Standards and Their Assessment Part II

Innovative Assessment

In the world of information literacy, measuring and reporting have often been non-existent, have been limited to access skills, or have been connected only to a formal research project. As evaluation became part of every curriculum plan, evaluation of information skills often consisted of "student completed activity." If grades were given, they perhaps referred to a paper-and-pencil test beginning with the difference between three kinds of catalog cards. Or they were based on the educator's memory of students' abilities.

As higher level thinking skills began to be incorporated within information literacy planning, and access skills became part of the spectrum of the research process, educators began looking for ways to test teamwork, communication skills, problem solving, thinking, and the understanding of concepts. They found complements to standardized testing that made those goals possible: such as: panels, journals, performance, interviews, and observation. They found ways to accknowledge how students successfully constructed personal knowledge, and for divergent and associative thinking. They began incorporating varying learning styles and 'intelligences' into their assessments, as well as a variety of communication formats. They began to give value to rethinking and revision (as differentiated from editing). And they didn't wait until test-time to spring the 'ultimate task,' as is sometimes done in more traditional testing. They introduced it early on, and gave lots of practise in diverse approaches.

Criteria
These values and how they are to be assessed needed to be clearly defined. Educators began writing down the values and criteria they had been using in their minds. An example: "Students successfully access, explore, and use a wide variety of sources." The criteria for measuring that goal (the elements that compose that goal), could embrace access skills, selection skills, source array and relevance, note-taking, and organization skills. In the individual's Quality Presentation assessment tool for the Lemna Project, the criteria are: organization, content, delivery, and use of media. In the Lemna Library Research and Group Presentation tool the criteria are: library research, information synthesis, and class presentation.

Rubrics

A student's work may be judged on the level of competency related to each of these criteria. The description of each level of a criterion is called a rubric. Webster dfines it "an established rule, tradition, or custom." In education, rubric has come to mean a chart, a matrix with criteria on one side and levels of sophistication in attaining each criterion along an adjacent side. These levels may be assigned scores and weights. Graduated descriptions create a scale, a continuum of competence. The top rubric of the scale equals the 'standard' for that criterion. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This definition is not universally accepted. I would use the word CRITERIA here and leave STANDARD for what each student should know and be able to do before he goes on to the next level. AG] Below a top standard level of 'proficient' may be competencies labeled 'capable,' 'adequate,' 'limited,' 'poor;' the labels might be a set of numbers, usually odd. Students I once worked with prefer more levels to less levels. They said that the standard (i.e. top one) was too high, the middle ok, and the bottom the pits. They said the distance between the middle and either exteme was so far that 'most everyone would wind up and remain in the middle.' I agreed, and a fourth level with attendent rubrics was added. They wanted a place to reach for after an initial assessment - referred by them as "go for the four." See survey matrix in SELF-ASSESSMENT chapter.

For example: If one criterion of a project's goal is self-directed learning, the standard (top rubric) could be that

Rubric #4. The student takes responsibility for her own inquiry after setting workable goals. She considers risks, creates a plan after setting priorities, sustains efforts, and self-monitors.
Against this standard are set lesser descriptions of behaviors; note that in this case the standard remains, but is incrementally diluted by "some" and "often" and "usually," "seldom" and "rarely," "never" and "needs help" and "has difficulty." These words suggest a continuumn that is self-explanatory.

Rubric #3. The student often takes responsibility for her own inquiry and usually sets achievable goals. She often considers risks, sets priorities and from them organizes a plan. She usually sustains her efforts and monitors herself.
Rubric #2. The student seldom takes responsibility for her own inquiry and setting achievable goals. She has some difficulty in considering risks, setting priorities and organizing plans. She rarely reviews her work and gives up easily.
Rubric #1. The student doesn't yet take responsibility for her inquiry. She needs help in setting workable goals. She is not yet able to set priorities and organize plans. She needs to begin rereviewing her work and sustaining some commitment.
The student, to upgrade the assessment, merely needs to move from never to sometimes, or from usually to always. She not only knows what a self-directed learner is, but the steps to get there. There are no hidden agendas. Therefore it's important that the entire rubric be available to the student for the time period of the assessment. In the case of self-directed learning, it would probably be for the whole year, with assessments done at three specific times, or perhaps after each major project. This same rubric could follow a student through the grades.

Most rubric scores consequently provide encouraging messages about accomplishments rather than failures. This is even more so when students are able to help develop the criteria and the levels of accomplishment, thus being able to understand the depth of the assessment. [See Child Labor project in SELF-ASSESSMENT chapter.] Rubrics then become guides as well as measurements. This can become a circular evolution of students learning to use a rubric as a guide and as self-evaluation. The teacher/librarian is learning how to evaluate the student using a rubric, using the results to evaluate themselves and the educational program, and the development of more precise rubrics. This can be initially daunting and takes practice, but is well worth the rewards.

A rubric can refer to an evaluation of one student skill over time, as in the self-direction set above. A holistic rubric can consider a whole project, selecting several over-riding criteria to consider, the rubrics presented in a matrix format. The criteria might include preparation, documentation, topic development, response to class questions, and multimedia components.

The Lemna Project

Dorothy Grazier, while librarian at Mt. Desert High School, noticed a rubric matrix left by the copy machine which included a criterion on library research. She approached the teacher, Jane Disney, and they agreed to work together on that component the next time the "Lemna Population Growth Project" was assigned. (The project involved imposing differences in salinity, light, vibration, or temperature on small underwater plants. After researching lemna, students set up controlled experiments, recorded and analyzed data, interpreted and reported their findings at a Lemna 'conference.')

First Steps for Designing Criteria and Rubrics

No apologies need to be given for starting with rudimentary assessment formats as long as they are clear.

1. Look back at "Reconstruction 101." Students did not receive any rubrics beforehand, only criteria. Note that the criteria included content, attitudes, and a number of information literacy components. Look at a quality assignment or test from your school that lends itself to a goal and to criteria. Write a proposed goal and criteria. Take this to the subject area teacher for feedback. (It might become a stepping stone to collaboration.)

Alternative assessments should not unduly permeate the educational environment. Selective and functional are the guidewords. Time and distraction are only two of the discretionary words. However, a few simple but challenging criteria with a task or test invoke quality effort and provide guidance at the same time. They remind students that expectations apply to their efforts, and listing criteria gives the educator a general outline to measure by. It's a way to ease into alternative assessment without overwhelming students or overworking educators.

2. Look back at "Reconstruction 101." What goal do you think the task was designed to assess? Take the first or second criterion and write a set of rubrics for it. Get feedback from a colleague.

3. One criterion for a project might be a "quality product." Try writing the top descriptors (proficient) for a quality product that includes some of the following components: purpose, audience, research, insight, meaning, interest, art, technology. Now write two or more lesser descriptors, denoting adequate, limited, poor.

Share with students in preparation for use with a research project. Use twice with the same group. Could you, students, or others notice individual areas of growth the second time around? Could each student see how far he still has to go to reach the top descriptor? Does the student see that standard as an expectation directed at him personally?

WARNING

Beware of confusing differential aid with basic research power. The first is short-lived, and consists of assigning similar, simpler tasks prior to one that will be formally assessed, to insure familiarity and minimize novelty or feelings of difficulty. The second consists of gradually helping students develop flexibility in solving not only such a pre-determined task but also the unexpected, unusual information problem. This will result in permanent research power, and still test well on a pre-determined task.

Go back to Part I of this chapter or go on with the next section Team Teaching Graphs.
Updated: August 1997

Previous Section . . . . SPRINGBOARD's Table of Contents. . . .Next Section