ELN 122: Blog 3
In your blog, choose one type of
assessment discussed in this chapter that you feel is the best assessment for
eLearners. Describe why you think it is the best. Use the reading to help
defend your answer.
Great, I’m the educator responsible for several students but
I’ve never met these individuals face-to-face. That’s because the class is done
in the virtual world. As an educator in an e-Learning environment I must be a
facilitator of the learning, not directly leading the class. I do not directly
teach the material, but rather monitor – making sure that all students clearly
understand their roles and responsibilities, students are conducting themselves
in the class, and watch students’ progress to ensure that no student falls
behind. I must monitor the student’s progress through assignments, postings in
discussion sites, blogs, podcasts, e-mails, or other communications. It is
important that the eLearning session always keeps students informed; this
constant contact is essential. Sharing the student’s assessment results is one
way to maintain communication.
For a teacher-created test, unlike a statewide standardized
state (such as AIMS) or a college entrance (SAT) exam, the educator creates formative
tests to drive instruction or a summative assessment given at the end of a unit
of student (Bergan, Burnham, Bergan, Callahan,
& Feld, 2014). Formative assessments are on-going tests given through a unit of study
and allow the educator to check for student’s understanding and adjust
instruction as need; they are diagnostic in nature. Summative assessments are
sometimes referred to as “end of unit tests,” “mid-terms,” or “finals” as they
are given at the end of a class, course, or school year to measure the student’s
learning outcomes. There are different characteristics of formative and
summative assessments, which are not covered in this blog.
According to Churches (nd), a summative assessment is not ideal for the
eLearner. Because formative assessments gives the educator a way to monitor and
measure student’s learning. Additionally today’s students are dramatically different
than students from years. The 21st Century learner does not have one
job their entire career, but rather a variety of jobs. Learners “…expect and
demand transparency, adaptability, contextual and collaborative learning, and
the opportunity to use technology … [therefore educators] need to employ and
motivate our learners” (Churches,
p. 7).
It’s great that I’m consistently assessing the student’s
progress but the interpretation of the assessment data should have a frame of
reference. Without this reference, the data is meaningless. I can look at the student’s
performance a number of ways. Did the student do as well as was expected based
on their ability with the subject? How did the student do in comparison to
other students who took the same assessment? Did the test score represent the student’s
growth in skills between two tests? Did the test inform the educator
specifically what new skills the student has mastered?
In order to answer these questions, I must determine which
of the various assessment frames should be used -- ability-referenced,
growth-referenced, norm-referenced, and criteria-referenced. Each of these test
interpretation frameworks has their pros and cons and an educator needs to
identify the one that should be used in the administered based on the measured
observation/assessment. For an eLearner, the criteria-referenced assessment
framework is one that works the best.
Criterion-referenced interpretations deals with “…comparing
a learner’s performance with a well-defined content domain” (Oosterhof, Conrad, & Ely, 2008, p. 72).
The educator is comparing the learner’s score to a preset standard. Using criterion-referenced
measurements I can identify students who do not know a skill and need
instruction; students who do not know the skill performs poorly and those that
know the skill perform well.
The
advantage of criterion-referenced test interpretation is that the educator has
clearly identified skills that the learner has mastered – it is informing all
involved parties how well a student performed against a skill or standard, as
opposed to against another student. For example, a math learning objective is
'learner should be able to correctly add two sets of two-digit numbers.' The
criterion-referenced score tells the educator if that student successfully met
the objective.
In order to give a formative (or summative)
criterion-referenced test, it is very important to clearly define the domain
that the test is addressing. To do this, I must create measurable objectives
that can be measured on an assessment. Tests should be designed to include
objectives that are appropriately covered. As defined in the Standards for educational psychological testing
(1999) criterion-referenced interpretations includes “…comparison to cut
scores, interpretations based on expectancy tables, and domain-referenced
interpretations” (American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on
Measurement in Education, 1999, p. 174). So it is very important that the
domains (objectives) are clearly defined and that I have identified the
cutscore for meeting that objective. If I, as the educator, am a poor
instructor, then the student is penalized since they’ll do poorly on the
assessment, and therefore, have poor grades. To address this disadvantage I am
held accountability to deliver good instruction and tests. In Arizona, as with
many other states, SB 1040 outlines that there be a model for a teacher’s “…evaluation
instruction that includes quantitative data on student academic progress…” (Senate Bill 1040, 2010, p. 5).
Using a criterion-referenced
test provides the student a better idea of how well they performed in class (Van Blerkom, 2008). This interpretation frame
also is non-competitive since the student’s test scores are not reliant on how
well other learners performed. In other test interpretation frameworks, such as
ability-referenced which assumes the student had the same developmental
experiences as other students (Van Blerkom,
2008). Learners in poverty or disabled leaners often score too low on
ability tests; test scores for English language learners are often low since it
does not reflect the student’s true ability (Van
Blerkom, 2008). In a norm-referenced assessment I would be comparing the
student to a group of similar students. In an eLearning environment, it may be
difficult to clearly identify and define the norm group. I don’t have to be
concerned with these factors in a criterion-referenced test.
An eLearning environment should
be student-centered, since it promotes active learning, collaboration, mastery
of course materials and the students have control over their learning process
(Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, Zvacek, 2009). According to Beverly M. Klecker
(2005) when a criterion-referenced approach is used, it allows the students to
obtain mastery of the assignment or task at hand.
I do need to realize that not all testing situations are
suitable for the criterion-referenced approach. Criterion-referenced
assessments of complex concepts are difficult to determine through the use of
one score on an assessment. A formative test on a single chapter with few
objectives or a test covering six chapters with several dozen objectives are
not ideal for the criterion-referenced approach. In these situations, I should
use the norm-referenced interpretation approach.
So, with all the decisions I have to make as a teacher,
using a criterion-referenced approach I can feel confident that I am accurately
measuring my students’ success in mastery of the identified objectives. This
will also help be confident and better prepared for the new teacher evaluation
system implemented in Arizona.
References
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education.
(1999). Standards for educational and pscyhological testing. Washington
DC: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved January 28, 2013
Bergan, J. R., Burnham, C., Bergan, J. R., Callahan,
S. M., & Feld, J. K. (2014). Composition of a Comprehensive Assessment
System. Retrieved from Assessment Technology Incorporated: http://www.ati-online.com/pdfs/researchK12/CompositionComprehensiveAssessmentSystem.pdf
Churches, A. (n.d.). Retrieved from 21st Century
Fluency Project: http://aadmc.wikispaces.com/file/view/Assessment.pdf
Klecker, B. M. (2005). Assessing Learning Online: The
Top Ten List. The Society for Information Technology. Phoenix. Retrieved
30 2014, January, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490208.pdf
Oosterhof, A., Conrad, R.-M., & Ely, D. P. (2008).
Assessing Learners Online. Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Senate Bill 1040. (2010). Arizona: State of Arizona
Senate. Retrieved January 28, 2014, from http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1040h.pdf
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M.,
Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning
at a Distance. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Van Blerkom, M. L. (2008). Measurement and
Statistics for Teachers. New York, New York, USA: Routledge. Retrieved
January 27, 2014, from http://sufiahnursimawall.yolasite.com/resources/measurement%20and%20statistics%20for%20teacher.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment