In
explaining my approach to assessment to my students, I often use a forensic,
law-court analogy (Wright, 2009). The
students, I explain, are attorneys, presenting evidence of skills or content
mastery on their own behalf. I am the
judge who considers the evidence and makes the ultimate determination.
The course I've taught for the last seven years is divided into
thirteen units, corresponding generally to a single performance standard or two
or more closely related standards. Over
the course of the academic year, a student will receive thirteen grades, one
for each unit (the grading system is discussed below). Each unit consists of a number of
assessments, ranging from reading comprehension exercises, performance tasks,
primary source analyses, and traditional paper-and-pencil tests. Rather than averaging each assessment into a
single grade, the various assessments are
treated as diagnostic in nature. They
help “make a case” for a student’s level of content mastery. If a student hasn’t demonstrated, through
their evidence, that they have attained mastery, formal and informal
conferences are conducted to explain how their evidence is deficient, to determine
what must be done to correct it, and to develop a plan for providing additional
evidence. While the class might need to
progress to the next unit, a student who has yet to attain “content mastery” of
a particular unit is permitted, and expected, to revisit the unit continuously
until mastery is attained.
While the forensic assessment
approach is far from perfect, it has the advantage of permitting students to
learn at an individualized pace, to demonstrate content mastery at various levels
across the cognitive taxonomy, and to provide a more holistic description of a
student’s level of content mastery than might be possible with a single
summative assessment. It allows academically gifted students to move at an accelerated pace. It also heeds Stiggins’ (2008) warning to avoid the trap of giving isolated
consideration to aptitude, effort, compliance, and attitude. Students are assessed only in terms of content mastery.
While it is acknowledged that aptitude, effort, compliance, and attitude
may influence student progress, it is the responsibility of the student to
parlay those factors into content mastery.
Another benefit of the forensic approach
to assessment is that a student is permitted to practice, explore, and even
learn from mistakes without the fear of penalty. Under grading systems that confuse summative
and formative assessments, a student is often held permanently accountable for mistakes
– e.g., misbehavior, confusion, less than adequate work, etc. – even thought that student might ultimately
demonstrate content mastery.
For many educators, grades are
primarily tools of reward and punishment, rather than feedback (Guskey &
Bailey, 2001). Without doubt, grades can
serve as significant motivators or de-motivators. Cumulative grade reporting, however, fails to
adequately communicate content mastery.
A student, for example, might earn a 50% on a performance task. In order to improve their grade, the student
might then be allowed to revisit the content, repeat the performance task, and
receive a new grade by averaging the two tasks.
If the student finally attains content mastery and earns a 100% on the
second performance task, the cumulative grade would be 75%. While passing, a 75% doesn’t communicate
content mastery. Teachers often cite
reasons – e.g., fairness to other students, teaching responsibility, etc. – for
using this manner of assessment, as though assessment is for teaching “life
lessons” rather than guiding instruction and learning. In formative assessment, however, grades
should communicate progress toward content mastery (Stiggins, 2008). Life lessons only obscure this communication,
and don’t necessarily reflect real life anyway.
An individual taking a driving test, for instance, must demonstrate
skills mastery in order to receive a driver’s license. If they fail their test, they must revisit
the content until they have attained mastery.
Once they have done so, regardless of the number of times they’ve tested,
they receive the same driver’s license that all other drivers receive (not some
devalued, averaged, or otherwise qualified license).
In my classroom, if a student’s
collective body of evidence for a particular unit does not reflect content
mastery, their unit grade reflects that.
Once they achieve mastery, their grade is adjusted accordingly, regardless
of how many attempts were required and without reference to past mistakes,
confusion, or less than adequate work.
References
Gusky, T., & Bailey, J. (2001). Developing grading and reporting systems for student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Stiggins, R. (2008). An introduction to student-involved assessment for learning (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Wright, N.T. (2009). Justification. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment