To make sure this post is focused on a single coherent issue, I will think of assessment as part of the general subject of measurement,. Measurement can be concerned with anything, including money, buildings and their characteristics, time, noise, people, etc. Assessment - in my current arbitrary definition - is concerned with people, and more specifically, with people's progress towards their goals.
The motivation for assessment is the same as for more general measurements - it provides feedback to all involved, which enables them to see where they are going, and to correct their course if they find they are going somewhere different than where they wanted to go. I hold these truths to be self evident, that anyone working in open-loop - i.e., without feedback - is bound to fail, except in the simplest of tasks; and that mass education is not simple at all.
First, let's get the following off the table: In my opinion, testing as it is normally done in schools is a poor method of assessment. Incessant testing is a detriment to learning, and standardized testing is a detriment to teaching. I put some of these thoughts in writing in previous posts about tests and about announcements. The general idea is that studying for a test is very unlike learning, and succeeding in a standard test is quite different than having acquired knowledge, skills or habits. Whew! I am glad I took that off my chest. Now I can continue speaking in praise of assessment without being accused of being a test-happy bureaucrat. I hope.
Open minded people thinking about assessment of pupils' progress, often talk about using informal methods, such as conversation between a teacher and a pupil, thinking together about what has happened, what is going on, what their expectations may be, etc. If this sounds vague, it's only because it is. Such conversation - and what educators sometimes call "reflection" - can be useful in digging underneath the surface and gaining insights. It has similar advantages to those of qualitative research, and very similar disadvantages, as I discussed in Education Research Impracticalities a while ago. One specific issue with such methods, which may be called "qualitative assessment," is that of credibility. A conversation between two or more people is very personal. It could go differently if other people were involved - for example, if the assessment talk happened between the same pupil and another teacher. The conclusions from such a conversation depend on the specific people involved, on their mood, and on other things. It is not easily repeatable, and therefore not verifiable and the level of faith the pupil can have in it suffers. Faith being an important part of the usefulness of feedback. I think such qualitative assessment methods should be part of the arsenal, but we should not limit ourselves exclusively to them.
To complement the qualitative assessment method
Now, if we say that the assessment is intended to be used as feedback, to promote growth in the directions we want, then surely the pupils are not the only ones who can benefit from it. So do the teachers, administrators and the school in general. Assessment of teachers should be done not only because it is indeed useful, but it will lend credence to the teachers' claim that assessment is not a whip to beat the weak with. It will also let the pupils learn how to relate to assessment by the example of the grown-ups, which may be the only way to learn any behavior. We can leave the assessment of parents to another phase of utopia.
The motivation for assessment is the same as for more general measurements - it provides feedback to all involved, which enables them to see where they are going, and to correct their course if they find they are going somewhere different than where they wanted to go. I hold these truths to be self evident, that anyone working in open-loop - i.e., without feedback - is bound to fail, except in the simplest of tasks; and that mass education is not simple at all.
First, let's get the following off the table: In my opinion, testing as it is normally done in schools is a poor method of assessment. Incessant testing is a detriment to learning, and standardized testing is a detriment to teaching. I put some of these thoughts in writing in previous posts about tests and about announcements. The general idea is that studying for a test is very unlike learning, and succeeding in a standard test is quite different than having acquired knowledge, skills or habits. Whew! I am glad I took that off my chest. Now I can continue speaking in praise of assessment without being accused of being a test-happy bureaucrat. I hope.
Open minded people thinking about assessment of pupils' progress, often talk about using informal methods, such as conversation between a teacher and a pupil, thinking together about what has happened, what is going on, what their expectations may be, etc. If this sounds vague, it's only because it is. Such conversation - and what educators sometimes call "reflection" - can be useful in digging underneath the surface and gaining insights. It has similar advantages to those of qualitative research, and very similar disadvantages, as I discussed in Education Research Impracticalities a while ago. One specific issue with such methods, which may be called "qualitative assessment," is that of credibility. A conversation between two or more people is very personal. It could go differently if other people were involved - for example, if the assessment talk happened between the same pupil and another teacher. The conclusions from such a conversation depend on the specific people involved, on their mood, and on other things. It is not easily repeatable, and therefore not verifiable and the level of faith the pupil can have in it suffers. Faith being an important part of the usefulness of feedback. I think such qualitative assessment methods should be part of the arsenal, but we should not limit ourselves exclusively to them.
To complement the qualitative assessment method
Now, if we say that the assessment is intended to be used as feedback, to promote growth in the directions we want, then surely the pupils are not the only ones who can benefit from it. So do the teachers, administrators and the school in general. Assessment of teachers should be done not only because it is indeed useful, but it will lend credence to the teachers' claim that assessment is not a whip to beat the weak with. It will also let the pupils learn how to relate to assessment by the example of the grown-ups, which may be the only way to learn any behavior. We can leave the assessment of parents to another phase of utopia.
No comments:
Post a Comment