CLASSROOM BASED ASSESSMENT
Definition:
Classroom assessment is a simple method faculty can use to collect feedback, early and often, on
how well students are learning what they are being taught. The purpose of classroom assessment is to
provide faculty and students with information and insights needed to improve teaching effectiveness and
learning quality. College instructors use feedback gleaned through classroom assessment to inform
adjustments in their teaching. Faculty also share feedback with students, using it to help them improve their
learning strategies and study habits in order to become more independent, successful learners. (Angelo
1991)
Primary Trait Analysis is a method of explicitly stating the criteria for evaluation of a
performance. It is assignment specific; for each performance, the assessor builds a unique set of criteria.
PTA identifies the factors or “traits” that will count for the scoring (e.g. thesis, materials and methods, use
of color, eye contact with client), and then builds a scale for scoring the student’s performance within each
trait. (Denton 2002)
Costs:






Training
Primary trait (rubric) design – lots of time
Additional time for scoring
Data compilation and storage
Time to review results and make improvement decisions (at the program and institution
level)
Any other costs associated with specific instruments embedded in the course
Advantages:











Can use existing assignments and course requirements
Meaningful to the individual faculty and students
Provides immediate feedback
Formative assessment helps the students and faculty improve
Individual instructors can save time in the grading process by having clear standards and
criteria
Consistency in the grading process
Students participate in their own learning when they know the standards.
The department and institution’s role in assessment is simply to support and help respond
to problems.
Non-intrusive on the classroom(?)
Fits well with a learning centered philosophy
Development of rubrics (PTAs) help clarify course, department, and institutional
objectives
Disadvantages:






Requires that faculty as a whole participate
Lots of up front time – design of PTAs, rubrics, criteria, and standards
Faculty must be willing to share their grading process, assignments, and syllabi for
external validity
Extensive training required
Slow, gradual process – meaningful institutional or departmental data may be several
years away
If not done well, we have nothing but grades – not true assessment information





Poor performance may be excused or explained instead of improved upon
Documentation may become cumbersome
Student data is from semester to semester – no longitudinal data about student
improvement over several years
Reliability and validity require a lot of collaboration between faculty
Classroom assessment by itself is not institutional assessment without additional structure
Implementation Suggestions:









To implement PTA, go slow. The process must be gradual as trust is important. Start at
the classroom and go up to the department level.
Hold conceptual and practice workshops at the start of the year.
Consistently remind faculty of the rationale and significance.
Distribute general instructions with specific examples.
Create a standard form for each instructor to report student performance in targeted
outcomes.
Align course objectives with general education outcomes.
Instructors can make syllabi assignment focused instead of content focused. “In order to
complete this assignment, here are the things you will need to learn.”
In one department meeting a year, share and discuss rubrics and the grading process.
Share best practices
The Seven Basic Assumptions of Classroom Assessment: (Angelo and Cross 1993)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The quality of learning is directly, although not exclusively, related to the quality of
teaching. Therefore, one of the most promising ways to improve learning is to improve
teaching.
To improve their effectiveness, teachers need first to make their goals and objectives
explicit and then to get specific, comprehensible feedback on the extent to which they are
achieving those goals and objectives.
To improve their learning, students need to receive appropriate and focused feedback
early and often; they also need to learn how to assess their own learning.
The type of assessment most likely to improve teaching and learning is that conducted by
faculty to answer questions they themselves have formulated in response to issues or
problems in their own teaching.
Systematic inquiry and intellectual challenge are powerful sources of motivation, growth,
and renewal for college teachers, and Classroom Assessment can provide such challenge.
Classroom Assessment does not require specialized training; it can be carried out by
dedicated teachers from all disciplines.
By collaborating with colleagues and actively involving students in Classroom
Assessment efforts, faculty (and students) enhance learning and personal satisfaction.
Recommendation:
As a faculty member, classroom based assessment makes sense. As opposed to any other
instrument, it yields immediate, meaningful data for personal improvement. We think we are doing
assessment when we grade, so why not use the grading process for assessment? Classroom based
assessment is also a close fit with the objective of being a learning centered college. Although it requires a
positive attitude and lots of time to develop, classroom assessment should be considered as a strong
candidate for the basis of our general education plan.
Bibliography/Resources:
Angelo, T.A. & Cross, P.K., “Classroom Assessment Techniques. A Handbook for College Teachers
(2nd Ed.)”, Jossey-Bass 1993
Anderson, V., Bardes, B., Denton, J., Walvoord, B., Challenges in Classroom Based Assessment:
Reliability, Validity, and Closing the Loop , IUPUI Assessment Institute, November 2000
Denton, Janice, Performance-Based Assessment: Papers, Projects, and Portfolios handouts from February
2002 MCLI Dialogue Day
Eder, Douglas, Southern Illinois University, “Classroom Assessment Techniques”,
<http://www.siue.edu/assess/catmain.html>
Raymond Walters College, “Integrating the Assessment of General Education into the Classroom – A
Two-Year College Model”, <http://www.rwc.uc.edu/phillips/Assessment/NCApaper.html>
Stroede, R. & Weaner, J., How 42 Faculty Assess 52 General Education Outcomes: A Course Embedded
Model, Defiance College, Presentation to the HLC, March 2002
Van Kollenburg, Susan E., ed. A Collection of Papers on Self-Study and Institutional Improvement:
Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the North Central Association: Serving the Common
Good: New Dimensions in Higher Education. Chicago, The Higher Learning Commission. 2001.
Walvoord, B.E. & Anderson, V.J. “Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment”,
Jossey-Bass 1998