Philosophy of Assessment and evaluation
How to assess and evaluate students has long been a question for those in the profession of education, but there is a lot of varied research and a lot of opinions out there. At one extreme, some see standardized tests as being a vital step in assessment (Phelps, 2005) and at the other end of the spectrum, others advocate against grading all together (Kohn, 2011). I find myself somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. In the following paragraphs, I will explain my current philosophy in regards to diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment.
Diagnostic assessment should test a students’ ability in the preceding outcomes in the last grade and test students abilities in the outcomes they will be embarking on in the current school year. Education is a step by step process where the spectrum of students knowledge will vary, so it is important to ensure that a student understands the previous steps necessary to attain knowledge prior to being taught that knowledge. On the other side of the spectrum, it is important that students who are ahead of the curriculum are enriched. Diagnostic assessment should be completed prior to planning for a unit, but should not be used for grading. Its purpose is to receive information from students about their knowledge of a given topic.
Formative assessment should be done on a daily basis as an exit slip that is often handed back to students with as much feedback as possible (Marzano, 2006). It is not fair to punish a student for not having a full understanding of the learning goals after a class has been completed (Fisher, Frey & Pumpian, 2011). Once feedback has been received, future lessons should reflect the level of student understanding.
Summative assessment is where the bulk of student grades should come from, but should not be given until formative assessment has shown that students have a strong understanding of the material. Within summative assessment, students should be given the choice of how they are assessed; this could be through projects, tests, or essays, for example (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Although it is important that students become well rounded in all of these areas, the purpose of a summative assessment is to determine a student’s ability to complete a curriculum outcome. It is the end result that should count toward a grade, as it would be detrimental to fail a student for being unsuccessful while practicing (Fisher, Frey & Pumpian, 2011). It is beneficial to allow students to redo summative assessments because the purpose is that they understand the related outcomes prior to moving on (Marzano & Heflebower).
Peer and self-evaluation are powerful tools that help students take control of their education (Jobs for the Future, 2013). These types of evaluations are skills that need to be taught in the school system, even if they are not directly related to an outcome. It is important that students understand how to assess themselves, as well as others, so that they are able to make strong, informed decisions in the future.
All three types of assessment should be feedback focused, with summative assessments also giving a grade. Rather than having students concerned with performance and their final grade, it is better to have them intrinsically motivated on learning because school interests them (Kohn, 2011). Giving students feedback allows them to understand what they are doing well and what they need to change to enhance their learning.
While assessment can be a very controversial topic, with new research continually being completed, every day, I learn more about assessment and different practices that teachers use. As I take in all of this new information, my philosophy continually changes as I grow as a teacher. Keeping up with current research and knowing your students are the keys to success.
References
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Pumpian, I. (2011). No penalties for practice. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 46-51.
Jobs for the Future. (2013 August 22). Dr. Heidi Andrade, Ed.D. Reflects on Self- and Peer Assessment. Retreived February 20, 2014,
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OkPW_mX7Vw
Kohn, A. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28-33.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J. & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Phelps, R. (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Diagnostic assessment should test a students’ ability in the preceding outcomes in the last grade and test students abilities in the outcomes they will be embarking on in the current school year. Education is a step by step process where the spectrum of students knowledge will vary, so it is important to ensure that a student understands the previous steps necessary to attain knowledge prior to being taught that knowledge. On the other side of the spectrum, it is important that students who are ahead of the curriculum are enriched. Diagnostic assessment should be completed prior to planning for a unit, but should not be used for grading. Its purpose is to receive information from students about their knowledge of a given topic.
Formative assessment should be done on a daily basis as an exit slip that is often handed back to students with as much feedback as possible (Marzano, 2006). It is not fair to punish a student for not having a full understanding of the learning goals after a class has been completed (Fisher, Frey & Pumpian, 2011). Once feedback has been received, future lessons should reflect the level of student understanding.
Summative assessment is where the bulk of student grades should come from, but should not be given until formative assessment has shown that students have a strong understanding of the material. Within summative assessment, students should be given the choice of how they are assessed; this could be through projects, tests, or essays, for example (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Although it is important that students become well rounded in all of these areas, the purpose of a summative assessment is to determine a student’s ability to complete a curriculum outcome. It is the end result that should count toward a grade, as it would be detrimental to fail a student for being unsuccessful while practicing (Fisher, Frey & Pumpian, 2011). It is beneficial to allow students to redo summative assessments because the purpose is that they understand the related outcomes prior to moving on (Marzano & Heflebower).
Peer and self-evaluation are powerful tools that help students take control of their education (Jobs for the Future, 2013). These types of evaluations are skills that need to be taught in the school system, even if they are not directly related to an outcome. It is important that students understand how to assess themselves, as well as others, so that they are able to make strong, informed decisions in the future.
All three types of assessment should be feedback focused, with summative assessments also giving a grade. Rather than having students concerned with performance and their final grade, it is better to have them intrinsically motivated on learning because school interests them (Kohn, 2011). Giving students feedback allows them to understand what they are doing well and what they need to change to enhance their learning.
While assessment can be a very controversial topic, with new research continually being completed, every day, I learn more about assessment and different practices that teachers use. As I take in all of this new information, my philosophy continually changes as I grow as a teacher. Keeping up with current research and knowing your students are the keys to success.
References
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Pumpian, I. (2011). No penalties for practice. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 46-51.
Jobs for the Future. (2013 August 22). Dr. Heidi Andrade, Ed.D. Reflects on Self- and Peer Assessment. Retreived February 20, 2014,
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OkPW_mX7Vw
Kohn, A. (2011). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28-33.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Marzano, R. J. & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.
Phelps, R. (2005). Defending standardized testing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.