2010.07.05

The topic for this day's class overall was in reference to assessment, one of those sticky points I have been wondering about. We started with the question of "Why do we test?'. It made for interesting variations of hantai and sansei (which would be a great vocabulary word for rakugo word play). Why, yes. I even have a number of opinions on the subject, but as usual I feel inadequate in expressing it in Japanese, and so Andrew remains mostly mute, a curious variation from the norm. The manner of assessment has directly to do with what your expected outcomes are, and that must be known and expressed early and clearly to the students. Yes, there is room for structural or vocabulary quizzes as one is learning material, but it is also important to go beyond, to assess the students as they are involved in group activities, presentations, etc.. Curriculum based assessment deals with the core material presented in class (typical quiz, mid-term, final) versus the more generalized generic that has a broader base of expectation (ACTFL, SAT II). In scoring the materials the 'norm-referenced tests' vs 'criterion referenced tests' were compared. The norm-referenced tests refer to the familiar bell shaped curve result style that is often found when comparing to a norm, that I personally have been always suspicious of, but has its own validity as a natural comparison tool. The criterion referenced test will focus on students needing to make 'the grade' by being interpreted to a pre-set goal or criteria, and the performance of others is not the valid point. Technically all students could get an A or F and still demonstrate clearly there knowledge individually. This would not be a bell- shaped curve. Formative tests are what you have as one advances through the material, the standard quiz or check list style. The summative tests will naturally enough sum up the material, demonstrating the more complete picture such as AP, final exams, OPI (Oral Proficiency). Backward Design is a concept I have looked at in the past, but as the textbook I use is uhm, more specific in certain areas I could never understand the concept. Finally through the materials being presented in this course I get it. By knowing what your desired outcome is before you even start to think of the materials or manner in which you teach, one can more easily get the desired outcome through knowing how one will asses and how one will get students to that point of assessment by the choice of what materials etc.. There is a great deal of detail beyond this of the knowledge-based vs performance based tests, and the scoring of such does still leave me reeling, and trying to make perfect sense of it will take a bit more time. Choosing how to weigh the criteria is a huge part of differentiating, and I wonder if the process is even. I say yes, for I do this style with oral interviews, but I don't do enough oral interviews and I suspect this will take a lot of practice. The latest of changes in assessing has to do with the standards movement of which I am only becoming aware of as a result of this course. To quote: "Assessments in which teachers draw tasks from real-life situations." This is the 21 Century learning and assessing style and will require a very flexible mind to do. There is more on this to be worked with.