I would argue that the starting point for all involved in education is to make the clear distinction between testing and assessment. The purpose of all assessment, whether informal classroom-based assessment or formal high stakes testing is to provide information that will support teaching and learning in schools, hence improve student outcomes. (Cooney 2006 pii)
Assessment is essentially about gathering data for student progress, feedback and educational accountability. It provides evidence that can be interpreted in a range of ways depending on the stakeholder’s frame of reference, and can be an important tool of communicating with parents, the community, teachers, school executive, prospective parents and governments. It is significant to note that assessment data is useful if only matched against outcomes.
Assessment needs to fit a particular purpose.
Evaluation is a highly inconsistent process. Teachers give different numbers and types of assessments and weight them differently.
There is disagreement on issues like the role and value of homework. Some teachers assign homework frequently and weight it heavily, while some don’t assign it at all.
Some teachers will allow retakes of tests and quizzes, others do not.
Different policies exist for work turned in late not only among different schools, but within schools. An example recently surrounds the situation of two teachers teaching the one senior subject. One teacher placed a significant amount of emphasis on a given task, including the importance of timely submission, while the other teacher allowed students to hand in the task late without penalty. Subsequently, the first class were in essence disadvantaged by the actions of the latter teacher, whom provided more time for students to complete a common task, undermining the significance of the task, and arguably some of the data attached to it.
The validity and reliability of student assessments vary. This can be a significant factor where conflicting pedagogies are in play.
There are major philosophical differences regarding evaluation. Some teachers view learning as primarily a student responsibility, while some place the responsibility for teaching mainly on themselves. (I would also argue, both values can work in tandem)
There is little agreement on many assessments and what kinds are needed for evaluation. In fact, the use of multiple choice is disregarded, and often the rigour of an assessment programme is quantity not quality.
Even within the same school different teachers teach differently and test differently for the same course. Particularly informal assessment. Another recent example is drawn from a shared class arrangement. Two vastly different teachers in terms of pedagogy, student connection and engagement (sure, a largely qualitative statement, but revealed in differing class management issues).
Assessment validity fails when pedagogies of teachers are not aligned.
Assessment is essentially about gathering data for student progress, feedback and educational accountability. It provides evidence that can be interpreted in a range of ways depending on the stakeholder’s frame of reference, and can be an important tool of communicating with parents, the community, teachers, school executive, prospective parents and governments. It is significant to note that assessment data is useful if only matched against outcomes.
Assessment needs to fit a particular purpose.
Evaluation is a highly inconsistent process. Teachers give different numbers and types of assessments and weight them differently.
There is disagreement on issues like the role and value of homework. Some teachers assign homework frequently and weight it heavily, while some don’t assign it at all.
Some teachers will allow retakes of tests and quizzes, others do not.
Different policies exist for work turned in late not only among different schools, but within schools. An example recently surrounds the situation of two teachers teaching the one senior subject. One teacher placed a significant amount of emphasis on a given task, including the importance of timely submission, while the other teacher allowed students to hand in the task late without penalty. Subsequently, the first class were in essence disadvantaged by the actions of the latter teacher, whom provided more time for students to complete a common task, undermining the significance of the task, and arguably some of the data attached to it.
The validity and reliability of student assessments vary. This can be a significant factor where conflicting pedagogies are in play.
There are major philosophical differences regarding evaluation. Some teachers view learning as primarily a student responsibility, while some place the responsibility for teaching mainly on themselves. (I would also argue, both values can work in tandem)
There is little agreement on many assessments and what kinds are needed for evaluation. In fact, the use of multiple choice is disregarded, and often the rigour of an assessment programme is quantity not quality.
Even within the same school different teachers teach differently and test differently for the same course. Particularly informal assessment. Another recent example is drawn from a shared class arrangement. Two vastly different teachers in terms of pedagogy, student connection and engagement (sure, a largely qualitative statement, but revealed in differing class management issues).
Assessment validity fails when pedagogies of teachers are not aligned.
RSS Feed