Assessment Design Checklist 4.0

In my initial post on this subject, Assessment Design: Creating a Practical Checklist I intentionally included a key word in the title, “practical”. While this is not the most important aspect of design, it certainly does need to be considered. But beyond, ease of use, the guidelines which shape an assessment are varied in both importance and purpose, though at this time I would not be willing to rate that importance. The purpose of each guideline, or guiding question in this case however, is to consider these ideas in equal terms, like the moving parts of a machine, pushing forward, no one piece less or more important than the next. If one breaks, the others won’t necessarily be able to compensate for the potential inoperability of the whole.

I’d like to break down my process, question by question.

ADC 1.0

1. Is this assessment formative?

Yes, this assessment will be designed as a learning progression in which sub skills of a greater curricular goal are constructed. Both teacher and student based strategies may be adjusted along the way.

2. Will these sub skills be manageable for students?

Yes, student mastery of each sub skill will be assessed before proceeding to the next phase of the progression. 

With some feedback from my professor, and a rethinking of purpose, I arrived at ADC 2.0:

1. Does this assessment shape and inform the learning of students?

Yes, this assessment allows for a learning progression in which sub skills of a greater curricular goal are constructed. The assessment provides opportunities for both teacher and student based strategies that may be adjusted along the way. 

2. Does the assessment move the students through this process at a manageable pace?

Yes, student mastery of each sub skill will be assessed before proceeding to the next phase of the progression.

Further research and more valuable feedback offers more insight and yes, ADC 3.0:

1. Does this assessment shape and inform the learning of students?

This assessment allows for a learning progression in which sub skills of a greater curricular goal are constructed. The assessment provides opportunities for both teacher and student based strategies that may be adjusted along the way.

2. Does the assessment move the students through this process at a manageable pace?

Student mastery of each sub skill assessed before proceeding to the next phase of the progression. 

3. Will this assessment adjust student learning tactics?

Evidence would include measurable modes of adjustment.

4. Will this assessment promote student investment in their learning?

The assessment has students slow down, reflect, and understand the importance of the task and how it directly relates to the outcome of not only their performance in school, but their continued performance for future endeavors, plays a significant role in design.

With some final reading, research, and reevaluation of the effects of inequity in assessment, I land on ADC 4.0:

1. Does this assessment shape and inform the learning of students?

This assessment allows for a learning progression in which sub skills of a greater curricular goal are constructed. The assessment provides opportunities for both teacher and student based strategies thatmay be adjusted along the way. 

2. Does the assessment move the students through this process at a manageable pace?

Student mastery of each sub skill is assessed before proceeding to the next phase of the progression.

3. Will this assessment adjust student learning tactics?

Evidence would include measurable modes of adjustment.

4. Will this assessment promote student investment in their learning? 

The assessment has students slow down, reflect, and understand the importance of the task and how it directly relates to the outcome of not only their performance in school, but their continued performance for future endeavors, plays a significant role in design.

5. Is this assessment accessible and equitable for all students? 

Several factors will dictate whether the assessment is accessible. Beginning with IEP and 504 documents and ensuring their criteria are met for individual students will meet accessibility guidelines in a both a legal sense and an educational one. Adherence to these criteria is not optional.

These potential offences and penalties can be avoided if care is taken to remove them from, or inhibit them completely from influencing the design process. 

The varying colors of text illustrate the sequence of events as this checklist unfolds into a 5 question guiding document for assessment design.

References

             Deci, E.L. (1975).  Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

   Gallagher, K., & Kittle, P. (2018). 180 days: Two teachers and the quest to engage and empower adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-anlyses relating to      achievement. Cambridge, MA: Routlegde.

   Mcleod, S. (2019). The Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding. Retrieved    September 20, 

2020, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html

Popham, W. J. (2018). 12. In Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. 

Shepard, L. A. (2005). Linking formative assessment to scaffolding. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 66-70.

   Students with disabilities. (2020, May). Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

   Vagle, N. D. (2015). Design in five: Essential phases to create engaging assessment practice. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

   Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2008). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. doi:10.1111/jcpp.1976.17.issue-2