William Cope
May Thet Khine Nyein
Obie Ellmoos.png "Nathan Luise")
Nathan Luise
Olive SabiitiAssessment for Learning MOOC’s Updates
Standards-Based and Alternative Practices of Assessment (Admin Update 3)
Standards-based assessment allows the possibility that everyone in a certain level of education or in the same class can succeed. For the underlying principles, see:
Criterion referenced, norm-referenced and self-referenced assessments have fundamentally different logics and social purposes. In the following image from Chapter 10 of our New Learning book, we attempt to characterize the different logics. But what are the different social assumptions?
Comment: What are the social assumptions of each kind of assessment? What are the consequences for learners? For better and/or for worse, in each case?
Make an Update: Find an example of an alternative form of assessment. Describe and analyze it.
There are two kinds of assessments in the tutorial, IQ test and formative assessment.
The social assumption of IQ test is that don’t let to No Child Left Behind. This assessment measure the students capacities in a way that can be appropriately placed. This assessment can help students identify their own limits but is not suitable for students with intellectual development problems.
The social assumption of formative assessment is that let to “Every Child Succeeds”. This assessment allows students to work at their own place, group work, and intensive tutoring. This assessment tells teachers about some students that need help. However, it faces the challenge of being time consuming.
In addition to the above assessment, there is another alternative assessment method called criterion-referenced assessment. Example: a high school biology teacher uses a criterion-referenced assessment to evaluate students' understanding of cell structure and function. The assessment includes multiple-choice questions, short-answer questions, and a diagram labeling activity. The results of the assessment show that while most students understand the basic structure of a cell, many are struggling to understand the function of specific organelles.
As a college math teacher, I see different types of assessments and their social assumptions, as well as their consequences for learners.
Standardized Tests: The social assumption here is that everyone should be measured by the same standard to ensure fairness and objectivity. This means that all students, regardless of their background, are expected to perform under the same conditions. The consequences for learners can be mixed. On the positive side, standardized tests can highlight areas where students need more help, and they can provide a clear benchmark for academic achievement. However, these tests can also create a lot of stress and anxiety. They might not reflect the true abilities of students who are good at practical or creative tasks but not at taking tests. Additionally, students from different cultural or educational backgrounds might find these tests unfair because the questions might not align with their experiences.
Formative Assessments (like quizzes, homework, and class participation): The social assumption here is that learning is a continuous process, and students should be assessed regularly to help them improve. These assessments are designed to provide ongoing feedback. The consequences for learners are generally positive. Formative assessments can help students understand their strengths and weaknesses and give them a chance to improve before the final exam. They also reduce the pressure of a single high-stakes test. However, if not done carefully, they can become overwhelming for students if they feel like they are constantly being tested.
Summative Assessments (like final exams and major projects): The social assumption is that at the end of a learning period, students should demonstrate what they have learned. These assessments are often high-stakes and can determine final grades. The consequences for learners can be significant. On the positive side, they provide a clear goal for students to work towards and can motivate them to study hard. However, they can also be very stressful, and if a student has a bad day or is not good at taking tests, their performance might not reflect their true understanding of the material.
In my classes, I try to balance these different types of assessments to get a complete picture of each student’s abilities. I use standardized tests to measure basic skills, formative assessments to provide ongoing feedback, and summative assessments to evaluate overall learning. This way, I can support my students in a more balanced and fair way, helping them to succeed in their own unique ways.
In the context of the Philippines, different types of assessments—formative, summative, and standardized—carry distinct social assumptions and consequences for learners. Formative assessments assume that learning is a continuous process enhanced by regular feedback, which can foster a supportive environment and promote student growth; however, poor implementation may lead to frustration. Conversely, summative assessments, often viewed as a measure of accountability, may pressure students to focus on grades rather than understanding, potentially resulting in a superficial grasp of concepts. Standardized assessments are believed to provide an objective measure of performance across demographics, but they may overlook individual strengths and weaknesses, leading to discouragement among students who struggle with test-taking. Overall, while these assessments can offer valuable insights, they can also reinforce inequalities and create a competitive atmosphere that detracts from genuine learning experiences.
Each type of assessment—norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, and self-referenced—carries specific social assumptions about learning and achievement, with consequences for learners that vary depending on the approach. Norm-referenced assessments operate on the assumption that learning is best understood in comparison to others. By placing students on a bell curve, this competitive framework assumes that some learners will inevitably outperform others, creating a hierarchy of success. The consequence for learners, particularly those who fall toward the lower end of the curve, is often a sense of inadequacy or failure, which can demotivate and alienate them. On the other hand, students who perform well may thrive under the pressure of competition but may also develop a narrow view of success, where outperforming peers becomes more important than actual mastery of content.
In contrast, criterion-referenced assessments are based on the idea that all students can meet set standards if given the right resources and time. This approach encourages the belief that learning is universally attainable and focuses on mastery rather than comparison. For learners, this can be a more positive experience, as success is defined by meeting clear, objective benchmarks rather than outperforming others. This approach promotes persistence and allows for individualized pacing, reducing the pressure of competition. However, the challenge lies in the pressure to meet these criteria within limited timeframes, and students who struggle to reach the standards may still face frustration or stigmatization if they don’t receive adequate support.
Self-referenced assessments, on the other hand, assume that personal progress is the most meaningful measure of learning. This model values individual growth and allows learners to focus on their own improvements rather than comparing themselves to others or external standards. The consequence for learners is often empowerment, as they are encouraged to reflect on their progress and develop resilience through self-improvement. However, without external benchmarks, learners may sometimes lack a clear sense of where they stand in relation to societal or professional expectations, which could present challenges when they enter environments that demand standardized measures of achievement. In all cases, these social assumptions shape not only how learning is measured but also how students perceive their abilities and their potential for growth, for better or worse.
@Cindy Deguito,@May Flor Castillo,@Marynel Comidoy,@Michael Llagas,
Each type of assessment has its strengths and weaknesses and can have different social implications. Norm-referenced assessments were designed to help us understand how students' performance stacks up against their peers. While this can help identify areas where a student may need extra support or enrichment, it can also lead to feelings of inferiority or superiority if students compare themselves to others. For the Criterion reference, I want to highlight the No Child Left Behind Policy. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy, while well-intentioned to ensure that all Filipino children receive the same opportunities to learn and become literate regardless of their background (Maligalig et al., 2010), had negative consequences for the Philippine education system. Designed to ensure equal educational opportunities for all Filipino children, NCLB's one-size-fits-all approach assumes that all students learn at the same pace and in the same way which is challenging because students are naturally diverse having multiple intelligences. Also, this emphasis on standardized testing and competency standards led to increased stress, a narrowed curriculum, and less focus on essential skills beyond test preparation.
Overall, the social implications of these assessments in the Philippines were mixed. While the policy aimed to improve educational outcomes, it also had unintended negative consequences. It is important to consider these implications when evaluating the effectiveness of educational policies and reforms.
@May Flor Castillo,@Marynel Comidoy,@Christian Jay Fajartin,
Each type of assessment has its strengths and weaknesses and can have different social implications. Norm-referenced assessments were designed to help us understand how students' performance stacks up against their peers. While this can help identify areas where a student may need extra support or enrichment, it can also lead to feelings of inferiority or superiority if students compare themselves to others. For the Criterion reference, I want to highlight the No Child Left Behind Policy. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy, while well-intentioned to ensure that all Filipino children receive the same opportunities to learn and become literate regardless of their background (Maligalig et al., 2010), had negative consequences for the Philippine education system. Designed to ensure equal educational opportunities for all Filipino children, NCLB's one-size-fits-all approach assumes that all students learn at the same pace and in the same way which is challenging because students are naturally diverse having multiple intelligences. Also, this emphasis on standardized testing and competency standards led to increased stress, a narrowed curriculum, and less focus on essential skills beyond test preparation.
Overall, the social implications of these assessments in the Philippines were mixed. While the policy aimed to improve educational outcomes, it also had unintended negative consequences. It is important to consider these implications when evaluating the effectiveness of educational policies and reforms.
@May Flor Castillo,@Marynel Comidoy,@Christian Jay Fajartin,
Criterion-referenced assessments operate under the social assumption that all students can achieve a certain level of mastery with appropriate instruction and time and that meeting predefined standards is crucial, regardless of other students' performance. These assessments offer clear expectations and allow for individual progress. Still, they can also create pressure to meet specific benchmarks and may have a limited scope that overlooks broader skills like creativity or critical thinking.
On the other hand, norm-referenced assessments compare student performance to their peers, fostering a competitive environment that can motivate students and help identify both high achievers and those needing additional support. However, this approach can lead to stress, anxiety, and inequity, particularly affecting students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Self-referenced assessments focus on personal growth and intrinsic motivation, encouraging personalized learning and reducing stress by eliminating peer comparison. Yet, they might need more external benchmarks, making it challenging to gauge performance relative to broader standards, and could lead to complacency. Each assessment type has its assumptions and consequences, suggesting that a mixed approach could provide a more comprehensive evaluation of student learning.
Each type of assessment carries specific social assumptions that impact learners in various ways. For instance, standardized tests operate under the belief that knowledge and skills can be uniformly measured, allowing for objective comparisons among students. This approach suggests that students' abilities can be quantified and ranked, which can lead to significant consequences such as tracking, placement, and resource allocation. While this can promote accountability and standardization, it may also encourage a narrow focus on teaching to the test, potentially neglecting broader educational goals.
In contrast, formative assessments operate on the premise that learning is an ongoing process, with feedback and improvement as central aims. This type of assessment prioritizes growth and development over time, highlighting the belief that all students can progress and improve. For learners, this creates a more supportive environment and reduces the pressure associated with high-stakes testing; however, it may also result in less rigor if not implemented effectively or if feedback is inconsistent.
Portfolio and performance-based assessments assume that learning is multifaceted and personal, suggesting that students' unique abilities are best demonstrated through projects and real-world tasks. While this approach can enhance confidence and provide a deeper sense of relevance, it also risks introducing subjectivity in grading and can be difficult to standardize across diverse learners.
Ultimately, each type of assessment shapes the learning environment in distinct ways, influencing students’ motivations, stress levels, and the overall depth of their educational experience.
@May Flor Castillo,@Marynel Comidoy,@Stephanie Pablo,@Michael Llagas,
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Child Succeeds (ECS) acts, while well-intentioned, have been criticized for making certain social assumptions that can have negative consequences. This context in the Philippines signifies that all students must learn at the same pace and pass each year level together. This needs to pay more attention to the students' diverse learning styles. Teachers must create adaptive and integrated teaching strategies to cater to diverse learners. This law also emphasizes that standardized tests are one of the primary indicators of the student's success. This can lead to a narrow curriculum that only focuses on test preparation rather than the broader learning for the students.
Aside from paper and pencil tests, there are also some assessments wherein we can check how the students process their learning through their experiences, like making a progress portfolio where students can self-reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and what the lessons they need to restudy for them to have a rigor of the subject matter. Students can self-regulate their learning through this kind of assessment, which is reflective and more meaningful.
@Michael Llagas,@May Flor Castillo,@Stephanie Pablo,@Joseph Rizon,@Joan Valery Espinosa,
It's true that both the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Child Succeeds (ECS) acts, while aimed at improving educational outcomes, tend to focus heavily on standardized testing as the main measure of success. This approach can sometimes create a narrow view of learning, where passing tests becomes the priority rather than fostering a broader, more inclusive educational experience. In the Philippine context, this can make it challenging for students who have different learning paces and styles, as it assumes everyone should move through the curriculum at the same rate. Teachers definitely face the task of finding ways to adapt their instruction to accommodate this diversity, which can be tough with the focus on standardized assessments. That’s why alternative assessments, like progress portfolios, offer such valuable insight. They allow students to self-reflect on their learning journey, pinpoint areas for growth, and recognize their strengths, which can make learning feel more personal and meaningful. By encouraging self-regulation and a deeper engagement with the material, these reflective assessments help students build skills that go beyond what a standardized test can measure. So while there’s a place for testing, incorporating more diverse assessment methods could make a huge difference in supporting well-rounded development.
The social assumptions for each kind of assessment are the following: for norm-referenced is student can be compared against each other, for criterion-referenced is to check that all students have met a learning criterion and for self-referenced is following a learners' progress over time. All of which serves for its purpose and if this assessments are carried on properly then the results might be reliable and valid to use for curriculum enhancement if not for improvement.
You've made some great points about the social assumptions underlying different types of assessments! Each type indeed serves a distinct purpose. Norm-referenced assessments operate on the assumption that student performance can be compared against peers, which can highlight relative strengths and weaknesses within a group. Criterion-referenced assessments, on the other hand, focus on whether all students have achieved specific learning outcomes, aiming to ensure everyone meets a certain standard or level of proficiency. Lastly, self-referenced assessments prioritize individual progress, tracking how much a learner has grown over time and emphasizing personal development. When these assessments are implemented thoughtfully, the data they provide can be extremely valuable for improving the curriculum, guiding instructional strategies, and supporting student growth.
While knowledge testing analyzes what a person has studied or memorized, intelligence testing typically evaluates cognitive talents, problem-solving skills, and adaptability. While knowledge tests are suited for educational settings to assess topic mastery, intelligence tests may be appropriate in situations such as aptitude assessments or psychological evaluations. If used incorrectly, both methods may be ineffective: knowledge assessments may not capture critical thinking or practical abilities, while IQ tests may not take cultural differences into consideration.
@Marynel Comidoy,