![]() |
![]() |
[Assessment] Legitimacy of alternative toolsMarie Cora marie.cora at hotspurpartners.comSun Feb 5 08:30:23 EST 2006
Hi Ajit and everyone, Yeah, that's a good question you posed to me Ajit: I guess you are right in saying that I do think about 'alternative' as referring to any assessment that is not multiple choice. Actually, the terms I use in my head to separate this stuff out are selected-response and constructed response. Selected response describes that situation: the person must choose (select) from a set of answers (responses) which one they think is the right one. That's pretty tightly wrapped up in terms of what that means: you get the list of answers, you look at the choices, you determine which item on the list you think is right. Constructed response also describes the situation precisely: the person must recall info or build for themselves (construct) the answer to a particular question. No choices are given for the person to consider - they are not selecting anything. The other thing that is hugely useful about using this term is that it is not prescriptive in how big or small a response must be constructed. So for example, many people think that a 'performance assessment' (which is a constructed response: because you are demonstrating your performance) must necessarily entail something big, lengthy, intense, etc. But in fact, a constructed response might entail just one word (as long as you are not selecting that word from a list). Here's a great example: you know what a 'cloze' exercise is? Those fill-in-the-blank worksheets that can test you on vocab or grammar? Well, that is a performance assessment, even though you are only filling in one word here and there. I like to think about these notions this way because they are devoid of other distractors - for example, there is no mention of standardization with selected or constructed response, that is a whole other step in the process. And if you continue to think about selected response as 'multiple choice' then I bet you a dime you just fall back on equating multiple choice with TABE - and that is just not correct at all. While the TABE is an EXAMPLE of a multiple choice test - one does not equal the other. A couple of questions back to you Ajit and to all the subscribers: - Ajit, you made some really thoughtful comments in your arguments against using authentic assessment - what do others think of Ajit's point of view? - Ajit, you said: "In my opinion, at least some non-multiple choice assessments should be standardized so that they can be used to broaden the array of assessments available for state-level reporting/accountability." Folks - can anyone give us any examples of what Ajit describes above? Let's see if we can develop a growing list of the assessments being used that are different - I'll start by adding the REEP Writing Rubric to the list - it is standardized, it is a constructed response test, and at least Massachusetts uses it for reporting writing gains to the feds. Also, Andrea Wilder (post on 2/3) suggested that we use Assessment for all types of 'tests' but that we divide that into sub-headings that list the various types, and include information on who wants the data from said test and who gets that data. We do have some amount of info listed on types of tests and costs, but we don't have a whole lot of info on who actually gets the test data and what is gets used for. What do folks think about this?...I'm intrigued.... Robin Millar (post on 2/3) describes a guided portfolio in use in Manitoba that sounds interesting: it has several levels to it. Robin - are parts of the portfolio standardized? The whole thing? Does the portfolio include both selected response and constructed responses types of assessments and info? Ok, enough chatter from me for a Sunday morning. Hope everyone is having a lovely weekend, and see you again tomorrow, Marie cora Assessment Discussion List Moderator For definitions see: http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Assessment_Information#Assessment _Glossary For a bunch of details and info on Commercial Assessments, but that do not discuss the uses of data and should! Go to: http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Commercially_Available_Assessment _Tools To help me develop the Wiki section on Alternative Assessment, go to: http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Alternative_Assessment To make informed choices about test selection, go to: http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Selecting_Assessment_Tools -----Original Message----- From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Gopalakrishnan, Ajit Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 12:42 PM To: The Assessment Discussion List Subject: Re: [Assessment] Legitimacy of alternative tools Marie, et al, By "alternative", I presume you mean that these assessment options are an alternative to multiple-choice assessments. Is that a fair inference? I sometimes refer to alternative assessments as non-multiple choice assessments, just to make clear what I am talking about. >From my perspective, referring to them as authentic seems to muddy this discussion. Webster provides two of the following definitions for authentic which may help to illustrate my thinking: a) worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact <paints an authentic picture of our society> b) true to one's own personality, spirit, or character So for example, a student's CASAS scale score in math (say 212) from a multiple choice test may be worthy of acceptance of a person's math ability. An analysis of the test item responses may even provide greater information about a person's strengths and weaknesses. However, they cannot say much about how the student perceives the relation of "math" to his/her own personality and life. Two students at entry might both achieve a score of 207 in math for very different reasons. One student might have liked math, viewed herself as being capable of learning math but just not used it for many years. The other student might have never liked math, generally seen herself as having other strengths, but been forced to use math as part of her job. To ascertain this type of information, the teacher might have to talk to the student and find out the student's past experiences with math, the student's perceptions of its importance in his/her life, etc. Then, a custom assessment/project can be designed that is meaningful and authentic to that particular student. >From my perspective, all standardization (whether multiple-choice or non-multiple choice assessments) will to some extent reduce the authenticity for the student. The CASAS system attempts to address this by providing assessments that are relevant to adults and based in various contexts (life skills, employability skills, workforce learning, citizenship, etc.) so that the student can be assessed in contexts that are somewhat authentic to their experiences and goals. Therefore, I prefer the term alternative assessments because then we can focus our discussion on the differences between multiple choice assessments and non-multiple choice assessments. There is no question that non-multiple choice assessments can be legitimate and have many strengths. For example, Connecticut is currently piloting a CASAS workplace speaking assessment. This is a standardized assessment designed for ESL learners who are currently working to demonstrate their listening and speaking abilities in a workplace context. Compared to the CASAS listening multiple-choice assessments which we have used over the years, the speaking assessment has the potential for the instructor to gain a greater understanding of a student's strengths and weaknesses. Students also seem to enjoy taking the assessment. However, it needs to be administered one-on-one unlike the listening which can be group administered. The speaking assessment also places a greater training and certification burden on the test administrator and scorer. We have experienced many of these challenges with our statewide implementation of the CASAS Functional Writing Assessment over the past few years. Kevin alluded to some of those challenges such as maintaining scorer certification and interr ater reliability. The scoring rubric used in both the writing and the speaking assessments can be valuable tools for classroom instruction. In my opinion, at least some non-multiple choice assessments should be standardized so that they can be used to broaden the array of assessments available for state-level reporting/accountability. Thanks. Ajit Ajit Gopalakrishnan Education Consultant Connecticut Department of Education 25 Industrial Park Road Middletown, CT 06457 Tel: (860) 807-2125 Fax: (860) 807-2062 ajit.gopalakrishnan at po.state.ct.us <mailto:ajit.gopalakrishnan at po.state.ct.us> ________________________________ From: assessment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:assessment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Marie Cora Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:52 AM To: Assessment Discussion List Subject: [Assessment] Legitimacy of alternative tools Hi Bruce and everyone, Bruce, you said: "I think putting forth the strengths and legitimacy of tools such as portfolios, outcome checklists, holistically scored writing samples, etc is a good way to go." This sounds like a very good path to go down to me. I think people would have a lot to say and share about alternative tools, their uses, and their strengths. It would be a great exercise to list them all out and discuss the strengths, uses, and limitations of each one. What questions do folks have about alternative assessments?: using them, seeking them out, developing them, whatever area most intrigues you. What can folks share with the rest of us in terms of "the strengths and legitimacy" of alternative tools such as portfolios, checklists, analytic/holistic scoring, rubric use, writing samples, in-take/placement processes? Are any of the tools you use standardized? Not standardized? Do you think that this is important? Why or why not? Are any of the tools used for both classroom and program purposes? I have other questions for you, but let's leave it at that for right now. Let us hear what your thoughts are. We're looking forward to it. Thanks, marie cora Assessment Discussion List Moderator -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/248 - Release Date: 2/1/2006 ------------------------------- National Institute for Literacy Assessment mailing list Assessment at nifl.gov To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/assessment
More information about the Assessment mailing list |