Key 1, Clear purposes – 5 It was very clear what the purpose of this unit is. It is designed for students who will be entering Algebra 2 the following year. Its purpose is to introduce them to fundamental trigonometry and build a foundation. The students will use this to assess their progress and provides for remediation if necessary. The purpose is very clear, well written, and gives the reader a good idea of what is to be expected.
Key 2, Clear targets – 5 The targets are very well written and relate directly to the standards. They use very student friendly language beginning with “I can.” Using these skills in real world problems is addressed as well. I can’t imagine what else you would want in targets.
Key 3, Sound Assessment – 5 Wow. Really. Just wow. This Kristin person is amazing! This is a wonderful assessment that would test students abilities so well. There are a lot of questions (25 for a 50 minute test), but many of them are related and require exactly the same calculations (convert radians to degrees). It is very comprehensive in the sense that it completely covers all of the learning targets. I think the assessment would also do a good and accurate job assessing the students. It covers all of the ideas and has enough repetition in it to make sure students do not just get lucky once or guess right. I am very impressed by this.
Key 4, Good Communication – 5 Once again, Kristin excels at this. She grades the test and then has the students assess themselves. Each of the questions fall into a target category, and she has the students score themselves in each of these categories. The students then write a reflection, telling which targets they did well in and which ones they struggled with and why. There is then whole section on improvement. At every step, Kristin has the students involved with their own assessment and helps them stay on track if they struggle.
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5 Like I said above, student involvement is great with this unit. The only thing the student don’t specifically do is grade their own test. The teacher does that, but then has the students review their test, assess themselves on it, and determine how they can improve and in what areas.
Perhaps my only criticism of this whole unit is that it may be too involved and have too much information in it. If it was implemented correctly, I think it would be fine, but I could see the teacher running out of time with it. Regardless, I think this is a phenomenal example of what a unit and assessment should look like. Kristin is definitely setting her students up for success with this.
Key 1 Clear purposes = 5 I gave this assessment a 5 because he clearly stated who the assessment is intended for and the purpose of which is to assess the students on the knowledge they and then revisit any topics that needs more attention.
Key 2 Clear targets = 5 The targets are clearly explained for the students understanding and describes what is expected of them to move on. Along with each target, chapters for each target is provided and the number of questions from knowledge and reasoning skill. Targets are easy to find and match up with the required standards.
Key 3 Sound assessment = 5 The method used here matches the target and context described earlier. The directions are very clear to where the students are able understand them and answer each question. The exercises are student friendly and they should be able to complete with little to no problems. There is a clear match between targets stated and the assessment.
Key 4 Good communication = 3 I didn’t clearly see a rubic where the teacher records the students’ results. Communication didn’t seem to be detailed enough to know when or how certain issues would be addressed with the student.
Key 5 Student involvement = 4 The students’ involvement helps them understand which subjects they need to revisit and helps them keep track of their progress through self assessment. The students will have more positive than negative effects. This format also helps the student keep of their learning.
My main concern with this assessment was the communication with the students. I didn’t where students would be graded and how Chad would address grading issues for improvement for the students. Everything looks good, he needs to explain how the students will be graded and how they will assess themselves with those grades.
Steve, I like the unit you looked at. I especially liked the good communication part, I think the reflection would be great for the students because it give them the opportunity to give their honest feedback on how they assessed themselves and what things they can do to improve.
Key 1, Clear purposes – 5 The purpose of this unit is very well stated. It is designed to assess students understanding of the unit they just studied, "Understanding The Scientific Method". Students will use this to assess their progress and understanding of the material that was just taught, to give feedback to the educator to see if more information is necessary. The purpose is well stated, along with information of what may be needed if the responses are not in line with what has been required.
Key 2, Clear targets – 4 The targets match what the standards require, the exception is the last standard, where they have to design and conduct a scientific investigation. Every statement has the "I can" statements that are student friendly.
Key 3, Great Assessment – 5 In the assessment every question meet the required standards, are well written, and seem very student friendly. I would have enjoyed reading and taking this type of assessment while I was a student.
Key 4, Nice Communication – 5 The educator first assesses the students, and then they asses themselves and have time to determine how and why they may have gotten questions wrong. There is also a "quick evaluation" where the students get immediate feedback, and a "reflection" section (not called this, but the students need to self-asses in this section). The educator also asks them to report on right and wrong answers, to make them reflect on their thinking.
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5 There is a lot of student involvement, the educator grades the first section, then the student is involved in the rest of the assessment, and they are writing how they can improve on the knowledge that they had. A lot of student engagement.
This assessment is very well written, and meets all the standards that are required of the students. Easily understood, and plenty of student engagement, where they have to determine how they are going to proceed after the assessment.
Key 1, Clear Purpose: 5 His statement of purpose was very clear and it was intended primarily for students to see how well they understand the ‘benchmarks’ before going into deeper concepts. This assessment supposed to come in two weeks into the unit when the basic topics/concepts of ‘force’ is been introduced to the students but before going deeper into how net forces affect acceleration. The purpose is very clear and guides the user or intended user on how these purposes will fit into a bigger plan over time.
Key 2, Clear Targets: 4 His targets are well defined and clear and some of his targets match the standards for those topic areas but not all of his targets matched the required standards.
Key 3, Sound Assessment: 5 His assessments method is outstanding. Just before the students take the assessment tests, he read out to them once again the purpose of the assessment. He made it clear that the assessment does not have a point value and that it is intended for students to know their weak points and their strengths. The assessment test was divided into three stages: stage 1 was matching definition of forces up with their names, stage 2 is true or false questions and stage 3 is multiple based questions. His questions were also relevant to the topics that were supposed to be covered according to the standards.
Key 4, Good Communication: 5 He also did an amazing job of communicating information across to the students. After the assessment test, he graded the test and gave the students a summary sheet that helped give them an insight about corrective activities they need to do so as to get better in those topic areas before they move to a more in-depth topic. The students had to work on those corrective measures and then summarize their activities on the ‘summary sheet’.
Key 5, Student Involvement: 5 The student involvement in this exercise was great, Rocky made sure that the exercise allowed the students to be honest and sincere with themselves about their weak areas and their strengths; the exercise also helped the students to understand their learning targets.
Re:Steve I do like Kristin's method most especially the way she outlined her targets; her targets was very easy to align with the standards and also made it easy for students to understand what was expected of them.
Ana, I agree with what you and Anne said about Chad's unit. His unit is indeed very different from Kristin's. As far as length goes, his might be a bit more manageable, but I think Kristin does a more thorough job on this. The major difference I noticed was between both of their assessments. Kristin's does an excellent job of accurately testing students while Chad's assessment seems so subjective and a bit random. We used part of his assessment in class today and everyone seemed to th ink that there was plenty of room for improvement.
I reviewed Rocky's physics assessment for the forces unit K1 Clear purpose (5) He states the intended use of the assessment once for whoever's reading the document and then also shows how he would state it to the students in a script on page 2. Both are very clear and easy to follow
K2 Clear Targets (4) The main targets of this assessment are stated and for the most part look very doable, useful, and time-worthy. He’s laid them out in a table on the second page and lined them up with the questions in the assessment that each “I can” target fits with. While the targets appear aligned with district requirements, I found it hard to tell how they fit in the “big picture” of his physics course. If this was explicitly stated it would help the students see where their work fits into the real world.
K3 Sound assessment (4) The questions on his main assessment are clearly written and correspond fairly well to his targets. For the most part the tasks seemed feasible and looked easy enough that students could be self-directed in their learning. He also attempted to address some potential sources of bias such as student requirements for test-taking. I felt that a few of his follow-up activities could have been improved to help students link the material to the larger picture, rather than just encourage rote memorization (e.g. “fill in the blanks” activity used to promote memorization of Newton’s three laws).
K4 Good communication (4) I really liked that the assessment he designed allows students to track their own learning and address problem areas. He’s included a checklist for each student including the areas that need to be brushed-up on. This keeps the information confidential, but available to the students. I wanted to know how he checks their understanding beyond this or if he just lets them move on when they say they are ready.
K5 Student involvement (5) The rubric he hands back to his students allows them to be involved in directing their own learning. While they don’t choose the activities available to go to, I don’t think this is necessary for the purpose of this assessment as it’s designed to check them in during the middle of the unit and get them up to speed before proceeding to the next part. He’s also written each activity and test prompt in student-friendly language and made the goals very clear to them.
Toby- It sounds like you and I both felt pretty happy with Rocky's work overall. I agree with what you said about clear targets as not all did match the state standards. I wanted to see more from him regarding the "big picture" stuff on how this assessment related to the real world.
Rob, T sounds Ike Rocky's was very good. I know that we ripped apart Chad's today in class, but when I read it i remembered when I was in school, and I thought that it was well put together. I really need to look a Rocky's more in depth to see how it compared to Chad's
Key 1: Clear purposes = 5 b/c it is clear who the intended users are--high school bio students and teacher. She lists the big picture/big goals from standards, keeps the list short, identifies the type of assessment and how it will be implemented. She also has set up a plan for students to do a self-assessment and to design a plan of action for improvement in comprehension.
Key 2: Clear targets = 5. Targets are very clear and simply put. In fact, her targets are the same ones I have listed in my UbD, except this would be a subunit of the entire unit on genetics to be taught, at least in my case. Her targets follow exactly items listed in content standards. These targets are a necessary foundation to later units that will be taught and assessed, such as learning about mitosis and meiosis, and the importance of heredity and variation in evolutionary processes.
Key 3: Sound assessment = 4 I felt she did a great job of matching the learning target and context. All the questions related to the big goals and the targets, and was fairly inclusive. I liked that the exam wasn't too long (20 questions)but it was a little short based on the types of questions on the exam, had different forms of testing (m/c, fill in the blank, T/F, and partly visual). I felt she did a good job. The instructions were very clear and always in a friendly tone. Tasks are feasible and possible for students to complete successfully. I would critique that she did not have any essay questions, which I think would have been a good way to see how complete understanding really is on particular topics. This assessment does not appear to be a problem for cultural or gender differences.
Key 4: Good Communication = 5 She does great at this as well. Not only does she explain what is wanted clearly in the directions, what is expected of students, how many points each question and section is worth, but she also includes a student analysis self-assessment on results. It is inclusive in that it provides an example (just as her test sections did) along with instructions on how to fill in the assessment box and use this to evaluate their strenghs and weaknesses, study habits, what they thought they were certain or uncertain about, and mentions that they will develop a plan to keep them successful in her class. She also has a table that lists the learning targets including the questions that go with them so the students can see which learning targets they need to work on. Feedback methods are clear.
Key 5: Student Involvement = 5 Students are involved in the entire process. They review the test together, assess the test by filling in the tables, see their strengths and weaknesses, and develop a plan to address the weaknesses. They don't complete the test and then throw it away! They keep it to use as an assessment for continued learning!
Again, the only critique I really have is that she didn't have any written response questions that could have explored any misconceptions or real clarity of understanding.
Right off the bat the teacher lays out what is the purpose of the assessment and how the teacher and the students will use. The teacher will use it to assess where the whole class is and the individual student will use it to track their own progress.
Key 2 Clear targets: 4
The only reason Nathan gets a four because I think there could something as to thorough. The instructions for the assessment are almost as long as the test. It does spell everything out and list the questions that go with each target in a nice table, but it is too long. Right down to take a deep breath, by that point I might as well be taking the ACT, get everyone nervous before they take the test. He was very thorough though.
Key 3 Sound assessment design: 4
Without looking to hard at the questions it seems that they are right on par with the targets and the standards. I knock Nathan down to a four because it is very long. There are also many questions that test the same target at the same level. I think he could have chopped the test down a little.
Key 4 Good communication: 5
Communication was good. Although it may have been very long and possibly put some students to sleep, it was thorough. Nathan probably did get a few questions, but I would imagine that he could have pointed at a place on the assessment and told the student to read this and they would be able to get the answer.
Key 5 Student involvement: 5
Although I think two charts at the end of the test might be a little much, he makes the student responsible for finding their strengths and weaknesses. The questions at the end are very good, to guid the student to find their weaknesses and then make a plan of how they will fix those holes.
Ana said: Key 4 Good communication = 3 I didn’t clearly see a rubic where the teacher records the students’ results. Communication didn’t seem to be detailed enough to know when or how certain issues would be addressed with the student.
Ana, I used the biology/genetics link that was posted on BB. I felt it was an excellent example almost all the way around. The rubric was clear and the student's assessed themselves following the exam by putting their right and wrong answers in a table corresponding to the learning targets. I am really getting a good grip now on the application and importance of learning targets for both the students and the teacher. No one is unclear about what is being taught and what is expected to understand for exams. It's so clear!!!
I don't think all of the math people have responded. I am going to wait to see if anyone else posts on the assessment that I reviewed before I post on a different assessment.
For this critique I also analyzed Rocky's assessment plan. Overall, I thought he did a nice (or as Steve F. would say, 'Gneiss') job at breaking down the State standards of the unit into very student-friendly, manageable targets. Sometimes, they were over-simplified or did not seem to follow the targets exactly, but he often mentioned that those were covered in previous units, or as part of other standards. (I like that he initially crossed out ones that he had previously covered, to refine his focus to the pure basics of the unit's scope, as opposed to trying to cram in stuff that was already learned)
Key 1: 3 Rocky is not the greatest at this section, with only a small portion dedicated to how the students will be assessed. He clearly narrows the I can statements down, but does not do a great job at communicating 'how' they will be assessed.
Key 2: 5 As mentioned, his targets are clearly and narrowly outlined in a student-friendly and thorough way.
Key 3: 2.5 As with the purpose of the assessment, the assessments themselves seem to be lacking depth. It appears that about half of the 'I can' statements are not being assessed at all and the remaining (except for one selected response target) are only being assessed using an informal performance. I could be wrong here, but his Assesment section is difficult to comprehend.
Key 4: 3 I could see how if done appropriately his assessments of the targets could produce worthwhile tools for both him and the students. What concerns me again, is this section that he calls "informal performance" and how it will be recorded or relayed to the students. I would have to infer that this information is all communicated directly to the student, but the 'assessment schedule' of this plan is very poor at communicating any of this information to the reader.
Key 5: 5
This is a strongpoint in his plan. The uses of the content standards to students are well outlined and well thought out for their use as practical learning tools. The I can statements simplify the general picture to its basics, using attainable and meaningful goals.
Wow. Apparently I failed at this assignment. After comparing my response to Rob and Toby's I still could not understand why we had such a large discrepancy in our evaluations of Rocky's work. It seems I am the dummy, and analyzed his personal paper print-out Assesment Plan instead of the online actual Assessment. After reading it now, it is indeed great. Though it appears to be lengthy (30 Q's in 30 min), a lot of the questions tie into each other (if calculations) or are matching/T-F responses. They are clearly laid out for the students, and he gives an encouraging remark before the beginning of the 'test'. There is a lot of room for self-reflection following the assessment.
I would have to say well done to Rocky, and concur with Toby and Rob for the remaining details of the actual assessment plan.
I looked at Amanda Lemieux’s selected response assessment.
Key 1, Clear purposes – 5
I looked at Amanda Lemieux’s selected response assessment. I thought that the purpose of the unit was well outlined in that she described that the assessment was summative and that they would be evaluated. She outlined that the purpose of the summative assessment was to gauge the students’ knowledge and understanding of key concepts about genetics. She also outlined in her directions that they would have three different types of questions on the test. Amanda made it clear that the purpose of the test for the teacher was to see what key vocabulary and concepts still need work so that students really understand them. I liked that she was going to give her students the chance to reflect and make a plan of action so that they could improve upon their grade. I also liked that she had the purpose, standards/benchmarks and clear learning targets outlined so well.
Key 2, Clear targets – 5 I gave Amanda a 5 for clear targets because the targets are written in student friendly language and are very to the point. The targets are adapted directly from the State standards so no part of information is missing. I also liked that she put how many questions the students were going to be asked for a particular target in the same chart as well as if the questions were knowledge or reasoning based. This gives the student the exact information that they need to know so that they can do well on the test. The targets are also easy to find as they are in a chart together with a very clear title.
Key 3, Sound Assessment – 4
I think that the directions for each part of the assessment are clear and concise. I also like that she put sure and unsure at the bottom and was consistent with how she was going to have students indicate how sure or unsure they were of an answer. The + and O are an okay way of having students indicate true and false though I think the old T and F work just as well. The multiple choice part still has really clear directions and gives the student information about how many points each question is worth. The fill-in the blank is good as well and I like that they give the students a word bank. I feel that the assessment is a little short for such important and integral part of biology. This topic ties into so many other concepts that I think that it needs a lot of attention. I realize that it is not a good idea to have a long assessment but some topics require more questions than others. I did not see any biases that came through the questions. I thought that any student could answer the questions no matter their race or background.
Key 4, Good Communication – 5 I think that she excels at this part. Amanda gives students a chance to record if they feel sure or unsure on each of the questions, tells the students how many points each question is worth and the standard that each question comes from. She also gives the student a chance to record what question they got right or wrong and if they were sure or unsure about their answer. She also gives the student a chance to retake one test as long as it is within 1 week of the actual assessment. This can happen only once though throughout the course. I thought she did a good job of anticipating the information students would need to know so that they could do better in the final summative assessment. I think that
I give Amanda a 5 for this because the whole unit seems to be put around the concept of the student and not the teacher. The targets are written in student friendly language, the students write if they are unsure or sure about their answers and then are able to assess themselves, and see what their strengths and weaknesses are. I think this assessment could have positive side-effects for students because they are empowered to learn and not be embarrassed by their weaknesses but see them as areas where they can grow.
Overall, I think this assessment did a really good job of empowering learning. As David Coffey said, we must give our students the opportunity to be in control of their learning but not give them 100% freedom.
You are so positive about Kristin's assessment that I would really like to look at it. I think it is interesting that we both came to the same conclusions about what assessments should be even though we looked at different assessments.
I see where Amanda was lacking though in that she didn't have real world examples of how to use this. There was a question on hemophilia but she could have had more questions that related genetics to more human problems.
Elyssa, I agree with you that she didn't have real world examples and that her assessment was very narrow in context. My unit was created for over a 4 week period; mine was much broader and more inclusive. I wonder if Amanda's was just a subunit of genetics? In other words,perhaps she plans on going deeper into more of these areas including illnesses, what genetic engineering is,what the pros and cons of cloning, animal use, gene therapy, and transgenic crops are? Social and life implications?
Key 1⎯Clear Purpose (4.5): Amanda did a fantastic job of creating a clear purpose for whomever she was turning the assignment into but not for the students themselves for her assessment. For the turn in she listed why the assessment was taking place (to assess students’ knowledge on key concepts of genetics based on benchmarks she listed), who the info was for (herself, and students in grades 10-12th), and what the information will be used for (to aid her in identifying items that students did or did not master and for the students to self-reflect). However on the students’ portion she did not list that the information will be used for her as well to gauge where they are in regards to the unit on genetics, perhaps this is explicit but the way it reads is that it is for the students to use as a tool to help them.
Key 2⎯Clear Targets (4.5): Amanda’s targets were clear in the beginning within the columns “learning/goals”, “knowledge”, and “reasoning questions” but the column listed “test item number” with the “K” and the “R” by some of the question numbers were a little confusing for me. I think the “number of points possible” column on the chart would throw the kids off task by getting bogged down by the weight of each question but both of these columns would be great for her knowledge and for whomever she was turning the assessment into; although I’m still confused about the “K” and the “R”. Amanda did not set clear targets on the students’ portion of the exam. The first three columns of her chart would have been great to list on the test so that the students knew what was expected of them in regards to the genetics assessment.
Key 3⎯Sound Assessment Design (3): I liked her assessment questions but feel that the “+” for true and “O” for false was confusing… everyone knows that “T” is for true and “F” is for false ;-)… I like the italicized word to help the students know what word is regarded as the true or false within the question. I did not like the word bank idea; this section would serve the students best if it were left off to see what terminology they actually remembered and/or listing more words than necessary in the bank.
Key 4—Good Communication (4): Amanda does a good job at communicating in writing what the exam entails and what she wants for each section. Once again, I like the italicized word to help the students know what word is regarded as the true or false within the question. I also like that she told the students on page four of their exam “You are almost done… keep up the good work” and “congratulations… your test in now complete.” I feel this type of communication on the assessment is encouraging for the students.
Key 5⎯Student Involvement (3): Originally when I went to class the last Wednesday I indicated I didn’t like the “sure” and “unsure” on the assessments because I thought that it would possibly make the students question themselves too much but after reading the “5 Keys to Quality Assessment” I think it is a great way to involve the students with record keeping. I also liked that she had the students write down anything that they found confusing about the questions such as the wording, answer format, etc.
Elyssa, I agree that the exam was somewhat narrow but also take into account that this is probably a unit covered in biology and it is unrealistic to think that the students would need to know everything pertaining to genetics at this stage in their learning. With that being said, I thought she did have some real world applications, especially in the fill in the blank section, seeing as these illnesses are caused by genetics.
I looked at Kristin's assessment, which Steve already did a great job commenting on. I'm going to try to not repeat too much of what has already been said on the issues I agree with, since I'm probably one of the last people to post. Sorry!
Key 1: Clear purposes – 5
Key 2: Clear targets – 4.5 The targets she presents are very clear and easy to find. It is easy to see the connection between the learning targets and the standards. They are written in a way that would allow students to understand what each target is and to self-assess their knowledge. These are written well into the assessment and then diagramed to show which questions directly correspond to which targets. Personally, I would try to include more “product” type targets within the assessment, and not just as “enrichment”. I suppose that this would be not all bad, if these targets were being assessed in other ways, such as projects and presentations. It is important for all students to see the real-world connections.
Key 3: Sound Assessment – 5 I feel that for a 50 minute assessment, 25 questions seems about right in terms of how much effort needs to go into each question. Most of the questions she included involve a moderate amount of work, although since they are all multiple choice/true or false questions, I feel like some students could easily get through this in under a half hour, but that would depend on the class. Personally, I would have included, maybe, 5 more questions. When looking through the questions that Kristin has developed, I see that she does address all of the targets she presented and assesses the student's knowledge of those well. There is some repetition in the procedures, which tests student understand well and ensures they aren't just guessing. There is a section that addresses accommodations for diverse students, and it seems like any possible question a student could have is already addressed.
Key 4: Good Communication – 4 The communication in this assessment is great in terms of showing the students which questions address which targets. Also having the students score their confidence in their answers allows the teacher to see where individual students and the class as a whole are excelling and struggling. The reflection piece is also a great touch. This allows more insight into how students are feeling for the teacher and allows students to reflect and really think about how comfortable they are with the material. If they need improvement in any areas, she has also included a section on how to work toward that. Kristin really put a lot of effort into making sure students understand where they are and where they're going, as well as how to get there. My only complaint in terms of communication is that there is a whole lot to read. Most of what she has included seems necessary, but when presented with 18 pages of “stuff”, even I feel overwhelmed with what I'm looking at. I only wonder if there would be a more concise way to present a lot of this information (and directions).
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5 This assessment does a great job of having student involvement. Students rate their confidence in their answers, and then after it is graded they can review the correct answers compared to their own. Like I The last chart on the assessment that allows students to see the targets that they need to work on seems to be really beneficial. They can then see where they need to work on improving. I'm not sure how this assessment could have had any more student involvement, while still having it be meaningful.
In terms of your comments on this key, I completely agree. Using arbitrary symbols to represent "True" and "False" instead of the actual word is confusing and unnecessary. It seems easier to just write the words. I know that some teachers stray away from using T's and F's because they can be unclear with certain students handwriting. I would have never thought to use "+" and "o" instead though... probably because it doesn't make sense to. =)
Anne I agree with what you said, a whole page of directions before I start an assignment that is not even going to be graded. If you told me I just want to see where you are at here take this and answer the questions. I would probably skip a lot and get done what I need to get done and move on.
Clear Purpose: 5 – Users and uses are clearly stated and the scope of purpose is appropriate.
Clear Targets: 5 - The targets are explicitly given and very clear. It is easy to see how the questions related to the targets and how they can be used to guide instruction.
Sound Assessment: 3 - Method: Rationale for method selection is not given, but is reasonable for the purposes stated before. Question writing: Directions are clear and tasks are completely feasible. I like the use of completed example questions in the directions. The question wording is inconsistent however. Some of the multiple choice questions are really more of a fill-in-the-blank item with short word banks (#7,9, etc.) Other questions in the same section are written in a more appropriate complete question format (#8, 10, 11, etc.). Also, the fill-in-the-blank section would be better written as complete questions with blanks following the question. Sampling seems appropriate for this assessment, and no sources of bias are obvious.
Good Communication: 5 - A sound method is provided for students and teacher to document and analyze student performance. The teacher could easily use this to monitor students’ needs and progress and communicate to the parents or other faculty about student performance. The plan for communicating results to the students is clearly stated.
Student Involvement: 5 – As mentioned above, a thorough student involvement component is provided. It is well-written and described. It should be a strong tool to students for self-monitoring and goal tracking.
Overall, this assessment is strong in tools for communication and student involvement, but question writing should really be reconsidered.
Christina, I noticed the +/o issue on the true and false part too. I can understand why you see that as an issue. I think it adds one more opportunity for simple errors to hide students' real level of knowledge. I didn't feel the same as you about the italicized words however. I think drawing students' attention to certain key words sets them up to miss the bigger picture within the question. I also agreed that the student involvement part was great. I thought it was impressively thorough. I would have loved to see something like this when I was in high school or even as an undergrad!
Key 1, Clear purposes – 5
ReplyDeleteIt was very clear what the purpose of this unit is. It is designed for students who will be entering Algebra 2 the following year. Its purpose is to introduce them to fundamental trigonometry and build a foundation. The students will use this to assess their progress and provides for remediation if necessary. The purpose is very clear, well written, and gives the reader a good idea of what is to be expected.
Key 2, Clear targets – 5
The targets are very well written and relate directly to the standards. They use very student friendly language beginning with “I can.” Using these skills in real world problems is addressed as well. I can’t imagine what else you would want in targets.
Key 3, Sound Assessment – 5
Wow. Really. Just wow. This Kristin person is amazing! This is a wonderful assessment that would test students abilities so well. There are a lot of questions (25 for a 50 minute test), but many of them are related and require exactly the same calculations (convert radians to degrees). It is very comprehensive in the sense that it completely covers all of the learning targets. I think the assessment would also do a good and accurate job assessing the students. It covers all of the ideas and has enough repetition in it to make sure students do not just get lucky once or guess right. I am very impressed by this.
Key 4, Good Communication – 5
Once again, Kristin excels at this. She grades the test and then has the students assess themselves. Each of the questions fall into a target category, and she has the students score themselves in each of these categories. The students then write a reflection, telling which targets they did well in and which ones they struggled with and why. There is then whole section on improvement. At every step, Kristin has the students involved with their own assessment and helps them stay on track if they struggle.
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5
Like I said above, student involvement is great with this unit. The only thing the student don’t specifically do is grade their own test. The teacher does that, but then has the students review their test, assess themselves on it, and determine how they can improve and in what areas.
Perhaps my only criticism of this whole unit is that it may be too involved and have too much information in it. If it was implemented correctly, I think it would be fine, but I could see the teacher running out of time with it. Regardless, I think this is a phenomenal example of what a unit and assessment should look like. Kristin is definitely setting her students up for success with this.
Key 1
ReplyDeleteClear purposes = 5
I gave this assessment a 5 because he clearly stated who the assessment is intended for and the purpose of which is to assess the students on the knowledge they and then revisit any topics that needs more attention.
Key 2
Clear targets = 5
The targets are clearly explained for the students understanding and describes what is expected of them to move on. Along with each target, chapters for each target is provided and the number of questions from knowledge and reasoning skill. Targets are easy to find and match up with the required standards.
Key 3
Sound assessment = 5
The method used here matches the target and context described earlier. The directions are very clear to where the students are able understand them and answer each question. The exercises are student friendly and they should be able to complete with little to no problems. There is a clear match between targets stated and the assessment.
Key 4
Good communication = 3
I didn’t clearly see a rubic where the teacher records the students’ results. Communication didn’t seem to be detailed enough to know when or how certain issues would be addressed with the student.
Key 5
Student involvement = 4
The students’ involvement helps them understand which subjects they need to revisit and helps them keep track of their progress through self assessment. The students will have more positive than negative effects. This format also helps the student keep of their learning.
My main concern with this assessment was the communication with the students. I didn’t where students would be graded and how Chad would address grading issues for improvement for the students. Everything looks good, he needs to explain how the students will be graded and how they will assess themselves with those grades.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI like the unit you looked at. I especially liked the good communication part, I think the reflection would be great for the students because it give them the opportunity to give their honest feedback on how they assessed themselves and what things they can do to improve.
Key 1, Clear purposes – 5
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this unit is very well stated. It is designed to assess students understanding of the unit they just studied, "Understanding The Scientific Method". Students will use this to assess their progress and understanding of the material that was just taught, to give feedback to the educator to see if more information is necessary. The purpose is well stated, along with information of what may be needed if the responses are not in line with what has been required.
Key 2, Clear targets – 4
The targets match what the standards require, the exception is the last standard, where they have to design and conduct a scientific investigation. Every statement has the "I can" statements that are student friendly.
Key 3, Great Assessment – 5
In the assessment every question meet the required standards, are well written, and seem very student friendly. I would have enjoyed reading and taking this type of assessment while I was a student.
Key 4, Nice Communication – 5
The educator first assesses the students, and then they asses themselves and have time to determine how and why they may have gotten questions wrong. There is also a "quick evaluation" where the students get immediate feedback, and a "reflection" section (not called this, but the students need to self-asses in this section). The educator also asks them to report on right and wrong answers, to make them reflect on their thinking.
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5
There is a lot of student involvement, the educator grades the first section, then the student is involved in the rest of the assessment, and they are writing how they can improve on the knowledge that they had. A lot of student engagement.
This assessment is very well written, and meets all the standards that are required of the students. Easily understood, and plenty of student engagement, where they have to determine how they are going to proceed after the assessment.
Key 1, Clear Purpose: 5
ReplyDeleteHis statement of purpose was very clear and it was intended primarily for students to see how well they understand the ‘benchmarks’ before going into deeper concepts. This assessment supposed to come in two weeks into the unit when the basic topics/concepts of ‘force’ is been introduced to the students but before going deeper into how net forces affect acceleration. The purpose is very clear and guides the user or intended user on how these purposes will fit into a bigger plan over time.
Key 2, Clear Targets: 4
His targets are well defined and clear and some of his targets match the standards for those topic areas but not all of his targets matched the required standards.
Key 3, Sound Assessment: 5
His assessments method is outstanding. Just before the students take the assessment tests, he read out to them once again the purpose of the assessment. He made it clear that the assessment does not have a point value and that it is intended for students to know their weak points and their strengths. The assessment test was divided into three stages: stage 1 was matching definition of forces up with their names, stage 2 is true or false questions and stage 3 is multiple based questions. His questions were also relevant to the topics that were supposed to be covered according to the standards.
Key 4, Good Communication: 5
He also did an amazing job of communicating information across to the students. After the assessment test, he graded the test and gave the students a summary sheet that helped give them an insight about corrective activities they need to do so as to get better in those topic areas before they move to a more in-depth topic. The students had to work on those corrective measures and then summarize their activities on the ‘summary sheet’.
Key 5, Student Involvement: 5
The student involvement in this exercise was great, Rocky made sure that the exercise allowed the students to be honest and sincere with themselves about their weak areas and their strengths; the exercise also helped the students to understand their learning targets.
Re:Steve
ReplyDeleteI do like Kristin's method most especially the way she outlined her targets; her targets was very easy to align with the standards and also made it easy for students to understand what was expected of them.
Ana, I agree with what you and Anne said about Chad's unit. His unit is indeed very different from Kristin's. As far as length goes, his might be a bit more manageable, but I think Kristin does a more thorough job on this. The major difference I noticed was between both of their assessments. Kristin's does an excellent job of accurately testing students while Chad's assessment seems so subjective and a bit random. We used part of his assessment in class today and everyone seemed to th ink that there was plenty of room for improvement.
ReplyDeleteI reviewed Rocky's physics assessment for the forces unit
ReplyDeleteK1 Clear purpose (5)
He states the intended use of the assessment once for whoever's reading the document and then also shows how he would state it to the students in a script on page 2. Both are very clear and easy to follow
K2 Clear Targets (4)
The main targets of this assessment are stated and for the most part look very doable, useful, and time-worthy. He’s laid them out in a table on the second page and lined them up with the questions in the assessment that each “I can” target fits with. While the targets appear aligned with district requirements, I found it hard to tell how they fit in the “big picture” of his physics course. If this was explicitly stated it would help the students see where their work fits into the real world.
K3 Sound assessment (4)
The questions on his main assessment are clearly written and correspond fairly well to his targets. For the most part the tasks seemed feasible and looked easy enough that students could be self-directed in their learning. He also attempted to address some potential sources of bias such as student requirements for test-taking. I felt that a few of his follow-up activities could have been improved to help students link the material to the larger picture, rather than just encourage rote memorization (e.g. “fill in the blanks” activity used to promote memorization of Newton’s three laws).
K4 Good communication (4)
I really liked that the assessment he designed allows students to track their own learning and address problem areas. He’s included a checklist for each student including the areas that need to be brushed-up on. This keeps the information confidential, but available to the students. I wanted to know how he checks their understanding beyond this or if he just lets them move on when they say they are ready.
K5 Student involvement (5)
The rubric he hands back to his students allows them to be involved in directing their own learning. While they don’t choose the activities available to go to, I don’t think this is necessary for the purpose of this assessment as it’s designed to check them in during the middle of the unit and get them up to speed before proceeding to the next part. He’s also written each activity and test prompt in student-friendly language and made the goals very clear to them.
Toby-
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you and I both felt pretty happy with Rocky's work overall. I agree with what you said about clear targets as not all did match the state standards. I wanted to see more from him regarding the "big picture" stuff on how this assessment related to the real world.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteT sounds Ike Rocky's was very good. I know that we ripped apart Chad's today in class, but when I read it i remembered when I was in school, and I thought that it was well put together. I really need to look a Rocky's more in depth to see how it compared to Chad's
Summative assessment by Amanda for bio/genetics.
ReplyDeleteKey 1: Clear purposes = 5
b/c it is clear who the intended users are--high school bio students and teacher. She lists the big picture/big goals from standards, keeps the list short, identifies the type of assessment and how it will be implemented. She also has set up a plan for students to do a self-assessment and to design a plan of action for improvement in comprehension.
Key 2: Clear targets = 5. Targets are very clear and simply put. In fact, her targets are the same ones I have listed in my UbD, except this would be a subunit of the entire unit on genetics to be taught, at least in my case. Her targets follow exactly items listed in content standards. These targets are a necessary foundation to later units that will be taught and assessed, such as learning about mitosis and meiosis, and the importance of heredity and variation in evolutionary processes.
Key 3: Sound assessment = 4
I felt she did a great job of matching the learning target and context. All the questions related to the big goals and the targets, and was fairly inclusive. I liked that the exam wasn't too long (20 questions)but it was a little short based on the types of questions on the exam, had different forms of testing (m/c, fill in the blank, T/F, and partly visual). I felt she did a good job. The instructions were very clear and always in a friendly tone. Tasks are feasible and possible for students to complete successfully. I would critique that she did not have any essay questions, which I think would have been a good way to see how complete understanding really is on particular topics. This assessment does not appear to be a problem for cultural or gender differences.
Key 4: Good Communication = 5
She does great at this as well. Not only does she explain what is wanted clearly in the directions, what is expected of students, how many points each question and section is worth, but she also includes a student analysis self-assessment on results. It is inclusive in that it provides an example (just as her test sections did) along with instructions on how to fill in the assessment box and use this to evaluate their strenghs and weaknesses, study habits, what they thought they were certain or uncertain about, and mentions that they will develop a plan to keep them successful in her class. She also has a table that lists the learning targets including the questions that go with them so the students can see which learning targets they need to work on. Feedback methods are clear.
Key 5: Student Involvement = 5
Students are involved in the entire process. They review the test together, assess the test by filling in the tables, see their strengths and weaknesses, and develop a plan to address the weaknesses. They don't complete the test and then throw it away! They keep it to use as an assessment for continued learning!
Again, the only critique I really have is that she didn't have any written response questions that could have explored any misconceptions or real clarity of understanding.
680.02: reflection.
ReplyDeleteMiddle School Algebra
Key 1 Clear purpose: 5
Right off the bat the teacher lays out what is the purpose of the assessment and how the teacher and the students will use. The teacher will use it to assess where the whole class is and the individual student will use it to track their own progress.
Key 2 Clear targets: 4
The only reason Nathan gets a four because I think there could something as to thorough. The instructions for the assessment are almost as long as the test. It does spell everything out and list the questions that go with each target in a nice table, but it is too long. Right down to take a deep breath, by that point I might as well be taking the ACT, get everyone nervous before they take the test. He was very thorough though.
Key 3 Sound assessment design: 4
Without looking to hard at the questions it seems that they are right on par with the targets and the standards. I knock Nathan down to a four because it is very long. There are also many questions that test the same target at the same level. I think he could have chopped the test down a little.
Key 4 Good communication: 5
Communication was good. Although it may have been very long and possibly put some students to sleep, it was thorough. Nathan probably did get a few questions, but I would imagine that he could have pointed at a place on the assessment and told the student to read this and they would be able to get the answer.
Key 5 Student involvement: 5
Although I think two charts at the end of the test might be a little much, he makes the student responsible for finding their strengths and weaknesses. The questions at the end are very good, to guid the student to find their weaknesses and then make a plan of how they will fix those holes.
Ana said: Key 4
ReplyDeleteGood communication = 3
I didn’t clearly see a rubic where the teacher records the students’ results. Communication didn’t seem to be detailed enough to know when or how certain issues would be addressed with the student.
Ana, I used the biology/genetics link that was posted on BB. I felt it was an excellent example almost all the way around. The rubric was clear and the student's assessed themselves following the exam by putting their right and wrong answers in a table corresponding to the learning targets. I am really getting a good grip now on the application and importance of learning targets for both the students and the teacher. No one is unclear about what is being taught and what is expected to understand for exams. It's so clear!!!
I don't think all of the math people have responded. I am going to wait to see if anyone else posts on the assessment that I reviewed before I post on a different assessment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor this critique I also analyzed Rocky's assessment plan.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I thought he did a nice (or as Steve F. would say, 'Gneiss') job at breaking down the State standards of the unit into very student-friendly, manageable targets. Sometimes, they were over-simplified or did not seem to follow the targets exactly, but he often mentioned that those were covered in previous units, or as part of other standards. (I like that he initially crossed out ones that he had previously covered, to refine his focus to the pure basics of the unit's scope, as opposed to trying to cram in stuff that was already learned)
Key 1: 3
Rocky is not the greatest at this section, with only a small portion dedicated to how the students will be assessed. He clearly narrows the I can statements down, but does not do a great job at communicating 'how' they will be assessed.
Key 2: 5
As mentioned, his targets are clearly and narrowly outlined in a student-friendly and thorough way.
Key 3: 2.5
As with the purpose of the assessment, the assessments themselves seem to be lacking depth. It appears that about half of the 'I can' statements are not being assessed at all and the remaining (except for one selected response target) are only being assessed using an informal performance. I could be wrong here, but his Assesment section is difficult to comprehend.
Key 4: 3
I could see how if done appropriately his assessments of the targets could produce worthwhile tools for both him and the students. What concerns me again, is this section that he calls "informal performance" and how it will be recorded or relayed to the students. I would have to infer that this information is all communicated directly to the student, but the 'assessment schedule' of this plan is very poor at communicating any of this information to the reader.
Key 5: 5
This is a strongpoint in his plan. The uses of the content standards to students are well outlined and well thought out for their use as practical learning tools. The I can statements simplify the general picture to its basics, using attainable and meaningful goals.
Wow. Apparently I failed at this assignment. After comparing my response to Rob and Toby's I still could not understand why we had such a large discrepancy in our evaluations of Rocky's work. It seems I am the dummy, and analyzed his personal paper print-out Assesment Plan instead of the online actual Assessment. After reading it now, it is indeed great. Though it appears to be lengthy (30 Q's in 30 min), a lot of the questions tie into each other (if calculations) or are matching/T-F responses. They are clearly laid out for the students, and he gives an encouraging remark before the beginning of the 'test'. There is a lot of room for self-reflection following the assessment.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say well done to Rocky, and concur with Toby and Rob for the remaining details of the actual assessment plan.
I looked at Amanda Lemieux’s selected response assessment.
ReplyDeleteKey 1, Clear purposes – 5
I looked at Amanda Lemieux’s selected response assessment. I thought that the purpose of the unit was well outlined in that she described that the assessment was summative and that they would be evaluated. She outlined that the purpose of the summative assessment was to gauge the students’ knowledge and understanding of key concepts about genetics. She also outlined in her directions that they would have three different types of questions on the test. Amanda made it clear that the purpose of the test for the teacher was to see what key vocabulary and concepts still need work so that students really understand them. I liked that she was going to give her students the chance to reflect and make a plan of action so that they could improve upon their grade. I also liked that she had the purpose, standards/benchmarks and clear learning targets outlined so well.
Key 2, Clear targets – 5
I gave Amanda a 5 for clear targets because the targets are written in student friendly language and are very to the point. The targets are adapted directly from the State standards so no part of information is missing. I also liked that she put how many questions the students were going to be asked for a particular target in the same chart as well as if the questions were knowledge or reasoning based. This gives the student the exact information that they need to know so that they can do well on the test. The targets are also easy to find as they are in a chart together with a very clear title.
Key 3, Sound Assessment – 4
I think that the directions for each part of the assessment are clear and concise. I also like that she put sure and unsure at the bottom and was consistent with how she was going to have students indicate how sure or unsure they were of an answer. The + and O are an okay way of having students indicate true and false though I think the old T and F work just as well. The multiple choice part still has really clear directions and gives the student information about how many points each question is worth. The fill-in the blank is good as well and I like that they give the students a word bank. I feel that the assessment is a little short for such important and integral part of biology. This topic ties into so many other concepts that I think that it needs a lot of attention. I realize that it is not a good idea to have a long assessment but some topics require more questions than others. I did not see any biases that came through the questions. I thought that any student could answer the questions no matter their race or background.
Key 4, Good Communication – 5
I think that she excels at this part. Amanda gives students a chance to record if they feel sure or unsure on each of the questions, tells the students how many points each question is worth and the standard that each question comes from. She also gives the student a chance to record what question they got right or wrong and if they were sure or unsure about their answer. She also gives the student a chance to retake one test as long as it is within 1 week of the actual assessment. This can happen only once though throughout the course. I thought she did a good job of anticipating the information students would need to know so that they could do better in the final summative assessment. I think that
Continuing my post....
ReplyDeleteKey 5, Student Involvement – 5
I give Amanda a 5 for this because the whole unit seems to be put around the concept of the student and not the teacher. The targets are written in student friendly language, the students write if they are unsure or sure about their answers and then are able to assess themselves, and see what their strengths and weaknesses are. I think this assessment could have positive side-effects for students because they are empowered to learn and not be embarrassed by their weaknesses but see them as areas where they can grow.
Overall, I think this assessment did a really good job of empowering learning. As David Coffey said, we must give our students the opportunity to be in control of their learning but not give them 100% freedom.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are so positive about Kristin's assessment that I would really like to look at it. I think it is interesting that we both came to the same conclusions about what assessments should be even though we looked at different assessments.
I see where Amanda was lacking though in that she didn't have real world examples of how to use this. There was a question on hemophilia but she could have had more questions that related genetics to more human problems.
Elyssa, I agree with you that she didn't have real world examples and that her assessment was very narrow in context. My unit was created for over a 4 week period; mine was much broader and more inclusive. I wonder if Amanda's was just a subunit of genetics? In other words,perhaps she plans on going deeper into more of these areas including illnesses, what genetic engineering is,what the pros and cons of cloning, animal use, gene therapy, and transgenic crops are? Social and life implications?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda ~ Genetics and Heredity
ReplyDeleteKey 1⎯Clear Purpose (4.5): Amanda did a fantastic job of creating a clear purpose for whomever she was turning the assignment into but not for the students themselves for her assessment. For the turn in she listed why the assessment was taking place (to assess students’ knowledge on key concepts of genetics based on benchmarks she listed), who the info was for (herself, and students in grades 10-12th), and what the information will be used for (to aid her in identifying items that students did or did not master and for the students to self-reflect). However on the students’ portion she did not list that the information will be used for her as well to gauge where they are in regards to the unit on genetics, perhaps this is explicit but the way it reads is that it is for the students to use as a tool to help them.
Key 2⎯Clear Targets (4.5): Amanda’s targets were clear in the beginning within the columns “learning/goals”, “knowledge”, and “reasoning questions” but the column listed “test item number” with the “K” and the “R” by some of the question numbers were a little confusing for me. I think the “number of points possible” column on the chart would throw the kids off task by getting bogged down by the weight of each question but both of these columns would be great for her knowledge and for whomever she was turning the assessment into; although I’m still confused about the “K” and the “R”. Amanda did not set clear targets on the students’ portion of the exam. The first three columns of her chart would have been great to list on the test so that the students knew what was expected of them in regards to the genetics assessment.
Key 3⎯Sound Assessment Design (3): I liked her assessment questions but feel that the “+” for true and “O” for false was confusing… everyone knows that “T” is for true and “F” is for false ;-)… I like the italicized word to help the students know what word is regarded as the true or false within the question. I did not like the word bank idea; this section would serve the students best if it were left off to see what terminology they actually remembered and/or listing more words than necessary in the bank.
Key 4—Good Communication (4): Amanda does a good job at communicating in writing what the exam entails and what she wants for each section. Once again, I like the italicized word to help the students know what word is regarded as the true or false within the question. I also like that she told the students on page four of their exam “You are almost done… keep up the good work” and “congratulations… your test in now complete.” I feel this type of communication on the assessment is encouraging for the students.
Key 5⎯Student Involvement (3): Originally when I went to class the last Wednesday I indicated I didn’t like the “sure” and “unsure” on the assessments because I thought that it would possibly make the students question themselves too much but after reading the “5 Keys to Quality Assessment” I think it is a great way to involve the students with record keeping. I also liked that she had the students write down anything that they found confusing about the questions such as the wording, answer format, etc.
Elyssa,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the exam was somewhat narrow but also take into account that this is probably a unit covered in biology and it is unrealistic to think that the students would need to know everything pertaining to genetics at this stage in their learning. With that being said, I thought she did have some real world applications, especially in the fill in the blank section, seeing as these illnesses are caused by genetics.
I looked at Kristin's assessment, which Steve already did a great job commenting on. I'm going to try to not repeat too much of what has already been said on the issues I agree with, since I'm probably one of the last people to post. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteKey 1: Clear purposes – 5
Key 2: Clear targets – 4.5
The targets she presents are very clear and easy to find. It is easy to see the connection between the learning targets and the standards. They are written in a way that would allow students to understand what each target is and to self-assess their knowledge. These are written well into the assessment and then diagramed to show which questions directly correspond to which targets. Personally, I would try to include more “product” type targets within the assessment, and not just as “enrichment”. I suppose that this would be not all bad, if these targets were being assessed in other ways, such as projects and presentations. It is important for all students to see the real-world connections.
Key 3: Sound Assessment – 5
I feel that for a 50 minute assessment, 25 questions seems about right in terms of how much effort needs to go into each question. Most of the questions she included involve a moderate amount of work, although since they are all multiple choice/true or false questions, I feel like some students could easily get through this in under a half hour, but that would depend on the class. Personally, I would have included, maybe, 5 more questions. When looking through the questions that Kristin has developed, I see that she does address all of the targets she presented and assesses the student's knowledge of those well. There is some repetition in the procedures, which tests student understand well and ensures they aren't just guessing. There is a section that addresses accommodations for diverse students, and it seems like any possible question a student could have is already addressed.
Key 4: Good Communication – 4
The communication in this assessment is great in terms of showing the students which questions address which targets. Also having the students score their confidence in their answers allows the teacher to see where individual students and the class as a whole are excelling and struggling. The reflection piece is also a great touch. This allows more insight into how students are feeling for the teacher and allows students to reflect and really think about how comfortable they are with the material. If they need improvement in any areas, she has also included a section on how to work toward that. Kristin really put a lot of effort into making sure students understand where they are and where they're going, as well as how to get there. My only complaint in terms of communication is that there is a whole lot to read. Most of what she has included seems necessary, but when presented with 18 pages of “stuff”, even I feel overwhelmed with what I'm looking at. I only wonder if there would be a more concise way to present a lot of this information (and directions).
Key 5, Student Involvement – 5
This assessment does a great job of having student involvement. Students rate their confidence in their answers, and then after it is graded they can review the correct answers compared to their own. Like I The last chart on the assessment that allows students to see the targets that they need to work on seems to be really beneficial. They can then see where they need to work on improving. I'm not sure how this assessment could have had any more student involvement, while still having it be meaningful.
Christina,
ReplyDeleteKey 3⎯Sound Assessment Design (3)
In terms of your comments on this key, I completely agree. Using arbitrary symbols to represent "True" and "False" instead of the actual word is confusing and unnecessary. It seems easier to just write the words. I know that some teachers stray away from using T's and F's because they can be unclear with certain students handwriting. I would have never thought to use "+" and "o" instead though... probably because it doesn't make sense to. =)
Anne I agree with what you said, a whole page of directions before I start an assignment that is not even going to be graded. If you told me I just want to see where you are at here take this and answer the questions. I would probably skip a lot and get done what I need to get done and move on.
ReplyDeleteCritique of Amanda's Biology Assessment
ReplyDeleteClear Purpose: 5 – Users and uses are clearly stated and the scope of purpose is appropriate.
Clear Targets: 5 - The targets are explicitly given and very clear. It is easy to see how the questions related to the targets and how they can be used to guide instruction.
Sound Assessment: 3 - Method: Rationale for method selection is not given, but is reasonable for the purposes stated before. Question writing: Directions are clear and tasks are completely feasible. I like the use of completed example questions in the directions. The question wording is inconsistent however. Some of the multiple choice questions are really more of a fill-in-the-blank item with short word banks (#7,9, etc.) Other questions in the same section are written in a more appropriate complete question format (#8, 10, 11, etc.). Also, the fill-in-the-blank section would be better written as complete questions with blanks following the question. Sampling seems appropriate for this assessment, and no sources of bias are obvious.
Good Communication: 5 - A sound method is provided for students and teacher to document and analyze student performance. The teacher could easily use this to monitor students’ needs and progress and communicate to the parents or other faculty about student performance. The plan for communicating results to the students is clearly stated.
Student Involvement: 5 – As mentioned above, a thorough student involvement component is provided. It is well-written and described. It should be a strong tool to students for self-monitoring and goal tracking.
Overall, this assessment is strong in tools for communication and student involvement, but question writing should really be reconsidered.
Christina, I noticed the +/o issue on the true and false part too. I can understand why you see that as an issue. I think it adds one more opportunity for simple errors to hide students' real level of knowledge. I didn't feel the same as you about the italicized words however. I think drawing students' attention to certain key words sets them up to miss the bigger picture within the question. I also agreed that the student involvement part was great. I thought it was impressively thorough. I would have loved to see something like this when I was in high school or even as an undergrad!
ReplyDelete