The EdTech Roundup
Connect:
  • Home
  • Reviews
  • Editorials & Press
  • Ed Tech Sites
  • Lesson Plans
    • Elementary
    • Secondary
  • Former Weekly Podcast
  • About Me
  • Contact

Guest Post:  The Three Biggest Lies of Assessments Technology

6/3/2016

2 Comments

 
Author: Chris Morgan of Solution Tree
Picture
In my work as an educational software designer, I have the privilege of collaborating with hundreds of schools and districts, administrators, teachers and many educational researchers and experts.  In doing so, I’ve often noticed a conflict in schools between what is mandated for funding purposes and what has proven to make a difference in student learning. 

One of the most glaring examples of this is the manner in which assessment technologies have been designed and adopted.  Below I point out the three most prevalent misconceptions (lies) in this area.

1. Summative assessments are the most critical to track with technology
​

Almost every district or school I work with uses some type of student information system to track benchmark assessments. It’s usually mandated by their state and tied to certain funds, so the districts budget for the technology and require all teachers to use it consistently.   The adoption of the technology is often more about efficiency than student learning.
 
When I ask these same districts what technology they use for formative assessments, they almost always say that teachers use a mixture of technologies, including disparate spreadsheets or Google docs.  When pushed, most administrators aren’t certain that their teachers are administering formative assessments at all.
 
The problem with only tracking benchmark assessments with a technology system is that the data derived from them is summative. The widely used analogy is that this summative data is like an autopsy.  By the time benchmark tests are administered, it’s usually too late to do anything with the data. Formative assessment data, by contrast, is like a wellness check. Teachers can do something with this data; they can diagnose, intervene, change strategies and generally improve student learning.  
 
In 2014, Solution Tree surveyed 145 districts who had been engaged in professional learning communities.  Of those who reported that PLCs had resulted in high measurable impact on student learning, 82.6 percent reported using technology to capture and report formative assessment data.  Sixty-nine percent of these same respondents reported that their teachers review formative assessment data weekly or monthly.  (http://www.slideshare.net/chr1stm0rgan/global-pd-research)
 
All of this to say that the investment for assessment technology is generally short-sided.  We tend to invest in technology that reports student learning, but not in technology that can affect student learning.
 
2. Most systems can be used for both summative and formative assessments
​

Most of the market demand for assessment systems is based on the need to administer benchmark tests.  As a result, these systems are designed for summative purposes rather than the development of common formative assessments.  This is an important nuance as the context and methods used for each type of assessment are very different.  More specifically:
  • Most experts agree that common formative assessments should be brief and targeted.  Most state standards are far too broad for a formative assessment.  Instead, teachers should deconstruct state standards into more granular sub-standards or learning targets.  Most assessment systems, however, only enable items to be associated with a standard, rather than a more targeted sub-standard.  By nature, this makes the assessments and the analytics they provide too broad.

  • Experts tend agree that common formative assessments should be authored collaboratively by a team of teachers based on their interpretation of the standards and their students’ needs.  While most systems have authoring capabilities, the functionality is usually built around the assumption that a single teacher will import test items from a prebuilt bank.

  • Common formative assessments are most effective when teachers regularly review and compare the results of the assessments together, identifying what did and didn’t work, offering advice on strategies and identifying students in need of intervention or enrichment.  Most assessment systems assume that teachers will only need to review their own class data.  If sharing of assessment across data is permitted, it is usually outside the normal flow of the application.
 
3. Kids are already tested too much
​

Summative assessment, by nature, requires teaching and learning to pause while large numbers of students are assessed.  It is a high-stake, episodic event rather than a constant practice.  It is an interruption – albeit necessary - to learning. The designers of assessment systems have therefore made a myriad of decisions based on this case.  They’ve built systems for high stakes episodic events, rather than regular teaching and learning.
 
Teachers have, in many cases, become frustrated with having to use systems that are not in line with their daily practices and the disproportionate amount of time taken by benchmark assessments.  So when faced with formative assessments, they tend to balk.  Assessment, in general, has gotten a bad rap and students have missed out on what Robert Marzano refers to as “one of most powerful weapons in a teacher’s arsenal.”
 
A Possible Solution
​

Over the last two years, the technology team at Solution Tree has worked with hundreds of schools and districts and dozens of educational experts to address this problem.  Global PD is an award-winning system specifically designed to impact student learning for the daily and weekly practices of common formative assessment, and we’re getting great results [link to study].
 
----------------------------

About Solution Tree

Solution Tree delivers comprehensive professional development to educators in schools and districts around the world. Solution Tree has empowered K–12 teachers and administrators to raise student achievement through a wide range of services and products including educator conferences, customized district solutions for long-term professional development, books, videos, online courses and more. For more information visit www.solutiontree.com/globalpd.
2 Comments
Mikki Miller link
3/14/2019 09:52:18 pm

On your 2nd point, is it that you suggest a separate system for summative assessment and formative assessments? Is it not possible to, say, apply certain filters, make only certain questions available, only about a certain topic, or manually select questions for a given quiz, for example, though it draws from a question bank?

Reply
Mikki Miller link
3/14/2019 09:55:18 pm

"While most systems have authoring capabilities, the functionality is usually built around the assumption that a single teacher will import test items from a prebuilt bank."

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Editorials

    Here you can find the Round Up's collection of editorial pieces and press releases where we will discuss the latest trends and ideas in educational technology


    Picture

    Featured

    Picture
    Check out our featured review | ClassroomAPP: A Complete, K-12 Digital Platform for Online and In-Person Classrooms

    Teach.com

    Connect


    Awards

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

           
​Except where noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
Picture

Copyright 2020 | Mike Karlin, Ph.D.