Running Head: TESTING AND ASSESSING ETHICS CODE

Week One Assignment

Testing and Assessing Ethics Code

Nermin H. Fialkowski

National University

AAL- 654 Quality Assessment for Student Learning

Doctor Lisa M. Sparaco

February 7th, 2019

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 2

Assessment is identified as “the process of gathering evidence of student learning to

inform education-relation decisions” (Assessment Literacy Defined). Yet, “education-relation

decisions” is such a broad term. For the most part, education-relation decisions based off

assessment results includes placement of students and quantifies their knowledge by assigning

them a grade. What we as educators should look at is assessment for learning. Assessment for

learning can also be identified as formative assessment. Formative assessment is defined as the

“formal and informal process teachers and students use to gather evidence for the purpose of

improving student learning” (Chappuis, J., Striggins, R., Chappuis, S. & Arter, J., 2012, p. 24).

The former definition of assessment, where it is used for education-relation decisions, can also

be identified as summative assessment. Summative assessment is defined as “assessment

information used to provide evidence of student achievement for the purpose of making a

judgement about student competence or program effectiveness” (Chappuis, J., Striggins, R.,

Chappuis, S. & Arter, J., 2012, p. 24).

Regardless of the type of assessment, formative or summative, assessment results are not

fully indicative of teaching and/or student ability. Assessment results do not fully reflect a

student as a whole. Many additional external factors can affect a student’s score that are not

truly reflective of their abilities and skills. Almost all assessments lack an emotional component

that consider the student as a whole. Additionally, assessment results are also not fully

indicative of a teacher’s ability, or educational quality. James Popham (1999) lists three

significant reasons as to the invalidity of associating educational quality to standardized

achievement test scores: test-mismatch (what is taught locally versus what is tested), elimination

of important test questions (meaningful comparisons among students are only from a small
PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 3

collection of items), and confounded causation (which accounts for what's taught in school,

students’ native intellectual ability, and students’ out-of-school learning).

Because assessment results cannot be 100% reflective of a student’s or teacher’s ability,

it is imperative that assessment results be acted upon. Otherwise, this assessment data is useless

(ASCD, 2015). Using formative assessment in the classroom guarantees that something will be

done about students current level of understanding. Formative assessment is a process and a

continuous learning sequence that occurs during instruction. Some formative assessment

practices during this sequence include: diagnosing student needs, planning next steps in

instruction, giving students targeted practice, and offering feedback (Chappuis, J., Striggins, R.,

Chappuis, S. & Arter, J., 2012). The purpose of these practices to is to close the gap between a

learners’ current situation and where they want to be in their learning and achievement.

Through the use of feedback, students must also be able to act upon their feedback.

Ultimately, it is students’ emotional reaction to their feedback that determines their action.

Students must first have a positive attitude towards assessment. As soon as students determine

that they are too “slow” or “stupid” to learn something, all learning stops. The achievement gap

of student success cannot be reduced if students give up on themselves and stop the learning

process (Stiggins, 2014). Students must be able to self-identify as “winners” instead of “losers”

so that they can be open to receiving a rich curriculum with opportunities for critical reflection

and analysis (Neuman, 2016).

Students should be involved with the assessment process from the beginning. Starting

with the learning targets and expectations. Assessment expectations are very different than

knowing what will be on the assessment. Students should then be involved in the scoring

process of the assessment. This includes understanding assessment scoring, such as rubrics.
PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 4

And lastly, in tandem with feedback, students should engage in self-reflection with the ability to

track and share their learning (Chappuis, J., Striggins, R., Chappuis, S. & Arter, J., 2012).

Although having students be active participants in the assessment process is important, including

them in data discussions is a sensitive subject. The act of judging students’ achievement and

communicating test results can either, trigger emotional dynamics and prevent them from

progressing, or propel them into a powerful learning trajectory (AAL 654). Also, over sharing

data with students is not a strong motivator (Neuman, 2016). But before students can be taken

through the assessment process, the assessment must first be balanced and fair.

A balanced assessment consists of various Depth of Knowledge questions, a variety of

assessment methods and types of questions, with an understanding between the difference of

summative and formative assessment. Depth of Knowledge questions include: Level 1- Recall

and reproduction, Level 2- Basic application of skill and concept, Level 3- Strategic thinking,

and Level 4- Extended thinking (Digital image, n.d.). But since the introduction of Common

Core Standards, high-stakes and other summative assessments, now include more Level 3 and 4

questions. The increase in rigorous assessments, is due to the fact that the rigor in standards has

also increased (Chappuis, 2014). A variety of assessment methods include: selected response,

written response, performance assessment, and personal communication. Each method is unique

and effective for its intended learning target and classification. These assessment methods then

include their own question types: multiple choice, matching, fil-in-the-blank, and providing a

diagram (Chappuis, J., Striggins, R., Chappuis, S. & Arter, J., 2012). The characteristics that I

just described make up the physical component of a balanced assessment. There is still the

underlining tone of culture and language that make an assessment fair.

As noted by Trumbull and Lash (2013):

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 5

Students’ responses to formative assessments, which teachers expect to interpret as

evidence of students’ content knowledge or skill, maybe affected by students’ relative

familiarity with the forms and uses of language in the assessment task. For example, a

student may not understand the grammar (form) of a question or may lack the skills to

mount an evidenced-based argument (one use of language) to respond to the question

adequately. (p. 10)

This is especially true for English Language Learners. These students are not only learning a

new language, but learning new content in that new language; with different subject-matter

domains, in which students are learning how to use a new language as a way to learn and

demonstrate their learning (Trumbull & Lash, 2013). A students’ knowledge is comprised of

what's taught in school, their native intellectual ability, and their out-of-school learning (Popham,

1999) all which can account for a students’ intelligence, knowledge, and ability.

Outside of being a balanced assessment, that accounts for various uses of question types,

assessment methods, and students’ language and culture, assessment must also demonstrate valid

interpretation of students’ ability and knowledge. The best way to support students in their

learning is through “curriculum-teaching.” Curriculum-teaching teaches to a body of knowledge

and/or a set of skills. The counter would be “item-teaching” which is also known as “teaching to

the test.” (Popham, 2001). Item-teaching is focused directly on individual/specific assessment

items. With item-teaching, students are coached through assessments with identical and/or clone

questions. With this additional coaching, students are provided with a stepladder during these

high-stakes exams, which ultimately leads to invalid and bias results of student’s knowledge and

ability. In terms of curriculum-teaching, teachers need to focus on a more comprehensive set of

understandings, which include building students’ background knowledge, being able to apply
PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 6

current their knowledge, and extend student thinking (Neuman, 2016). Valid assessment results

should demonstrate students’ true comprehension skills.

The best way to implement curriculum-teaching to support student learning and

understanding is by having strong curriculum content that is aligned with the standards

associated with the high-stakes exams. These high-stakes exams and summative assessments

now match the increase rigor of the Common Core State Standards. As educators, the best

service that we can provide to our students is a true development of their knowledge,

understanding, ability, and skill. And to do this, educators must really study and identify their

content standards in order to identify and classify learning targets.

Ultimately assessment, formative or summative, is a key component of the educational

system. Assessment is used to demonstrate student learning. Without a form of assessment,

formative or summative, one cannot measure student learning. Formative and summative

assessments support and verify student learning, and without these assessment types, there is no

evidence as to confirm student learning. And because assessment is such a big part of student

learning, it is essential to communicate its importance to stakeholders. Educational stakeholders

refer to anyone who is invested in the welfare and success of a school and its students. Some

educational stakeholders include: students, teachers, administration, parents, and the community

(The Glossary of Education Reform).

Below is a list of assessment information that needs to be communicated to stakeholders,

along with its delivery.

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 7

Communication of Assessment Delivery of Assessment

Information Information
Students • Distinction between formative & • Prior to instruction in the
summative assessments classroom
• Purpose of assessment
• Clear learning targets • During instruction in the
• Models of strong and weak work classroom
• Know how to read and respond
to feedback • Taught continuously throughout
the school year
Teachers • Purpose of assessment • Prior to instruction in the
• Clear learning targets classroom
• Classification of learning targets
• Assessment methods • Do continuously throughout the
• Give descriptive and specific school year
feedback
Parents • Frequent communication of • Email, phone calls, and online
students’ progress towards gradebook
mastery
• Assessment results communicate • Parent meetings
level of mastery
• Know how to read grade reports
• Assessment results are not fully
indicative of teaching and/or
student ability
Administration • Purpose of high-stakes exams • State intentions- share with staff
• Results of high-stakes exams at meetings
• Assessment results are not fully
indicative of teaching and/or • State results- share with staff at
student ability meetings
• Available resources for
struggling students
Community • School’s average high-stakes • California Dashboard
exam scores
• Graduation rates
• Available resources for • School site and parent meetings
struggling students
• Alternative education programs
PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 8

Resources

AAL 654 Quality Assessment for Student Learning. Ethics of Teaching and Assessing.

[PowerPoint Slides].

Assessment Literacy Defined. National Task Force on Assessment Education. [PDF].

Retrieved from: https://www.assessmenteducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Assessment

Literacy-Definition.2017.01.25.pdf

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2015). EL

Takeaways [Image]. Educational Leadership, 73(3). 96. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov15/vol73/num03/EL

Takeaways.aspx

Chappuis, J. (2014). Thoughtful Assessment with the Learner in Mind. Educational

Leadership, 71(6), 20-26.

Chappuis, J., Striggins, R., Chappuis, S. & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom Assessment for Student

Learning: Doing it Right- Doing it Well (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

[Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.niesc.k12.in.us/index.cfm/staff

development/public-consulting-group-co-teaching-session/depthofknowledgechart-pdf/

Neuman, S. B. (2016). Code Red: The danger of Data-Driven Instruction. Educational

Leadership, 74(3), 25-29.

Popham, W. J. (2001). Teaching to the Test? Educational Leadership, 58(6), 16-20.

Popham, W.J. (1999). Why Standardized Test Don’t Measure Educational Quality.

Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-15.

Stiggins, R. (2014, March 4). A New Vision of Excellence in Assessment. [Video file].

Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/XHX2jnKNiyw

PERSONAL ASSESSMENT LITERACY PHILOSOPHY 9

The Glossary of Education Reform. (2014, September 25). Stakeholder. Retrieved

from: https://www.edglossary.org/stakeholder/

Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding Formative Assessment: Insights from Learning

Theory and Measurement Theory. San Franscisco: WestEd.