Inquiry Proposal:
The focus of this inquiry will be on assessment. It will evaluate assessment of learning, assessment for learning and assessment as learning. This inquiry will attempt to establish a way to incorporate all three aspects of assessment to better inform both parents and students on the progress that they are making in various subjects and units.
The inquiry question was raised with discussions about the advantages and disadvantageous of giving students letter grades. One major concern was how to assess inquiry-based learning. Working in schools where inquiry based learning is a new method of education; many parents are left wondering about their children’s educational progress. Often times the letter grade on a students report card does not measure their progress rather it measures their ability of meeting the grade level standards (Biberman-Shalev et.al., 2011). In addition, they shape the student’s self-image, motivation and popularity among peers, as well as parents’ expectation standards (Biberman-Shalev, et.al., 2011). The inquiry will investigate methods of assessing inquiry-based learning, while informing both the student and parents on progress and levels of success.
This inquiry question is significant because educators are always being asked to assess their student’s progress. Often times the pressure of the school system as well as parents expectations require reports at the end of the term, measuring what the student has learned. Summative assessment tools often do this type of assessment. However, often times, educators are assessing using formative tools as well.
Formative assessment is a pedagogical strategy used to obtain student understanding at any point during a unit. The most successful way for teachers to carry out formative assessment is to use the outcomes to make instructional decisions and provide feedback that directs learning. As a result, formative assessment should be a cyclical activity that occurs several times in a unit (Trauth-Nare and Buck, 2011).
The problem arises when it is time to report student’s learning using formative assessment. This inquiry will evaluate different ways of reporting students learning, that steps away from summative assessment, and attempts to establish formative assessment tools that can be informative for the parents and the administration. It will be significant, especially when assessing students with learning disabilities, whom are making tremendous progress, however still short of meeting the standards. It will also focus on assessment as learning, allowing students to familiarize themselves with their individual progress, and assess their own learning.
Predisposition perspectives brought to this inquiry are experiences from both grading systems. The summative grading system was experienced during completion of an undergraduate degree. The formative grading system is being experienced during the bachelors of education program. Having experiences of both grading systems adds different perspectives and allows for further comprehension of the systems. It also allows for better analogies and comparison of pros and cons.
Rheiberg, 2001, argues that grading in school implies two processes. First, achievement must be measured and second, individual achievement must be compared with a given standard. He talks about the three ways of grading implemented in schools. In criterion-referenced grading, individual achievement is compared with an objective standard. Secondly, in norm-referenced grading, individual achievement is compared with the achievements of a social group, for example classmates. Lastly, in individual-referenced grading, a student’s achievement is compared with his or her previous achievement (Rheiberg, 2001).
With the grading systems in place, it is the criterion-referenced grading that we are seeing. However, when students are engaged in inquiry based learning, there should be a greater focus on individual-referenced grading. The question is firstly how to report that, and secondly is it truly beneficial for the student.
To carry out this inquiry, publically availably journal articles will be used. These articles are used to highlight the research done on formative assessment. Furthermore, curriculum documents will be used as a resource for implementing formative assessment in the classroom. In addition data collected from students self-assessment, will be used for further analysis and reporting.
The implementation of formative assessment may not always have the anticipated results, or full participation by students. In addition, self-evaluation by students can result in under or over estimation of their abilities or progress. This estimation may be difficult to explain to students as a result directing the inquiry to teaching students how best to self evaluate, rather than focusing on reporting their self-evaluation, and using it as an assessment tool. In addition, formative assessment may only be implemented in one unit, and slowly progress, rather than it being implemented in all aspects of grading. It is anticipated that formative assessment will be a slow progression, and that it will be integrated into one unit. To embed this form of assessment into a unit Traith-Nare and Buck (2011), suggest identifying students’ interests, which can be used as the starting point for planning instruction. With this perspective, it is anticipated that formative assessment can then be integrated as a part of the unit, and less focus will be on teaching self-assessment, and more on carrying out the concept.
References:
Biberman-Shalev, L., Sabbagh, C., Resh, N., & Kramarski, B. (2011). Grading styles and disciplinary expertise: The mediating role of the teacher’s perception of the subject matter. Teachin and Teacher Education. 27, 831-834.
Rheinberg, F. (2001). Bezugsnormorientierung [Comparison norm orientation]. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie (pp. 55–62). Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.
Trauth-Nare, A., & Buck, G. (2001). Assessment “for” Learning: Using Formative Assessment in Problem- and Project-Based Learning. Science Teacher, 78(1), 34-39.