Transcript Criterion referenced

WEEK 2 LECTURE:
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF
ASSESSMENTS
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY
School of Education
Lecturer: Dr Yoshi Budd
Course: ETP 425
ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY
• Formal: carried out as discrete structured
information-gathering task
• Informal: assessments tasks carried out as part of
everyday teaching and learning activities.
ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY
• Criterion referenced: Where a student’s responses
are assessed against a set of criteria
• Norm referenced: When marks given to one group
are compared with others who did the same
assessment task
• Standards referenced: Where the marker assess
students’ work against a selection of statements
that outline a standard of performance
ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY
• Summative : Where the purpose is to acquire
information about student learning at the end of a
teaching unit, terms of year.
• Formative: Where the purpose is to acquire
information that can be used to inform future
teaching
ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING
• The purpose of assessment is to inform the teaching
and learning process, based on the evidence
revealed in student responses to set tasks. Teachers
use the information from assessment to their
teaching plans in order to improve student learning
outcomes. This is the main purpose of diagnostic
assessment. This type of assessment is called
assessment for learning and is formative in nature.
ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING
• In contrast assessment that is summative in nature
provides an accumulation of data of mathematical
competence or achievement. This is often called
assessment of learning, where the teacher uses
information to build a comprehensive assessment
student record.
ASSESSMENT AS LEARNING
• Assessment should also gather information that is
serendipitous and is called assessment to learn and
may just involve a teacher recognizing a
‘teachable moment’ and acting on it. It can also
be in the form of teaching students through
assessment . Where they learn what they know and
don’t know through teaching assessment strategies.
Formative assessment would also include this data
which is often indistinguishable from a learning
activity.
ASSESSMENT TYPES
• Tests
• Observation and Discussions
• Performances
• Work samples
• Investigations
• Checklists, inventories and profiles
ASSESSMENT AND LITERACY
• In a study the researcher gave a test to 917 grade 6 pupils in 31 classes in
19 schools in Melbourne. She interviewed 124 Grade 6 low achieving
students who had made a total of 3002 errors and found that errors
made by the students occurred with
• reading (13%),
• comprehension (22%) and
• transformation (12%).
•
• Thus, almost half the errors made (47%) occurred before the application
of standard mathematical algorithms.
• Thus nearly half the students never got to demonstrate their
mathematical process skills (26% errors) or encoding skills (2%) and there
were a high number of careless errors (25%). It becomes quite stunning if
you also add in the careless errors (72%), meaning just only approximately
a quarter of errors actually deal with mathematics performance.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (2009). Using NAPLAN items to develop students’ thinking skills and build
confidence. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 65(40), 17-23.
Gregson, R. J. (2003). “But that’s what I meant to write”: Exploring student writing in
science. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis UTS Sydney.
Kell, M., & Kell, P. (2010). International testing: Measuring global standards or reinforcing
inequalities. The International Journal of Learning, 17(12), 293-306.
Luke, A., & Woods, A. (2007). Accountability as testing: Are there lessons about
assessment and outcomes to be learnt from no child left behind? Literacy
Learning: The Middle Years, 6(3), 1–19.
Martin, J., Kulinna, P., & Cothran, D. (2002). Motivating students through assessment.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 73(8), 18-23.
Miller, M. D., & Seraphine, A. E. (1993). Can test scores remain authentic when teaching
to the test? Educational Assessment, 1(2),119-129.
McMillan, J. H., Myrna, S., & Workman, D. (2002). Elementary teachers classroom
assessment and grading practices. The Journal of Educational Research,
95(4), 203-213.
Perso, T. (2009). Cracking the NAPLAN code: Numeracy and literacy demands. AMPC
14(3), 14-18.
Scott, T. P., Callahan, C. M., &Urquhart, J. (2009). Paint-by-number teachers and cookie
cutter students: The unintended effects of high stakes testing on the
education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 31, 40-52.