The
article entitled “Authentic Assessment, Evaluation, and Documentation of
Student Performance” is authored by Edward Chittenden and edited by Vito
Perrone. This was published in the editor’s book “Expanding Student Assessment :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development” published in 1991. Here,
the author explains the meaning of assessment and its distinction from testing
and evaluation. He does it by giving the definition and the function of each
concept based on educational point of view. Further, he relates the meaning of
each to the features of the framework that he, together with his colleagues,
has prepared for the elementary schools in the districts of New Jersey and New
York. The said framework contains all the data concerning the “authentic” assessment
options and procedures which they have outlined and suggested to be utilized in
the evaluation of students’ learning in reading and in literature. Curriculum
modification in the districts of New Jersey and New York and liability concerns
caused the educators to develop the framework and undergo with experiments
involving the teachers and the learners at the schools concerned. It was this
experimentation that brought the author the realization that all the districts
in the places mentioned share the same goals - a. capitalize on the actual work
of the classroom; b. enhance teacher and student involvement in evaluation; and
c. meet some of the accountability concerns of the district. However,
variations are observed in the features of alternatives as they are employed
which he assumed was the result of diverse interpretations by the educators
concerned. Moreover, he noticed difficulty in ascertaining which among the
alternatives offered was feasible as he analyzed that the concept “authentic”
itself had been roughly defined and offered no specifics where instruments for
assessment were concerned. He, further, argues that an instrument for
assessment must meet its evaluation purpose and that its documentation should
be made and presented in such a way that it would be comprehensible to all
teachers, students, parents and the community as a whole.
After reading the article, I could not
help expressing my consent with his view on:
1. authentic assessment and its ambiguous
definition and
2. the training for educators and all
other concerned individuals for the implementation of a project or program.
Authentic assessment also known as
performance assessment was introduced to the Philippine educational assessment decades
ago and has been acknowledged by educators since. This theory was strengthened
as K to 12 curriculum was implemented considering that the standards-based
assessments – formative and summative – defined in the curriculum employ the strategies
and instruments under AE. However, not
all educators follow what the curriculum prescribed as they find the application
of AE very challenging. Observation of students’ performance or reactions to
each learning situation necessitates time from the teachers. Recording of the
observation requires the use of checklists and rubrics, which most teachers are
incapable of doing. Hence, some superficially comply with the curriculum’s
requirement by copying and printing tools made available by the internet;
whereas, others just assess their students’ learning in a traditional manner. Non-compliance was attributed to lack of time
for observation, unwillingness to come up with their own checklists or rubrics
for the recording and organizing of their observations and for some of them
confusion about AE. These, I realized when I performed my research project for
ELT 509 entitled “TUMCSI high school teachers’ perception of the
standards-based assessment” in 2014. This might also have been the case in
other schools all throughout the country considering that most of the teachers
still struggle on the understanding and construction of standards-based test
items based on AE (Magno, 2014). Chittenden’s (1990) experience proved how
understanding of the theory affected the educators’ responses to the framework
presented and performances as instruments provided in it were utilized. Palm (2008) emphasizes that complete
understanding of a strategy or terminology will enable a teacher to fully and effectively
apply it. Based on studies, proper orientation and intensive training on AE
contribute a lot as well as it has been observed that those who underwent a
series of INSET (basically held for three days) wrote test items and construct
checklists and rubrics far better than those who have attended series of seminars (held for a
day). Apparently, shifting from traditional assessment to authentic assessment
had been less difficult for the former as they were made to understand the
essence of AE.
Authentic assessment benefits both
teachers and learners not only of reading and literature but also of other
subjects in all levels. Based on experience, instruments featured in this framework
provide educators an excellent basis for adjustments in activities or lesson
plans as a whole. Wiggins (1990) asserts that “the best tests always teach
students and teachers alike the kind of work that most matters; they are
enabling and forward-looking, not just reflective of prior teaching.” Portfolios of written outputs grant teachers
the opportunity to constantly monitor students’ writing skills, vocabulary,
grammar and others. Observation checklists give an accurate source for grading
the students’ regular response or performance and for evaluating their learning
by the time the quarter ends. Further, these serve as effective proofs of their
attendance and participation in case parents come and inquire about their
child’s activities and performance in class.
Considering the context of AE, it can be
said that it is no longer new in the Philippine educational assessment.
Teachers have been doing it even before it was introduced. It’s just that the
act is named as the new curriculum is implemented; together the name and the
program give an impact to which teachers cannot easily and positively respond as
they still undergo adjustments. Hence, a close supervision of classroom
practices must be considered for teachers to be guided in the process of
utilizing AE. Further, they should be made to understand that “assessment
design and standards for data interpretation would be certainly changed” as
curriculum transforms (Chittenden, 1990). Wiggins (1990) emphasizes that “if
our aim is to improve performance across the board then the tests must be composed
of exemplary tasks, criteria and standards”.
Reference:
Chittenden, E.
(1991). Authentic assessment, evaluation, and documentation of student
performance.
In V. Perrone (Ed.). Expanding Student Assessment :
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, p22-3. Retrieved January 28, 2015 from
http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/chapter/1991/cmhv.
Magno, C. (2014, Nov. 23). Kpup how far have
we gone [Power Point Slides]. Retrieved
January 28, 2015 from
http://www.slideshare.net/crlmgn/kpup-how-far-have-we-gone.
Palm, T. (2008, April). Performance assessment
and authentic assessment: A conceptual analysis
of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation 13 (4), 1-11. Retrieved January 28, 2015 from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=13&n=4.
Wiggins, G. (1990, December). The case for authentic
assessment. ERIC Digest. Retrieved
January 21, 2014 from
www.eric.ed.gov.
No comments:
Post a Comment