KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY
KUTZTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: Grade 4 through 8 Program
ELU 322: ASSESSMENT METHODS: FORMATIVE, SUMMATIVE, DIAGNOSTIC, AND
BENCHMARK
I.
Course Description: ELU 322: Assessment Methods: Formative, Summative,
Diagnostic, and Benchmark
A.
This course examines the formal assessment of children from grades four through
eight. Both traditional and alternative assessment methods including diagnostic,
authentic, formative, summative, and benchmark are instructed and developed
within this course. Use of technology to support instruction and assessment will
also be addressed. Learning appropriate assessment methods is imperative to
meet the instructional needs of individual students. Required (except for those
students in the dual certification program in Special Education.) 3 s.h., 3 c.h.
II.
Course Rationale:
Assessment skills and the application of assessment results to develop appropriate
instruction are essential at the grade 4 though grade 8 level. The content of ELU 322
should be organized to provide candidates with the knowledge and skills to recognize
students having difficulty and to diagnose their challenges. Content should enable
candidates to learn how to understand and use data about student learning and to use
related technology appropriately. Translating diagnostic information about student
learning into successful teaching strategies and interventions requires formal preparation
proficiency with assessment tools. The content must also include explicit attention to
Pennsylvania's academic standards and the state assessment anchors for grades four
through eight, as well as be consistent with summative, formative, benchmark, and
diagnostic assessments.
III.
Course Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes
A.
Relationship to Standards (see table)
Course Objectives/ Student Learning Outcomes
At the conclusion of the course, the candidates will be
able to
Demonstrate the use of formal assessment data for
instructional, behavioral, and possible eligibility decisions
based on the type of assessment, level of the students being
assessed, and the point and quality of instruction
Demonstrate an understanding of formal assessment data
1
PDE
I.B.
ACEI
4
INTASC ISTE
8
including, grade-level equivalents, percentile ranks,
standard scores, and stanines
Demonstrate an understanding of the types of assessments
used (e.g. screening, diagnostic, formative, summative,
benchmark) and the purpose of each assessment in a databased decision-making process
Identify, define and interpret the types of valid and reliable
education assessments and their uses including screening,
diagnostic, formative, summative, and authentic
Implement approaches to mid-level assessment including:
 Ways to use assessment data to implement
instructional and/or programmatic revisions while
acknowledging the developmental and attitudinal
challenges of the grade 4 through eight student.
 Describing the impact of the state-wide student
performance testing and the influence on the
program and student addressing test anxiety,
motivation, and additional assessment-related issues
Create an instructional plan using assessment information
related to individual achievement
Design assessments that target academic anchors and the
standards of content areas.
Analyze and interpret formative assessment (e.g.,
curriculum based assessment, CBA)
Demonstrate an understanding of the purpose and intent of
standardized assessments and progress monitoring as one
of multiple indicators used in overall student evaluation
Systematically monitor student performance to best
identify areas of need
Use evaluative data on an individual, class and district level
to implement instructional and/or programmatic revisions
for quality improvement
Demonstrate an understanding of ethical practice for
assessment
Recognize the need to consult with multi-disciplinary team
when cultural, economic, or linguistic differences are
present in order to avoid biased assessment.
Demonstrate an understanding of the IEP process, the legal
obligation, and the inclusion of a special needs student into
the regular education program.
2
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
IV.B.
I.B.
4
8
IV.B.
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
III.B.
5.1
9
III.D.
I.B.
5.2
10
III.D.
I.B.
5.2
10
B.
Relationship to Conceptual Framework:
ELU 322 demonstrates the following categories in the conceptual framework in
the following ways:
Content Specialization speaks to the importance of assessment, the reason
we assess, the variety of assessment, and the need for a specific individual course
for teacher candidates. Professional Methodology is determined by the way we
use specialized terms, vocabulary, definitions, and how we create, administer,
grade, and adjust our teaching based on the results of said assessment. Critical
Thinking addresses how we know what to assess, when to assess, in what manner
we actually assess, and what conclusions we draw from the data gathered. Also,
the differentiation and accommodation for special students would be included
here. Communication speaks to the use of websites, news sources, government
programs, and journal articles to help candidates become familiar with specialized
terms and concepts necessary for discussion and understanding assessment theory.
Examples from professor's experience in the elementary classroom and
administration included. Integration of technology is helpful when researching
the use of rubrics, finding alternative testing procedures, locating standardized test
information or norms, or visits to instructional materials centers to help teacher
candidates with choices and options for instruction and assessment. Scholarly
inquiry allows teacher candidates to research Bloom. Gardner, and/or NCLB to
help understand their relevance and importance in the teaching and assessment
cycle. Inquiry into creating valid and reliable testing instruments and motivation
for test-taking would also be helpful. Reflective wisdom allows teacher candidates
to accommodate the broad expanse of ability, self-motivation, varied interests,
and backgrounds of children in the classroom. Objective tests, subjective essays,
performance and portfolio assessment, and authentic assessment are all at the
disposal of the informed teacher. Reflection in this area is most important.
IV.
Assessment
A.
Core Assignment:
Will be added when faculty teach the course
B.
V.
Other Assessments based on a subset of the following:
Tests, quizzes, homework, and an alternate assessment project
Course Outline
A.
Course Outline
1.
The Relationship between Assessment and Instruction
a.
What is classroom assessment?
b.
Recent trends in classroom assessment
c.
Assessment in the instructional process
2.
Nature of Student Assessment
a.
Major types of assessment methods
b.
Guidelines for effective student assessment
c.
Validity and reliability in assessment planning
d.
Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment
3
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Content Standards and Student Achievement
a.
Nature of content standards
b.
State content standards, anchors, and benchmarks
c.
Relationship of classroom instruction to state assessments
Planning for Assessment
a.
Using Bloom's Taxonomy and Revised Taxonomy as a guide for
educational objectives
b.
Types of assessment procedures
Objectively scored assessments of knowledge and simple understanding:
Completion, short-answer, and selected-response items
a.
Summative assessment
b.
Assessing knowledge
c.
Putting tests together
Selected-response, short-answer, and essay items: Assessing deep
understanding and reasoning
a.
What is deep understanding and reasoning?
b.
Assessing deep understanding and reasoning
Performance assessments: Assessing deep understanding, reasoning, and
skills
a.
Learning targets for performance assessments
b.
Constructing performance tasks
c.
Specifying the performance outcomes
d.
Selecting the focus of the assessment
Assessing affective traits and learning targets
a.
What are affective traits and learning targets?
b.
Methods of assessing affective targets
Portfolios: assessing understanding, reasoning, skills, and products
a.
Planning for portfolio assessment
b.
Implementing portfolio assessment
c.
Evaluating portfolios
Assessing students with special needs
a.
Assessing students for identification
b.
Assessment problems encountered by students with special needs
c.
Assessment accommodations
d.
Grading and reporting accommodations
Grading and Reporting
a.
Selecting the basis for grading
b.
Combing data for grading
c.
Electronic grading
d.
Guidelines for effective and fair grading
e.
Reporting to students and parents
Interpreting Standardized Achievement Test Scores
a.
Features of standardized achievement tests
b.
Interpreting norm-referenced scores
c.
Percentile ranks
d.
Grade equivalent scores
4
e.
f.
VI.
Standard scores
Criterion-referenced interpretation
Instructional Resources
Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals: Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Brookhart, S. M. (2001). Successful students' formative and summative uses of assessment
information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153-169.
Chappius, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational
Leadership, 60(1), 40-44.
Cizek, G.J., & Burg, S. S. (2006). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment:
Strategies for classrooms and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student
learning. Thousand Oaks, CA; Corwin Press.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1998). Performance assessment and standards-based curricula: The
achievement cycle. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Guilfoyle, C. (2006). NCLB: Is There Life Beyond Testing? Educational Leadership, 64 (3),
8-13.
Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Assessment minute by minute, day by
day. Educational Leadership, 63(3) pp. 18-24.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & McTighe, J. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance
assessment using the dimensions of learning model. Alexandria, VA: Association for the
supervision of Curriculum Development.
McMillan, J. H. (2007). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standardsbased instruction. (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
5
McMillan, J. H. (2003). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision
making. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 22(4), 34-43.
McNamee, G. D. & Chen, J. (2005). Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching.
Educational Leadership, 63(3), 72-76.
McTighe, J. and Ferrera, S. (1998). Assessing learning in the classroom. Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2001). PK-12. Assessment. Harrisburg, Pa.: Author.
Popham, W. J. (2005). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (4th Ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for the
supervision of Curriculum Development.
Rieeck, W. A., & Dugger-Wadsworth, D. E. (2005). Assessment accommodations: Helping
students with exceptional learning needs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(2), 105109.
Spinellli, C. G. (2002). Classroom assessment for students with special needs in inclusive
settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve
student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6