Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (December 2007) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

6 Qs&As with editors of Beyond Tests and Quizzes: Creative Assessments in the College Classroom (Jossey-Bass)

From:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 5 Dec 2007 06:13:35 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

December 5, 2007


Beyond Tests and Quizzes'


With federal and state officials, accreditors and others all talking about
the importance of assessment, what's going on in classrooms? Assessment,
after all, takes place every time a professor gives a test. A new volume of
essays,
<http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470180838.html>
Beyond Tests and Quizzes: Creative Assessments in the College Classroom
(Jossey-Bass) argues that assessments in the classroom could be more
creative and more useful to the educational process. The editors of the
volume are Richard Mezeske, chair of education at Hope College, and Barbara
A. Mezeske, an associate professor of English at Hope. In an e-mail
interview, they discussed the themes of their new book.

@import url(
"http://www.insidehighered.com/design/ihe/stylesheets/jobs_rss_stories.css"
); Q: What do you see as the major failings of the tests used in most
classrooms?

A: It is not that tests have failings, but that tests are limited.
Conventional paper and pencil tests should not be the sole means for
assessing student learning because tests are by their very nature single
snapshots in time of student learning, often limited to "what do they
remember" under pressure. Tests, alongside other assessment tools, can
inform teaching by providing multiple lenses for considering what it is that
students know and can do. If, at a given point in the semester the teacher
discovers (through timely assessment) that students are not getting it, and
either do not know the material, or cannot do anything with what they know
(i.e., they can't apply their knowledge), then instruction can be shifted on
the spot to rectify the situation. Multiple assessment tools are always
preferable to the single test.

Q: How different are different disciplines in the way they use tests?

A: They vary extensively. It seems to us that some disciplines lend
themselves more readily to applications or to problem-based demonstrations
of learning than others. We think immediately of the social sciences, and
also of any discipline which assesses students based on their writing. In
the arts, skill is best demonstrated in applied fashion. Science courses
with robust laboratory components afford many opportunities for creative,
non-test assessment of learning.

Some disciplines rely on one, two, or three tests each semester as their
sole means of assessment, and these tests are often focused on rote recall
of facts. Content knowledge, to be sure, is essential, but tests (and
ongoing assessments) need to give students opportunities to demonstrate not
just recall, but also application. Test experiences can challenge students
to a deeper level of mastery by requiring them to use facts in new and
creative ways to demonstrate understanding, and to tap into their personal
schemas. Too often tests are designed to measure what students do not know:
Since we all know far less than there is to know and understand at a deep
level about a given topic, concept, or discipline, constructing a test to
prove that is a simple matter. However, if students are to know concepts X,
Y, and Z at the end of a course, then designing assessments, and yes, tests,
to confirm that is a tougher process. That's because rote recall cannot be
the sole indicator of knowledge and understanding. The tests or assessments
have to be multifaceted and must assess multiple layers of student knowledge
about X, Y, or Z.

It's just common sense to encourage learning beyond the rote level. For
years, the business community has complained about employees (i.e.,
graduates of our schools) who cannot solve problems, who cannot work
independently or collaboratively, or who need constant direction. Creating
tests that measure the knowledge and skills at the levels where application
can occur will not solve these problems in and of themselves, but a
concerted global effort to move beyond rote learning can be a major
component in developing a thoughtful, creative, and adaptable citizenry who
can demonstrate knowledge and skills in new and creative ways to solve
problems we cannot yet even imagine. We need to collectively move students
away from the mindset that asks, "Is this on the test?" to "This is
interesting. How might I use it in the future?"

Q: Could you share your definition of "creative assessment" and some of your
favorite examples?

A: Creative assessment is flexible, timely, and interesting to both the
instructor and to the student. When teachers shift instruction based on
student feedback, then they are being flexible and creative. We do not mean
that teachers should design ever more imaginative and bizarre assessment
tools, or that they should ignore mandated curricular content. Rather,
creative assessment, as we use the term, implies focused attention to
student learning, reading the signs, engaging students, and listening to
their feedback. Creative assessment often gives students opportunities to
apply and deepen their superficial knowledge in their discipline.

For example, in the chapter in our book about teaching grammar, Rhoda Janzen
describes an assessment that requires students to devise and play grammar
games: They cannot do that without a deep mastery of the principles they are
learning. In another chapter, Tom Smith describes how he grades individuals'
tests during private office appointments: He affirms correct responses, asks
students to explain incomplete or erroneous answers, and both gives and gets
immediate, personal feedback on a student's ability to recall and apply
concepts. In a third chapter, David Schock writes about taking
media-production skills into the community, allowing students to demonstrate
their knowledge and skills by creating public service announcements and
other media products for an audience outside the classroom.

Q: How is technology (the Web, etc.) changing the potential of testing and
assessment?

A: Technology is expanding the possibilities for assessment while at the
same time complicating assessment. For example, checking understanding of a
group and individuals during instruction is now relatively simple with
electronic tools which allow students to press a button and report what they
believe about concept X. The results are instantaneously displayed for an
entire class to see and the instructor can adjust instruction based on that
feedback. However, technology can complicate, too. How is a teacher able to
guarantee student X working at a remote computer station on an assessment is
actually student X, and not student Y covering for student X? Does the
technology merely make the assessment tool slick without adding substance to
the assessment? In other words, merely using technology does not
automatically make the assessment clever, substantive, correct, or even
interesting, but it can do all of those things.

Q: In the national debates about assessment, many policy makers place an
emphasis on comparability. How important do you think it is that tests be
comparable?

A: In our experience, the best measures of learning take into account the
immediate circumstances of classroom and teacher, as well as the individual
learner. Good assessment tells you what people know and can do, and since
people are different from one another, one learner might best demonstrate
his knowledge by taking a standard pen and paper test, while another might
best demonstrate his knowledge by designing a multi-media presentation. One
purpose of good assessment is always to shape subsequent instruction.

Q: What are the lessons from this book for people engaged in the national
debate over assessment?

A: With the pressures to move to more mandated standardized testing to
determine what it is that students know, we may be limiting both teaching
and learning. We have not taken a stand against standardized tests - they're
the law, and we do them. However, such tests should not be the sole means
for determining what makes for a well-equipped and knowledgeable citizen of
the 21st century. If teachers are focused on a mandated lesson and rote
recall of facts in that lesson, they may shortchange students who need one
more opportunity to consider the concepts in ways which might be personally
meaningful and are connected to personal schema or prior knowledge. But if
checking in with students periodically about what they know and understand
allows for subtle shifts in teaching to reinforce concepts, even while state
and national mandates are met, then we are all better off.

- Scott Jaschik <mailto:[log in to unmask]>

- Source: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/05/mezeske

 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager