Since assessment plays such a major role in the teaching-learning process, teachers need to understand and get familiarised with all its technical aspects; its advantages and limitations so that they can better utilise them in their teaching programmes. Therefore, the purposes of this paper will discuss the assessment tool; identify its learning journey by clarifying its purposeful approach and by discussing its functionality, validity and reliability as an associated assessment tool. The accumulated data will be used to show a statistical representation of the student results and how they figure within a statistical framework.
This particular assessment tool was selected because it is very consistent and extremely reliable. The fact that the assessment is standardised and has a set of rules that need to be adhered to when administering the assessment, reinforce its context and reliability. The assessment tool was a set of multiple choice questions taken from the ‘Basic Skills Agency’ and was developed to align with the National Standards for the Adult Literacy Framework. This I feel ensured that the content was valid, relevant and subject specific to the objectives as per the curriculum. The tool is designed to remove the barriers of time and place and to give the individual learner the freedom to select or negotiate accordingly.
My job was to provide this resource in a support and learning environment which enables learners to maximise their achievements. The assessment tool challenged candidate reading and writing skills by checking for understanding across multiple platform levels, (i.e. Pre-Entry through to Level 1). The construct validity of this particular assessment focused on the reading and writing aspects of the course and I feel these were measured in an appropriate manner and the assessment tool was very practical for the purpose that it was designed for. Furthermore the set questions were concise, very relevant and extremely clear in there needs.
The marking of a Basic Skills Assessment is particularly straightforward, as a marking sheet is supplied that prevents or eliminates any uncertainties that may arise and which in turn reduces the amount of time that is taken to successfully mark candidates papers and increases its ease of use. As an assessment tool it allows for very quick feedback and these results can be analysed just as quickly to allow for the tutoring process to begin.
As such, I rely on my own observations and a student’s class work to make decisions about a learner’s performance and abilities; a claim supported by Hager & Butler who stress that,
“In the judgemental model of assessment, it is the assessor who delivers objectivity, not the data.”
Hager & Butler (1996)
The assessment was marked using a scoring system of 1 if it was correct and 0 if incorrect. The marks are clearly shown beside each question and then a total is entered at the end of each page. The final totals are then entered onto the front cover sheet of the completed assessment, and are clearly visible. These totals when cross referenced against the marking sheet indicate the level within which the candidate appears. This data was accumulated to create a statistical analysis in the form of a line graph, other results showed the break down of data capture into their mathematical equivalences. The results from the data input was scrutinised to show the appropriateness of the assessment tool.
“Re-enforcement should be positive and criticism constructive not negative”.
Reece & Walker (2003), p.78
The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA 2005) builds on and extends earlier disability discrimination legislation, principally the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and I ensured that that was adhered to at all times. The new changes require all public bodies to promote equality of opportunity to all people and ensures that the discriminiation law covers all activities within the public sector.
“Equal opportunity means everyone will have a fair chance at being incompetent”
Laurence J. Peter (1919-1988) ()
I am well aware that learners are unique as individuals and their requirements are dependant upon their ability. It should be noted that all students were treated equally, reagrdless of their age, gender or academic ability, more importantly making mistakes in class was encouraged as these could be worked on and it was ensured via close supervision that all students had a fair opportunity to make those mistakes. Students were made to feel as comfortable as possible so that progressive learning could take place.
I always endeavour to better myself and improve many aspects of my own teaching practice by ensuring flexibility, becoming more approachable, allowing for better aids to support learning and ensuring the successful retention of students. Continuous Professional Development (CPD) is relevant to all teachers. It is about making progress in the teaching profession and increasing teachers' skills, knowledge and understanding. A teacher being actively involved in a process of CPD is crucial; it seems to me, for several reasons:
- It helps us to remain fresh, alert, up to date, and confident in ourselves and in the topic we teach.
- It enables us to participate in and contribute to the development of our schools as ‘learning organisations’ and our profession as a ‘learning profession’.
- Perhaps most importantly it benefits our learners to be taught by teachers who are engaged in these first two activities, teachers who are themselves showing learning and teachers who are in some way on the same side of the learning fence as their students.
“Teacher development is the process of becoming the best teacher one is able to be, a process that can be started but never finished”.
()
I welcomed the candidates and asked them if they had any questions that needed answering before administering the assessment. I ensured that no information was given that would aid the students in completing the assessment as this would have invalidated the assessment. Every student made an attempt in completing the assessment. I praised all students on attempting the assessment and informed them that they would be receiving their feedback whilst we worked together on their Individual Learning Plans (ILP’s). The assessment served its purpose and gave me perspective on the comprehension of the students. It was relevant for the course as it focused on a range of areas and was not influenced by anything or anybody located in the room.
There was quite a mixed reaction to the assessment, some students found it a little daunting, others experienced difficulties, whilst some preferred not to comment upon it. Two of the candidates were a little excited at undertaking the assessment but showed apprehensive at receiving the results. The other candidates were more forthcoming and showed a lot of enthusiasm. I feel the reasoning behind this is that they had never experienced anything along these lines. My personal point of view is that the assessment was extremely sufficient for determining student abilities. Samples have been chosen for this assessment; they represent results at the two spectrums, the first student has done very well whilst the other student had not done as well. Feedback from the assessment encouraged learners to want to improve their scores and therefore their skills.
“The process of evaluating requires tutors to make decisions that are grounded in their own personal value systems”
Stiggins (1984)
The results from the assessment indicated that 30% of the students were working at Level 1, 50% were well within Entry 3 and the remaining 20% were working at Entry 2 . The standard deviation of 6.58 suggests that the test was suitable for most of the students. The mean result was 63.2, showing that on average the students scored in or around this figure. The bi-modal value was 64 as this was the most frequent result and the median or middle number or half way point was also 64. The overall variant was well balanced at 5.08. These statistics show that the assessment was more then appropriate in helping to identify learner needs.
The entire focus of the assessment method was to create a tool that would be of most benefit to the student. Theoretical rhetoric constantly reinforces the requirements to cater for the student needs both, as individuals and as a whole group. This module has taught me that not only do we need assessment methods but we must ensure that they are of paramount importance with regards to the validity of their content, its construct and face value. I don’t feel I need to question the reliability and functionality of my assessment tool due to its impressive performance. This assessment tool will be used by me in years to follow because of its relevance and mapping to the national curriculum along with the matching of learning outcomes. This approach is imperative when dealing with life long learners who have been out of the education system for a number of years.
“A teacher can encourage dialectical thinking by modelling being well informed on a topic and presenting different sides of an issue. The point is not to choose between one viewpoint or the other, but to utilise techniques from each that can be of help to students”.
()
FENTO Standards B1 a-f; B2 a-c; G1 d-f; G2 c-e; G3 a-e
Minimum Core 2.4, 3.1, 3.4, 4.3, 4.8, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4
Websites:
()
()
Word Count: 2,064
References
Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, Assessment and Society: A Sociological Analysis. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Hager, P. and Butler, J. (1996). Two Models of Educational Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(4), 367-378.
Reece I and Walker S (2003) Teaching, Training and Learning: A Practical Guide (5th. Edition), Business Education Publishers Ltd
Stiggins, R. J. (1984). Evaluating Students by Classroom Observation: Watching Students Grow. Washington DC: National Education Association.
Internet Resources
()
()
Bibliography
Adelman, C., King, D., & Treacher, V. (1990). Assessment and teacher autonomy. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20(2), 123-133.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1): 7-74.
Black, P., and William, D. (1998). Inside The Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2): 139-148.
Broadfoot, P. (1996). Education, Assessment and Society: A Sociological Analysis. Buckingham. Open University Press.
Hager, P. and Butler, J. (1996). Two Models of Educational Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(4), 367-378.
Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (1989). Searching for Alternatives to Standardized Tests: Whys, Whats, and Whithers. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 683-687.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1987). Curriculum-based Measurement: An Introduction. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools.
Neill, D. M., & Medina, N. J. (1989). Standardized Testing: Harmful to Educational Health. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 688-697.
Nelson, C., et al (1990). Informal Assessment in Educational Evaluation. NCELA Program Information Guide Series (3) 1-18.
Pikulski, J. J. (1990). Assessment: The Role of Tests in a Literary Assessment Program. The Reading Teacher, 44, 686-688.
Reece I and Walker S (2003) Teaching, Training and Learning: A Practical Guide (5th. Edition), Business Education Publishers Ltd
Shephard, L.A. (1989). Why We Need Better Assessments. Educational Leadership, 46 (7), 4-9.
()
()
Cert ED (Year 1) Module EMOU03
