How do I know what I think until I see what I say? ~ E. M. Forster
How do I know what I think until I see what I say? ~ E. M. Forster
GROUP B - Formative Assessment
In Rick Stiggins' article Assessment for Learning from the compendium On Common Ground, he argues that the assessment process is "not merely to gauge student learning, but also to cause students to learn more." He suggests that teachers accompany students on their journey to academic success through clear expectations, assessments that match what was taught, conferences, feedback and time to practice, retake a test or redo an assignment. True learning must take place in an environment where it is understood that students learn at different rates and all can succeed when there is trust, cooperation and collaboration. As we consider these arguments against an ever increasing landscape of standardization and high stakes testing, what are your thoughts about the following?
- Stiggins says, "We want students to say, I am not there yet, but I know where 'there' is, and I'm on my way." Do you think that there is a difference between students saying this about their results from a standardized test vs. a teacher created performance based assessment?
- Currently, Regents examinations in NYS determine whether or not a student will graduate. That's why they're called high stakes tests. The New York Performance Standards Consortium representing 28 schools opposes them. Instead, students present portfolios of their work to panels to assess as a criteria for graduation. Do you think that all high schools should have the same Regents assessments or should schools be given a choice between Regents or portfolios?
- What are the prevailing beliefs in your school towards the role of summative and formative assessment, e.g., too much testing and not enough time for instruction, standardized tests accurately measure student achievement. Also, what do you believe?
In Rick Stiggins' article Assessment for Learning from the compendium On Common Ground, he argues that the assessment process is "not merely to gauge student learning, but also to cause students to learn more." He suggests that teachers accompany students on their journey to academic success through clear expectations, assessments that match what was taught, conferences, feedback and time to practice, retake a test or redo an assignment. True learning must take place in an environment where it is understood that students learn at different rates and all can succeed when there is trust, cooperation and collaboration. As we consider these arguments against an ever increasing landscape of standardization and high stakes testing, what are your thoughts about the following?
Julie says...
ReplyDeleteI think there is an absolute difference between students' knowing where 'there' is on performance based assessments and standardized tests - what is the 'there' on standardized tests, anyway? Even I am having a hard time conceptualizing this. All I can think of is a list of is a list of 'skills' - is getting an extra point for showing your work really a 'there'? I think all well-constructed performance tasks include an accessible, detailed rubric with which the students are familiarized before the assessment task begins. The 'there' is concrete. They know the expectations, they can work toward those expectations, revising and adding to their work to make sure that their task is 'complete'. There's no sense of 'having studied for the wrong thing' which in its very existence suggests that the 'there' for standardized tests is shaky at best.
Regarding Regents v. portfolios, I do think that schools should be given a choice. I think this because I believe that presenting/defending your work to a panel is more rigorous, mirrors more closely real life demands and gives students an opportunity to create work which is personally meaningful (in the sense that they have to take ownership of their work – the construction of the portfolio creates an opportunity for students’ work to be reflection of ‘them’).
My school loves tests. At every grade level (beginning in Kindergarten), we give pre- and post- (paper and pencil) tests for every subject and every unit. The school (a K-3 school) gives the predictive tests to 2nd and 3rd graders and uses the information of the tests to make instructional decisions (who gets put in Saturday school, who gets put in the after-school program, who gets pulled by AIS). I can understand the desire of the administration to put their efforts into these tests – it is the standard by which they are measured. At the teacher level, I think I can accurately say that it is the teachers’ feelings that WAY too much time is spent on testing (in the sense that it takes a considerable amount of time out of time for instruction). For me personally, the only major standardized test I’m confronted with is the NYSESLAT. Am I really doing what’s best for my kids if I focus on NYSESLAT preparation? What are they learning? I do think think there’s something to giving them an opportunity to practice the format of the test, but to use that as a focus of my instruction? I’m not convinced….
The one thing that I can say about standardized tests v. performance based tasks is that they’re easier for the teacher. More stressful, probably. But you just administer it and POOF! there’s your ‘picture’ of your student. I don’t think the information they give us is completely meaningless, I just think they’re not totally reliable and there exists a better way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaria B says...
ReplyDeleteI think there is a tremendous difference between the ‘there’, or goal, that students know in regards to the standardized tests vs. the performance based assessments. The only ‘there’ they may understand for the standardized tests is a score, a number, how they want to go from a level 1 to the 2,3, or 4. The students’ ‘there’ comes from a list of skills and concepts that are derived from the test or better yet test taking skills, not from their true knowledge. I teach students with special needs, and well about half of them will be scoring a level 1. It’s almost sad when I review the test scores, make a list of the concepts their lacking, and I encounter the fact that my students do have knowledge of some of the skills, it’s just that they can’t express it by reading questions and filling in a bubble. It’s also very superficial, the ‘there’ that comes from these kinds of tests, the students’ don’t really internalize it, they didn’t realize it for themselves, so they may not understand it. At the beginning of the year we have our students fill out a “My Goals” form, setting reading, writing, and math goals. Then they are revisited and they think of midyear goals. This is a way we teach them to own up to their goals, and later their accomplishments. Through our conferencing and teacher created assessments, we establish more concrete goals based on their progress, however these are easier for them to internalize since they are part of creating them and collaborating to achieve them.
This leads to my thoughts about the Regents vs. the Portfolios. The above article mentions that “students learn at different rates and all can succeed”. I would like to add that this goes hand in hand with providing them with different opportunities for success. This is what the portfolios allow the students to do. They show us their success in a different way, where the achievement of their goals, their “journey to academic success”, the ‘there’, is in clear view, with no test score telling them, it’s not good enough. I think it should be a choice to either measure their learning through a test or an accumulation of themselves.
My school, I believe like many others, is very dependent of the standardized test scores. I mean it’s hard to stray away from something that holds weight on the performance of your school. However, they do encourage lots of performance-based assessments. I mean, we dedicate time to preparing the students for the exams, through our Afterschool, and Saturday Academy, but in our curriculum, we do not touch the subject until April. It is part of our Pacing calendar for that month and that is where the big chunk of test-prep occurs.
I must agree with Julie’s comparison of the standardized tests being like a quick snapshot! I feel that just like a picture, it only captures a few seconds of that instant moment, yet all the hours, days, months and years are hidden, just like our students’ true understandings!
Cristina says...
ReplyDeleteIn theory in my school there is a sense of collaborarion, but it is done by groups. people tend to only share or help those that are closed to them. We all want to collaborate, but the way class program are set-up is very difficult to do it. Some of us managed to work/assist each other.
I think teachers and students can not be assessed based on test only, there are many factors that influence the performance of a person during a test, like a bad night, sickness,etc.
The anticipatory guides are excellent to prepare or introduce a lesson.They create interest and eagerness, and promote exciting comments from students. They participate giving background information on what they know,or would like to know. I enjoy using them in class.
In my opinion, knowing what is expected of one is very crucial in their journey towards real and authentic knowledge. I believe that telling the students where they are heading is indeed very helpful… it allows them to draw a picture, create an image, and set goals for each part of their experience. Students are given tools to manage and check their efforts and work constantly which, limits making mistakes and developing misconceptions. Their efforts are being “controlled” by their teachers on daily basis therefore true pictures of students’ abilities are developed. On the other hand, standardized tests’ results may be inaccurate and misleading. They are not about the real, authentic knowledge, but test taking strategies and ability to memorize facts.
ReplyDeleteThroughout my career as a teacher, I have always been opposed to standardized tests. I came from a country where such way of assessing students did not exist. In Poland, we were working on our final grade every day, starting in September ending in June. Each and every day counted and in order to get a good grade at the end of the semester or year, one always had to do their best. And I guess, this is why I love the idea of a portfolio… not just for high school students, but also for our youngsters in Kindergarten and second grade. If they are well thought out and clearly state the learning goals and criteria for grading, they could be a great tool for teachers and students…
But my ideal way of “checking up” on my students’ knowledge is far from what I experience day and a day out in my school… And just like Julie’s school loves testing, mine too. We also give students pre and post test, baseline assessment, midyear and end of the year exams. We test, retest, and test again. Some of the data gathered during the assessment is useful and some is just redundant. I guess it is up to the teacher to know what is important and be able to filter through the endless pages of data…
I like the idea of having portfolios. It gives the student the opportunity to demonstrate what he/she has learned. I am not crazy about standardized tests. A child can acquire a level 2 by bubbling the right answer whitout having a good understanding of the concepts. That happened with one of my students during a practice reading test. I couldn't believed she had abtained a level two. This is why schools should be given the choice of between using standardized tests or portfolios. I think the portfolios are more reliable. I like the fact that students get to be a part of this process. They get to select their best work. It shows their growth, progress and accomplishments. They can reflect on what has worked for them and what has kept them from moving forward in their learnig. They know "they are not there yet", but have an understanding of how to get "there".It's like seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. They know not to give up on themselves. In time they will get there. As long as they know they have the support of the teacher and of his/her peers. I also like the idea of formative assessment because it gives the child an opportunity to catch up. The teacher can confer with the child to help the child determine the next steps. At my school we are overdoing it a bit with the predictive assessments. We already have the data we need. We don't need to keep assessing them on the same areas over and over. Now, we just need time to use the data to guide our instruction.
ReplyDeleteI believe in both summative and formative assessmen because it not just help the students understand where they are going but it also helps the teachers understand how to readjust, reteach, and plan the lessons. At my school assessments are scheduled into our calendars. the reason we have those assessments build in our calendars is because we can analyze the assessment and this will give us an idea on where to go with the lessons. A summative assessment at the end of the unit will not help those students who are struggling throughout the unit of study, which in our classes (ELL) is the majority of our students. I belief in portfolios for the students when these are shared with the child. Many of us have portfolios because these are required in the schools, but these are never shared with the students, this defeats the purpose of having them.
ReplyDeleteAmanda says...
ReplyDeleteThere is a distinct difference between the “there” of standardized tests and the “there” of a teacher-created performance assessment. In short, the first “there” is regarded more as an end-goal, something simply to be reached. I know some of my colleagues prepare students for standardized tests in a holistic way, teaching whole language across content areas, but for many, test prep (in high school this often takes the form of ELA and other Regents Prep courses) is done for the sake of “getting kids to pass.” I think most students see standardized tests as the means to an end, too (graduation). In contrast, the “there” of performance-based assessments might not be any one discrete linear point, but rather a higher level of overall understanding or experience. This is more in line with the idea that learning is a can be an end in itself. It honors the concept of learning as a journey that will likely continue after students pick up their high school diplomas. Performance-based assessments are custom-made (assumedly, though perhaps not always, more accurate) measures of this learning.
I’m glad to hear that there is such a group as the NY Performance Standards Consortium. I think high schools should certainly be given a choice to determine what model best reflects their school’s vision. I remember visiting Bronx International High School several years ago during their Senior Portfolio presentation time. I was quite impressed overall with the mastery that the students displayed, the coordination of the presentations, and the deep commitment brought to the Teacher/Student evaluation system, as well. Though I was only a short-term observer, I got a feel for what carefully designed “alternative” assessment could look like and how it could work.
Feelings about assessment at my school are mixed. Many of us complain about the unfairness of expecting newly-arrived immigrant students to pass the ELA Regents after only a few years in the U.S., but others recognize these tests as accurate – a sort of necessary evil. I don’t know that anyone necessarily feels that there isn’t enough time for instruction during a single school year – it’s more like there isn’t enough time in our students’ high school careers. I prefer (though I don’t always achieve) an approach that balances the formative and the summative because I’m convinced that there is valuable information to be gained from each. The swing of the edu-political pendulum has led us into our current era of summative assessment-mania, which I don’t agree with, but I also don’t think that summative assessments should be discarded. To me, summative and formative assessment can balance each other if we let them: one is the qualitative, reflective, ongoing feedback all along the journey, and the other, the quantitative “picture” taken at a certain fixed point. (I realize that this does beg the question of equity of the fixed point.) In sum, both types of assessment tell stories; we as educators have a duty to interpret these stories accurately, responsibly, and in concert.
I would like to add, That our students and the schools depend a lot on the results of
ReplyDeletestandardized test and in the proccess we are making our students like robots storaging the skills to take "the test". The state and the city are pushing for this because all they worry is numbers, and they forget the human elements that allow students to assimilate information and knowledge at different stages. The students in most cases memorized the test taking strategies, used them with the test and then put them aside as soon as the test is over. Some will be able to recall and re-use the skills, others will not, becasuse they did not learned them. Most of the informations/skills were all pack in a short period of time to be used for the test. In my school we are trying to balance this problem and we are teaching small groups of students the skills they lack or need to improve. We are trying to be aware and combine the importance of both assessing methods. I think both ways are very important, each on it own has a valid point and could be balance for the different learning styles of our student.I hear teachers speaking about how their schools are just drilling the skills to take the test and improve their overall report card, but I think this is a mistake assessment should be done both ways.
I believed in having students keeping portfolios as evidence of they accomplishements, hoping this will help them to show in other way their progress.We have to remember not everyone perform well on tests and they need other means to show what they learned.