A.P.P.L.E.
Lietuviškai
July, 2001
Proposed Seminar Topic for A.P.P.L.E. Summer
Seminar 2002
ASSESSMENT ISSUES and OPTIONS
The American Professional Partnership for Lithuanian Education (APPLE)
held its first Teacher In-Service Training Seminar in 1991. Since that first
summer a decade ago, the form and content of the seminars have evolved from
participant-driven to issue-driven programs. In the early years, those who
served as Strand Instructors chose the seminar topics in consultation with
APPLE seminar planners and the Lithuanian Ministry of Education. Since 1999,
seminar topics have been suggested by Lithuanian educators, Ministry of Education
representatives and APPLE members who have become increasingly aware of the
need to present the latest in educational research findings to knowledgeable
and receptive Lithuanian teachers. It then became the task of the APPLE
leadership to find qualified professionals who would discuss the chosen topics
from theoretical and practical perspectives.
It has always been a goal of the APPLE Summer In-service Training
Seminars that the theory, research, techniques and classroom practice presented
at the seminars would be carried by the seminar participants back to their
local schools and shared with colleagues, school administrators, students
and parents. Perhaps the most broadly applied topic was Action Research,
the seminar topic in 1999 and 2000. Lithuanian teachers and administrators
worked with American specialists to identify potential questions related
to the quality of instruction in their classrooms. These seminar participants
assisted by Lithuanian doctoral students conducted their own Action Research
projects during the 1999-2000 school year. The results of these research
projects were reported at the 2000 APPLE Summer Seminar. But that was not
the conclusion of the Action Research project. The goal was to provide teachers
with the research tools necessary to provide an ongoing research plan to
answer questions about education strategies and discover ways to improve
the quality of classroom instruction.
Back to top of page
2002 APPLE Seminar Topic: ASSESSMENT ISSUES and OPTIONS
We are living in the age of accountability. Families, businesses,
educational and religious institutions and all levels of governments must
face constant scrutiny or risk being labeled dysfunctional, unproductive,
wasteful and unresponsive to the needs of its members, employees, customers,
and citizens.
Educators have become overwhelmed with issues of assessment and evaluation.
Terminology ranges from institutional effectiveness to behavioral objectives.
Teachers, administrators, local, regional and national boards ask questions
about the quality of education. They assess the school function, the school
organization, the school curriculum, the methods of instruction, the testing
program, the process for student placement and the ability to meet the students’
learning needs. Regardless of the particular focus, The American Federation
of Teachers, the National Council on Measurement in Education, The National
Education Association and other professional associations generally define
assessment as the process of obtaining information that is used to make educational
decisions about students, to give feedback to the student about his or her
progress, strengths, and weaknesses, to judge instructional effectiveness
and curricular adequacy, and to inform policy. (BUROS Institute, 1990)
If the assessment task is daunting, the results have equally far-reaching
implications. Students, teachers and entire schools may pass or fail based
on high-stakes standardized test results. As Popham observed, the mission
of standardized achievement tests is to permit valid inferences about the
knowledge and/or skills that a given student possesses in a particular content
area (1999, p. 9). These high-stakes tests should not be used to judge the
quality of education. The problem of interpreting standardized test scores
is confounded by three factors that contribute to students’ scores of these
tests: (1) what’s taught in school, (2) a student’s native intellectual
ability, and (3) a student’s out-of-school learning (Popham, p. 12).
A teacher’s assessment of student achievement is hampered by similar
problems. Three issues that cloud the effectiveness of teacher created tests
concern (1) effective learning, (2) negative impact and (3) the managerial
role of assessment. When examining what is defined as effective learning,
Black and Wiliam (1998) assert that most teacher-constructed tests encourage
rote and superficial learning. These tests usually are not shared with other
teachers and lack any critical review of what they actually assess. Black
and Wiliam raise the issue of the potential negative impact of giving marks
and comparing students with one another. The third issue of the managerial
role of assessment questions the function of teacher feedback that places
a higher priority on test performance than on the analysis of pupil’s learning
needs.
When assessment is discussed and debated among educational professionals,
the points of controversy ultimately focus on three essential questions:
(1) Who or what is being assessed? (2) What is the purpose of the assessment?
And (3) Who will make the assessment? Schmoker and Marzano emphasize the
link between assessment and the necessity for standards-based education when
they predict; “We will realize the promise of school reform when we establish
standards and expectations for reaching them that are clear, not confusing,
essential, not exhaustive. The result will be a new coherence and a shared
focus that could be the most propitious step we can take toward educating
all students well (1999, p. 21).
Participants:
We could include a strand for School Inspectors to discuss issues
and options for assessing teachers. Another strand for principals to discuss
issues and options for assessing school programs. Several strands for teachers
to discuss issues and options for assessing students. We need to invite
representatives from Parent Organizations and local School Boards to open
communication channels between the schools and the community. Panel Discussions
could be featured as part of General Lecture or Choice Lecture offerings.
Back to top of page
Content and Instruction:
We need to consult the Ministry to see what philosophical and practical
issues should be addressed. May show video: Another Set of Eyes (ASCD).
General Lectures: The diversity of the topic suggests that several
topics be addressed. Perhaps follow the format introduced by the Brain Research
lectures. Have different specialists present topics related to their research
area. Cost and availability will determine if we invite one well known lecturer
or have several speakers cover a broad spectrum of topics.
Group Discussions: Do we want small group discussions by school
units, specialty (language arts, music, elementary) or topics of individual
interest?
Facilitators:
American Lecturers: Dr. Virginia Tomlinson (Univ. of Virginia).
Dr. Art Costa (JoAnn Hammer will contact) is active in ASCD and
has written extensively on higher order thinking skills, brain research,
and assessment. Author of Habits of Mind. Steve Bailey (Phyllis Deringis
will contact) is Curriculum Director of the South Portland Schools, K-12.
Conducts a popular series for teachers: Improving Local Student Assessment
practices—The importance of thinking like an assessor: Coaching teachers
in the design of high quality student assessment practices. How to build
collaboration into the student evaluation process. Designing a comprehensive
assessment system that supports the improvement of learning and teaching.
Lithuanian Facilitators: Algirdas Zabulionis
REFERENCES
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (October, 1998). “Inside the Black Box: raising
Standards through Classroom Assessment. PHI DELTA KAPPAN (80:2). 139-148.
BUROS Institute (1990). “Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational
Assessment of Students.” University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Popham, W. J. (March, 1999). “Why Standardized Tests Don’t Measure Educational
Quality.,” Educational Leadership (56:6). 8-15.
Schmoker, M. and Marzano, R. (March, 1999). “Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based
Education,” Educational Leadership (56:6). 17-21.