Unlock with PatreonThe Problem with CI
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Authentic Assessment – Dr. Torulf Palm – 19
Share:
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Ben Slavic
Get The Latest Updates
Subscribe to Our Mailing List
No spam, notifications only about new products, updates.
Related Posts
CI and the Research (cont.)
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
Research Question
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
We Have the Research
To view this content, you must be a member of Ben’s Patreon at $10 or more Unlock with PatreonAlready a qualifying Patreon member? Refresh to
12 thoughts on “Authentic Assessment – Dr. Torulf Palm – 19”
Yesterday, Steven astutely brought up the need to define this as a group. I think it’s wise to start with a foundation of “this is an expert’s more technical definition of Authentic Assessment” so we can be taken more seriously as we adapt this to make it our own in TPRS.
From page 5
“A conceptually different approach is adopted by Berk
(1986). According to his definition a single event cannot be
regarded as a performance assessment. A variety of
instruments and strategies must be used on a number of
occasions to collect data for the purpose of making
decisions on individuals. Furthermore, the focus must be
on systematic observations of non-written performances.
However, this does not mean that the arsenal of usable
measurement instruments in performance assessments
cannot include tests focusing on paper-and-pencil written
responses. In fact, even multiple-choice tests may be used
according to this definition of performance assessment.
(According to Berk, a test that is used on a single occasion
can be a performance test. In such a test the performance
of interest “is demonstrated through directly observable behavior as
opposed to paper-and-pencil written response” (Berk, 1986, p. ix))”
This i s what I get from the excerpt (correct me if i misread)
Berk posits that even though we can give a paper-pencil test, we note the OBSERVABLE behaviors instead of what the student writes on the paper.
Multiple criteria must be used for the assessment in order to guide instructional decisions.
It should be systemic and non-written performances BUT we can still use these.
Example: When giving a freewrite, the paper and pencil are mere tools for the student to perform. We as teachers are noting how the student is behaving (seems grounded in behaviorists theory) . We can notice the student struggling around minute 5 of 10. We notice that the student is out of his or her seat. We notice that the student is using the word wall or stories from before. The data is collect (oh man!) but it is used to guide the instruction.
I’m with Steven. I love the “observe” and “notice” part-because it’s so human and it enhances the Little Trees/Big Trees back and forth. Whether they’re bragging about their soccer game, showing off something cool they made, or even disrupting for attention, kids just want to be noticed.
Performance assessments were an innovative precursor to Authentic Assessment. It’s similar, but Authentic Assessment is more evolved because it’s not just performances; it’s performances in a meaningful context. There’s a real life connection.
In real life we don’t answer multiple-choice questions (like some performance assessments). Authentic Assessments require communication in a communicative language class. Because that just makes sense right? Both notice students, so they are both lovely…but for the level of authentic communication in TPRS classes, only Authentic Assessment will do.
From the left column of page 6 on the bottom:
“In relation to the first issue “what it is that is supposed to be real
or true” three main foci have been identified:
1. Processes and products. This focus deals with
cognitive processes, performances, constructs, or
products that students engage in, produce, or are
assessed on…
The assessment is
regarded as authentic if, for example, students are
engaged in cognitive processes that are important
in successful adult behavior in life beyond school
(Focus 1 combined with Perspective 1)…”
I like the fact that we as teachers in this work are guiding and are holding kids accountable to their 50% of the communication we are having. This includes responding, sitting up, BEING THERE. I would be surprised if this did not have an effect on them beyond school.
We’ll skip Focus 1 with 2 (curricula)
“…or are effective in the learning
process (Focus 1 combined with Perspective 3).”
Let’s spell it out for Adminz, dept chairs, etc…
An assessment is authentic if it is “effective in the learning process”
“We’ll skip Focus 1 with 2 (curricula)”… yeah, you kind of have to talk your way into new curriculum documents. No targets on your curriculum documents. I forgot foreign language still has an uphill battle to do this. Booo.
But once you can change your Scope and Sequence (with the help of Lance’s documents), you’ll be able to show admin that everything aligns with Authentic Assessment: curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
“Let’s spell it out for Adminz, dept chairs, etc…
An assessment is authentic if it is “effective in the learning process”
Yeah! Watch out, data turds, Steven’s on the prowl. And his boss knows he’s awesome. So look out.
Finally the Conditions for an authentic assessment according to the Palm article.
“The third perspective, learning and instruction, would, combined with this focus on ‘conditions’, require that assessment procedures promote a situation that is effective for learning (this could, for example, mean that student involvement in all phases of the assessment is required).”
An assessment that creates a situation that is effective for learning is an authentic assessment.
I know I’m just paraphrasing but I helps me and I hope it helps others.
The parenthesis is interesting… “…student involvement in all phases of the assessment..” Is this happening when all students are involved in a job, are adding details, are answering using gestures or single word answers?
Does this mean that I can just create a story for my final semester grade!? I could just print a list of students names with some boxes (similar to jGR) and just check off like crazy.
“I know I’m just paraphrasing but I helps me and I hope it helps others.”
Yeah!! Finally, I have people to talk to about this. This is like catnip for me. Keep it comin’, Steven.
Thank you Ben for letting us think aloud on your blog.
Steven,
That’s exactly what we do here (Elementary Heaven).
My circumstances are different because I don’t have a grade book or give letter grades, but we give a new 10-line story we wrote to our 3rd & 4th graders, using targets we hope they’ve acquired, then ask 10 comp Qs (Qs in English). {We only have to demonstrate that 80% or more of the Ss got an 80% or better…)
We read it aloud once while they read along, then they do the task.
Isn’t it crazy that we’re redefining assessment and our whole concept of what it is to assess and what “data” should be, yet not much is really changing in terms of what’s happening in the TPRS classroom. We’re just not buying into the test crap anymore.
… yet not much is really changing in terms of what’s happening in the TPRS classroom….
This is a subtle point. We are finally forcing the assessment to align with the new way of instructing kids in languages and not the other way around. This is back breaking work because so many teachers still think that we must teach to fit the assessment tools now in place but are soon to be blasted into outer space.
Our instruction aligns with the research. So many teachers assume that the textbook and computer programs and old thematic unit approaches align with research. Fine, find it. It ain’t there. So the authentic assessment discussion here has been very emotional for me. I feel as if we are righting a wrong that has been around for far too long. That is a pretty nice month’s work here on the blog.
Thanks to Claire and Steven and Nathaniel and the others who have made strong points, hammering away at the core argument that kids are suffering and losing interest (that is a gross understatement) in part because of the way they are being assessed, and not just because of the way they are being taught.
I think I’m starting to understand. It is so liberating after all those just plain dumb curriculum meetings of the past where teachers would attend a day long in-service to develop a district-wide curriculum and sit down and start copying the table of contents in their textbooks and calling it a day. How are we who want to teach in another way supposed to even talk to those bozos?
“How are we who want to teach in another way supposed to even talk to those bozos?”
One take on it:
We don’t. When the student is ready, the master appears.
When they are ready they will wake (if they ever do).
Of course, we are ready with our docs, research, student data or portfolios (ie guns) when they come to us on their high horse.
“not much is really changing in terms of what’s happening in the TPRS classroom”
Greg Duncan said in workshop last year that there should not be much difference (if any) between the assessment and the lesson.
The more distinct they are the less authentic the assessment.
“…a day long in-service to develop a district-wide curriculum and sit down and start copying the table of contents in their textbooks and calling it a day.”
This is so fresh in my mind. We just did this last year. But times are changing. There is simultaneous movement backward (textbook copied curriculum) and forward (more interest in authentic language). Chaos and flux is part of the change.