The Promise of Performance Assessment

Teachers teach to tests at the expense of real concept learning. Teachers lament over student test scores yet solutions point to additional strategies that teach to the tests. Student test scores reflect teacher instruction, so teachers make discriminating choices within their curriculum content for competing higher scores. But what if our educational system valued learning on an incrementally designed performance based assessment? What if students could actually “score” by representing individual capabilities through interactive performance demonstration? What if teachers were given the opportunity to teach without time limits? How would you as a teacher regard acknowledging student learning by what students can actually do as it reflects instruction? The Center for Performance Assessment located in Denver is looking at just such measures.

According to the director, Douglas Reeves, of the Denver-based Center for Performance Assessment, students are “over-tested but under-assessed.” Reeves’ argument states that standardized testing provides information on large groups of students. Standardized testing is promoted as providing a measurement that is relative to all other test takers, and this can be useful information when using a standard that is applied to all in a group. But, according to Reeves, standardized testing is not a good indicator of individual student learning. Assessment that measures individual learning, not just a measuring-stick type standard, will supply a more realistic and accurate picture of student ability. Reeves would like to see schools adopting performance assessment as an essential piece of curriculum and instruction.

The standardized testing dilemma facing educators defeats real learning taking place in the classroom, according to Reeves. Teachers teach to the tests and the results of this type of teaching can be seen as “surface coverage” where crucial curriculum concepts are being excluded. At the expense of meeting standardized testing deadlines, instruction is limited and student learning is sacrificed. In those cases where teachers all along have paced their lessons by using performance assessments and have used these assessments to adjust and improve student understanding, we see a “truer” gauge of learning. Students are more likely to have a broader and deeper understanding of the curriculum topics due to teaching that is integrated with the learning performance as it is demonstrated through continuously flowing assessments.

Performance assessment actually assesses an academic skill either by showing (performing) a skill or demonstrating in some other creative way the knowledge learned. A performance assessment in writing, for instance, would actually require a student to write something, rather than testing a student with multiple choice questions on grammar and punctuation (standardized testing). Performance assessment contributes to improvements students make by altering instructional practices. The performance assessment concept allows students to choose and demonstrate understanding through portfolios, research, presentations, and other methods demonstrating mastery.

Rather than a “race to the finish” as if standardized testing represented the end all in student learning, organized teaching that centers curriculum concepts in “depth and breadth” formats succeeds at real learning taking place. The basic “foundation of high-quality schooling includes an understanding of how students learn.” And, how students learn is central to their understanding and performance.

Reflection: As a teacher, how would you make adjustments in your instruction to include a less “teach to the test” approach or do you think that standardized testing is an accurate measure of student learning and that the curriculum essentially forms the foundation by which students can be tested?

Answer: The problem with standardized testing like standardized anything, is that it is rigid and it does not take individual cases into account. It is a broad-sweeping quantitative measurement that gives an overall picture of what test-makers refer to as “ability.” It seems to me that Howard Gardener has a much clearer understanding of student learning. Standardized tests provide statistical information that has some merit, just as insurance actuaries provide statistical data that is purposeful for insurance rates. But testing as an indicator for absolute student ability is like the number of years in a life span is to life insurance rates. It is simply a piece of information to be used, but it does not define an absolute outcome in every case. A Bell curve is simply one explanation to a myriad of possibilities.

The harm that testing data causes as it relates to intelligence is that people are convinced that testing scores represent a factual reality. Teachers who buy into the standardized test model look at their classrooms of twenty-four students superficially through the eyes of averaging. A teacher subconsciously dismisses subtle differences and strengths. Grouping and tracking practices are sustained through this ostensibly defined system. Student ability assessment includes detailed information on exact strengths and weaknesses specific to the individual. Using tools like performance assessments and interaction within the classroom that allows for individual differences shows a truer picture of individual student capability.

Teachers have an unassailable responsibility for properly assessing student-learning outcomes because our educational system places indisputable trust and judgment in the results. Many teachers hope that reform is on its way.

Submitted by:Bonnie Moisan, American University
Source:In the February 2003 issue of American School Board Journal, "The Promise of Performance Assessment"