Entry #9: Reaction To “Rethinking Assessment and its Role in Supporting Educational Reform”

“Although basic skills may be important goals of education, they are often overemphasized in an effort to raise standardized test scores” (Bond, 1995). Interestingly, many people believe that we focus too much on basic skills, for the sole purpose of better performance on standardized tests. They, along with the author, argue that students need to develop critical thinking and analysis skills, as well as other higher order skills needed for a 21st century global economy. While I agree that these skills are very important, I do not think an overemphasis on basic skills is the problem. In fact, how can students master these higher-order skills without having a solid foundation in the basics? How can a student analyze a problem without having basic mathematics skills? How can a student communicate their ability to think critically about a scenario without having strong reading and writing skills? I believe this is not a logical sequence, similar to targeting step two before having completed step one.

Ultimately, I think assessment needs to be a two-step process. Students must first be assessed on their mastery of basic skills, then on their ability to apply these skills and exhibit 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, etc. If students are not achieving on standardized tests, it may be a strong indication that students do not yet have even the necessary basic skills, let alone higher order skills.

Furthermore, I think effective instruction will prepare students for a variety of assessments, whether more traditional (ex: multiple choice tests) or alternative (ex: portfolios and essay tests). We need to develop students who are adaptable. These students must be able to demonstrate knowledge in a variety of ways, not just in their particular area of strength. Effective teachers are ones, in my opinion, who offer a balanced array of assessments. In this manner, grades are determined as a combination of, for example, homework, tests, projects, and presentations. That way, a teacher tests a student’s mastery of basic skills as well as his or her ability to apply the knowledge to real-world scenarios and extend their knowledge to similar situations. Accountability is one of the four key aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act, and it is all about assessment. Assessment should be about gathering a body of evidence on students’ learning, using different types of assessment to evaluate student knowledge and skills (Cicchinelli, Gaddy, Lefkowits, & Miller, 2003). Plus, these multiple forms of assessment give students an opportunity not only to be assessed in an area where they are strongest (for instance, a presentation) but work on an area of weakness (perhaps multiple choice test taking). We shouldn’t always cater to a student’s strengths. This is an injustice to a student’s education. We must not avoid areas where a student is weak, but instead, help the student transform that weakness into a strength. This alone will prepare students for higher education or a career, where we rarely are given a choice about how we are assessed or must present information.



References

Bond, L.A. (1995). Critical issue: Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved November 12, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as700.htm

Cicchinelli, L., Gaddy, B., Lefkowits, L., & Miller, K. (2003, April). No child left behind: Realizing the vision (Policy brief). Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, Aurora: CO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED477177). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.eric.ed.gov.ezproxy.lib.lehigh.edu/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/06/fd.pdf