Advertisement

Classroom Assessment: A Key Component to Support Education Transformation

  • Jon K. PriceEmail author
  • Daniel Light
  • Elizabeth Pierson
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)

Abstract

Through global assessment reform initiatives like the Assessment and Teaching of twenty-first century Skills (ATC21S) and the Collaborative Assessment Alliance, Intel® has been working alongside governments and policy-makers to create new national standards and national assessments. But understanding how classroom assessment can support education transformation is also the result of research on how Intel’s professional development (PD) programs help teachers use assessment for learning as part of a twenty-first century learning environment. In this paper, we highlight the research on six assessment strategies that should be part of a twenty-first century learning environment and encourage ministries to consider how these strategies may play a role in their own reform efforts: (1) Rubrics, (2) Performance-based assessments (PBAs), (3) Portfolios, (4) Student self-assessment, (5) Peer-assessment, and (6) Student response systems (SRS).

Keywords

Classroom Assessment Reform 

References

  1. Anderson, J. O., & Bachor, D. G. (1998). A Canadian perspective on Portfolio use in student assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 353–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade, H. L., Ying, D., & Xiaolei, W. (2008). Putting Rubrics to the test: The effect of a model, criteria generation, and Rubric-referenced self-assessment on elementary school students’ writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principals. London: British Educational Research Association (BERA).Google Scholar
  5. ATC21S.ORG. (2013). Retrieved from http://atc21s.org/
  6. Barootchi, N., & Keshavarz, M. H. (2002). Assessment of achievement through portfolios and teacher-made tests. Educational Researcher, 44, 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based Pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Bransford, J. (2000). National Research Council (U.S.). Comittee on Developments in The Science of Learning & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Learning Research And Educational Practice. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, H., Kanjee, A., Bettinger, E., & Kremer, M. (2006). Improving education through assessment, innovation, and evaluation. Cambridge: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. Bruff, D. (2007). Clickers: A classroom innovation. National Education Association Advocate, 25, 5–8.Google Scholar
  12. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chang, C.-C. (2009). Portfolio assessment system for various student motivation levels. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41, 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chisholm, L. (2004). The Quality of primary education in South Africa; Background paper for the Education for all global monitoring report 2005: The quality imperative; 2004. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  15. Cho, M. (1999). Portfolio development in a secondary teaching credential art programme. Journal of Art and Design Education, 18(2), 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collaborative Assessment Alliance. (2013). Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://www.caa21.org/
  17. Darling-Hammond, L. & Pecheone, R. (2009). Reframing Accountability: Using Performance Assessments to Focus Learning on Higher-Order Skills. In L. M. PINKUS (Ed.) Meaningful measurement: The role of assessments in improving high school education in the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  18. Dikli, S. (2003). Assessment at a distance: Traditional vs. alternative assessments. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2, 13–19.Google Scholar
  19. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EFA Global Monitoring Report Team. (2004). Education for all: The quality imperative; EFA global monitoring report, 2005. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  21. Fok, P. -K., Kennedy, K., Chan, K. -S. J. & Yu, W. -M. F. (2006). Integrating assessment of learning and assessment for learning in Hong Kong public examinations: Rationales and realities of introducing school-based assessment. 32nd Annual Conference of the International Association for Education Assessment. Singapore.Google Scholar
  22. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? formative assessment for students and teachers. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  24. Hume, A., & Coll, R. K. (2009). Assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning: New Zealand case studies. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 16, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Upgrading the Curriculum: 21st Century Assessment Types and Skills. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
  26. Kellaghan, T., & Greaney, V. (2003). Monitoring performance: Assessment and examinations in Africa. Mauritius: Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA) Biennial Meeting.Google Scholar
  27. Light. (2005). REDAL (Redes Escolares de América Latina): Una investigación de las mejores prácticas. Montevideo: IDRC-Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Light, D., & Rockman, C. (2008). The emerging paradigm of teaching and learning in discovery schools, evaluation of the jordan education initiative. Washington, D.C.: Education Development Center.Google Scholar
  29. Light, D., McMillan Culp, K., Menon, R., & Shulman, S. (2006). Preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom: Current findings from evaluations of the Intel Teach to the future essentials course. New York: EDC/Center for Children and Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Light, D., Strother, S, & Polin, D. (2009). Emerging changes in ICT‐rich learning environments: The Intel® Teach essentials course and changing teacher practice in India, Turkey, and Chile. New York: Center for Children and Technology Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved from http://download.intel.com/education/EvidenceOfImpact/Role_of_ICT.pdf
  31. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87, 40–49.Google Scholar
  32. Nenty, H. J., Adedoyin, O. O., Odili, J. N., & Major, T. E. (2007). Primary teacher’s perceptions of classroom assessment practices as means of providing quality primary/basic education by Botswana and Nigeria. Educational Research and Reviews, 2, 074–081.Google Scholar
  33. Nunes, A. (2004). Portfolios in the EFL classroom: Disclosing an informed practice. English Language Teachers Journal, 58, 327–335.Google Scholar
  34. Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  35. Otiato Ojiambo, P. C. (2008). Quality of education as a tool for development: A case study of Kenya’s educational reforms. The African Symposium: An On Line Journal Of African Educational Research Network, 8, 102–108.Google Scholar
  36. Palm, T. (2008). Performance assessment and authentic assessment: A conceptual analysis of the literature. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation [Online], 13. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=13&n=4
  37. Popham, J. W. (1997). What’s wrong-and what’s right-with Rubrics. Educational Leadership, 55(2), 72–75.Google Scholar
  38. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment, association for supervision and curriculum development. 1703 North Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714. Tel: 800-933-2723; Tel: 703-578-9600; Fax: 703-575-5400. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org
  39. Price, J., Light, D., Michalchik, V. (2011). Ten years of evaluation within intel education initiatives. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/evaluations/ten-years-of-evaluation-within-intel-education-initiatives.html
  40. Prieto, M., & Contreras, G. (2008). Las concepciones que orientan las practicas evaluativas de los profesores: un problema a develar. Estudios pedagÛgicos (Valdivia), 34, 245–262.Google Scholar
  41. Reeves, S., & Stanford, B. (2009). Rubrics for the classroom: Assessments for students and teachers (pp. 24–27). Fall: The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin.Google Scholar
  42. Rochelle, J., Penuel, W. R. & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical assessment, research & evaluation [Online]. Retrieved January 11, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v11n10.pdf
  44. Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Rolheiser, C. (2002). Student self-evaluation in grade 5-6 mathematics effects on problem-solving achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saldanha, J. L., & Talim, S. L. (2007). Avaliação da Aprendizagem na Escola Plural: O que Ocorre na Prática? Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 52, 84–99.Google Scholar
  47. Shepard, L. A., Flexer, R. J., Hiebert, E. H., Mario, S. F., Mayfield, V. & Weston, T. J. (1995). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student learning. Boulder: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  48. Sluijsmans, D., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merrienboer, J., & Martens, R. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stein, B., & Haynes, A. (2011). Engaging faculty in the assessment and improvement of students’ critical thinking using the critical thinking assessment test. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(2), 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sweet, D. (1993). Student Portfolios: Classroom uses. In O. O. E. R. A. I. (OERI) (Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, M. J. & McCormack, C. (2007). Effective verbal feedback for project-based assessment: A case study of the graphic design critique. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teaching and learning through assessment: Deriving an appropriate model (pp. 52–61).Google Scholar
  52. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsuneyoshi, R. (2004). The new Japanese educational reforms and the achievement “crisis” Debate. Educational Policy, 18, 364–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valdés Veloz, H., Treviño, E., Castro, M., Costilla, R. & Acevedo, C. G. (Eds.) (2009). Reporte Técnico del Segundo Estudio Regional Comparativo y Explicativo (SERCE): los aprendizajes de los estudiantes de América Latina y el Caribe, Santiago: Oficina Regional de Educación de la UNESCO para América Latina y el Caribe.Google Scholar
  58. Vandeyar, S. & Killen, R. (2007). Educators’ conceptions and practice of classroom assessment in post-apartheid South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27, 472–482.Google Scholar
  59. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  60. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. Making mathematics vital: Proceedings of the Twentieth Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers. Google Scholar
  61. Wood, G. H., Darling-Hammond, L., Neill, M., & Roschewski, P. (2007). Refocusing accountability: Using local performance assessments to enhance teaching and learning for higher order skills. Washington, D.C.: Forum for Education and Democracy.Google Scholar
  62. Wren, D. G. (2009). Performance Assessment: A key component of balanced assessment system. Research Brief. Virginia Beach: Virginia Beach City Public Schools, Department of Research, Evaluation, and Assessment.Google Scholar
  63. Zamora Hernández, M., & Moreno Olivos, T. (2009). Para muestra un botón: la evaluación en las aulas de secundaria. Revista del Centro de Investigación Universidad La Salle, 8, 99–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon K. Price
    • 1
    Email author
  • Daniel Light
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Pierson
    • 2
  1. 1.Intel CorporationRio RanchoUSA
  2. 2.Education Development CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations