Continuum of Classroom Assessment Methods

More structured & Less structured, &

De-contextualized, More Contextualized

Indirect Measures Direct Measures

Characteristics Selected Constructed Performance Personal Structured Unstructured

Portfolios
Response Response Assessment Communications Observations Observations
Multiple choice, Short answer, Open-ended “Showcase” & Interviews, Running records, Anecdotal
Matching, T/F graphic organizer, essays and written working conferences, journals, reconstructions, comments on
Assessment constructed communication; portfolios reflections, critiques, self-assessment, classroom
Tools essays Products and reviews, oral response logs, observations and
extended tasks; presentations reflections,
Concept maps videotaping
Potential for None to little Little to moderate High Very high Very high Moderate (nds Moderate (nds
feedback follow up) follow-up)
High Moderate to high Moderate, Moderate to Moderate Low to moderate High
Reliability depending on high, depends
clarity of rubric on rubric clarity
Questionable to Questionable to High if alignment High if High if alignment to High if alignment High if alignment
Moderate high–graphic to performance alignment to performance to performance to performance
Validity organizer outcomes & performance outcomes & criteria is outcomes & outcomes &
criteria is clear criteria is clear clear criteria is clear criteria is clear
Supports No Little Moderate to high High Moderate Potentially high Potentially high
Learning styles
& Intelligences
Not Authentic None to little Moderate to High High Moderate to High Potentially High Potentially High
Authenticity

Formative Summative or Summative Summative Formative Formative Formative

Summative vs. Formative
Formative

Developed by Jim Begotka, 2003. Variation of “Continuum of Assessment Method” from Dussault and Sargent423; modified by Terry Heick for layout restrictions