Which of the following is not a traditional reason that teachers assess students

Rich environments allow educators to analyze skills that they might not otherwise be able to gauge. For example, games can help measure persistence — a factor that research has linked to successful academic outcomes.

This is difficult to do with a traditional multiple-choice test. But measuring learning in digital environments unlocks the ability to observe student learning in more authentic contexts.

Designed in partnership with GlassLab, Inc., and the assessment experts from Educational Testing Service and Pearson, the game SimCityEDU: Pollution Challenge! teaches students about the factors affecting the environment in a modern city.

It also provides formative assessment information about students’ ability to solve problems and explain the relationships in complex systems (a skill called systems thinking).

With close examination of the student work produced in this activity, teachers were able to gain insight into abilities, skills, and understandings on which they then could provide feedback to the student. It also provided the teacher with information for additional lessons and activities on chemical and physical reactions. Box 3-5, Box 3-6, Box 3-7, Box 3-8 through Box 3-9 offer samples of this type of student work along with teacher commentary.

Ongoing, formative assessment does not solely rely on a small-group activity structure as in the vignettes. In a whole-class discussion, teachers can create opportunities to listen carefully to student responses as they reflect on their work, an activity, or an opportunity to read aloud. In many classrooms, for example, teachers ask students to summarize the day's lesson, highlighting what sense they made of what they did. This type of format allows the teacher to hear what the students are learning from the activity and offers other students the opportunity of learning about connections that they might not have made.

In one East Palo Alto, California, classroom, the teacher asked two students at the beginning of the class to be ready to summarize their activity at the end. The class had been studying DNA and had spent the class hour constructing a DNA model with colored paper representing different nucleotide bases. In their summary, the students discussed the pairing of nucleotide bases and held up their model to show how adenine pairs with thymine and cytosine pairs with guanine. Although they could identify the parts of the model and discuss the importance of “fit,” they did not connect the representative pieces to a nitrogen base, sugar, and a phosphate group. When probed, they could identify deoxyribose and the phosphate group by color, but they were not able to discuss what roles these subunits played in a DNA helix. After hearing their remarks, the teacher realized that they needed help relating the generalizations from the model to an actual strand of DNA, the phenomenon they were modeling. Regardless of the format —individual, small group, whole class, project-based, written, or discussion—teachers have the opportunity to build in meaningful assessment. These opportunities should be considered in curriculum design.

Cultivating Student Involvement in Assessment

Student participation becomes a key component of successful assessment strategies at every step: clarifying the target and purpose of assessment, discussing the assessment methods, deliberating about standards for quality work, reflecting on the work. Sharing assessment with students does not mean that teachers transfer all responsibility to the student but rather that assessment is shaped and refined from day to day just as teaching is. For student self- and peer-assessment to be incorporated into regular practice requires cultivation and integration into daily classroom discourse, but the results can be well worth the effort. Black and Wiliam (1998a) assert, “...self-assessment by the students is not an interesting option or luxury; it has to be seen as essential” (p. 55). The student is the one who must take action to “close” the gap between what they know and what is expected (Sadler, 1989). A teacher can facilitate this process by providing opportunities for participation and multiple points of entry, but students actually have to take the necessary action.

instance, a drill-and-practice program may be appropriate for developing fluency and automatizing a skill, but is usually not as appropriate during the early phase of skill acquisition (Goldman, Mertz, and Pellegrino, 1989). It is also noteworthy that in an environment where the teacher dominates all transactions, the frequent evocation and use of feedback can make that dominance all the more oppressive (Broadfoot, 1986).

There is ample evidence, however, that formative assessment can enhance learning when designed to provide students with feedback about particular qualities of their work and guidance on what they can do to improve. This conclusion is supported by several reviews of the research literature, including those by Natriello (1987), Crooks (1988), Fuchs and Fuchs (1986), Hattie (1987, 1990), and Black and Wiliam (1998). Many studies that have examined gains between pre- and post-tests, comparing programs in which formative assessment was the focus of the innovation and matched control groups were used, have shown effect sizes in the range of 0.4 to 0. 71 (Black and Wiliam, 1998).

When different types of feedback have been compared in experimental studies, certain types have proven to be more beneficial to learning than others. Many studies in this area have shown that learning is enhanced by feedback that focuses on the mastery of learning goals (e.g., Butler, 1988; Hattie, 1987, 1990; Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). This research suggests that other types of feedback, such as when a teacher focuses on giving grades, on granting or withholding special rewards, or on fostering self-esteem (trying to make the student feel better, irrespective of the quality of his or her work), may be ineffective or even harmful.

The culture of focusing on grades and rewards and of seeing classroom learning as a competition appears to be deeply entrenched and difficult to change. This situation is more apparent in the United States than in some other countries (Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie, 1996). The competitive culture of many classrooms and schools can be an obstacle to learning, especially when linked to beliefs in the fixed nature of ability (Vispoel and Austin, 1995; Wolf, Bixby, Glen, and Gardner, 1991). Such beliefs on the part of educators can lead both to the labeling—overtly or covertly—of students as “bright” or “dull” and to the confirmation and enhancement of such labels through tracking practices.

International comparative studies—notably case studies and video studies conducted for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study

Which of the following is a purpose of a traditional assessment?

What is the importance of assessment?

What are the 3 selected response type of test explain each type of test?

What assessment tools were most commonly used by teacher?