KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY
KUTZTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: Pre-K through 4 Program
EEU 325: ASSESSMENT II: SUMMATIVE, FORMATIVE, DIAGNOSTIC, AND
BENCHMARK
I.
Course Description: EEU 325: Assessment II: Summative, Formative, Diagnostic,
and Benchmark
A.
This course examines the formal assessment of children from pre-kindergarten
through grade 4. Both traditional and alternative assessment methods that include
diagnostic, normative, authentic, benchmark, and summative tools will be
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.) Prerequisite is EEU 225. 3 s.h., 3 c.h.
II.
Course Rationale:
Assessment methods and the application of assessment results to design effective
instruction are essential pre-K through grade 4 level teaching skills. The content of EEU
325 should be organized to provide candidates with the knowledge and methods 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, to
modify instruction, to use technology appropriately, and to adapt curriculum successfully.
Translating diagnostic information about student learning into successful teaching
strategies and interventions requires formal preparation and proficiency with assessment
tools. The content must also include explicit attention to Pennsylvania's academic
standards and the state assessment anchors for pre-K through grade 4, 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
1
PDE
I.B.
ACEI
4
INTASC ISTE
8
Demonstrate an understanding of the types of assessments
used (e.g. screening, diagnostic, formative, summative) and
the purpose of each assessment in a data-based decisionmaking process
Identify, define, and interpret the types of valid and reliable
education assessments and their uses including screening,
diagnostic, formative, summative, and authentic methods
Implement approaches to child assessment including:
 Ways to use assessment data to implement
instructional and/or programmatic revisions for
quality improvement
 Describing the impact of the state-wide student
performance testing and the influence on the
program and child
Demonstrate an understanding of the multi-disciplinary
evaluation process and an ability to articulate the findings
presented in an evaluation report including grade-level
equivalents, percentile ranks, standard scores, and stanines
Articulate differences between achievement tests, aptitude
tests, and observational data used in special education
placement decisions
Create an instructional plan using assessment information
related to individual achievement
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 legally acceptable
modifications and accommodations for assessment for
students with disabilities
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
IV.B.
I.B.
4
8
IV.B.
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
I.B.
4
4
8
8
I.B.
4
I.B.
4
8
I.B.
4
8
III.B.
I.B.
5.2
10
III.B.
5.1
9
III.D.
I.B.
5.2
10
III.D.
I.B
5.2
10
8
B.
Relationship to Conceptual Framework:
EEU 325 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.
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 by faculty when course is taught
B.
Other Assessments based on a subset of the following:
Tests and quizzes
Homework
Assessment resource project: an alternative method of assessment
V.
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.
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
3.
Planning for Assessment
3
a.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
12.
Using Bloom's Taxonomy and Revised Taxonomy as a guide for
educational objectives
b.
Types of assessment procedures
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
Preparing and using Achievement Tests
a.
Specifying the instructional objectives
b.
Role of the instructional objective
c.
Considerations in constructing relevant test items
d.
General guidelines for item writing
e.
Arranging the items on the test
f.
Preparing directions
g.
Analyzing the effectiveness of test items
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
a.
Components of performance skills
b.
Stating objectives for performance assessment
c.
Restricted and extended performance tasks
d.
Steps in preparing performance assessments
e,
Specifying the performance outcomes
f.
Selecting the focus of the assessment
g.
Selecting the performance situation
h.
Selecting the method of assessment
Portfolio Assessment
a.
Advantages of using classroom portfolios
b.
Planning for the use of portfolios
c.
Evaluating the portfolio
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
Administering and Interpreting Standardized Achievement Test Scores
a.
Features of standardized achievement tests
b.
Interpreting norm-referenced scores
4
c.
d.
e.
f.
VI.
Percentile ranks
Grade equivalent scores
Standard scores
Criterion-referenced interpretation
Instructional Resources
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Aschbacher, P. R., Herman, J. L., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative
assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
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.
Brantley, D. K. (2007). Instructional assessment of English language learners in the K-8
classroom. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon
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.
Ediger, M. (2001). Assessment: A teacher's guide. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 451 217)
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: Theory of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary ed.). New
York, NY: Basic Books.
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.
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
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. (1999). Standards-based 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.
Quinlan, A.M. (2006). A complete guide to rubrics: Assessment made easy for teachers, Kcollege. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Resnick, L.B. (2006). Making accountability really count. Educational measurement: Issues
and practice, 25(1), 33-37.
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.
Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability.
Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education Distributed by University of
Chicago Press.
6
7