ow
6
HUUC;.Al·'ON .... l L[ADER!oI1JP/FFHR~ I AKY 2003
assroom
mprov
ssessments
•
earnln
Teachers who develop useful assessments, pmvide corrective instruction,
and give students second chances to demonstrate success can impmve
their instruction and help students fectrn.
Thomas R. Guskey
arge·scale assessments, like all assessments, are designed for a specific
purpose. Those used in most states today are designed to rank-order
schools and students for the purposes of accountability-and some do
~o fairly weU. But assessments designed for nU1king are generally not
good instruments for helping teachers inlprove their instruction or
modify their approach to individual students. First, students take thenl at the end
of the Sdlool year, whe n most instructional activities are near completion.
Second, teachers don 't receive the results until two or tlu·ee montlls later, bl'
which time tllei.r students have usually moved on to otller teadlers. And tlllrd,
the results that tead,ers rece.ive usually lack me level of detail needed to target
specific improvements (Barton , 2002; Kifer, 2001) .
1l1C assessments best suited LO guide
training, teachers rely
quizzes, tests, writing aSSignments, and other
ments offered
assessments thoU teachers administer on a
bOOks or instructional materials. \Vhen no
regular basis i.n their classrooms. Teachers
[nlst the results from these assessments
because of their direct relation to classroom
instructional goals. Plus, results are imme·
mate and easy to :1ntllyze at the individual
studem level. To use classroom assessments
LO make improvemcms, how ever, teachers
Dlust change bmh their view of assessments
and their interpretation of results. Specifi·
t
f
&
•
teacher (Stiggin , 1999). Lacking specific
improvements in studen t leam,ing are {he
by
h~lviJ y
on the assess--
the publisher of their text·
suitable assessmentS arc available, teachers
constnlct their own in a haphazard fashion,
with questions llnd essay prompts similar to
rhe ones thm their teachers used. They treat
assessments as evaluation devices to admin·
ister whtn instructional acllvitics are
completed and to lise primarily for assigning
students' grades.
To
1I
e assessments to improve instnlction
cally. they need to see their assessments as
and studen t learning, teachers need to
an integral part of the instnlction process
change their approach to assessmClltS in
and as crucial for helping students learn.
three important ways.
Despite the impo nance of assessments in
education tOday, few teachers receive much
Make Assessments Useful
fonna! training in assessment design o r anal·
For Sillde"ts
Y is. A recent survey showed, for example,
Nearly every student has suffered the experi·
that fewer th an half t he states require
co mpetence in assessm ent for licen sure as a
ence of spending hours preparing for a
m~lj or assesslllent, onJy ro discover thar the
A SSOC IATION FOR S U PERVI SI ON AN I) CU IIRI <.U Lli M D EV I! LOP ME NT
7
For Teache,.s
material that he or she had stud ied waS
surprise:: student.,. Instead. these assess-
di.fferem frolll w hat the teacher chose
m enl'i reflect the concep ts and skills d1a[
to emphasize 011 the asscssmenl. Th is
the teacher emphasized in da.'is, along
with the teacher'S cle-d.f c ril eria tor
judging suJdents' perfumlance, '111ese
concepts, skills. ~Uld criteria align w ith the
reacher's inslfuctional activities and,
ideally. with State or district stand:u:ds.
Smdeills see these assessments as filir
measures of impOI1rult leaming goals.
Te-dchers facilitate (eaming by providing
students with imporum feedback on their
Jc<tming prog~ and by helping them
experience lcacht:'s stuuents twO un-
fortunate lessons. First, sUldents realize
[hat hard work and etl'o rt don ' t payoff
in school beca use the time and effort
that they spent studying h ~ld little Or no
jnfluencc on the results. And steom..!,
they learn that they can no tlfuSl tJleir
tcachers (Guskey , 2000<1). These (Ire
hardly rile lessons lhal responsibJe
te.lchcrs W'lIlt tJ1(;~ jr studtnts to lcam.
Nonetheless, th iS ex perie nce is
common because ma.ny lC4lchers s till
mi stakenly believe that they must ,k eep
their assessments secret. As a result!
stude nts come to regard assessments as
guessing games, especially from the
middle grades 011. They view s uccess as
depending on how well they can guess
w hat their teachers wiU ask o n quizzes,
testS. and other assessme nt 'i. Some
teachers eve n take pride in their abiUty
to o llt-guess SUldems. llley ask questio ns about isolated concep ts or
obsc ure understandings JUSt to see
'w hether students are reading carefuli)'.
Generally, these teadlCrs don 't include
s uch ·'gOt'dl4l " questions maliciously,
but r'.tlller-o ften wlcol1scio uslybectlllse s uc h queStions were aske<.l of
them when they were sLUdents.
Cias...;oroom aSSessments thm serve as
meaningfuJ SOllrcc.."S of infonnaliondon't
8
ED UCA TI ONAL L I!" J)llIC~ IIJ r/ FliJi'nr t\ R Y
identify learning problems ( Bloom .
Madaus, & H:L')tings, 1981 ; SLiggins, 2002).
Cri tics sometimes contend tbat tJlis
approach means "tcaching to th e tcSl. But rhe cruciaJ iss ue is, \"(/hat determines thc cOntcnt :u1(1 methods of
le<lch ing? If the tes t is the primaty dete rminant of what teachers teach ,Ind how
they teacb it. then we are indeed
'· teaching to the test." But if desired
learning goals are rhe foun dalio n of
srudellls ' jnstniction;L1 expe rieoces,
then assessmentS of student Jeamlng are
simply extensions of those same goals.
Lnstead of "' te<lching to the tcst,"
teac he rs are mo re accurately '- testi.ng
what Lhey teach." Ifa concept or Skill is
important e no ugh to assess, then it
should be important enough lO te'-Ich.
And if it is no t important enough to
teaCh, then lhere 's little justification for
assessing it.
2003
The best cia sroom assessments also ser ve as meaningful SO urceS o f info rmation fo r reache rs, helping
them identify what th e )r
taught well and whar th ey
need to work 0 0 , Gathering this vital info nnaliOn
does no t require a sophisti cated statistical :U1aJysis
of assessment results.
Teachers need only make
a simple tally of how mao y
students missed e:lch
assessment item or tailed
to meCl a specific c riterion . State assessments
sometimes provide si.milar
item-by-itcm information,
but concen'lS ahout item
security and the cost of developing new
ilems each year usually make assessment developers re lUCLa.nt to offer such
detailed inf0n11ation. Once leach ers
have made specific tallies, (11ey C;U) pay
s ped al :tneotion to the [rouble spotsthose items or crite ria missed by large
numbers of students in the class.
tn reviewing these results, the
teache r lllust first conSide r the qualiry of
the item or c rite rion. Perhaps the question is ambiguo usly worded o r tJle crilerion is lInclcl1r. Perhaps Students misinte.rpretcd dle question. \Vhatever the
case. teachers must de lcm li ne whether
tJlese items adequatdy address the
knowledge. underst<tnding, or skill that
they '\-vere intended to me'l!mrc.
if teachers find no o bviOUS problems
with the item or c riterio n, tJlcn they
must' tum their attention to their
teadl ing. \Vhe n as many as half the
students in a class answer a c1ea.r question incorreccly or fail to meet a partiCular crite rion , it's not a student leaming
probJenl-it's a teaching problem.
Whatever teaching slfategy was used ,
wh"tevt'r cxampJ es were employed, or
whatever explanation was offe red, it
simply didn ' t work.
AnaJyzing ,lssessmeLll resuils in this
way rnean s setting ,tSid e some po we rfuJ
ego i ' sues. Many teachers may initially
say. '" [aughlthe m. TIley JUSl djdn·t
Ie'lnl it! n But o n reflection. most recag-
nize that their effectiveness is not
defined on the basis of what they do as
teachers but r.uher on \vhat their
students :.lre able to do. Can effective
te~lching take place in the absence of
learning? Cerrainly nO[.
Some argue th,1[ such a perspective
puts LOa much responsibility o n
teachers ,Ind not enough on students.
Occasionally, teachers respo nd ,
" ))on ' t stude nts have respo nsibiliti es
in this pro cess? Shouldn ' t students
display iniriative and personaJ
accountability? "
Indeed , teachers and students share
responsibility for learning. Even w ith
valiant teaching effortS. we cannot
gU:lrantee that all StudenL<; wiIJ learn
everythi ng excellently. O nly mrcly do
leachers find items or assessment
criteria that evcl1' student anSwers
currec ll)7. A few students are nevcr
wilUng to put fonh the necessary effort,
but dlcse students tend to be the exception , nOt the rule. If :l te'Lcher is reaching fewer than half of t.he students in
the class, the teacher's method of
instruction needs (Q improve. And
teachers need this kind of evidence to
help target tbeir instnlction:11 improvement etforts.
ences in students' leanling styles and
in telligences (Stemberg, 1994).
Although teache rs generall y try to incorpo r~ue d iffere nt tc<tching appro aches
w he n they initially plan their lessons,
co rrec tive instntction involves
extend ing illld srrellgdle ning that work.
In ~Idditi on , those smdents w ho have
few or no lea rning errors to correct
sho uld receive enrichment activilies to
help broaden and expand thei.r learn ing.
Materi:lls designed for gifted and
talented studen ts provide an excellent
resource for such activities.
wonderfu l resources for ide:ts and pmetica.l advice.
Occasio nally, [c:tchcrs cxpress
conce.rn th:'lt if rhey take timc to o ffe r
corrective instruction, they will s:tcri~
[j ce. c urriculum covCJ"4lge. Because
corrective work is in.itiaUy best done
during class and under the teacher's
directio n, carly instructional units wiU
typically involve an extra class period o r
two . Teachers who tlsk swdents to
complete co rrective work independently, outside of d.ass, genera ll y find
that those students who most need ro
Follow Assessments
with Corrective Instruction
If assessments provide infomlation fo r
both. students and teac hers. then they
cannot m~lrk the end of learning.
lnstead, assessments must be followed
by high·quality, correc tive instruc tiOn
designed to remedy whatever leaming
errors the asscssmcm iden ti1:kd (see
GlIskey, 1997), To charge ahead
knowing that students have 110l learned
certain concepts or skills well would be
foolish . Teachers must therefore follow
[heir ~Issessmenrs with instnlctionaJ
alternatives that presem those concepts
in new w:tys and engage students in
differem and mo rc appropriate learning
experiences.
High-q uality, corrective instructio n
is not the same as reteadling, which
o ften consists simply of restating tbe
original explanations louder and m ore
slowly. Instead, [he teacher must use
approaches tha t accommodate diffe r-
r-:;:-achers need to see their assessments as an integral part of t: : l
instruction process and as crucial for helping students learn.
Developing ideas fo r corrective
instruction and enrichment ilct-ivities
can be difficult, especiall y if teachers
believe that they must do it alo ne, bur
stntcrured professional developme nt
o ppo rtunities Can help teachers share
strategies and coLlabu r<ltc o n le1ching
lcchniq llcs (G uskey. 1998, 2000b) .
Facult}' mec lings devOted to examining
dassroom assessment resulls and devel·
oping aJrernativoc strategies ('an be
highly effective. Distric t-level personnel
and coUaboralive pan:.ne.rships with
local colleges and unjvcrsirics offer
spe.nd time on corrective \'v ork arc the
le:lsl like ly to do so.
As studems become accustomed to
thiS corrective process and reaUzt. the
personal benefits it offers, however. the
teacher can df"'dSticaUy reduce the
amuunl of class ti me allocated to such
work and accomplish much of it
through homework assig nments or in
special study sessions before o r after
school. And by nO[ al10wing minor
errors [0 become major teaming problems. teachers better prepare students
for subseque.nt learning t.,sks. cventu·
A S:.OC I,I,'fIOf', F OR S U I' E RVI S I O N A N I) C UI{RI C:II I.Il ,\1
OI~ V ljl. O I· ,\I [N T
9
aUy need less time for
corrective work (\Vhiling.
Van Burgh , & Render,
199;). and call proceed at
a more r.lpid pace in late r
kaming unitS. By pacing
their instnlctional units
more flexibly, most
tC<lchers find thal they
need not sacrifice cur·
ri culum covemge to offer
srmJc nrs the benefits of
corrective instruction.
3re used in nearl}' e\7cry
profeSSional endt':lvo r.
Only in schools do
student face [he prospec t
of o ne-sho L, do-or-di e
assessments, with no
c hance to demonstrace
what they leamed from
previous mistakes.
All educmors strive to
have their stude-nrs
become lifelong learners
and develop learning-toleam skms. What better
leaming·IO-Ie-Jrn skill is
there than leaming from
Give Second Chances
to Demonstrate
Success
o ne 's mistakes? A mistake
To become an integra l
part of the instruc tional
process. <assessments
C;II111o t be a one-sbot, doo r--<lie experience fo r
students. Instead: assessments must be part of a11
o ngo ing effort lO help
students learn. And if
teachers foUow assessme ntS with helpful correclive instnlctio n, then
stud ents should have a
secon d chance to demonstratc their new level of
competence and understanding. Thjs second
chance he lps detenlline
rhe effectiveness of the
co rrective instruction and
offers SllIdents anothe r
oppo nuni ty to experience success in
learning.
\XI' riling tcachers have long recogn.ized the many benefils of a seco nd
c hanct'. They know that students rarely
wrile wcU on an inirial attempt'.
Teachers build imo lht:: writing process
scvclill opportunities for students to
g:lln feedback o n early drafts and the n
LO ust.' lhat fe~dba ck LO revise and
improve their wriling. Teachers of
othe r subjects freq uent ly balk aL the
idea, however- mosl'ly beca use it
dilTer.- fro m rheir personal learning
experiences.
Some teachers express concern that
giving students a second chance might
be unfair and that " life isn 't like thm ,"
can be rhe beginning of
IC;:lming. Some assessment experts argue , in
fJct, that swdem s learn
nothing from a successfu l
perfomlance. I~:tthe rt
students learn best when
their iniriaJ perfonnance
is less than success-Illt, fo r
then they can gain directi on o n how to improve
(Wiggins, 1998).
O ther teachers suggest
that it's unfair to offer the
same privileges and high
grades 1"0 rudents who
reqUire a second ch:Ulce
l th<ll we offer to t.hose
~ students who demonioO._ _ _ _ _ __ .. 0 Slfate a high le\rel of
The)' point o ut that that a surgeon
doesn 't get a second c han ce to perform
an operatio n s u cces~ftJll y and a piJOl
(Iocsn't gel a second chance to land a
jumbO jel safely. Because of rhe very
high stakes involved. each must get il
right the first Lime.
But how did dlesc highly skiUcd
professionals learn their craft? '11C first
operatio n perfomled by that surgeon
was on a cttci<lvc r-:l sitmuion thm
allows a 1m of larirmJt: for mistakes.
Si milarl y, lh e; pilot spent m:u1Y ho urs in
a !lig ht Simulato r hefore eve r attempting
a landing from the cock pit. Such t:xpcric nces allowed them 1.0 learn from their
mistakes imd to imp rove Lheir performance. Similar inSlnlction:ll techniques
1e-.1.ming on me initial
assessment. After aU , these students Illay
simply have failed to prep:lre appropriate ly. Ct:rtainly. we sho lLld recognize
srud ents who do wel.1 o n th e initial
assessment and provide oppornmities
for them to e...xtenu their learning
through enrichment activities_But (hose
students who do weU on a second
:Issessmenl have also learned well. More
impOnanl . their poor performance on
the first a~sessment may no t have been
their fault. Maybe the teaching smm_
....
gics used during the inilJai instruction
were inappropri:m:: for these stude nts,
but the corrective instruction proved
more effective. if we delcnnine gr.Jdcs
on the basis of perfonnance and these
srudems have perfonned at a high level,
dlcn they certainly deserve the same
grtldes as those who scored w ell on
their first try.
A co mp~u-;lble e..xample is the driver 's
license e..x aminarioll. ~'1:lny individuals
do nm pass their drivt"r's test o n the
firSt anempl. On the second o r third try,
however. they may reach the same high
leve l o f perfo rmance as OU1Crs did o n
t heir first. Should these drivers be
o ffers specific strategies for improvement anti encoumges her to try again.
As the athlete repeaLS her performance,
lhe coach wmches ca refull y LO e nsure
thm she has corrected the problem .
Successful studenls typically know
how LO take corrective action o n (heir
own . They save the ir assessmems ;md
review (he items or criteria thm they
missed. They rework problems, look lip
I":sessments can help improve education, but as long as
we use them only as a means to rank schools and students,
we will miss their most powerful benefits.
restric ted, for inslance. to driving in fair
wea lher only? In inclement weath er.
sho uld they be required LO puU their
cars over and park untiJ U1C weather
dears? Of course not. Because they
evemu:LlIy met the same high performance standards as those w ho passed
o n Iheir initial an empt. the), receive the
same privileges. The SOlme should hold
t rue for students wh o show U131 th ey,
tOO, have ieanlcd well.
Similar Situati on s
Using asse 'sme nrs as sources of info rmation, fo lJowing assessments with
co.rrec tive instruction, and giving
sllldenrs a second chance are steps in a
process that all teachers usc na[Urail y
w hen they tu tor individ ual students.
If the student makes a mistake, ule
tcacher stops and points ou t the
mistake. T he reacher th en explains that
concept in a d iffe rem W<fy. Fina.L1y, dIe
teach er asks anoth er question or p oses
a similar pro ble m to ensure the
student's understanding be.fo re going
o n. 111C c hallenge for teachers is l'O use
their d;lssroom asseSSlllen (s i,n simila.r
ways to provide aU students With this
son of intlividualized ass ista nce.
Successful coaches use the same
proct"ss. Lmm ediately fo Uowing a gymmIst'S perfonnance on the balance
beam, for ex:unple, the coach expl:lins
to her what she did correctly and what
could be improved. '1111;:' coac h then
ans wers in thei.r textbooks o r other
resource materials. and ask th e te:lc her
.lboUl ide~{s o r concepts thm they do n't
understand. Less successful students
rarely take such initiative. After lOOking
at th eir gmcl es 1 t hey rypicall y crumple
up thei r assess ments and de po sit th em
in the trash can as they leave the cl assroom . Te~lCbe.rs who use classroom
assessments as pan of the instructional
process help aJi of their students do
what the most successfuJ snldents have
learned to do for themselves .
The Benefits of Assessment
Using clas.'ifoom assessment to improve
student leclnling is not a new ide !. Mo re
than 30 years ago, Iknj:lmin Bloom
showed how to conduct thiSp rocess in
prJcticaJ and hjghly effc<.~tivt" w:ays when
he describe d lhe pr:t<..:tict" o f mastery
ieaming (Bloom , 1968, 1971). Bill' since
that time, the emp h~ls i s On ~lsseSS Ol enrs
as tools for accOlffitab itit y h ;IS diverted
.mention from this more impo na1ll and
fundamen tal purposc.
Assessments can be a vilal component in our efforts to improve eeluc.llio n . llut as long as we use the m o nl y a"
a means to r:Ulk schoo ls and students,
we will miss their mOSt po we rful benefits. \'(Ie must focus instead on helping
teac hers c h.Ulge the way they usc
assessme nl results, improvt: the quality
of their cl'lssroo m assessmCllts, and
aUgn their assessments with valu cd
learning goals and state o r district stand.u-ds. \Vhen [c:tc hers ' classroo m assessmentS become an integral part of the
illsrrucrional process and a ce ntml
ingreoiem in their effon s to h elp
students leam , ule benefits o f assessmClll for both students and teachers
will be bo undless . •
R eferences
Bano n, P. E. (2002). Staying on cou rse
il1 edu catio n reform . Princeton, N):
Sral.ist.i cs & Research Di vision. Polk'Y
Infom13tion Center, Educa tional
Testing Service.
Gloom. B. S. ( 1968). Learning for m:lstery.
Ellalua tion Commenl (UCU-CSliIP) ,
1(2) . 1-12.
Bl oom , B. S. ( 1971). Mastery le:lrning. ln
). 11. Bloc'k (Ed .). Mastery learllillg;
71J(!OI)' and practice. New York : Hult,
Rine hart & WinstOn.
Bl oo m, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings,
J. T. (1981). EN/lutll/on 10 Improllc
lellrning . New York: McG raw-Hill.
Guskcy. T. It (J997). lmplem clltillg
mastel)l /eanlll1g (2nd cd .) . Belmo nt,
CA: \Vadswonh.
Guskey, T. R. ( 1998). Making ti me 10 train
you r staff. Tbe Scb ool Adminlslrator,
55(7), 35-37.
Guske),. T. R. (20003). Twe m y questio ns?
Twcnry tools for bener teach ing.
Principal Leadersblp. t (3) , ';-7.
Guskey, T. R. (2000b) . Evtlllllllhig professlolwl development. T ho usand Oaks.
CA: Corwin Prc "5.
Kifer. E. (2001 ) . Large-scale assesslllel1l:'
D hw.!IISi o IlS, dilemmas, lind policies.
Tho usand Oaks . CA: Corwin Press.
Sternberg. R. ). ( 1994). Allowing fo r
thinking sly ies. I:.'dllCtltiOlla/ I.etldersblp, 52(3). ~6- ·fO.
Stiggins 1 R.) . ( 1999). Evaluating classroom
assessmCnllraining in teadler education
programs. Edt/Cilt/olltll M easurem e1Jl:
Isstles a lld Practice, 18(1 ), 23-27.
S(iggins. R. J. (2002). AssessmcllI c risis:
The absence of asse.."iSI11c.nt for learning.
piJI Delta Kappa" , 83( I 0), 758-765.
\\7hiting, 11.. V;ml3urgh . ). \'(/., & RendlT,
G. F. ( 1995). MaslelJ, leaming In I/;w
Paper presented althe ;U1nmtJ
meeting of the American Educational
Resetrch Association. San FranciSCO.
Wjggin~ . G. ( 1998). E'duct{lilJe
assessm ent. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.
dtl~"'OO ""
COp)'light © 2003 T homas R. Guskey.
Thomas R. Guskey IS Professor of
EducatIOn Policy Studies and Evaluation,
College of Education, Universi ty of
Kentucky, Taylor Education Bldg ..
Lexington, KY 40506; guskey@uky.edu .
A SS ()('lATlO N !'OR SI ' I' I~ RVI S I O N A N I) C U MRl t:U l l .\1
D E V ll l O I'M tN T
11