Monday, June 17, 2013

Assessing Assessments and Constructing Them in Constructivism

From morguefile.com
Measuring outcomes in a constructivist learning environment would certainly be different than outcome measurements from within a traditional approach to teaching. Constructivism is a learning theory that, when put into practice, leads to many varied approaches. Dr. Elizabeth Murphy explores the characteristics of constructivism and how the learning theory has been put into practice at her website, Constructivism from Philosophy to Practice. As she discusses, constructivism holds the belief that "learners actively construct knowledge in their attempts to make sense of their world" and "learning will likely emphasize the development of meaning and understanding." In regard to assessment, one key word used by Dr. Murphy is "development." Assessment of constructivist learning requires continuing assessment.


It requires continuing assessment because it is not a learning approach where knowledge or skills are given to the students. The learning environment is student centred, and as discussed at the forum for Changing Assessment to Improve Learning, there are key factors that must be present for successful learning to take place which include student motivation and commitment, opportunities for practice/trail and error, feedback from others, and being able to make sense or digest what is being learned. The teacher, acting more as a facilitator, must use an instructional design that allows for continuing assessment, both of the design structure and the process (is it working?) and of the students (are they learning and do they think it is working?).

Implementing continuous assessment can create its own issues, and there were two that stuck out for me. One was the concern with overloading students with assessments during their learning experience and the other was students not being able to make sense of the assessment criteria. Some very good points were made that I think can help offset these two potential problems. The use of self-assessment, peer assessment and involving learners in the design so they understand the purpose and have some ownership of it. After all,  if we want students to "construct" their knowledge, would it not make sense that they should also play a part in the construction of the assessment?

The Collaborative Assessment Protocol of Student Work is an interesting approach in determining how to assess and support students. It is an ambitious activity, and one that does challenge teachers to find common time to gather and discuss student work. However, if a department of education was attempting to find common ground in assessing and testing constructivist outcomes, then this type of protocol could be beneficial. Hence, there should be some responsibility on the department to aid teachers in finding the time they need, perhaps through their existing professional development schedule. This would be professional development that allows for discussion and collobaration instead of sitting and listening. Robin Lee Harris Freedman in "Constructivist Assessment Practices" discusses the importance of teacher networking for continuing change to take place and new sources of ideas. Additionally, I think if there is an agreement that continuous assessment is necessary, and that continuous assessment should contain a number of components (including self and peer to peer assessment) then some agreement can be made on what should be included in classroom ID models.

There is a note of caution, however, that this collaborative assessment protocol should only be one part of a larger plan on how to find common ground on the continuous assessment of constructivist outcomes. As mentioned at the website Evaluation of Constructivist Learning, it can be argued that observing and assessing the process of how learners construct their knowledge is more important than the final product. So while the Collaborative Assessment Protocol of Student Work is a very valuable tool to find common ground among educators, the gathering and networking of educators and other stakeholders in the constructivist approach can provide a more encompassing direction in determining how to create and assess ID models.

From my own experience, I have always believed there was a difference between the terms assessment and evaluation. Assessment is part of the continuing feedback and support that occurs in the learning environment and involves both the teacher and learner and normally includes reflection. Evaluation has to do with the conclusion of a study, and it is usually more formal in design. Many times the feedback from evaluation is not helpful to the student, since it occurs at the end of the learning process. H. Stephen Straight's slideshow "The Difference between Assessment and Evaluation" explores various sources and their data on assessment and evaluation. As I went through the slides, I could not help but think that when changes are made to an ID model it is usually called assessment of the model not evaluation. Hence, assessment is "formative" and "process-orientated" while evaluation is "summative." Having said all this, I also realize sometimes these terms are used as if they are interchangeable, and I have done it myself.

Sometimes there can appear to be a conflict between teaching to the test, particularly in preparation for standardized testing, and constructivist outcomes. And, sadly, few administrators would question any educator's approach in the classroom if they are getting the desired results on standardized tests. Yet, while we may see an apparent conflict between standardized testing and constructivist outcomes, Walter MacKenzie in "MI, IT and Standards: The Story of Jamie" makes the case, through his own teaching experience, that a teacher can use a constructivist approach while preparing students for standardized testing.

When looking at the process versus the product, I think that portfolios can be a very important component in constructivist learning. Many times portfolios become this collection of student work in which students take little pride and teachers take little time to examine. Now, with the World Wide Web and the availability of many online platforms (for example, folio for me) students can create portfolios that reflect not only the product but the process of their learning. As indicated in the aforementioned forum on assessment, students should have the flexibility to decide what they can include in their portfolio, and the focus should be more about learning than being assessed. Moreover, as discussed in the article "Portfolios for Assessment and Instruction," this collection of work, this process of learning and discovery in a student-centred environment, demonstrates the student's growth and achievement. The opportunity for students to share this work with a wider audience on the Internet can also make the experience more authentic and meaningful.

The ability to incorporate "continuous, 'dynamic assessment'" is discussed at the website Evaluation of Constructivist Learning. The website states that the technologies available to teachers today allow for assessment to "be seamlessly integrated into meaningful learning experiences and not tacked on at the end." One online site that came to mind when I was reading this comment was iRubric. Aside from providing easy online access of assessment rubrics to students, other teachers share their assessment tools which can make the planning and design of assessment a little easier when one only has to modify existing rubrics.

Finally, a website that explores the notion of authentic assessment in constructivist learning is the Authentic Assessment Toolkit. This site looks at different types of assessment, such as portfolios, and also provides examples and a discussion on rubrics along with other helpful, relevant and practical information. It considers many components that should be part of an ID model created for constructivist learning. 

No comments:

Post a Comment