Week 5 Discussion 2: Directions For Your Initial Discussion

Week 5 Discussion 2edu 372 Directionsyour Initial Discussion Thread

Review the following two videos to gain a better understanding of assessment shifts in education: · How the common core is changing assessment · Common core: Assessment shifts After reviewing the two videos, answer the following questions: 1. Does testing matter? Are assessment and measurement valid tools for teaching and learning? Explain and provide your reasoning. 2. How are the Common Core State Standards assessment shifts different from high stakes testing? How are they similar? Do you think these assessments will be able to better evaluate student needs? Why or why not? 3. How important is formative assessment (ongoing) in the new era of Common Core State Standards assessments? Why is the use of formative assessment an important method in diagnosing students’ needs to create effective instruction? Guided Response: Review several of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least two who do not share your opinion of testing. Defend your own opinion with evidence from the videos or other scholarly resources.

Paper For Above instruction

The role and impact of assessments in education have long been a subject of debate among educators, policymakers, and researchers. As educational practices evolve, especially with the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), understanding the shifting landscape of assessment becomes crucial. This paper explores whether testing matters in education, compares assessment shifts associated with CCSS to traditional high-stakes testing, and the significance of formative assessment in this context.

Does Testing Matter? Are Assessment and Measurement Valid Tools for Teaching and Learning?

Assessment and measurement undeniably play a pivotal role in education. They serve as tools for diagnosing student learning, informing instruction, evaluating curriculum effectiveness, and guiding policy decisions. Formative assessments, conducted during the instructional process, offer real-time feedback that helps teachers tailor their teaching strategies to meet individual student needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Summative assessments, administered at the end of learning periods, provide summary judgments about student achievement and program effectiveness (Gipps, 1994).

Evidence indicates that well-designed assessments can significantly enhance learning outcomes. Popham (2008) argues that assessments, when aligned with instructional goals, act as catalysts for student motivation and engagement. Moreover, assessments facilitate self-regulated learning by offering students insight into their progress and areas for improvement (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). However, critics caution against over-reliance on standardized testing, which may narrow the curriculum, induce stress, and fail to capture critical thinking and creativity.

Therefore, assessment and measurement remain valid tools for teaching and learning when thoughtfully implemented, combined with ongoing formative practices that prioritize learning over mere performance metrics. The validity of assessments depends on their alignment with learning objectives, fairness, and the ability to diagnose diverse student needs (Linn, 1993).

How Are the Common Core Assessment Shifts Different from and Similar to High-Stakes Testing? Do They Better Evaluate Student Needs?

The transition to CCSS-aligned assessments entails several fundamental shifts from traditional high-stakes testing. High-stakes tests typically emphasize multiple-choice questions, rote memorization, and a narrow focus on standardized scores to determine promotions, graduations, or funding (Koretz, 2008). These assessments often result in teaching to the test and neglecting higher-order thinking skills.

In contrast, CCSS assessments emphasize deeper understanding, critical thinking, problem-solving, and applying knowledge across disciplines (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). The assessment shifts promote performance tasks, open-ended questions, and integrated curriculum components, fostering a more comprehensive view of student abilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Similarities lie in their use of standardized procedures and measures to evaluate student achievement, aiming for accountability and comparability across schools. Both assessment types seek to provide meaningful feedback, but CCSS assessments strive to go beyond mere scores to diagnose skills and conceptual understanding (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).

Do these assessments better evaluate student needs? Generally, yes. The emphasis on critical thinking and applied skills aligns more closely with real-world competencies and offers nuanced insights into student learning. However, their effectiveness depends on proper implementation, teacher training, and ensuring equitable access to resources (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2006).

Importance of Formative Assessment in the Common Core Era

Formative assessment is more critical than ever in the CCSS context. Its ongoing nature allows educators to monitor student progress continuously, providing immediate feedback that guides instruction and addresses misconceptions in real time (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Given the shifts toward deeper learning and critical thinking, formative assessments help identify specific areas where students struggle, enabling targeted interventions.

Furthermore, formative assessment supports a growth mindset by emphasizing learning as an iterative process rather than a fixed outcome (Dweck, 2006). It encourages student self-assessment and reflection, fostering metacognitive skills that are integral to CCSS goals of developing independent thinkers (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

In practice, formative assessments include quizzes, discussions, peer reviews, and observational checklists. Their integration into daily instruction enhances the ability of teachers to adapt their teaching strategies, thus creating a responsive learning environment (Heritage, 2010). This aligns with the standards' focus on developing higher-order skills rather than rote memorization.

In summary, formative assessment is indispensable within the CCSS framework as it ensures instruction remains responsive and aligned with higher-order thinking goals. It shifts the focus from solely evaluating student learning at the end of instruction to fostering continuous improvement and understanding.

Conclusion

Assessments in education are vital tools that, when aligned properly with instructional goals, can significantly improve student learning and achievement. The shift toward assessments aligned with CCSS emphasizes critical thinking, application, and deeper understanding over traditional rote memorization. While high-stakes testing has historically focused on accountability through standardized scores, the new assessment paradigm seeks to evaluate comprehensive student skills and provide meaningful feedback. Formative assessment plays a crucial role in this evolution, serving as a dynamic method to diagnose and address student needs, ultimately fostering a more effective and equitable educational environment. As educators and policymakers refine assessment practices, the focus should remain on how these tools can best support diverse learners and promote lifelong learning skills.

References

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.
• Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond Testing: Towards a Theory of Educational Assessment. Falmer Press.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment: Making It Happen in the Classroom. SAGE Publications.
• Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Counts and What It Costs. Harvard University Press.
• Linn, R. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded notions of validity and reliability. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 5-11.
• Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. (2006). Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Mathematics Data. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
• National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
• Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. National Academies Press.
• Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know. Pearson Education.
• Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and learning: Theory, research, and practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101830.
• U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Achieve’s Guide to the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/isi-guide-to-ccss.pdf