This blog has been written over a three week period as I reflect upon how I am assessing student knowledge in the content area. Pictured is an example of an assessment section of an exam. The section was written by using the MYP Rubric and identifying what level of information is demonstrative of each level of mastery.
Ok. It's been a while since I have written for myself on any topic. But this morning I have been pouring over literature, blogs, and sites trying to really develop a concept of HOW we test for mastery.
I am on board with the reasons for testing for mastery. First, It is clear, that while effort is a big determinant of success in school, it should not be in the criteria for assessing mastery. I have always questioned when I see students that get As and Bs and see that they don't understand the content. Add to this, that I see the most capable students still unable to apply content skills they have previously used in new situations. It seems that grades are not reflective of student understanding, but a reflection of their character as a student. While I don't argue that this will take you far, I wonder how a student can grow in a content if they have no idea they have not mastered it.
Add to this that mastery is not something learned in one event. I didn't learn to ride a bike in one try. It took explanation, practice, and when the test finally came... I failed. Reflection on that failure and determination to learn was the key in learning to master this new skill. Formative assessments work in the same way. They are short, focused assessments that provide valuable feedback to the teacher, student, and families of the students in preparation for the test. But, they are no guarantee of success in the end.
In order to identify the level of mastery, it is clear to me that summative assessments need to be written with a variety of questions at multiple levels that can make it clear the level of achievement that has been attained by the student. Also, i strongly feel that students may need multiple opportunities to demonstrate their success; students need to be provided with resources and support to address content misconceptions that the assessments identify to assist the student in reaching the content standard.
While I don't claim to be an expert in writing assessments, it has become clear to me that the traditional forms of assessment are falling short of accurately gauging student mastery. I have begun writing assessments that seem to more accurately focus on fleshing out what the student knows, and identifying which level of mastery they have attained. My concept in writing is one of increased accountability to the details of the content. With four general levels of mastery, each section increases the requirement of specificity, so that I can accurately assess the level the student has attained.
This method of formally assessing knowledge and concept development has gone quite well. While grading may take longer than the more standardized methods of testing like multiple choice, I feel fairly confident that I have identified the students mastery level, and done it consistently by using the rubrics in conjunction to writing the exam– thereby keeping the standard as the ultimate comprehension goal.
Students are adjusting to understanding how these questions look, and are asking "what level of mastery are you at?" This is a positive move in my classroom. It provides accurate feedback, it moves students to using the feedback to make adjustments instead of grading feeling punitive, and, probably most importantly, students are motivated to try again.
This is why students can always redo a section of the exam they did not master. Like my bike experience, it is vital that they have the opportunity to get back on and try again.
I am excited at where this can lead us as a learning community. So far, two exams have been given, and the results of the "redo" sections have proven to be highly beneficial for the students and myself. What I saw was a significant growth in understanding the new vocabulary of the unit, that repetition of key process allowed for a fuller understanding of difficult concepts, and GROWTH. Student were able to demonstrate their continued growth in the core knowledge they are learning.
Ok. It's been a while since I have written for myself on any topic. But this morning I have been pouring over literature, blogs, and sites trying to really develop a concept of HOW we test for mastery.
I am on board with the reasons for testing for mastery. First, It is clear, that while effort is a big determinant of success in school, it should not be in the criteria for assessing mastery. I have always questioned when I see students that get As and Bs and see that they don't understand the content. Add to this, that I see the most capable students still unable to apply content skills they have previously used in new situations. It seems that grades are not reflective of student understanding, but a reflection of their character as a student. While I don't argue that this will take you far, I wonder how a student can grow in a content if they have no idea they have not mastered it.
Add to this that mastery is not something learned in one event. I didn't learn to ride a bike in one try. It took explanation, practice, and when the test finally came... I failed. Reflection on that failure and determination to learn was the key in learning to master this new skill. Formative assessments work in the same way. They are short, focused assessments that provide valuable feedback to the teacher, student, and families of the students in preparation for the test. But, they are no guarantee of success in the end.
In order to identify the level of mastery, it is clear to me that summative assessments need to be written with a variety of questions at multiple levels that can make it clear the level of achievement that has been attained by the student. Also, i strongly feel that students may need multiple opportunities to demonstrate their success; students need to be provided with resources and support to address content misconceptions that the assessments identify to assist the student in reaching the content standard.
While I don't claim to be an expert in writing assessments, it has become clear to me that the traditional forms of assessment are falling short of accurately gauging student mastery. I have begun writing assessments that seem to more accurately focus on fleshing out what the student knows, and identifying which level of mastery they have attained. My concept in writing is one of increased accountability to the details of the content. With four general levels of mastery, each section increases the requirement of specificity, so that I can accurately assess the level the student has attained.
This method of formally assessing knowledge and concept development has gone quite well. While grading may take longer than the more standardized methods of testing like multiple choice, I feel fairly confident that I have identified the students mastery level, and done it consistently by using the rubrics in conjunction to writing the exam– thereby keeping the standard as the ultimate comprehension goal.
Students are adjusting to understanding how these questions look, and are asking "what level of mastery are you at?" This is a positive move in my classroom. It provides accurate feedback, it moves students to using the feedback to make adjustments instead of grading feeling punitive, and, probably most importantly, students are motivated to try again.
This is why students can always redo a section of the exam they did not master. Like my bike experience, it is vital that they have the opportunity to get back on and try again.
I am excited at where this can lead us as a learning community. So far, two exams have been given, and the results of the "redo" sections have proven to be highly beneficial for the students and myself. What I saw was a significant growth in understanding the new vocabulary of the unit, that repetition of key process allowed for a fuller understanding of difficult concepts, and GROWTH. Student were able to demonstrate their continued growth in the core knowledge they are learning.