"Impossible to see where one leaves off and the other begins"
The paper version of the talk given by Lorrie Shepard I referenced in my last post contained a forward-thinking philisophical nugget that I think warrants its own post:
"Good assessment should be so entwined with good teaching that it becomes impossible to see where one leaves off and the other begins."
This is a truth which seems to get lost in the policy debate (I'm not sure how it plays out in the classroom, though I look forward to finding out -- current teachers?). Assessment isn't solely a summative activity based on tests which occurs at the end of the year, nor is it something which should happen only every so often. Assessment for its true diagnostic purpose is something that is synonymous with teaching, because good teaching should almost always involve an active dialogue with the students. It doesn't always have to be an oral dialogue; even well-designed worksheets can provide both practice and insight into what the student knows and, if he or she is struggling, where in the thought process the learning is breaking down.
One of the important points Shepard draws out is that this type of learning-assessment requires approaching problems from many different angles to see if students really get the concept. This in turn allows for identification of where in the thought sequence the problem lies.
I bring this up for two reasons: First, if this is the picture of good classroom assessment, it's disturbing that our accountability assessments look so very different. The vast majority are devoid of any attempt to engage students in that dialogue -- instead, they test a single method and usually try to "trick" the students while they're at it. Second, if teachers are constantly assessing their students in the intrinsic act of teaching -- and if they can be trained to be good at it -- it may not be unreasonable to suggest that teachers should play some role in the systemwide accountability assessments.
It again comes back to what the ultimate point of the systemwide assessments are. If their purpose is truly diagnostic to assist the teachers in their craft and help the students learn, and if their simultaneous purpose is to identify deficiencies, we need to rethink how they are designed on the most basic level.
"Good assessment should be so entwined with good teaching that it becomes impossible to see where one leaves off and the other begins."
This is a truth which seems to get lost in the policy debate (I'm not sure how it plays out in the classroom, though I look forward to finding out -- current teachers?). Assessment isn't solely a summative activity based on tests which occurs at the end of the year, nor is it something which should happen only every so often. Assessment for its true diagnostic purpose is something that is synonymous with teaching, because good teaching should almost always involve an active dialogue with the students. It doesn't always have to be an oral dialogue; even well-designed worksheets can provide both practice and insight into what the student knows and, if he or she is struggling, where in the thought process the learning is breaking down.
One of the important points Shepard draws out is that this type of learning-assessment requires approaching problems from many different angles to see if students really get the concept. This in turn allows for identification of where in the thought sequence the problem lies.
I bring this up for two reasons: First, if this is the picture of good classroom assessment, it's disturbing that our accountability assessments look so very different. The vast majority are devoid of any attempt to engage students in that dialogue -- instead, they test a single method and usually try to "trick" the students while they're at it. Second, if teachers are constantly assessing their students in the intrinsic act of teaching -- and if they can be trained to be good at it -- it may not be unreasonable to suggest that teachers should play some role in the systemwide accountability assessments.
It again comes back to what the ultimate point of the systemwide assessments are. If their purpose is truly diagnostic to assist the teachers in their craft and help the students learn, and if their simultaneous purpose is to identify deficiencies, we need to rethink how they are designed on the most basic level.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 10:03 AM.
|
