Contents:
- Introducton
- What is a high-stakes assessment?
- Constructive Model and High-Stakes Assessment
- Disadvantages of Examination: How far it is valid?
- An Alternative Assessment: Classroom Assessment
- Conclusion
Introduction
A recent proposal by South Australian Certificate of Education (SACE) that at Stage 2 (Year 12) all subjects will have a 30% external assessment component set by SACE Board and an external assessor specified by the Board will assess each student’s performance (Future SACE, 2008). It is also proposed that the form of external assessment for each subject might be ‘Written Examination’ and the design, form content and time of examination will be set externally (Future SACE, 2008). This essay tires to lead an explanation of ‘examination’ as a ‘High-stakes’ assessment with an attempt to clarify the negative effects of examination and its overall validity from the constructive viewpoint of learning whether it can be selected as a high-stakes assessment tool as well as to highlight the steep price that our students, teachers and whole education system paying to include it as a major assessment method. An alternative assessment strategy – ‘Classroom Assessment,’ (Buhagiar, 2007) will be discussed again from the constructive standpoint to preserve the true purpose of assessment and learning and thus to get rid of examinations as a high-stakes assessment.
What is a High-stakes assessment?
‘High-stakes’, a term used to indicate those situations where interest in assessment goes beyond the immediate sphere of learning measurement and further than those persons who sit the tests (Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). When significant educational paths or choices of an individual are directly affected by test performance, such as whether a student is promoted or retained at grade level, graduated, or admitted or placed into a desired program, the test is said to have high stakes. (Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001, p.139).
In addition to the consequences of high-stakes assessment on instruction, student outcomes are also a focus of concern with respect to unintended consequences. Research suggests that high-stakes assessments are more likely to demoralize the motivation of students already under pressure (Clarke et al., 2003; Roderick & Engel, 2001, cited in Keightley & Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). Similarly, there is a positive relationship between high-stakes assessment and the student drop-out rate: As stakes increase in state assessments, drop-out rates increase (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Clarke, Haney, & Madaus, 2000, cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). However, Fuller and Johnson (2001, cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001) advised caution in attributing high drop-out rates solely to high-stakes accountability systems, because there are no empirical studies demonstrating a causal link between high-stakes assessment and drop-out rates.
Constructive Model and High-Stakes Assessment
The expectation from assessment is that assessment outcomes can now be used more accurately to inform the teaching and learning process (McGaw, 2006). From today’s cognitive point of view, learning is no longer seen as a passive, factual recording of information but a reflective, constructive, and self-regulated process (Gipps 1998, Greeno, et.al. 1996, Anderson et. al. 1996, Snow & Lohman 1993 cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001). Venville and Dawson (2004) emphasized on authenticity and validity of assessment for its wider use. ,As a result, assessment developers are being asked to construct assessment items that measure performance in quite complex domains, not all of which are easily understood or readily quantifiable (Delandshere & Petrosky 1998, Wiley & Haertel 1996 cited in Keightley & Keighley-James, 2001).
Learning to be constructive, student-centred teaching approach becomes difficult when assessment agency forces high-stakes assessment into the mix (Passman, 1999). Constructive approach entails trust coupled with potential risks. The high-stakes assessment authority defines the learning outcomes so rigidly that it becomes then impossible for teacher or school to afford the risks. Is it rational to blame our students or their caregivers for social failure which is actually out of their control? Constructive approach of learning requires us to see our students capable of learning but as with different learning styles. Then this leaves us to teach and treat each student differently. On the other hand, high-stakes assessment based on standardised scores assumes that everyone must be exactly like me in order to be successful. We are heading to a time where each one must look just like me where ‘me’ consists of those who define the standards. Thus there is a very chilling effect that high-stakes assessment has on the pedagogy and schooling systems. Passman (1999) argued against the entire business associated with high-stakes assessment and totally saddened when he told us a story about ‘Esther’, a teacher who was excited about what her pupils were doing she was capable of accepting some risks with them, but when came across with the pressure of high-stakes examinations, she abandoned her student-centered teaching model and reverted to a traditional pedagogy only to teach students for the test for scores and grades desired by school and state.
Disadvantages of Examination: How far it is valid?
Deci (1992, cited in Tapper, 1997, p.7) examined that when people are motivated by control or pressure, intrinsic motivation and interest that students have for learning tends to be undermined.
Our growing understanding of assessment as a crucial part of learning helps us turn away from measuring learning towards an assessment which is explicitly designed to promote learning to make it a meaningful and authentic process in which, as opposed to our prior practice that knowledge can be transmitted directly from a knowledgeable head to an non-knowledgeable one, more put trust on the learner’s constructive ability of his/her own experience. At the same time, we came to realize that the ubiquitous existence of conventional type of assessment- examination- in contemporary educational systems (Broadfoot & Black, 2004) affects negatively the teaching-learning environment. Tests and examinations, as a form of high-stakes assessment, definitely have serious adverse effects on a number of counts:
Learning unfriendly: They may divulge what students memorize about what we think they should remember, but do not help us get to truth, meaning, purpose or utility (Ellis, 2001). They can only assess a very narrow range of academic qualities, sudden death, for example, candidates get credit based on only what they perform within the limited and controlled hours of examination; and a noninformative form of assessment, which is, the grade is not conclusive enough to classify what a candidate knows and can do (Desforges, 1989 cited in Buhagiar, 2007).
Curriculum unfriendly: Examinations emphasize recall of factual knowledge with a grave dependence on memory and rote learning (Gipps & Stobart, 1993). They consequently can lead teachers to train students in a narrow range of test-taking skills rather than persuade them to educate a broader variety of high level competencies and understandings (Gipps & Stobart, 1993; Torrance, 1995). Therefore, students build up problem-solving tactics only to pass examinations without gaining the anticipated learning goals (Brookhart, 1999 in Buhagiar, 2007).
Teacher unfriendly: Despite the willingness to engage in student-centric learning, teachers compelled to do what is necessary as to address the test scores - which translate itself a ‘testlike’ teaching program to avoid being publicly embarrassed and humiliated (Smith, 1991).
Student unfriendly: Broadfoot (1996, cited in Buhagiar, 2007 ) argues that examination has a demoralizing effect on most of the students and pushes them out of the system. Students cannot describe themselves completely by examinations. An unwanted side effect of this intrusive process is ‘labeling’ the students based on teacher’s unconscious expectations about what students being able to do. This leads to the realization of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ (Rowntree, 1987, cited in Buhagiar, 2007), which is, teacher shows high expectations to some students while showing low expectations to others. This situation can never achieve a productive level of motivation for all students.
Sandra et al (2007) also argues about the high pressure that examination put on students particularly who have disabilities and they reject to accept the challenge of examinations due to their physical and mental shortcomings.
An Alternative Assessment
In order to play a constructive role in the learning process and to ensure validity and reliability of information about the learning outcomes with its complete sense which is seen deficit in the examinations and tests paradigm, Buhagiar (2007) suggested an alternative assessment plan using an umbrella term ‘Classroom Assessment’ which is taking of the temperature of the teaching–learning environment inside the classroom – the place from where it originates. Such assessment ‘has a constructive focus where the aim is to help rather than sentence the individual; thus it emphasizes the individual’s achievement relative to him or herself rather than to others, or in relation to defined criteria’ (Gipps & Murphy, 1994, p.261). Instead of unrealistically seeking equality of educational outcomes, this assessment takes equity in assessment as practices and interpretation of results that are fair and just for everyone (Gipps & Murphy, 1994) and thus eventually turns measuring of learning to a support to learning. Thus, it is about more than just a technical activity, rather it is a human activity that influences, affects and involves many people though out whole learning period of time (Airasian, 2000, p. 22).
Classroom Assessment
Classroom assessment holds trustworthiness that includes: (a) Credibility – which is ensured from a daily ongoing assessment in classroom with the participation of parents, teachers and students in assessment dialogue. (b)Transferability – which demands assessors to identify the context in which a specific learning achievement is demonstrated, thus other assessors or any concerned individuals may judge whether it is transferable to other situations and contexts. (c) Dependability – the assessment method is open to scrutiny and subject to an audit purpose for quality control; and (d) Validity - which relies on the degree to which the applicable constructs are reasonably and sufficiently enclosed in the assessment. (Gipps, 1994)
Classroom assessment takes in to account both the rationales of the teacher and student assessment. Unlike Formative assessment what is used to identify what students have or have not learned and where is their difficulties exist, classroom assessment supports the teaching–learning process’ (Mercurio, 2006; Gipps & Murphy, 1994, p. 260). In addition, classroom assessment has a summative dimension (Harlen et al, 1992) that it is mainly concerned with summarizing information about student achievements at particular times. Since the assessments conducted by teachers are not synonymous with formative assessments, it is a high-stakes assessment that brings long term consequences for students. Through classroom assessment, teachers get repeated feedback on whether and how well students are learning what teachers expect they are teaching. And students are required, through a variety of classroom assessment exercises, to monitor their learning, to reflect on it, and to take remedial action while there is still time left in the semester. (Cross, 1998, p. 6). Similarly, O'Donovan (2005) sees learning as a highly interactive and constructive process where students are not penalized for their opinions and there are no correct format of answers that only determines their capability, rather learning must be highly investigative manner where students will propose based on their prior knowledge and reflection.
Conclusion
Despite the serious adverse effects of tests and examinations as high-stakes assessment over the last decades still examinations is taking place (Cumming & Maxwell, 2004). The negative effects of examinations outweigh the original purpose of assessment of students’ learning achievements and put Principals and teachers are at greatest risk of succumbing to the effects of high-stakes examinations, because they feel greatest pressure to produce satisfactory grades compelling them to compromise their pedagogies and switching them away from the constructivist approach to learning. An alternative assessment as described as ‘Classroom Assessment’, on the other hand, has its broader implications of assessment from the constructive viewpoint of learning in the wider assessment context (Buhagiar, 2007). In my opinion, it should be teachers and principals who should be responsible, and thus need to be empowered, to determine the degree to which external assessments will weight what happens in classrooms and schools. Schools and teachers must include guardians and community individuals in retaining the validity and integrity of teaching against the stress of high-stakes examinations.
References:
1. Airasian, P. W., 2000, Assessment in the classroom: a concise approach, McGraw-Hill, Boston
2. Broadfoot, P., Black, P., 2004, ‘Redefining assessment? The first ten years of ‘Assessment in Education’’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 7–27.
3. Buhagiar, M. A. 2007, ‘Classroom Assessment within the Alternative Assessment Paradigm: Revisiting the Territory’, The Curriculum Journal, March 2007, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 39- 56. Viewed on 22 August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=106&sid=6b094c61-1b6a-4c9e-8067-5b339eeb37ce%40sessionmgr4>
4. Cumming, J. J., Maxwell, G. S., 2004, ‘Profiles of Educational Assessment Systems Worldwide: Assessment in Australian Schools: Current Practice and Trends’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, March, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-108. Viewed on 22nd August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=28&hid=6&sid=23db429b-9bbc-4d2a-8cce-e002903252c6%40sessionmgr11>
5. Cross, K. P., 1998, ‘Classroom research: implementing the scholarship of teaching, Classroom assessment and research: an update on uses, approaches, and research findings,, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco , CA
6. Ellis, A. K., 2001, Teaching, learning and assessment together: the reflective classroom, Eye On Education, Larchmont , NY
7. Future SACE, 2008, ‘Assessment, Performance Standards and Moderation: Consultation Paper’, May 2008
8. Gipps, C. & Murphy, P., 1994, A fair test? Assessment, achievement and equity, Open University Press, Buckingham
9. Gipps, C. V., 1994, Beyond testing: towards a theory of educational assessment , RoutledgeFalmer, London
10. Gipps, C., Stobart, G., 1993, Assessment: a teachers’ guide to the issues, London
11. Keightley, J.V., Keighley-James, D., 2001, ‘Negotiating Multiple Interests in High-Stakes Assessment: Getting Inside Construct Validity’, Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia November 1, 2001
12. McGaw, B., 2006, ‘Assessment in an Era of Rapid Change: Innovations and Best Practices’, International Association for Education Assessment, 32nd Annual Conference 2006
13. Mercurio, A., 2006, ‘Teacher-Based Assessment at The Upper Secondary Level of Education: An Exploration of The Interaction between ‘Teachers as Assessors’ and ‘Teachers as Moderators’, Paper presented at the 32nd IAEA Conference , Singapore August 12, 2009 <http://www.iaea2006.seab.gov.sg/conference/download/papers/Teacher-based%20assessment%20at%20the%20upper%20secondary%20level%20of%20education.pdf>
14. O'Donovan, N., 2005, ‘There Are No Wrong Answers: An Investigation Into The Assessment of Candidates’ Responses To Essay‐Based Examinations’, Oxford Review of Education, September, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 395-422. Viewed on 22nd August 2009 <http://web.ebscohost.com.ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/ehost/pdf?vid=28&hid=105&sid=23db429b-9bbc-4d2a-8cce-e002903252c6%40sessionmgr11>
15. Passman, R.,1999, ‘Experience with Students-Centered Teaching and Learning in High-Stakes Assessment Environments’, Education, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 189-199
16. Sandra L. Christenson, Dawn M. Decker, Heidi L. Triezenberg, James E. Ysseldyke, and Amy Reschly, 2007, ‘Consequences of High-Stakes Assessment for Students With and Without Disabilities’, Educational Policy, Sep 2007; Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 662 - 690. Viewed on 22 August 2009 <http://online.sagepub.com/cgi/searchresults?andorexactfulltext=and&fulltext=Consequences+of+High-Stakes+Assessment+for+Students+with+and+Without+Disabilities&src=hw >
17. Smith, M. L.,1991, ‘Put to the test: the effects of external testing on teachers’, Educational Researcher, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 8–11.
18. Suarez, T. M, Gottovi, N. C, 1992, ‘The Impact of High-Stakes Assessments on our Schools’, NASSP Bulletin, SAGE Publications, viewed on 21 August 2009 <http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/76/545/82>
19. Tapper, R. 1997, ‘The Problem of High Stakes Assessment in Public Education’, ERIC, Spring 1997
20. Torrance
21. Venville, G., Dawson, V., 2004, The Art of Teaching Science, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.
No comments:
Post a Comment