“The Paradox of Classroom Assessment: A Challenge for the 21st Century” by Katz, Earl
and Olson (2001)
SUMMARY by:
Mary Jessica Tiozon Alalid
Katz, Earl and Olson (2001) in their article “The Paradox of Classroom Assessment: A
Challenge for the 21st Century”, agree with Wilson (1996) in saying that classroom assessment
are of different purposes, namely: providing feedback to students, offering diagnostic information
for the teacher to use, providing summary data for record keeping, proffering evidence for reports,
and directing efforts at curriculum revision. The same with Wilson, they also argue that to meet
these goals teachers are to effectively play five assessment roles as “mentor”, “guide”,
“accountant”, “reporter”, and “program director”. In the performance of these roles, however, the
authors believe that teachers are challenged by the constraints brought about by the enforced
consideration for both the “known” (the curriculum embodying what is to be taught and the set of
standards) and “the knower” (the learners with varying backgrounds, needs, interests, and
abilities). They contend that such consideration seems impossible because it implies integration of
two sets of contrasting epistemological, pedagogical, psychological, and assessment implications
which rooted from two different notions of competence. Below is the gist of their arguments.
At one end, is an objective-driven notion of competence as the acquisition and possession
of knowledge (“the known”) construed as facts, rules, principles and theories. These knowledge
are held as the “truths” which are certain and permanent, defined by and can be acquired only from
authorities. Students’ are viewed passive, have no ability to learn from their own experiences and
with empty minds that are to be filled with knowledge through direct instructions from the teacher,
text, or other authority. Hence, in this view, teaching means telling and learning means
remembering.
With this view the establishment of formal curriculum which specify the body of
knowledge that must be taught to students and the set of learning assessment standards are
fundamental. With the curriculum as blueprint, the knowledge are to be transferred intact to
students. Assessment then are used for “concordance check”, that is, how close that what is
remembered from what is told. Assessment is basically through formal objective testing and IRE
(initiate, respond, and evaluate) sequence of classroom discourse where the teacher raises a
question, a student responds, and the teacher provides feedback. Since, the curriculum is
prescriptive for common action and evaluation, the results of assessment are used not only for
competence judgment but for accountability surveillance for the student, teacher, and school.
Competence judgments results in the identification of who will go on and where they will go or
who is competent and who is not, referring to the “mean” as the “norm” or “benchmark”.
At the opposite end, is a subjectively-driven notion of competence as subjective sensemaking. In contrast with the above views, knowledge is not coming from any authority but rather
is made by the students in their personal idiosyncratic manner of interpreting what they encounter
based on their unique experiences. Hence, the “truth” is never permanent or certain and varies
from one person to another. Here, students are seen not as passive but as intentional agents with
the ability to learn independently as they interact with the environment (cognitive-developmental)
or interdependently through discourse with others (sociocultural). Learning is viewed as a process
of subjective interpretation and result from a coordination of perspectives between students and
the teacher or amongst the students. Teaching means providing opportunities for collaborative
work and discourse.
Assessment in this context is used for the improvement and revision of students’
understanding and interpretation and not for competence judgments. Assessment is through
portfolios, ICE classroom discourse and other self-assessment mechanisms that encourage
students to express their reasons for their beliefs and opinions. In ICE discourse, students are
encouraged to share their Ideas, Connect them to one another, and Extend them beyond their
personal experience. Variation in students’ interpretations are expected thus, the absence of
“mean” as the norm or benchmark of competence. The absence of objective assessment standards
however, challenges systemic accountability for both individuals and educational institutions.
The above contrasting views of knowledge (epistemological), the nature of the learners
(psychological), the process of teaching and learning (pedagogical), and purposes of assessment
always come into consideration since the concern for both the “known” and “knower” is inherent
to the classroom. Serving perfectly different purposes at the same time is viewed impossible for
the current assessment practices, thus, a paradox. The authors are then calling the educational
researchers and practitioners in the twenty – first century maybe to develop an alternative
assessment system addressing this paradox.