Reading6-4-1




	ESE502 : The Class : Pro-active Management : Process Curriculum : Reading6-4-1

Process Curriculum

Educational Assessment: Developing the next generation of tests
Assessment is in transition. As the social science paradigm develops beyond behaviorism, and the complexity of human science research moves us past a belief that Lockean logic can capture the human condition, we recognize the need for different models for research and enhanced assessment tools. Questioning current assessment practices is a critical step in opening our evaluation system to more powerful tools. As long as assessments were viewed as adequate, there was little energy for change.

Since the 1950’s, one voice after another has questioned assessment scores. As the general public began to actively question education, court cases brought a litigious element into the discussion. P.L. 94-142, first passed in 1975, gave us Federal guidelines for assessment and placement decisions. The mandates heightened the adversarial nature of education, and a flurry of court cases questioned more and more assessment decisions and narrowed the sense of satisfaction with testing. One landmark decision came in Larry P. vs. Riles. The Supreme Court ruled that youngsters from a Black Heritage could not be placed in programs based on IQ tests. Attention was also focused on mandates to test students in their primary language, that tests should include norming samples representative of the groups being tested, that tests used to make placement decisions in schooling should attempt to be culture free and adequately test abilities and skills, and that they ought to be administered and scored by those with adequate preparation in testing. The guidelines are clear, though common practice still tends to circumvent them.

Many in the general public have lost confidence in testing, and begun to question the current educational constructs. Perhaps The Bell Curve (199) sounded the death knell of general acceptance of current assessment procedures, as it pointed to the societal and racial inequities exacerbated by assessment current best practice. It pointed out, perhaps unintentionally that students who score well on our current tests are bright and articulate, tend to have good memories, and have been immersed linguistically in the dominant culture. They recognize and recall facts that are valued, tend to learn to read with ease and make good causal connections when presented with sequential data. For example, I obtain an IQ score of 130 on a student. I know a great deal about IQ. I know that this really means that on one measure, at one point in time, I have provided a person with an assessment experience, and that person obtained points from the process of reading and then choosing a response out of four items on 100 questions. To be accuratein reporting findings, as a psychologist, I am 68% certain that this person’s IQ score falls between 125 and 135, if the test situation secured the person’s best performance, the person was performing at peak, and I scored everything correctly. Incidentally, that is on only one way of testing one very isolated form of intelligence, and those scores are derived scores that are extrapolated from a diverse norming sample that may or may not have been tested in ideal or similar circumstances to those I used.

That very imprecise snap shot of a moment in time, perhaps with luck, as representative of the person as are most driver’s license photos, will be translated into a fixed number and placed on permanent records. It will be repeated to the student and to parents, who will likely etch it into permanence. It will be used to determine qualifications for scholarships, eligibility for admission to a university, an indication that this person is a good candidate for a graduate program, eligible for matching Federal dollars in a pull out academic program for gifted and talented, and in some situations, some newspaper reporter will write a story extolling the school where a number of such students attend, stating that this person is receiving a good education and has excellent teachers. Unfortunate as it may seem, it may even translate into one teacher getting a pay raise, and another teacher, not having a student with these skills, being excoriated for poor teaching performance.

It is not the test, of course, that is the problem, but rather the mystique surrounding the scores. Scores take on a life of their own. It is as though the scores from a test are like the character Pinoccio. In too many situations, a wooden puppet has been declared a live boy. It is not assessment that is at issue as much as it is the myths that surrounds scores, the century of superstitious behaviors that have become belief. And it does not matter if, like magicians, psychologists sometimes projected that aura of mystery, or like the audience, we choose to believe that the woman was cut in half. The need to believe in the mystery and sanctity of scores is real. University students who are inducted into the mystery of tests and scores are often angry, at first. They describe a sense of feeling duped, outraged that they did not know how tenuous assessment really is, and unhappy that they were graded and sorted based on such instruments. The discomfort is often short lived, for they turn around and apply the same types of tools in grading and describing their students once they begin using assessments.

Clearly, the problem is not the assessments, but how we choose to use and interpret them. We know when we give and score a test that we have not fully captured a personality or truly measured intelligence -- that we did not saw the lady in half, but since we do not wink, do not send up a puff of smoke, or play a series of grand chords, we do not let others enjoy a recognition that we are involved in “magic.” In some cases, we even take ourselves so seriously that we begin to act as though we believe in our own mysterious power of naming and numbering.

Power is an important pivotal word. The adversarial condition of assessment and education could be lessen through empowerment. Demystifying tests could lessen the court involvement in assessment issues, and clarifying the purpose and value of tests could help providers and clients see the positive force of tests. Many tests are powerful when utilized correctly and when the extent of that power is clearly defined. For example, an IQ test can provide a safety net for a person who is mentally retarded. We can recognize some of the person’s strengths and deficits through testing, and build a program of study that will be challenging but not too taxing. We can make a case for Federal funds and justify the need for a classroom aide or job coach. On the other hand, even the most sophisticated battery of tests will not tell us how long a program will be effective, the charm of the individual, predict a future, or justify saying or doing things that take a away hope or heart.

Tests should not be used to justify a program’s philosophy, highlight or detract from the way care takers are treating a person or preparing for the future. When utilized correctly, tests are a snap shot, a momentary, still life in the dynamic flow of life. They provide a one dimensional peek at a complex and multi-dimensional series of interrelated systems. Consumers can understand this. Parents and providers can appreciate tests more fully, when we convey valid uses for assessment. In addition, once the expectations are more in line with appropriate test use, we can work together to develop the next level of instruments.

This empowerment can open a window to development of a vast array of powerful assessments. It will require shifts in thinking, but there is life experience and research to back up this “launch” in a new direction. One premise that could facilitate this is a foundational hypothesis that the individual is one of the most powerful sources of information about the self. “Subjective” data is excellent data - and certainly as powerful as the “objective” data we currently gather. Even in the best testing situations, when rapport is established, tester and subject are engaged in peak performances, are invested in the process, value the test and are engaged in a positive outcome, it is still a pattern of communications, with self report at the heart of the assessment. Further, it is complicated by the ability of the evaluator to accurately read and respeond to the self report of the subject. The potential encoding and decoding errors, language, age and cultural biases inherent in the process make the use of the term, “objective” data to mean unbiased, unfortunate.

Enhanced Assessment Tools

Performance based assessments with rubrics, developmental screenings and portfolio assessment are precursors of the next wave in assessment. They blend observation and an objective, or third person view of a process or product with subjective expressions or self report. A rubric has value as an evaluative tool. It can be data driven or numeric - especially if it is tied to an analysis of a task that is sequential or specific. A rubric is more powerful if it is broken down into specific pieces, but not just in a linear fashion. A dimensional nature exists when looking at process and product, i.e. this is what I did and the sequence of that set of step, and this is what I was thinking as I worked. It may be made dimensional by intertwining the pieces, for instance this is what the teacher will be doing, what the students will be doing and what the content will look like as it emerges at different stages.

We are frequently dissatisfied with assessment because we ask it to tell what is happening and then infer many other things from the score we obtain. We fail to factor in the other pieces, and then when we report the number, do not qualify it in the reporting.

Ways to maximize

use self report daily
Keep it focused - laser rather than twinkling lights - scattered and unorganized

Build relationships -- thus enhancing safety -- gain in data what lose in objectivity

Give person true responsibility for assessment of self

Expect and honor diversity -- symphony notion

See process as developmental and respect:

different types of thinking
divergent forms of being aware
varying lengths of time on task and attention to specifics or generalities
occasional perosn who cannot initially be “self aware”

Lots of times we distrust - honesty about self -- clarity about self -- willingness to share self -- defenses -- anxiety/fear

Those students who do not perform well on the current assessments tend to develop a general sense of inertia, anxiety or disregard when presented with testing situations. Driven by testing norms, generations of teachers continue to use formal assessments, and to report those findings using the language of assessment. Often local norms drive a grading scale that mirrors the language and math used to standardize tests

You should now:

Go on to TBA
or
Go back to Process Curriculum

E-mail J'Anne Ellsworth at Janne.Ellsworth@nau.edu