Assessment through a constructivist view

Traditionally, teachers grade students after learning is accomplished. The purpose of the assessment is to collect information about how much knowledge and skill students have learned and to make judgments about the adequacy or acceptability of each student’s level of learning. The type of measurement the teacher chooses will depend on the objectives which can be classified in terms of two broad categories: knowing about something and knowing how to do something (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). From my teaching experience, I have found the multi-choice standardized testing is less than optimum, especially for assessment in computer based courses because students just respond to those test items, rather than show creative responses (Ediger, 2001). Based on what I have learned in this semester, I would like to incorporate constructivist principles into the assessment. I will consider the assessment of student accomplishments with portfolios or exhibitions compiled by the students.

Portfolios may be difficult to evaluate, but it will engage students in interactive collaborative processes and increase individual motivation for building up their knowledge or skills. In the constructivist view, it is essential that the teacher is seen as a guide rather than an instructor. Thus, the philosophy of constructivism stresses the importance of following every day classroom or laboratory experiences to become a part of the individual student’s portfolio (Ediger, 2001). The purpose of the portfolio assessment is to facilitate learning and is not to assign a grade. The portfolio assessment is usually called formative evaluation (Snowman & Biehler, 2006). In a student-oriented learning environment, the main things that teachers want to know are weather students develop the abilities to self-assess and how to provide constructive feedback to students. This is not only an assessment process but also a learning process (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1995).

Evaluation rubric may be developed to assess each assignment in the portfolio. Ediger (2001) suggests a few considerations in rating each portfolio:
1. The numerical rating given may be quite subjective due to a lack of agreement by teachers doing the rating.
2. Numerical ratings are not the major objective in portfolio assessment. The major objective is to view student processes or products. So, teachers can notice achievement of the every day progress of the student.
3. Parents or peers may observe what the student is achieving.
4. Portfolio development provides opportunities for the student to reflect or think about what has been learned or what is left to learn.
5. Ownership of the portfolio resides with the student. Internal personnel, not extent test designers, are involved in portfolio development. Assessment is ongoing and continuous.


[references]:

Ediger, M. (2001). Assessment: a teacher’s guide. Available URL:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contendelivery/servlet/ERICSerrlet?accno=ED451217.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (1995). Rethinking assessment and its role in supporting educational reform. Available URL: www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assessment/as700.htm

Snowman, J., & Beihler, R., (2006). Psychology applied to teaching (11th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.