Keynote: Accountable assessment

R. Lehrer
{"title":"Keynote: Accountable assessment","authors":"R. Lehrer","doi":"10.37517/978-1-74286-638-3_9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is widespread agreement about the importance of accounting for the extent to which educational systems advance student learning. Yet, the forms and formats of accountable assessments often ill serve students and teachers; the summative judgements of student performance that are typically employed to indicate proficiencies on benchmarks of student learning commonly fail to capture student performance in ways that are specific and actionable for teachers. Timing is another key barrier to the utility of summative assessment. In the US, summative evaluations occur at the end of the school year and may serve future students, but do not help teachers better support the students who were tested. In contrast, formative assessments provide actionable grounds to improve the quality of instruction on the basis of both the granularity and specificity of their content and their timing. Unfortunately, the psychometric qualities of formative assessments are often unknown. I describe an innovative approach to assessment that aims to blend the productive characteristics of both summative and formative assessment. The resulting assessment system is accountable to students and teachers by providing actionable information for improving classroom instruction, and at the same time, it addresses the demands of psychometric quality for purposes of system accountability as it is currently practiced (in the US). The innovative assessment system relies on partnership with teachers to generate (1) a shared conceptual frame for describing instructional goals and valued forms of teaching and learning; (2) a set of electronic tools to help teachers detect, share, analyse, and interpret student learning data; and (3) classroom and school-level community professional development structures to support and sustain a widespread practice of assessing to guide instruction. These features are coupled with new psychometric models, developed by the Berkeley Evaluation and Research Center, that provide more robust estimates of student learning by linking information from multiple sources, including student classroom work, student responses to formative assessments, and summative evaluations. (Mark Wilson will address the psychometric modeling during this conference.) Here I describe challenges and prospects for this innovation with a case study of its implementation in a K–5 elementary school that is seeking to improve the quality of instruction and students’ understandings of measure and rational number arithmetic.","PeriodicalId":413895,"journal":{"name":"Research Conference 2021: Excellent progress for every student: Proceedings and Program","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Conference 2021: Excellent progress for every student: Proceedings and Program","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37517/978-1-74286-638-3_9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is widespread agreement about the importance of accounting for the extent to which educational systems advance student learning. Yet, the forms and formats of accountable assessments often ill serve students and teachers; the summative judgements of student performance that are typically employed to indicate proficiencies on benchmarks of student learning commonly fail to capture student performance in ways that are specific and actionable for teachers. Timing is another key barrier to the utility of summative assessment. In the US, summative evaluations occur at the end of the school year and may serve future students, but do not help teachers better support the students who were tested. In contrast, formative assessments provide actionable grounds to improve the quality of instruction on the basis of both the granularity and specificity of their content and their timing. Unfortunately, the psychometric qualities of formative assessments are often unknown. I describe an innovative approach to assessment that aims to blend the productive characteristics of both summative and formative assessment. The resulting assessment system is accountable to students and teachers by providing actionable information for improving classroom instruction, and at the same time, it addresses the demands of psychometric quality for purposes of system accountability as it is currently practiced (in the US). The innovative assessment system relies on partnership with teachers to generate (1) a shared conceptual frame for describing instructional goals and valued forms of teaching and learning; (2) a set of electronic tools to help teachers detect, share, analyse, and interpret student learning data; and (3) classroom and school-level community professional development structures to support and sustain a widespread practice of assessing to guide instruction. These features are coupled with new psychometric models, developed by the Berkeley Evaluation and Research Center, that provide more robust estimates of student learning by linking information from multiple sources, including student classroom work, student responses to formative assessments, and summative evaluations. (Mark Wilson will address the psychometric modeling during this conference.) Here I describe challenges and prospects for this innovation with a case study of its implementation in a K–5 elementary school that is seeking to improve the quality of instruction and students’ understandings of measure and rational number arithmetic.
主题演讲:责任评估
关于会计在教育系统促进学生学习方面的重要性,人们达成了广泛的共识。然而,问责评估的形式和形式往往不利于学生和教师;学生表现的总结性判断通常用于表明学生学习基准的熟练程度,通常无法以教师具体和可操作的方式捕捉学生的表现。时间是总结性评估的另一个关键障碍。在美国,总结性评估在学年结束时进行,可能会服务于未来的学生,但并不能帮助教师更好地支持接受测试的学生。相比之下,形成性评估提供了可操作的依据,在内容的粒度和特殊性以及时间的基础上提高教学质量。不幸的是,形成性评估的心理测量学性质通常是未知的。我描述了一种创新的评估方法,旨在融合总结性评估和形成性评估的生产性特征。由此产生的评估系统对学生和教师负责,为改善课堂教学提供可操作的信息,同时,它解决了心理测量质量的要求,以达到目前(在美国)实行的系统问责制的目的。创新的评估系统依赖于与教师的伙伴关系,以产生:(1)描述教学目标和有价值的教与学形式的共享概念框架;(2)一套帮助教师检测、分享、分析和解释学生学习数据的电子工具;(3)课堂和学校层面的社区专业发展结构,以支持和维持广泛的评估实践,以指导教学。这些特征与由伯克利评估和研究中心开发的新的心理测量模型相结合,通过连接来自多个来源的信息,包括学生课堂作业,学生对形成性评估的反应和总结性评估,提供更可靠的学生学习估计。(Mark Wilson将在本次会议上介绍心理测量模型。)在这里,我通过一个K-5小学的案例研究来描述这种创新的挑战和前景,该小学正在寻求提高教学质量和学生对度量和有理数算术的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信