Part 3 - Evaluation & Assessment

Yes I agree with Grant’s statements. I think assessment is important to help guide your instruction. I did think it was important to consider his first statement that testing is a small part of assessment. This is important to remember because you don’t always need to test kids in order to see how they are doing.

Statement 3: It is important that teachers consider assessment before they begin planning lessons or projects. This is something that I do often. I enjoy looking at the assessment to see what kids are expected to do at the end of units. This helps me better prepare kids by teaching them several different strategies so that they can be successful. Statement 5: How can technology support and enhance assessment. Technology has definitely helped gather data on students. It has helped us track students. I am in the middle with agreeing with the statement about technology being overused. I think schools and students need to find a balance because technology is super important in this day and age, however it doesn’t always have to be used. Students need to be able to do some basic things and we can push technology aside. 


One strategy that I use for assessing students in reading is to have a goal for the child. I then focus on the goal each time I read with them. At the end of every week, I assess the goal formally. I use technology to record all of my notes every time I meet with them. I have been using more technology for assessments because students need to be able to use technology for state tests in the upper grades.

Over all I would agree with Grant Wiggins' statements on testing. He makes great points on "backwards planning" when developing assessments for students. We preach "begin with the end in mind" and so as teachers it is important that we do the same when developing lessons and assessments for students. However Wiggins did mention that he believes technology for assessments is overused. It is important to note that this article is from 2002 over 20 years ago. Many technology based assessments have transformed tremendously since then and have certainly taken the place of paper based assessments. 

As for incorporating technology and assessments, I still have a TON to learn. I am eager and willing to try any new platform or computer program to receive efficient data from my students. I do use ThinkTech, but not as much as I'd like. I have used Schoology based assessment and those have been helpful for quick comparative data. As technology is ever changing, the more training and recourses we get as teachers the better we will be at using the data from technology based assessments to then drive our instruction.  

Standardized tests, such as the SAT, are used by schools as a predictor of a student's future success. Is this a valid use of these tests?

.    I agree with Grant Wiggins in that these tests have a very narrow focus and purpose.  They are just trying to find out if you learned the material that you were taught in school.  They are not predictors of future performance or success.  These are just tests, and testing is a small part of the picture of what a successful student is.  We all know smart college students who fail out in the first semester because they didn't have the study skills or work habits that are also needed to succeed in college.  

Why is it important that teachers consider assessment before they begin planning lessons or projects?

     When designing a good lesson you need to think about what you're trying to accomplish and create a combination of the content and instructional methods, as well as the assessments.  You need to consider the assessments before you begin to plan you lessons. "What are you going to assess?  What's the evidence of the goals you have in mind?  If the kids achieve the objective, what is that going to look like?  This goes back to your lesson design and knowing what activities and teaching moves will get you there.

Beyond the Article:
     Being a SpEd teacher requires constant data collection for each goal a student has.  Assessment is an on-going part of my day.  All of my data collection sheets are on my iPad and at my fingertips throughout the day.  I try to make them as user-friendly as possible, so that it only takes me a few minutes, in between groups, to jot down information.  I make sure that I use different methods of assessment (both formal and informal) from verbal responses (in person or on iPad), to written (on paper or on-iPad), collaborative/groups, project-based, games, etc.  
     What resonated most with me was the difference between Testing and Assessment.   That thoughtful assessment is is critical to the learning process.  It's essential to evaluate whether the educational goals and standards of the lessons are being met.  Assessment  should look at the whole child.  Tests are only a small part of the assessment portfolio.  They only look for the knowledge and skills for an individual student.  Tests don't predict future performance or success.

Overall, I would say I agree with Grant Wiggin’s statements in this article. He speaks of the importance of a variety of assessment, and recognizes that while MC tests are not the end all, they certainly have an important role. He recognizes that schools are part of a large bureaucratic state run machine and audits are important for such a social enterprise. He makes it clear that learning goals come first, and that assessments serve those learning goals, but are not the goals themselves. I will respond to the idea that teachers do not have enough time to do project based, or “authentic”, assessments. I believe it is easy teaching a Regents course to get caught up in that final assessment, and aim all instruction towards that one task. But that is just a way for the State to measure certain standards in the easiest and most uniform way. At Sweet Home we are blessed to have a district that supports teacher initiative. It is a rare instance when I have heard the word “NO” from a principal or district officer when I am making a request for funds for new equipment, technology, training, or time. I try to work in projets as least once a quarter, and often they revolve around lab work that builds skills that are testable and standardized, but achieved in a cooperative manner with their peers, and using equipment and technology students remember and look forward to.

My thoughts on assessment in general are handle with care. This doesn’t mean to curve grades on everything to make students feel good, but minor and major disasters on tests for instance creates disinterest and defeatism. I do like to structure a series of assessments during the unit and in many units tell the students that when they score a higher grade on an end of unit assessment, I will replace an earlier lower grade in the unit. It makes sense as they have reached a better understanding and their grade should reflect that. In Wiggins’s response to 3, I do agree of course that we must be measuring and have that measurement in mind. I think that a teacher with years of experience can easily think of their course as a list of topics that we check off. When a teacher says, “I did similar triangles.”, their intentions are I’ve taught that unit, but the language of that phrase can actually make you subconsciously root the idea that my students “know similar triangles”. Just as with any goal the assessments we create must have a measurable outcome for each student and the class in total. I could use a little more concrete statistical summary in my units. I often don’t reexamine the average scores, and sometimes feel the pressure of completing the course to the point of ignoring collective gaps in a formal way. I will however make note of areas of confusion discovered on an assessment and address these with a follow up lesson or two. As I am typing this I suppose I could build a better structure in Geometry in particular to serve as a redemption moment. Well I’ll put some more thought into this.

Grant Wiggins Interview
What distinctions do you make between "testing" and "assessment"?  I appreciated that Wiggins starts by defining assessment as a much larger category that just tests and quizzes.  Though it does not explicitly state is, the assessment being discussed in the interview seems to only be summative assessments.   Wiggins did a nice job of explaining the usefulness of each of the types of assessments he listed and how each can provide a different glimpse into student knowledge and understanding.

Standardized tests, such as the SAT, are used by schools as a predictor of a student's future success. Is this a valid use of these tests?  I am in agreement that standardized tests can be generalized to assume invalid conclusions.  From a math perspective, most standardized tests do not measure the mathematical process standards in any way.  Although the results of a standardized math test may start to explain student knowledge of the standards it is testing, results often do not look at the types of mistakes made or the strategies or representations used to show understanding of the math content.  Knowing the mistakes being made could be useful to teachers to address them.  A student using various strategies and mathematical representations, as well as higher level critical thinking skills on an assessment may actually be better predictors of student future success compared to their score on a standardized test.


Beyond the Article
Using formative assessment on a daily basis is crucial to keeping a pulse on where students are in their learning trajectories instead of waiting for summative assessment results.  I would share with a new teacher methods of gathering formative assessment data that can be built into lessons including questioning techniques, gathering responses using technology such as Desmos in math class, and having students explain their processes both verbally and in writing on any physically produced evidence of learning.  Further discussions could then focus on how to use the data gathered from formative assessments to either immediately inform teacher moves or to make adjustments to the next day's lesson.