The "A" Word

I have already ranted and raved against the No Child Left Behind Act in this space before, and like so many others, I too am disgruntled by the whole standardized testing movement. But what I haven’t seen or read much about lately (although I have often wondered) is a discussion of alternative forms of ASSESSMENT. In other words, we may not like bubble-based tests, but what else should we use to assess student learning?

I just finished reading Bill Tucker’s research paper posted on Education Sector called Beyond the Bubble: Technology and the Future of Student Assessment . I found the paper to be very thorough, and quite interesting. Tucker provides a summary of the history of testing, how and why it’s changed over the years, and most importantly, where it’s going. Here are some of my thoughts on the issue:

I remember as a grad student reading about schools that use performance-based assessment (like projects, portfolios, exhibitions) to measure student learning. That always made so much sense to me. Why not have students actually apply and demonstrate their mastery of different subjects by creating and presenting actual pieces of meaningful work that they can be proud of instead of regurgitating facts on bubble tests? According to Tucker, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, states like Vermont experimented with performance-based assessments, but there were problems with the reliability of the grading which could not be duplicated from year to year or across different schools. Multiple choice tests are a lot easier and less expensive to administer, and lend themselves to comparisons much better, so they won the day. (I am still a believer in the promise of performance-based assessments to measure authentic learning, and even though we have not yet figured out a way to standardize the way they are graded, I think they should be incorporated into the curriculum as much as possible.)

Much of Tucker’s article is devoted to the role of technology in improving not only assessment, but the actual quality of teaching and learning going on in classrooms. He talks about the difference between summative assessments and formative assessments, with the former measuring what facts students have learned, and the latter measuring students’ progress in learning, how they are coming up with their answers, and how teachers can adapt instruction to help students. He gave examples of some amazing new computer-based assessments where the test questions actually require students to analyze scenarios, develop and test different hypotheses in the form of experiments, and answer questions based on the results they observe. These tests can be used repeatedly throughout the year to measure progress, and teachers can use the data they generate about their students' thinking to tailor their teaching. The challenge with these tests is that they require sophisticated computer hardware to be able to run them, teachers need to have deep and broad knowledge in not only their content area but in understanding learning processes in order to be able to use the data the tests provide to improve their teaching, and children from low- income families who are not as comfortable with computers may be at a disadvantage when taking these tests.

The most important point I took away from Tucker’s paper is that in order for assessments to be most effective, they have to be based on the findings of cognitive scientific research that tell us how learning actually develops, and they have to be in line with standards, curriculum, and instruction. If there is a disconnect between any one of these elements, then assessment will have no impact on the quality of teaching and learning in classrooms.

takepart in reading Tucker’s entire research paper. Learn more about schools that incorporate portfolio assessments into the graduation requirements for all of their students.

(Photo: Wade from Oklahoma's flickr photostream)