Running Head: PHILOSOPHY OF ASSESSMENT

Philosophy of Assessment Tabitha Ford George Washington University

Ford 2

Introduction Assessment is an integral part of the education process which informs teaching and learning experiences. Assessments allow teachers to measure or track student progress and development through the use of various assessment tools. The results of assessments allow teachers to adjust their teaching methods, strategies, and approaches to student learning based on how the students are performing, as well as their individual learning needs. Assessments can be both formal and informal, and formative and summative. Professionals using assessments should always consider the population being assessed and whether the assessments chosen are both reliable and valid. Assessment is not a thing to be feared, and should be viewed as a good resource for obtaining information when used accurately and appropriately. Assessment and Instruction Assessments not only show us where students need additional learning experiences with specific concepts, but also allow teachers to see students strengths which are as important to utilize in the learning process. The information gained from assessments allows teachers to rethink their cooperative learning groupings and classroom setup. Perhaps an assessment reveals that a student or small group of students is struggling to reach mastery of a specific skill or concept; the teacher would then be able to modify the type of instruction they are delivering and/or even modify tasks to meet the academic needs of the students. My informal on-going assessment measures allow me to view my class both as a whole and as individuals which then allows for the creation of differentiated or tiered tasks to aide students in achieving concept or skill mastery. Student assessments allow for peer feedback and selfreflection. When students take part in assessing themselves they learn to think critically and thoughtfully about their learning experiences and learning styles. These types of assessment also inform instruction as they provide a forum for students to have greater input and more responsibility in their own education. Formal and Informal Assessments It is my belief that students, and in some instances parents, in addition to teachers should be part of some of the assessment creation and evaluation process. Allowing students to help develop criteria for holistic informal assessments based on activities they helped create allows students more ownership and responsibility in their own education process. I regularly

Ford 3

use student and peer informal assessments in addition to teacher informal assessments when evaluating students learning progress. The assessment measures utilized in the classroom should be differentiated to meet the needs of the student population as well. Some of my students complete assessments in their native language and/or have modified output methods to ensure multiple mediums are being used to accommodate for a variety of learning styles and needs. Teachers should employ formative and summative assessment practices to ensure that the students needs are being met continuously, and allow for reflection and changes to instructional approaches in a timely and efficient manner. As a teacher in an IB school I am conducting on-going informal assessments on a regular basis. These assessments inform my teaching practices and allow me to adjust the way I approach a concept with the children, based on their level of understanding and learning styles. The summative assessment allows me to measure the final level of concept mastery, while the formative assessments allow me to track concept mastery as the concept is being taught, and informs day to day teaching practice. The summative and formative assessment practices I use are informal assessment practices, as they are traditionally non-standardized and teacher created. The assessment tools most commonly used are rubrics, checklists, anecdotal records, teacher made tests, and student portfolios. Formal assessment refers to standardized assessment practices which would be state mandated testing, special educational needs assessments, and language learning assessments for example. Formal tests typically have a norming population for which the assessment is measured against. I have taught in school systems which focus very heavily on formal assessments and employ them frequently, and I have taught in school systems which only conduct standardized testing one to two times over the students whole education. Multidisciplinary teams in schools should also employ both formal and informal assessments when evaluating children for various programs. Informal assessment measures will allow the MDT to gain a greater insight into the students whole profile by employing informal assessment measures such as parent intake meetings and questionnaires (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2009). Research, Theories, Key Concepts, and Issues According to Pierangelo and Giuliani (2009) assessment should be an active, ongoing process which has a clearly specified purpose. Assessments should not be conducted for the

Ford 4

sake of simply conducting an assessment. Currently various informal assessment methodologies are employed in my classroom. With regards to inquiry based learning the assessments are created to measure student progress in achieving deeper understanding of the lines of inquiry as well as the central idea that students spend the unit exploring. Inquiry based learning is student driven meaning that each student leads their own educational journey with guidance from the teacher. Student driven learning requires learning experiences and assessments to be catered to the individual as much as possible. Assessing students who are Culturally and Linguistically Diverse requires the professional conducting the assessment(s) to consider the validity of the assessment tool used with regards to the population being assessed. Kranzler, Flores, and Coady (2010) determined that research on test bias showed major standardized tests used for Englishspeaking children born inside of the United States to be largely unbiased; however, children who speak English or have Limited English Proficiency and are not native-born might in fact experience test bias. One suggestion put forth in addressing this issue is the use of nonverbal measures as they are considered to have strong psychometric properties and adequate norms to support use with diverse populations (Kranzler, Flores, & Coady, 2010). Another phenomenon, referred to as the Lake Wobegon effect, is test scores on formal assessment measures improving over time, though the CLD students performance on alternative measures did not reveal the same progress and abilities (Fairairn & Fox, 2009). This is attributed to the test takers and those supporting them adapting to testing demands over a period of time (Fairbairn & Fox, 2009). It is my belief that standardized tests are typically created to assess if a student is meeting curriculum requirements with norming populations that include students for whom the curriculum is written which would typically not be CLD students. Standardized tests are bias when they contain culturally loaded content that not all test takers can relate to. As a teacher in an international school working primarily with CLD students in a country where English is not the primary language, I do not feel the students being taught in English should be participating in the nationally mandated standardized tests which are meant for students attending non-international state run schools teaching the national curriculum. The nationally mandated standardized tests were not created for CLD students, and especially not those receiving an alternative curriculum to the national curriculum. I do believe that it is possible for teachers to create a more standardized assessment for use within schools in unique

Ford 5

situations such as this and would be able to effectively gain insightful information from such tests. When possible, and appropriate, students should be given assessments in their native language and English. Conducting assessments in both languages allows a better view of the students language profile which can help determine what language(s) assessments should be conducted in. However, formal measures are not in and of themselves the only tools which should be used in determining student need for accommodation and/or differentiation. Rhodes, Ochoa, and Ortiz (2005) state that formal measures conducted in a students native language have limitations when attempting to ascertain student achievement due to factors such as the native speaking norming population for assessments being different than the bilingual population they are intended for, issues with direct translations between English assessments and native student language assessments, formal versus spoken language, and the use of language between cultures, to name a few. For these reasons, and more, it is vital to conduct informal measures in order to draw any final conclusions regarding the evaluation of the student. Informal measures used should include parent intake meetings or questionnaires to ensure all areas the of the students profile are explored. Parents are able to give invaluable insight into the student, an insight we as teachers are not exposed to due to the environment in which we interact with the student. Conclusion There should be a balance between formal and informal assessment practices when evaluating a students achievement. Assessments should include a variety of measures and not rely on one output method for ascertaining information. Todays student is vastly unique in that societies are becoming more global, leading to classrooms with students who are culturally and linguistically diverse with their own levels of acculturation in multiple cultures. In addition to this we must consider the learning styles of todays student, and adapt our assessment practices and teaching methodologies to meet those needs as well. Gone are the days of validity in delivering and assessing towards curricula that are nationally grounded, because todays student is global.

Ford 6

Resources Fairbairn, S. B., & Fox, J. (2009). Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and decision makers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(1), 10-24. Giuliani, G. A., & Pierangelo, R. (2009). Assessment in Special Education: A Practical Approach. (4th ed.).Columbus: Pearson Education, Inc. Kranzler, J. H., Flores, C. G., & Coady, M. (2010). Examination of the cross-battery approach for the cognitive assessment of children and youth from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 431-446. Rhodes, R.L., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Practical Guide (Practical Interventions in the Schools). New York: Guilford Press