Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning
Charles Ermer
National University
February 3, 2018
TED 690
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Abstract
This paper reviews the literature on assessing student learning and its relationship to teaching
standards. I specifically examine the use of multiple measures of assessment and the advantages
Learning
student learning. Included in this domain are two Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs):
(CTC), 2013)
The standards clearly demonstrate the importance of assessment to teaching and recognize the
planning. Sundberg (2002) provides a review of commonly used assessment techniques and their
The assessment techniques described by Sundberg (2002) include the two broad
categories of quantitative and qualitative assessments and are listed in Table 1 below. All these
techniques are advocated for by CTC (2013) which states “[teachers] understand and use a
variety of informal and formal, as well as formative and summative assessments, at varying
levels of cognitive demand to determine students’ progress and plan instruction” (p. 12).
Two common threads run throughout the CTC (2013) Domain B TPE standards and
Sundberg (2002) regarding assessment, the importance of using multiple assessment techniques
techniques. The importance of using multiple assessments is expressed in the TPE standards by
CTC (2013) stating “Candidates use multiple measures for progress monitoring throughout
(p. 11) and “Candidates purposefully use ongoing multiple and, where appropriate, differentiated
assessment options to collect evidence of individual and whole class learning, including
in their description of TPE 3 (p. 12). Sundberg (2002) sums up the peer-reviewed research on the
topic of assessment by stating “…it is now generally accepted that multiple assessment measures
are required to adequately gauge student learning” (p. 12). No one assessment measure can
capture the achievement of every student or accurately determine when learning has taken place.
All assessment strategies have advantages and disadvantages, so multiple and different
assessments will always be needed to get the most accurate view of what students are achieving
in any classroom.
Sundberg (2002) and the CTC (2013) TPEs also allude to the importance of using
qualitative techniques in any assessment program. Sundberg (2002) states “…good qualitative
assessment is essential to understanding the complexity of student learning in the classroom” (p.
13). Perhaps because most science teachers are trained to use quantitative methods in their
content area, the usefulness of qualitative assessment of student work is often overlooked by
biology teachers. Sundberg (2002) sums up the situation saying “[l]ess natural for many of us is
to accept that qualitative data can be as rich and informative as the statistical analyses we get
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 5
from quantitative results” (p. 15). In his own work, Sundberg (2002) points out that “[t]he
insight provided by the qualitative assessment drew our attention to unintended outcomes
promoted by instructors that otherwise would have gone unnoticed” and use of qualitative
assessment techniques such as “…analysis of student interviews, journal writing, and concept
mapping indicted that there were dramatic shifts in understanding of nearly half the class”
(Sundberg, 2002, p. 13). Qualitative assessment techniques can give teachers a better idea of how
students are thinking about certain concepts and give them a more detailed description of their
overall understanding than a single point test score or class average can.
Multiple assessment techniques are necessary to evaluate any program of instruction. The
detailed information provided by qualitative assessments and the open-ended nature of these
assessments should not be overlooked by high school biology teacher. They can provide insight
into student thinking and misconceptions that would overwise be unknow to the teacher.
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 6
References
Sundberg, M. (2002). Assessing Student Learning. Cell Biology Education, 1(1), 11-15. doi:
10.1187/cbe.02-03-0007