performance assessments, portfolio assessments, rubrics...
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Assessments, Portfolio Assessments, Rubrics, and STEAM - Final Team Project
Chrystine Alhona, Marisa Drogan, Sean McKenna, Tim Paccione
Marist College
EPSY 605
Performance Assessments, Portfolio Assessments, Rubrics, and STEAM - Final Team Project
Introduction:
For our final project, we were tasked with exploring the topics of Performance
Assessments, Portfolio Assessments, and Rubrics. In addition, we were to examine these areas
through the lens of a particular grade level and content area of our choosing, for which we chose
a 9th grade science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) course. This
interdisciplinary classroom setting gave us an opportunity to examine our topics from a complex,
unique perspective.
For each of our core topics, and for STEAM as well, we conducted a thorough literature
review, which we then expanded upon to develop best practices for educators through a “theory-
into-practice” process. Those literature reviews and best practices discussions represent the bulk
of this paper. In addition, we developed a presentation in which we will share our key findings,
as well as provide workshop activities designed to support viewer understanding. For each of
our workshops, we created handouts, which can be found in Appendix A of this paper. Finally,
Appendix B includes a rubric that we have provided to our instructor, with which she is to grade
our overall project.
A STEAM Curriculum:
Literature Review:
It is easy to distance the arts and humanities when concentrating on a STEM curriculum.
However, incorporating the arts and humanities, or STEAM, has proven to enhance stimulation,
diversity and richness of learning (Madden et al., 2013). STEAM curriculums foster creativity in
business and science industries by educating students to address complex problems facing human
society. This type of instruction moves beyond discipline toward multiple modes of inquiry and
viewpoints (Quigley & Herro, 2016). Quigley & Herro state that STEAM students not only
strengthen their learning within the separate contents, but search for opportunities to make
connections with art, music, and design.
STEAM broadens the pool of prospective mathematics and science learners who are not
predisposed to or interested in STEM. The arts and humanities integration causes learners to
travel a different, often enriching and rendezvous route (Howes, Kaneva, Swanson & Williams,
2013). A study conducted at a secondary school in Egypt concluded that a STEAM education is
directly linked to higher brain activity. Their research showed that STEAM gives emphasis to
both hemispheres of the brain; the right responsible for creativity, and the left responsible to
logic and academics (Sickel & Witzig, 2017).
A study from Hanyand Elementary School, located in Seoul, Korea, states that creativity
is the most required competency to be developed at schools (Kwon, 2015). This is also prevalent
in SUNY Potsdam’s curriculum, which revolves around student self-reflection in order to take
responsibility for their own learning. The curriculum also fosters multiple levels of divergent
thinking. It is creative in the way it teaches students to use widespread thinking when evaluating
a problem or content area, while combining a unique personal connection with the individual.
SUNY Potsdam has stated that their creative STEAM approach has positively impacted their
graduate students in the field of industry, business and sciences (Madden, et al. 2013).
A STEAM curriculum is possible through projects and applied learning that focuses on
using real-life applications, problems and interdisciplinary work (Madden, et al. 2012). The
curriculum can shift around the students’ interests, and aim towards topics such as science in
society (Howes, Kaneva, Swanson & Williams, 2013). Promoting this deep engagement, it builds
on experiences and relationships between people and places using collaboration. Using real-life
problems is essential, because it creates communities that provide stimulation, diversity and
richness of experience (Madden, et al. 2013).
Integrating a STEAM curriculum takes understanding, experience and knowledge.
Educators need to understand the importance and differences of authentic assessments versus
traditional paper and pencil methods. Experience in various content areas is also necessary. One
of the hardest challenges, according to Sickel and Witzig (2017), when creating STEAM
assessments is incorporating engineering. Teachers need to be creative within their contents in
order to incorporate all aspects of STEAM to ensure the highest level of higher-order thinking.
Theory-Into-Practice:
STEAM assessments often revolve around problem-based learning, technology, twenty-
first century skills, student choice and authentic assessment (Quigley & Herro, 2016). A study
conducted in Hanyand Elementary School, Seoul, Korea, showed the positive effects of STEAM
portfolios in the classroom. The purpose of the portfolio was to promote a higher level of
creative and critical thinking in the classroom as well as a higher level of enjoyment in
assessments across multiple contents (Kwon, 2015). The study proved in favor of all three
desired outcomes.
Rubrics are a common method for grading STEAM authentic assessments, projects or e-
portfolios. STEAM rubrics often include criteria of group collaboration, reflection and
knowledge of content (Kwon, 2015). Higher-order thinking skills, peer assessment and self-
assessment are often present in STEAM rubrics as means of monitoring and evaluating students’
learning (Sickel & Witzig, 2017).
Sickel and Witzig (2017) recommend using the “WHERETO” acronym as means of
evaluating learning. The “W” stands for multiple questions; “where are we going?” and “what is
expected?” The “H” represents “how will the students become engaged?” “E” refers to the
students expected performance. “R” is refers to rethinking or revise. The second “E” represents
“self-evaluation and reflection of learning.” “T” is for accommodations of learning styles,
interests and needs, and “O” is the organization of the assessment and learning (Sickel & Witzig,
2017, p. 84).
Performance Assessments:
Literature Review:
The educational study of student performance assessments is complex and multi-faceted,
and a significant amount of research and study has been conducted in order to determine what
strategies within these areas best meet the needs of students. In particular, creating effective
mathematics and science assessments has been a challenge for secondary education instructors.
As a result, an immense amount of literature has been written on these topics, which can be used
to inform some possible best practices for teachers.
The National Academy of Sciences has conducted research in the area of student
performance assessments within the subjects of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM). One such endeavor included a meta-analysis of 225 related studies that
compared how students perform in STEM courses taught under traditional instructional methods
with how they perform in STEM courses taught using active learning methods. Active learning
methods, as defined by the study, include constructivist teaching that allows the students to
discover the knowledge themselves through performance. This approach is examined in contrast
to traditional teaching methods, which consist predominately of academic lectures and paper and
pencil tests (Freeman et al., 2014).
The null hypothesis for the study stated that traditional methods maximizes learning
performances for students in STEM courses, and the alternative hypothesis supposed the
opposite, that active learning methods were more beneficial. The analysis completed within the
study supported the alternative hypothesis and therefore the researchers’ theory that increasing
the number of students receiving active learning instruction in STEM could lead to a correlated
increase in student performance. Strategies such as group problem-solving, authentic
worksheets, and tutorials resulted in better results than lectures on average (Freeman et al.,
2014).
The results from the meta-analysis included findings which indicate that active learning
can lead to an increase in examination performance and raise students’ average grades to a
statistically significant degree. Additionally, failure rates under traditional lecturing methods
were found to be 55% higher than rates observed under active learning. Based on this
information and previous literature within the subject area, the researchers at the National
Academy of Sciences concluded that an increase in STEM instruction could lead to an increase
in overall student academic performance, catalyzed by active learning experiences (Freeman et
al., 2014).
Pandey (1990) discusses authentic mathematics assessments and their ability to meet the
needs of students. He notes the growing consensus among educators that the goals of
mathematics education should be to help students solve problems in every-day life. Whether
that application comes through employment, community outreach, or personal finance, students
must be prepared to perform mathematics throughout society. Pandey looks to determine what
role performance assessments can play in that preparation, and he explores the types of authentic
mathematics assessments that focus on concepts and analytical skillsets in order to test his
theories.
Throughout his discussion, Pandey (1990) argues that authentic assessments meet the
needs of instructional goals, as through conditions like situational lessons, real-life questions,
and mock investigations, students are able to develop their thinking and reasoning skills in
authentic contexts. At the same time, these activities influence student attitudes towards
mathematics and can increase their ability to collaborate with peers. He believes the key value
offered by authentic assessments is that they require students to formulate problems, devise
solutions, and interpret results (Pandey, 1990).
Pandey (1990) goes on to explain that the goal of providing real-life learning experiences
can be accomplished numerous ways, including through open-ended questions, short
investigations (60 to 90 minute tasks), multiple-choice questions that emphasize combining
mathematical concepts, and portfolios. He concludes by observing that as national and state
standards focus more and more on authentic learning, consistent exposure and practice for
students in these areas plays a critical part in developing their ability to perform.
Further discussion of mathematics performance assessments took place in the Canadian
Journal of Behavioral Science. Within their study, researchers studied the relationship between
student attitudes and dispositions towards mathematics and their ability to succeed when
assessed. They reviewed previous literature on the subject and found mixed results. In an effort
to find a more definitive answer to their queries, they reexamined the relationship through the
scope of gender. Their study looked at the differences in mathematics achievement, problem
solving, and other performance areas that can be tied to gender (Randhawa and Hunter, 2001).
Gender dispositions had previously been found to have significant relationships with
educational variables, and the researchers set out to determine if these factors might be at play
within the area of mathematics performance. The results of the study showed that the differences
in student performance and achievement that can be attributed to gender differences has declined
over time. However, a measurably higher success rate does still exist for males, albeit to a
smaller extent than in the past. The researchers interpreted their findings to determine that a
gender differential in performance should be factored in when evaluating student scores, and
should also be accounted for within instructional strategies and performance assessment planning
(Randhawa and Hunter, 2001).
As with mathematics, science assessments have been the focus of various studies aimed
at their improvement. Shymansky, Enger, Chidsey, and Yore (1997) explored this area in an
attempt to determine the feasibility of combining the expertise of science teachers, science
educators, and test developers in order to build creative and authentic performance assessments
within the content area. As with mathematics, a focus on having science students perform the
subject in a real-world context was tested for its ability to produce higher scores for the average
student. For their study, researchers asked three questions: “Is performance-based assessment
doable within the framework of a large-scale testing program,” “Do responses to performance-
based assessments reveal important information about learners not revealed through traditional
multiple-choice assessments,” and “How do students perform on these performance-based
tasks?” (Shymanksy et al., 1997, p. 172).
The study examined the statistical relationship between four performance assessments
that were designed for 9th grade students and tracked the performance of those students in the
Iowa Tests of Educational Development for science. The performance assessments were
designed to supplement the students’ traditional science tests, which were typically limited to
norm-references and multiple-choice questions. The quantitative and statistical results from the
study were inconclusive, but the qualitative insights gained from the experiment showed positive
themes that supported the transformation of science classrooms into areas where students “do
science and develop habits of mind” (Shymanksy et al., 1997, p. 182).
Theory-Into-Practice:
By examining the literature concerning student performance assessments, valuable
lessons can be gleaned in order to develop best practices for instructors, particularly in the areas
of science and mathematics. A common theme among the studies and discussions was the value
of authenticity within assessments. Pandey (1990) emphasized how important it is to develop
mathematics performance assessments that mimic real-life situations and give students legitimate
practice in everyday scenarios. In the study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences it
was determined that the most effective learning tasks for students are those that involve active
learning (Freeman, et al., 2014). Finally, Shymansky, Enger, Chidsey, and Yore (1997) stressed
the importance of practicing science in real world contexts as a way to improve student test
scores. With authenticity being such a consistent, positive contributing factor in student
performance, it is critical for effective teachers to include it in their curriculums, and
performance assessments represent a perfect opportunity in which to do so. For example, if a
mathematics teacher wants to maximize his students’ performance on their upcoming Regents
exam, it would be beneficial for him to administer an authentic assessment that requires his
students to problem-solve in real-world scenarios.
A second lesson that can be learned from the performance assessment literature review
deals with the factor of gender disposition. Through the studies, it can be seen quite clearly that
gender dispositions are a factor. Though not as much as in days past, female students are still at
a disadvantage when it comes to their predisposed attitudes towards science and mathematics
and the effect those attitudes have on their relative performances (Randhawa and Hunter, 2001).
Knowing this, teachers must account for the disparity in their instruction and keep a close eye on
their female students to watch for any signs of negative attitudes or perspectives that can be
rectified. If a science teacher hears his female students making remarks that imply the subject
area is more suitable for males, he must be prepared to intercede and provide a positive example
of why that does not have to be the case. Developing performance assessments that involve
strong female characters in authentic scientific scenarios can help counter those myths as well.
The final theme that can be observed throughout the literature on student performance
assessments is simply that performance itself matters. Each study found either quantitative or
qualitative evidence to support the theory that performing is a major part of student learning. It
is not enough for students to learn their content and master learning objectives if they cannot
show evidence of their understanding when asked to do so in authentic situations. It is the
instructor’s responsibility to provide a setting and opportunity for the students to perform that is
as fair and equitable as possible. Additionally, teachers must effectively prepare their students
for success using appropriate practice. For teachers, this also means creating performance
assessment questions that truly assess what they are intended to assess. That is no small task and
it requires hard work and discipline from the teacher, but its results in student achievement and
success make it worth the effort.
Portfolio Assessments:
Literature Review:
Portfolios can serve a powerful purpose in all content areas, including STEM. It is
important that teachers facilitate the content of the portfolio to reflect the standards and learning
objectives they teach. When properly implemented, portfolios allow students to reflect on their
course work and guide their future goals. Working with students in creating their portfolios
provides teachers with an opportunity to improve communication and understanding of their
students.
Teachers can aid students in creating clear guidelines for portfolio content. The contents
of the portfolio should be reflective of the lesson or unit’s coordinated learning objectives and
content standards. Teachers can provide these guidelines in the form of an outline or rubric
which clearly indicates each component of the portfolio and its purpose. In a STEM course like
physics, this may include components like lab reports, data from experiments and essays
(Whitworth, 2013). These guidelines help assure that a student’s final portfolio will contain
components aligned with the learning standards and objectives.
While teachers should create clear expectations for portfolio contents, it is also important
that students are afforded an opportunity to reflect on their work within the portfolio. Students
may be asked to create an introduction to their portfolio at the beginning of the unit or lesson and
corresponding conclusion or reflection at the end. Students may also be afforded some choice in
which pieces of work are included in their portfolio. When used appropriately, many students
report that portfolios improve their understanding of their past and current coursework and help
them connect ideas to future content and learning goals (Cruz, 2013). This is particularly useful
in STEM subjects when the complexity of content can leave students wondering how their
course work will be useful to them in their future lives.
While the benefits of effective portfolio implementation are clear for students, there are
also benefits for teachers themselves. Teachers often find that their use of portfolios provides a
source of communication that helps them gain a better understanding of their students. Over
time, teachers can reflect on student portfolios and solidify their knowledge and ability to
connect standards to their learning objectives and assessments. These skills are imperative for
teacher success, especially in current times as teachers are being held accountable for student
performance and standardized test scores. Portfolios provide a useful tool for helping teachers
embrace the use of standards and gain understanding of their connection to student learning
(Kim, 2014).
Theory-Into-Practice:
Portfolio use benefits students and teachers by guiding learning and helping them reflect
upon results. Teachers must create guidelines for the components of portfolios so that students
can have the ability to reflect on their final work. The ability to reflect on their course work
helps students create future learning goals for themselves. Teachers also benefit from effective
portfolio use as they progress in their own professional development. In STEM subjects,
portfolios can be useful tools for improving student interest in content areas that are often viewed
as difficult and intimidating. Portfolios generally fall into two categories, either growth or best
works (Nitko, 2015).
Growth portfolios provide examples of students work over the course of a lesson or unit
learning plan. They contain samples of student work in the form of formative assessments as
well as feedback from the teacher and student notes. By displaying the progress of work over
time, student development and understanding can be observed. This is a useful tool for teachers
in tracking student progress and making necessary adjustments and accommodations for
students. By reflecting often on the growth portfolio, teachers can help assure that all students
demonstrate the ability to meet the high expectations of the unit learning objectives and
standards.
An example of a growth portfolio in a STEM subject like geometry would include
various components developed throughout a lesson or unit plan. One example would include
student practice problems and samples of formative pieces of homework. This would then
include the feedback provided by the teacher in correcting errors in student work. Further
formative work in the portfolio would then demonstrate the student’s ability to improve and
perform the skills laid out in the learning objectives.
Best works portfolios contain pieces of student’s final work or products from the lesson
or learning unit. In this way, they serve more of a summative purpose rather than the formative
focus of growth portfolios. These portfolios may be used to provide evidence of mastery of the
learning standards as required for giving students a final grade and allowing them to progress to
the next level or graduate from a program. They also provide an opportunity for students to
show their work to parents or future teachers.
In a STEM content area like robotics this may take the form of a video demonstration of
the robot and its abilities. This final polished exhibit would not include all the formative pieces
of work that took place along the way, as seen in a growth portfolio. Rather, it would showcase
the students understanding of the learning standards and objectives in a finalized form of
evidence. Best works portfolios should still include a component of student metacognitive skills,
for example, in the form of a final self-reflection entry or questionnaire.
In both growth and best works portfolios it is imperative that coordination with the
standards and learning objectives is demonstrated. This requires continued effort on the part of
the teacher in creating guidelines for the portfolio that reflect these standards and objectives. It
also requires a continued understanding of the standards by the teacher and the ability to write
learning objectives that accurately reflect those goals. When implemented appropriately, both
forms of portfolios can collaborate to aid in student development over time and to provide final
evidence of their ability to perform the important skills reflected in the learning standards.
Rubrics:
Literature Review:
While not used as often as in English or history courses, rubrics can meet the needs of
educators in assessing students in STEM courses. Learning science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics requires a lot more than memorizing content. In the 21st century, it requires
demonstrating critical thinking skills, which can be difficult to assess without the use of a rubric.
These higher-order thinking skills include cognitive skills such as application, analysis,
synthesis, evaluation, and creativity. Students are no longer passive participants in STEM
courses; they must take an active role in learning. This typically occurs through the use of
formative assessments and summative assessments such as performance assessments and
portfolio development. These assessments and the skills they attempt to measure are perfect
opportunities to introduce the use of rubrics into STEM courses.
Criteria for STEM rubrics should fall within four categories: content knowledge, higher-
order thinking skills, communication skills, and science literacy (Kishbaugh, et al., 2012).
Content knowledge represents the facts, concepts, and theories that are taught specifically in the
subject area. Higher-order thinking skills, as described above, are typically required for reports,
research papers, and visual materials created. Communication skills, including verbal, written,
and visual, must also be assessed, but they will vary depending on the assessment. For science
courses, aspects of science literacy, or the nature of science, should also be assessed by the
rubric. This category covers the “philosophy and sociology of science” (Kishbaugh, et al., 2012,
p. 269), ensuring that students understand that the nature of science is empirical, tentative,
inferential, theory-laden, embedded in a wider culture, founded on no specific scientific method,
and creative. Rubrics for any long-term, summative, or complex assessment should cover each
of these major categories.
STEM Rubrics can also assess short-essay or constructed response prompts in addition to
entire assessments. For a rubric to be suitable, the prompts should not assess solely recall or
understanding, but also higher-order thinking skills. A well-designed general rubric for a
constructed response task was provided in Tang, Coffey, and Levin’s (2015) case study of a high
school biology rubrics. In general, students’ responses should demonstrate they synthesized
information, included supporting details, integrated ideas, use scientific language accurately, and
if applicable, apply concepts to authentic situations.
In courses such as mathematics and physics, assessments that focus on problem solving
may require different criteria in a rubric. Hull, et al. (2013) identified a five-step problem
solving strategy that should be used by students to approach these. The five steps are: visualize
the problem; describe the problem in mathematical or scientific terms; plan a solution; execute
the plan; check and evaluate answers. This strategy can be applied to a variety of STEM critical
thinking problems. To assess students’ mastery of this process, Hull et al. recommends including
the following criteria on the rubric: evidence of conceptual understanding; description of the
problem; appropriate equations used; reasonable plan; logical progression; and correct
calculations. This can be simplified for problems that are not overly complex.
A good rubric is not only a reliable and valid way to assess students, but it can be a way
to help students understand their teacher’s expectations and standards. Rubrics can “clarify
learning goals, build complex understandings, and encourage intellectual risk-taking”. (Siegel, et
al., 2011, p. 30) For a rubric to have such a positive effect on student performance, it must be
well thought out, distributed and explained in advance, and supplemented with checklists and
instructions that further clarify expectations. Rubrics are helpful only if students engage with
them and understand what the rubric is attempting to communicate. One way to help students
understand their rubric is to ask them to rewrite it in their own words. When a student can
describe the teacher’s expectations in their own words, they will understand what is required to
meet the standards. Another strategy is to have students evaluate one another’s drafts or a
sample assignment using the rubric. By practicing applying the rubric, they will be able to fine-
tune their own work.
Some teachers have found that when they give students a rubric in advance, students will
do the minimum required to meet expectations and not exhibit the creativity and innovation that
the assessment calls for. Siegel, et al. (2013) suggest two remedies for this situation. First, they
suggest including an extra performance level, typically labeled “exceeding expectations” or
“beyond expectations”. Reaching this performance level can earn students extra credit or round
up their grade. They also suggest requiring students to reflect on their learning and performance.
By focusing students on their learning goals, rather than simply their grades, students will
exercise their higher-order thinking skills though reflection and introspection.
Finally, rubrics can be implemented in conjunction with formative assessments for long-
term projects, tasks, or portfolios. To help students manage the workload, teachers can
implement checkpoints throughout the assessment to provide students with feedback on their
progress. In this situation, it is important to teach students how to interpret comments and
feedback so that they will not be discouraged (Capraro, Capraro, & Morgan, 2013).
Theory-Into-Practice:
For STEM educators and others incorporating STEM into their curricula, it is vital to
assess higher-order thinking skills. While it is possible to do this through traditional
assessments, portfolios and performance tasks are great ways to assess these skills. These
assessments commonly require students to create a produce or follow a complicated process.
Grading and providing feedback can be challenging, however. Rubrics provide a clear grading
standard for both teachers and students, increasing the validity and reliability of these alternative
assessments.
Because STEM assessments can address many different higher-order thinking, critical
thinking, and problem solving skills, rubrics’ flexible nature makes them the ideal assessment
tool in most circumstances. While task-specific, analytic rubrics are most common hybrid
rubrics or multiple rubrics can be used if needed. To make an effective STEM rubric, it must
match the assessment and the teacher’s expectations. Measuring content knowledge is not
enough, however. The rubric must measure those higher-order thinking skills that students must
demonstrate through their portfolios or performance assessments.
In addition to being a grading tool, rubrics should be used to communicate expectations
to students. They are useful in helping students understand exactly what the teacher expects in
terms of the scope and quality of work, while leaving flexibility for students to display their
creativity. It provides a common language with which to discuss levels of proficiency. Due to
the long-term nature of many STEM performance and portfolio assessments, the rubric can serve
as a checklist or in conjunction with a checklist to guide students through the various
requirements of the assessment. An enriching STEM course will undoubtedly require rubrics to
assess higher-order thinking skills.
References
Capraro, R. M., Capraro, M. M., & Morgan, J. R. (2013). STEM project-based learning: An
integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd;2;
ed.). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Cruz, H. L., & Zambo, D. (2013). Student data portfolios give students the power to see their
own learning. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 40-47.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.
(2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111(23), 8410-8415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Howes, A., Kaneva, D., Swanson, D., & Williams, J. (2013). Re-envision STEM education:
Curriculum, assessment and integrated, interdisciplinary studies. The University of
Manchester.
Hull, M. M., Kuo, E., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). Problem-solving rubrics revisited: Attending
to the blending of informal conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning. Physical
Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 9(1)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010105
Kim, Y., & Yazdian, L. S. (2014). Portfolio Assessment and Quality Teaching. Theory Into
Practice, 53(3), 220-227.
Kishbaugh, T. L. S., Cessna, S., Jeanne Horst, S., Leaman, L., Flanagan, T., Graber Neufeld, D.,
& Siderhurst, M. (2012). Measuring beyond content: A rubric bank for assessing skills in
authentic research assignments in the sciences. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract, 13(3), 268-276.
doi:10.1039/C2RP00023G
Kwon, H. (2015). Instructions innovation for creative convergence: Based on e-portfolio of
Hanyang elementary school. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information,
18(5), 1919-1924.
Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., Ladd, B.,... Plague, G.
(2013) Rethinking STEM education: An interdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia
Computer Science. 20. 541-546.
Pandey, T. (1990, November 30). Authentic Mathematics Assessment. ERIC/TM Digest.
Retrieved April 01, 2017, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354245
Quigley, C. F. & Herro, D. (2016). Finding the joy in the unknown: Implementation of STEAM
teaching practices in middle school science and math classrooms. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 25(3), 410-426
Randhawa, B. S., & Hunter, D. M. (2001). Validity of performance assessment in mathematics
for early adolescents. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33(1), 14-24.
Shymansky, J. A., Enger, S., Chidsey, J. L., Yore, L. D., & al, e. (1997). Performance assessment
in science as a tool to enhance the picture of student learning. School Science and
Mathematics, 97(4), 172-183.
Sicklet, A. J., & Witzig, S. B. (2017). Designing and teaching the secondary science methods
course. An international perspective. Dordrecht: Sense.
Siegel, M. A., Halverson, K., Freyermuth, S., & Clark, C. G. (2011). BEYOND GRADING: A
series of rubrics for science learning in high school biology courses. The Science Teacher,
78(1), 28-33.
Tang, X., Coffey, J., & Levin, D. M. (2015). Reconsidering the use of scoring rubrics in biology
instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 77(9), 669-675. doi:10.1525/abt.2015.77.9.4
Whitworth, B. A., & Bell, R. L. (2013). PHYSICS PORTFOLIOS. The Science Teacher, 80(8),
38-43.
Appendix A - Handouts
STEAM Handout:
What is STEAM education?
STEAM stands for science,
technology, engineering, art and math. It is
similar to STEM, as it is an interdisciplinary
approach to learning. With an
interdisciplinary curriculum, students are
better able to appreciate how each content is
necessary for success in complex, real world
situations.
STEAM seeks to prepare students
for successful careers in the 21st Century.
Through STEAM, students will become
creative, innovative critical thinkers that are
able to adapt to change. Assessments in
STEAM are commonly in the form of
authentic assessments, project-based
assignments and with group collaboration.
STEAM Resources:
Educationcloset.com/steam
Edutopia.org/stem-to-steam-resources
Steamtosteam.org/resources
STEAM Lesson Assessment:
- Plant cells: (Grades 4-6)
Objective: to gain a working knowledge of
a plant cell through inquiry and solution,
hands-on creation of a plant cell cross-
section, exploration of plant cell
terminology, and digital documentation of
learning.
- Science:
- Technology:
- Engineering:
- Arts:
- Math:
Performance Assessments Handout:
**Highlights provided for classroom discussion
Teacher Voice: In Defense of Standardized Testing tnscore.org · by James Aycock · May 20, 2014
It seems like every day there’s another article about the horrors of standardized testing. Just this
week comedian Louis CK raised the issue to seemingly new heights when he first took to the
Twittersphere to rail against testing and then followed up with an appearance on Letterman. His
daughter took New York’s state tests last week, and he wasn’t happy.
New York was not alone. Across our state, schools administered the Tennessee Comprehensive
Assessment Program (TCAP) this past week. Schools in other states did the same with their
respective state tests.
And Louis CK is not the only one speaking out against testing. It’s become a trend.
But I’M GOING TO TAKE THE UNPOPULAR STANCE OF DEFENDING STANDARDIZED
TESTING.
Why Test?
First, let’s look at the purpose of tests – or, as many educators prefer, assessments. And, to do
so, let’s consider what school would be like without assessments.
How would we know what kids know without assessments? That’s the purpose of testing kids –
to figure out what they know and are able to do.
Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still
hasn’t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to
teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don’t need to teach it
to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a
handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching – and that data comes
from assessments.
In sum, TESTING LETS US KNOW WHAT KIDS KNOW AND CAN DO, WHICH HELPS US
TEACH THEM BETTER.
Why Standardized Tests?
Okay, so maybe we do need to test kids. BUT IS IT NECESSARY TO TAKE STANDARDIZED
TESTS? That’s a fair question, so let’s look at the purpose of tests being standardized.
Not all classes are equal. We all know this, right? Some teachers are better than others, some
classes are harder (and some easier), etc. As a result, not all tests are equal.
Teacher A, the veteran master teacher, will probably write better tests than Teacher B, the
rookie who has never written a test before. Likewise, Teacher C, the hardworking young teacher
with high expectations, will probably write a much more difficult test than Teacher D, the
veteran who has been in the infamous “dance of the lemons” and has taught at five schools in
the past five years.
IT IS FOR THIS REASON, BECAUSE NOT ALL TESTS ARE EQUAL, THAT WE NEED A
COMMON TEST. That’s what it means for a test to be standardized, after all – that everyone
takes the same test.
If everyone is taking different tests, then you can’t compare scores. If you can’t compare scores,
then you can’t measure teachers, schools, or districts.
If Teacher A’s students achieve 1.5 years of growth in a single school year, then we need to know
what she is doing and share it with others. If Teacher B’s students down the hall only grow 0.75
years, then he probably needs extra coaching and support. The same with a school or a district;
those achieving growth should be celebrated, while those not achieving growth should be
supported. Either way, we can only determine objective growth data if tests are standardized.
One more point here. Critics often talk about income, race, native language, disability status, etc.
Well, the great thing about standardized tests is that everyone takes the same test, no matter of
any of that. A standardized test is an equal playing field. When they’re graded, no one is looking
at income or zip code.
A Few Caveats
Now, just because I’m in favor of standardized tests in general does not mean that I’m in favor of
all standardized tests. SOME TESTS ARE BAD. Case in point: Tennessee’s TCAP. Multiple
choice has its place, but an all-multiple choice test like TCAP is not the best. Any
Reading/Language Arts test that doesn’t require short answer and/or essays is a bad test, and
any Math test that doesn’t require you to show work is a bad test. You just can’t assess deep
knowledge and understanding with multiple choice. (That’s why the recent decision to delay
PARCC, a clear upgrade over TCAP, by our state legislature makes no sense.)
Once we accept this, it becomes clear that it’s not enough to be in favor of standardized tests
– WE HAVE TO BE IN FAVOR OF good ONES.
Critics often like to talk about teaching to the test. Louis CK used this argument on Letterman
the other day. Well, he’s wrong for two reasons.
First, the test is not to blame! It’s not like tests have agency. A test can’t make a teacher do
anything. If you have a problem with teaching to the test, then blame the teacher who is writing
the lessons, blame the principal who is probably directing the teacher to teach that way, blame
the superintendent who is pressuring the principal to focus on the test. There’s blame to go
around, but none of that is the fault of the test.
Secondly, what’s wrong with teaching to the test anyway – if it’s a good test? You know how
good teachers plan? They start planning a unit by writing the test they want to use at the end.
Good teachers define the end goal first and then plan backwards from there. They plan their
lessons based on the test they wrote. That’s good teaching.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT TEACHING TO THE TEST. THE PROBLEM IS WITH BAD
TESTS. Anytime you teach to a test that is only multiple choice, you are setting the bar too low.
Good teachers in Tennessee are transitioning to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS),
whether or not the PARCC test starts next year, because CCSS are better than the current TN
State Standards. We taught Common Core this year at my school, and our kids were still
prepared for TCAP. And I’m convinced that teaching the more rigorous CCSS will produce
higher TCAP scores anyway.
Conclusion
TCAP wasn’t even talked about at our school this year. The first time I remember our principal
even mentioning it was after Spring Break, when she told us that TCAP was coming soon but
that we were doing a great job, that we already had data to show that our scholars had grown
tremendously, and that our kids are more than test scores.
We didn’t do a bunch of test prep, and we didn’t have any big TCAP pep rally. We just went
about the business of good teaching and learning. Test day was just another day, no big deal.
And, when I asked several scholars who struggled this year how they did on TCAP, they
responded that “our teachers taught us all the hard stuff, so the test was pretty easy.”
We’ll see how they did soon enough. But it felt good. The test was important, very important, but
nothing to get worked up over.
That’s how it should be.
This blog was first published at Bluff City Education on May 12, 2014.
tnscore.org · by James Aycock · May 20, 2014
Portfolio Assessments Handout:
Group One – Earth Science
Based on the Next Gen Science Standard listed below give some examples of different
components that would be found in both a growth portfolio and a best works portfolio. You
do not have to necessarily address each standard, just provide some examples that come to mind.
Record your answers on the paper provided.
1-ESS1 Earth's Place in the
Universe
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
1-ESS1-1. Use observations of the sun, moon, and stars to describe patterns that can
be predicted. [Clarification Statement: Examples of patterns could include that
the sun and moon appear to rise in one part of the sky, move across the sky, and
set; and stars other than our sun are visible at night but not during the day.]
[Assessment Boundary: Assessment of star patterns is limited to stars being seen
at night and not during the day.]
1-ESS1-2. Make observations at different times of year to relate the amount of
daylight to the time of year. [Clarification Statement: Emphasis is on relative
comparisons of the amount of daylight in the winter to the amount in the spring
or fall.] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment is limited to relative amounts of
daylight, not quantifying the hours or time of daylight.]
Group Two – Physical Science
Based on the Next Gen Science Standard listed below give some examples of different
components that would be found in both a growth portfolio and a best works portfolio. You
do not have to necessarily address each standard, just provide some examples that come to mind.
Record your answers on the paper provided.
1-PS4 Waves and Their Applications
in Technologies for Information
Transfer
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
1-PS4-1. Plan and conduct investigations to provide evidence that vibrating materials
can make sound and that sound can make materials vibrate. [Clarification
Statement: Examples of vibrating materials that make sound could include tuning
forks and plucking a stretched string. Examples of how sound can make matter
vibrate could include holding a piece of paper near a speaker making sound and
holding an object near a vibrating tuning fork.]
1-PS4-2. Make observations to construct an evidence-based account that objects in
darkness can be seen only when illuminated.[Clarification Statement: Examples
of observations could include those made in a completely dark room, a pinhole
box, and a video of a cave explorer with a flashlight. Illumination could be from
an external light source or by an object giving off its own light.]
1-PS4-3. Plan and conduct investigations to determine the effect of placing objects
made with different materials in the path of a beam of light. [Clarification
Statement: Examples of materials could include those that are transparent (such as
clear plastic), translucent (such as wax paper), opaque (such as cardboard), and
reflective (such as a mirror).] [Assessment Boundary: Assessment does not include
the speed of light.]
1-PS4-4. Use tools and materials to design and build a device that uses light or
sound to solve the problem of communicating over a distance.* [Clarification
Statement: Examples of devices could include a light source to send signals, paper
cup and string “telephones,” and a pattern of drum beats.] [Assessment Boundary:
Assessment does not include technological details for how communication devices
work.]
Group Three – Life Science
Based on the Next Gen Science Standard listed below give some examples of different
components that would be found in both a growth portfolio and a best works portfolio. You
do not have to necessarily address each standard, just provide some examples that come to mind.
Record your answers on the paper provided.
K-LS1 From Molecules to
Organisms: Structures and
Processes
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
K-LS1-1. Use observations to describe patterns of what plants and animals (including
humans) need to survive. [Clarification Statement: Examples of patterns could
include that animals need to take in food but plants do not; the different kinds of
food needed by different types of animals; the requirement of plants to have light;
and, that all living things need water.]
Students who demonstrate understanding can:
1-LS1-1. Use materials to design a solution to a human problem by mimicking how
plants and/or animals use their external parts to help them survive, grow,
and meet their needs.* [Clarification Statement: Examples of human problems
that can be solved by mimicking plant or animal solutions could include designing
clothing or equipment to protect bicyclists by mimicking turtle shells, acorn
shells, and animal scales; stabilizing structures by mimicking animal tails and
roots on plants; keeping out intruders by mimicking thorns on branches and
animal quills; and, detecting intruders by mimicking eyes and ears.]
1-LS1-2. Read texts and use media to determine patterns in behavior of parents and
offspring that help offspring survive.[Clarification Statement: Examples of
patterns of behaviors could include the signals that offspring make (such as
crying, cheeping, and other vocalizations) and the responses of the parents (such
as feeding, comforting, and protecting the offspring).]
Rubrics Handout:
STEM Rubric Reminders
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Sample Criteria for STEM Rubrics • Synthesis of information • Use of supporting details • Use of accurate scientific terms • Application of information • Evidence of conceptual understanding • Communication skills (written, oral, visual) • Applying correct formulas • Reflection of learning • Evaluation of data/sources • Making predictions based on evidence
Your Situation
You are a 9th grade biology teacher. Your class is beginning a unit on
plants and photosynthesis. You have decided to plan a performance
assessment for your students. They will attempt to grow lima beans from seeds
in a variety of different environments to determine what factors are necessary
for the beans to sprout. At the end of the assessment, students will submit a
report explaining their findings using concepts from the unit. You haven’t
planned all the details of the assessment yet, but you want to address higher-
order thinking skills. The first thing you decide to do is to create a rubric upon
which you will base your instructions.
Your Challenge
Pick a higher-order thinking skill to assess: ________________________
Create a rubric criterion (category) to measure it:
How would you describe the highest performance level:
Your Situation
You are a 9th grade technology teacher. Your class is beginning a unit on
simple machines, forces, and energies (kinetic and potential). You have decided
to plan a performance assessment for your students. They will build catapults
using their knowledge from the unit and attempt to launch objects for
distance, height, and accuracy. At the end of the assessment, students will
demonstrate and verbally explain how to increase height, distance, and
accuracy using concepts from the unit. You haven’t planned all the details of
the assessment yet, but you want to address higher-order thinking skills. The
first thing you decide to do is to create a rubric upon which you will base your
instructions.
Your Challenge
Pick a higher-order thinking skill to assess: ________________________
Create a rubric criterion (category) to measure it:
How would you describe the highest performance level:
Your Situation
You are a 9th grade algebra 1 teacher. Your class is beginning a unit on
statistics and probability. You have decided to plan a performance assessment
for your students. They will study mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and
create frequency tables based on the colors of M&M’s. At the end of the
assessment, students will submit a visual representation of these concepts
displaying their findings. You haven’t planned all the details of the assessment
yet, but you want to address higher-order thinking skills. The first thing you
decide to do is to create a rubric upon which you will base your instructions.
Your Challenge
Pick a higher-order thinking skill to assess: ________________________
Create a rubric criterion (category) to measure it:
How would you describe the highest performance level:
Summary Handout:
Insert Handout here
Appendix B – Presentation Rubric
CriteriaDid Not Meet
Expectations
Developing
Proficiency
Approaching
ProficiencyProficient Score
OutlineOutline not submitted. (1pt) Outline submitted late. (5pts) Incomplete outline submitted.
(7pts)
Complete outline submitted
on time. (10pts)
Paper - EvidenceMost articles discussed do not
apply to topic and fewer than
ten articles included. (10pts)
Less than ten articles are
discussed, and up to three are
off topic (25pts)
Ten articles discussed, but up
to three are off topic. (45pts)
A minimum of ten articles
were discussed, all applicable
to the topic. (60pts)
Paper – CommentaryNo connections made between
articles and topic. (10pts)
More than three articles are
not discussed in depth and
connected to topic. (25pts)
Up to three articles are not
discussed in depth and/or
connected to topic. (45pts)
Thorough connections made
between at least 10 articles
and topic. (60pts)
Paper – Best PracticesNo recommendations made.
(10pts)
Recommendations are not
detailed and do not apply to
topic. (25pts)
Recommendations are not
detailed or do not apply to
topic. (45pts)
Practical, detailed
recommendations for
educators provided. (60pts)
Paper – Quality of
Writing
Significant errors and/or
informal language. -or- No
APA formatting. -or- Late
submission. (5pts)
Many spelling/grammatical
and/or significant APA
formatting errors. (10pts)
Few spelling/grammatical
errors or minor APA formatting
errors. (15pts)
Formal language, minimal
spelling/grammatical errors.
APA formatting. Uploaded by
deadline. (20pts)
Rubric Rubric missing significant
components. (10pts)
Point values do not match
instructions. (20pts)
Unclear performance levels
and/or irrelevant criteria.
(30pts)
Point values match
instructions. Clear criteria and
performance levels. (40pts)
Presentation -
Information
Information provided was off
topic. (5pts)
Significant component(s)
missing. (15pts)
Relevant information
provided, but discussion was
superficial. (20pts)
Information was relevant and
thoroughly discussed. (25pts)
Presentation -
Engagement
Presenters did not engage with
audience. (5pts)
Minimal engagement with
audience. (15pts)
Inconsistent engagement with
audience. (20pts)
Held audience’s attention and
thoroughly involved them in
the workshop. (25pts)
Presentation –
Handouts/visuals
Minimal handouts or visuals
incorporated into workshop.
(5pts)
Materials do not relate to or
contribute to the workshop.
(15pts)
Materials are disorganized,
include errors, and/or are
cluttered. (20pts)
Clear, professional-looking
materials. Provide relevant
information. (25pts)
Presentation - Other Late submission of materials.
(5pts)
All materials ready for
presentation and uploaded
before deadline. (25pts)
Comments: Total Score (out of 350)