that are more targeted on evaluating the actual individualized performance of each student. Teacher-made Tests Teacher-made tests are assessments constructed for a particular class at a particular phase in the teaching program. Thus, such an assessment strategy evaluates what has just been taught to the students, eliciting information that is still fresh in the student’s mind (Kaufhold, 2002). These tests provide immediate feedback to the teacher using a set of criteria that he or she personally set (along the curriculum requirements and the school’s thrust). Because of its extensive use in the classroom system, teacher-made tests assume the greatest (if not all, in some cases) weight in the overall evaluation plan and day-to-day instructional decisions. Unfortunately, this same advantage likewise results to the disadvantageous nature of teacher-made tests in such that effective teacher-made tests may only be constructed by skillful teachers adept at test-construction. Clearly, such teachers are not present in each and every classroom across the country and thus, this form of assessment usually suffers from being unreliable and invalid. In addition, teacher-made tests are most likely not absolute in nature, and are sometimes designed to adapt to the type of students that a class has (e.g. harder tests for more advanced students and easier tests for the less advanced ones) (Martinez, Stecher, & Borko, 2009). To some extent, teachers even rate students using such assessments relative to the other students in class or in school, sometimes even adjusting for preconceived notions regarding the student (Ibid.). Teachers may formally or informally share to one another their experiences with different teacher-made tests. In assuming their role in effective planning for future assessments, teacher-made tests are able to claim the spotlight in educational conferences and research presentations. In these venues, educators present the effectiveness and disadvantages of certain types of teacher-made tests and open them up to evaluation and criticism from other members of the educational system. From thereon, educators are able to adapt these tests in their classrooms, modifying them to suit their needs and thus effecting changes vis a vis improvements in the teaching and learning experience. Authentic Assessments Authentic assessments have recently acquired a greater following with the increasing popularity of Vygotsky’s Constructivist approach to learning, which advocates that learning happens as the child interacts with his or her immediate environment, guided by an adult learner (Kozulin, 2003). As learning strategies make use of real-world scenarios, teachers have likewise begun to adapt assessment strategies that require students to engage in real-life problems or issues as well, hence the term “authentic” In addition, authentic tasks are most often done for an audience that has a stake in what the students learn (Martin-Kniep, 2000). Authentic tasks are viewed as an effective form of assessment because they allow students to connect their knowledge to actual problems in the real world, which is what education is actually for. These tasks provide venues for students to actually get involved in the learning process and be provided with immediate and continuous feedback regarding their performance (Janesick, 2006). However, because of the need to involve students in real world scenarios, authentic tasks may tend to incur higher costs and may be applicable only on a seasonal level. Moreover, results of such assessments may be inconsistent and not entirely valid, reliable, nor comparable (Kellough & Carjuzaa, 2008). New teaching strategies such as the Understanding by Design program are greatly advocating authentic assessments in providing student evaluation (Marzano, 2003). However, such tasks should be applied in moderation as they would require great amounts of preparation and an established rubric marking system so as to establish their consistency. Again, the teacher’s role in designing his or her instruction to provide a sufficient degree of relevance to the required assessment task is crucial. Authentic tasks are usually a “one-shot deal” and while it may measure the depth of a student’s overall understanding of the concepts and processes of a particular topic, it may totally discount those who are not able to apply these concepts and processes to the task required. As such, teachers may feel the need to make room for “traditional tasks” especially when looking to evaluate a student’s progress throughout the course. Informal Assessments Direct observation, interview, and rating scales are examples of informal assessments which aim to “evaluate the process of how children learn and how they have used the knowledge and skills they have acquired within the context of the activities embedded in the curriculum” (Gullo, 2005, p. 84). Informal assessments may be used by teachers to individualize classroom instruction in order to accommodate the learning capacities, capabilities, and style of all the members of the class, thereby providing a more effective form of instruction. These qualities of informal assessment strategies seem to point towards the direction of using such techniques as part of the diagnostic assessment spectrum. Taking the form of a diagnostic assessment strategy, informal assessments actually go deeper into a student’s cognitive processes, viewing a student holistically, rather than just a set of correct or incorrect answers put on paper. With that, results of informal assessments rarely get to be seen in a student’s numeric grade, but greatly contributes in the understanding of how the student got there. Expectedly, while inasmuch as informal assessment strategies look good on paper, they also have their own disadvantages, starting from the unfortunate improper development and consequent misuse of such informal measures. Moreover, these measures are sometimes not even used at all and do not get to be part of a student’s overall evaluation (Almasi, 2003). In addition, as with teacher-made tests and authentic assessment methods, informal strategies are rarely, if ever, tested for reliability and consistency. Although rubrics may be put in place, unprepared teachers who lack the proper training and orientation may not be able to use these rubrics in the appropriate manner. However, when used by able personalities, informal assessment methods can best influence a teacher’s instructional decisions and consequent plans for future assessments. The proper use of such strategies and the correct interpretation of their results will lead to the development and construction of better and more appropriate formative evaluation strategies. Conclusion Assessments do not merely provide information as to how much a student has learned, they also provide venues to allow students to learn more. Perhaps the only thing that is certain regarding different assessment strategies is the extent of diverse utility that comes along with the administration of each strategy. Each classroom setting is unique, and each required outcome may be consequently measured using a set of varying assessment strategies. Standardized tests, teacher-made tests, authentic assessments, and informal assessments each have their own purpose to serve. They each have roles to play in ensuring a valid evaluation plan, in making sound instructional decisions, and in making effective plans for future assessments. No single strategy is generally better off than another as they all claim their rightful place in the educational system. References Alfonso, A. (2009). Not everything that counts in education can be measured or compared. A critique to accountability based upon standardized tests and school rankings. Almasi, J. (2003). Teaching strategic processes in reading. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gullo, D. (2005). Understanding assessment evaluation in early childhood education. Teachers College Press. Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership , 60, 6-11. Irving, K., & Bell, R. (2004). Double visions: Educational technology in standards and assessments for science and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 13, 255-268. Janesick, V. (2006). Authentic assessment primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kaufhold, J. (2002). The psychology of learning and the art of teaching. iUniverse. Kellough, R., & Carjuzaa, J. (2008). Teaching in the middle and secondary schools. Allyn & Bacon. Kozulin, A. (2003). Vygotskys educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge University Press. Kuncel, N., & Hezlett, S. (2007). Standardized tests predict graduate students success. Science , 1080-1081. Martinez, J. F., Stecher, B., & Borko, H. (2009). Classroom assessment practices, teacher judgments, and student achievement in mathematics: Evidence from the ECLS. Educational Assessment , 78-102. Martin-Kniep, G. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: Eight innovations that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. AsCD. Snowman, J., McCown, R., & Biehler, R. (2011). Psychology applied to teaching. Cengage Learning. Warren, P. (2010). Behavioral health disability: Innovations in prevention management. Springer Books. Wraga, W., Hlebowitsh, P., & Tanner, D. (2000). Research review for school leaders. Routledge. Read More