Education Assessment Philosophy

Assessment, in educational settings, can take many forms, such as test scores, teacher observation or informal questioning, but the ultimate meaning, purpose and/or objective of assessment is inevitably up to the instructor. Are we simply looking for numbers to write in a grade book to appease our administrators, or are we seeking a deeper understanding of our students', and our own, capabilities? My loyalty falls behind the latter. Whether for the benefit of our students, ourselves, our school or state, assessment should be directed toward the goal of gauging student learning and comprehension, while at the same time, measuring our own efficacy in obtaining that goal. In simpler terms: We grade students to determine not only what they know, but how successful our instructional strategies/methods are.

Stice & Call (1987) state that "the paramount consideration in evaluation and assessment is to produce numbers by which children can be ranked, labeled and compared". True, each of these declared considerations have their merits; ranking for purposes of scholarship and recognition, labeling to ascertain more appropriate methods for individual instruction (e.g. gifted or exceptional), and comparison to establish an average level of student competence, but such considerations are only part of the story. As I see it, assessment, documentation and evaluation do more than simply attach classifications to students. They are tools employed to enrich our students' knowledge of themselves and their learning style (metacognition) and our own pedagogy.

Assessment, in terms of grade scores, can be both a motivating and disconcerting force. On the one hand, a good grade can greatly boost a student's self-concept and spur him/her on to repeat or surpass such success in the future. On the other, a poor grade can dishearten a student and diminish his/her academic spirit. At either stage, it is our job as teachers to support our students with encouragement, optimism, and above all, assistance. Regardless of the scores received by a pupil, the grades should be used to enlighten the student to both strengths and weaknesses in his/her current understanding of a topic, and therefore clarify which goal(s) or objective(s) of the lesson should garner more attention from the learner as well as the educator. Although test and homework scores are vital to the extended learning of a student, they in themselves are not a means to an end. Documentation of assessment is needed to add perspective to given grades.

Documenting assessment can have a compounded effect on student learning. Single grades tend to have less effect on student erudition than does an aggregated account of the student's work. This means that instead of showing a student what he/she did correctly, or incorrectly, on a particular assessment, which shows only a short-term understanding, demonstrating how the student has performed over time can illuminate broader inadequacies or virtues in their learning. For example, let's say Johnny did not perform well on his most recent math quiz. This doesn't mean Johnny doesn't understand the lesson or that the teacher didn't explain it well enough; there could be a number of external factors responsible (e.g. illness, poor nutrition, trouble at home etc.). A single test score under such circumstances can be misleading, but, when the score is compared to the larger picture of grades obtained throughout a unit or semester, Johnny and the teacher might find that he performs well when it comes to understanding mathematical concepts, but has weak application skills. While assembling and documenting Johnny's scores is useful in terms of highlighting the student's progress, or lack there of, it is not enough to truly gain full perspective of his needs. Without attaching meaning to his records, accumulated grade totals are worth little to him or his teacher.

The process by which we affix said meaning is known as Evaluation. By use of longitudinal comparison, Johnny and his teacher have identified certain areas in need of improvement and can henceforth take appropriate steps or make accommodations to enhance Johnny's educational experience. This is the very essence of evaluation, and is, by this writer's opinion, the most important facet to the larger, more generalized term of Assessment. Only when students understand what their grades indicate can they adequately realign their focus. This is by no means a one way street; teachers also need purpose to their lesson plans and assessments. When there is a clear, well-defined explanation accompanying assessment, teachers and students alike are more likely to maintain a positive attitude toward instruction, as well as a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the subject matter (Lu & Suen, 1995).

As for the use of assessment in my own professional career, my teacher education, as well as my own personal school experience, has led me to prefer the application of multiple assessment types.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, single grades usually do little more than mislead students or teachers into false interpretations. Only when assessment is varied can an adequate picture of student achievement be developed. For many students, myself included, have difficulty on large, standardized tests, but conversely, do quite well on localized, teacher-designed tests. This assertion is echoed by Storey (1970) when he states that "The most valid and reliable data available to the classroom teacher is that resulting from his own well-designed, item-analyzed, multiple choice tests" (. p. xiv). I believe this is true because teachers develop their examinations based on their own expectations, which are cultivated through personal experience and interactions with their students. This is an impossibility with national standardized tests.

On a day-to-day level, I have discovered, through my practicum experiences, students find that pre-tests make it easier to organize important topics during on-going instruction. By informing the students of what I (the teacher) expect them to learn from my lesson, all students show increased retention on post-tests, as opposed to lower scores when no pre-test was given. Unfortunately, giving routine pre-tests before every lesson can actually stifle student learning because students begin to only listen for material covered on the pre-test, and allow all other information to fall to the wayside.

To supplement pre-tests, formative assessments can be used (e.g. informal question-answer period and teacher observations). One type of formative assessment, as discussed by Niebur (1994), was the use of name cards in her music class. She would choose a small sample of students to observe for the day, then silently meander around the room making notations about their performance on the cards. She did this because she noticed that some students would perform below their abilities when they knew they were being observed. This way, she could make assessments without jeopardizing student functioning, and therefore obtain an adequate picture of their abilities. Though I'm not a music teacher, I feel this technique could be useful in determining social and communication skills, as well as assessment of student affect. Though it is important to attend to insuring multiple assessments for students, my most adamant contention concerning assessment isn't so much what kind of assessments I use, but instead, what types of questions are included in assessments.

"The average test in public schools classes reflects the type of lower-order thinking most students are comfortable with, and measurement is nearly always done by using fill-in-the-blank, true-false, multiple choice or some other 'objective' measure" (Shanker, 1990, p. 32). This is what I hope to avoid. With so much stressed placed on Bloom's original and revised taxonomies, not to mention its formidable insight, I feel the only way to truly challenge one's students is to implement higher-order thinking skills into both instruction and assessment. Being a history teacher, I can certainly appreciate the importance of simple recall of facts (e.g. people, places and dates), but history and the social studies necessitate high levels of analysis as they pertain to the current status of the world. Without incorporating open-ended questions subject to interpretation, my students will never fully grasp the importance of the past, which is usually the most difficult aspect of fostering appreciation for history classes.

This ties into the yearly/semester plan for my students. As the semester progresses, I intend to slowly require deeper understanding of the content by posing more open-ended or opinionated questions on assessments, in whatever form they may appear. This means that at the beginning of the semester, I will focus on more rote memory skills while at the same time gradually building a big picture for important concepts (e.g. social development and structure, imperialism and nation building, civic participation etc). Toward the middle and end of the semester, once these concepts have been adequately presented and discussed, my assessments will tend to lean toward deep understanding, rather than simple. Based on the documentation, I can determine what content has been properly retained as well as that content comprehension which seems to be lacking.

In summation, assessment, documentation and evaluation, when used in concert, create something greater than the sum of their parts. The use of only one or two rarely concludes with the maximizing of student learning. Furthermore, multiple assessments, integrating higher-order thinking skills, is by far the best way to educate and inspire students to reach their full potential, creating a much needed generation of intellectually capable citizens.

Education Assessment Philosophy

Good Sat Score

Education Assessment Philosophy

Education Assessment Philosophy
Education Assessment Philosophy

Good Sat Score

ACT Test: How to Raise Your Score to Get Scholarships

Raising your score on the ACT test is a critical part of qualifying for scholarships so that you can afford the college of your choice. However, it is not as simple as just studying more or working harder to raise your ACT test score.

The answer to how to raise your ACT test score to get scholarships lies in mastering the test instead of just studying the subjects. The key is not in the English, Math, Reading and Science knowledge. Most students who take the test are proficient enough in these subjects to get a higher score than they are getting.

Since knowledge of the subject matter isn't the key, then what is the way to master the test? There are three specifics areas of test taking skills to master in order to raise your ACT test score to qualify for more scholarships.

1) Time management is the first aspect that must be considered in order to improve your test taking skills. Many students lose a lot of points on the test merely because they run out of time. Time management is more than just watching the clock though.

2) The second aspect of raising your ACT score is learning how to answer questions quickly. For instance, on the Math test, it is not always necessary to know how to solve the problem in order to get the right score. Understanding "rounding" and "process of elimination" to rule out wrong answers helps you get questions right and save time as well.

3) Finally, you need to learn what areas to focus on in your studying in order to raise your ACT test score. Unless you are realistically aiming for a score of 31 or higher, for instance, studying Trigonometry is a waste of time, as there are only 4 Trig questions on the test. Additionally, by learning how to analyze your sub-scores on Math and English, you will save a lot of time studying just the right things.

With the right focus, that of studying smart instead of just working hard, it is possible to raise your ACT score significantly in order to qualify for scholarships. However, it takes focus and a strategy that is borne out of a very good understanding of the ACT test.

Check out a good ACT prep course, preferably one that is video based for better retention, that focuses not on subject matter and test content, but rather on test taking skills.

ACT Test: How to Raise Your Score to Get Scholarships

Good Sat Score

ACT Test: How to Raise Your Score to Get Scholarships

ACT Test: How to Raise Your Score to Get Scholarships
ACT Test: How to Raise Your Score to Get Scholarships

Good Sat Score

Do SAT Preparation Courses Really Work?

For decades, colleges have relied upon the SAT Reasoning Test as a tool for determining a student's eligibility for enrollment. Not surprisingly, courses of all shapes and sizes have emerged professing the ability to markedly improve student scores. In parallel to the claims of the SAT preparation courses has been the mantra of those who suggest that, not only are SAT courses unable to significantly raise test scores, but that the SAT is a "pristine" exam immune to such efforts. In order to answer the question "Does SAT preparation really work?" it is necessary to carefully consider the positions of both camps.

One might argue that, as a seasoned SAT expert, author, and instructor, I have a particular interest in promoting the virtues of SAT prep courses in general, but this could not be further from the truth. What almost three decades of SAT preparation expertise has instilled in me is an interest in promoting effective SAT courses and steering students away from so many ineffective options. Those courses that routinely fail to produce desired results are detrimental to the test preparation industry as a whole! Any objective discussion of SAT preparation success or failure must begin with a consideration of statistics. Some "experts" have suggested a very simple study involving a few hundred students, some of whom receive coaching and some of whom do not. The results can then be statistically analyzed to determine whether or not SAT preparation really works. Sounds simple, logical, and fair, right? Wrong! In fact, such a simplistic compilation would result in grossly inaccurate, misleading data and erroneous conclusions. While I applaud the idea of an unbiased, statistical evaluation, a truly fair and accurate study would prove to be profoundly complicated and complex.

Here's why. In order to begin such an analysis, one would first have to sift through literally hundreds of SAT courses to find a suitable preparation vehicle. The sad truth is that a great number of SAT courses simply do not work, and some of them are miss the mark entirely. Approximately fifteen years ago, one of the major financial periodicals published an eye opening expose' concerning the plethora of ineffectual and, perhaps, fraudulent SAT coursework on the market at that time. I dare say that, today, those numbers seem to be on the increase. Armed with false promises and fictitious data, such organizations bilk customers out of thousands of dollars, yet are no longer limited to small, local, no-name organizations. Students who unknowingly subscribe to such programs typically assimilate little or no insight into the nature of the SAT test itself and realize little or no score improvement. Whenever I interview students who have come to me after completing any SAT course, I routinely ask a few fundamental questions such as "How many sections comprise a typical SAT?" Amazingly, more than half of those students are completely unaware of the structure of the exam! Would it be fair, then, to include data from such courses in a statistical analysis?

Let us not forget to include many high school-generated prep courses among the ineffective. Those make-shift (albeit well-intentioned) programs, which the schools once offered free of charge but can now cost hundreds of dollars, lure thousands of students each year! The problem with these courses is that, by and large, high school mathematics and English teachers (not SAT experts) present the coursework. While these teachers may be highly-skilled educators with considerable knowledge and expertise in specific subjects (algebra, geometry, writing, grammar, etc.) they are generally untrained in the explicit reasoning skills necessary to master the SAT. Practically every student whom I have interviewed who has attended such a course has felt that the preparation was at best a waste of time. Indeed, some have emerged discouraged, disgruntled, and opposed to any further preparation! Are we also to include those data in an objective analysis?

And what about the group-oriented programs that routinely hire SAT instructors of limited insight and experience? A few years ago, a woman boasting of a whopping six-months' SAT instructional experience, called me requesting employment. Although I certainly did not hire her, I would bet that a number of companies would be perfectly willing to do so in spite of her extremely limited experience (expertise is so very important that I never permitted any of my tutorial staff to teach SAT prep). Are those companies to be ranked equally with the one-to-one preparation of seasoned SAT experts? To understand this, let's consider dining as an analogy. No one would believe a fast-food chain to be comparable in quality to a five-star restaurant, but the fast food joint does have several major advantages. A large fast-food chain can serve far more customers than can a single dining establishment, and can do so at a considerably lower price. A customer willing to sacrifice quality for price and availability would be far better served at such an establishment.

Does the analogy extend to SAT preparation, however? In some cases it does. A number of SAT experts are simply too high-priced (0-0 per hour) for the average customer, and have chosen to offer their services to those willing and able and afford them. When it comes to SAT coaching, however, price is not at all a definitive indicator of quality. Some of the most highly skilled experts offer their services at relatively moderate prices (comparable to those of the "fast-food" courses), while certain neophytes are happy to charge exorbitant prices! Clearly, no rational person can justify lumping such diverse data into the same statistical bundle while, at the same time, professing to objectively analyze the general effectiveness of SAT preparation coursework.

In addition to discussing the disparity in quality among SAT programs, we must also consider that of the students themselves. Even the best of SAT courses will inevitably entertain a certain number of unmotivated clients, and compliance has always been a primary component of SAT preparation. Although a number of SAT "programs" promise success with little or no study or homework (indeed, some profess to prepare a student in a weekend or two) no legitimate SAT course can offer something for nothing. A student unwilling to complete his or her assigned work is unlikely to show a major improvement in score. There are also certain numbers of students with inherent learning difficulties. Those students may to show less improvement than students of average ability. Is it fair, therefore, to include all students in an overall analysis?

This brings me to another important factor in determining the success or failure of an SAT preparation course. Just how does one evaluate improvement? Unaware that I am an SAT instructor, a representative from another SAT prep company contacted me recently peddling his company's services on the promise that a student will improve his or her score by at least 100 points. So I asked him, "If a student came to you with a prior score of 2300, do you promise a perfect score of 2400 upon the completion of your coursework?" Not surprisingly, his answer was "Well...er...no." I then asked him whether a student can expect a 2300 if he or she started with a 2200. Although I did not set out to put this fellow on the spot, I did intend to point out the sheer ludicrousness of his company's promises. As SAT scores increase, incremental improvements are, naturally, much smaller. Indeed, a fifty point increase from 2100 to 2150 may be just as significant and may require just as much diligent study and effort as does a 200 point increase from 1700 to 1900! So where exactly does one begin to evaluate the significance of score improvement? In the absence of complicated statistical adjustments, gifted students with high initial SAT or PSAT scores would actually diminish numerical averages even though those students may have experienced satisfying increases in total score!

Unaware of such statistical complexities, well-intentioned parents routinely inquire as to a particular instructor's rate of success. Understandably, potential clients would like to know the average increase in score that they can expect after taking a particular course. I am sure that, to some of these folks, my answer must sound somewhat convoluted. On one hand, I can certainly say that the majority of my students show a marked improvement in score, but I cannot present any hard numbers without meticulously filtering the data. In the absence of my deleting unmotivated and learning disabled student performances and adjusting for high initial scores, the numbers would be misleading, and I am sure that this dilemma extends to other SAT courses as well. Therefore, when a parents make such a request (as all prospective clients should), I give them a reasonable estimate of expectation based upon students who are similar in scholastic performance, motivation, etc. to their students.

Hopefully, one can now begin to appreciate the fallacies and limitations associated with simple statistical analyses. Depending on the variables selected and controlled, a simplistic compilation and analysis could produce dramatically varying results which would, in turn, lead to erroneous conclusions. If one were somehow able, however, to eliminate from the equation all of the factors that would unfairly diminish the averages, it is my contention that one would notice a remarkable average increase in performance after completing a legitimate, high-quality SAT program taught by a seasoned SAT expert, but the experimental conditions would, by definition, remain extraordinarily complex.

That said, let us turn our attention to those who, even to this day, insist that it is virtually impossible to significantly improve an SAT score. In 1995, the same year that the College Board changed the test title from SAT to SAT 1 and altered the test format, I began to hear rumors that the new design was supposed to be preparation-proof. Those rumors turned out to be utter nonsense (the newer format actually proved somewhat easier to prep than was its predecessor), but it is interesting that someone, somewhere, had felt compelled to circulate them. Thankfully, one hears such nonsense less frequently today than a decade ago, but some folks still believe in the "pristine" nature of the SAT and continue to disseminate the rumors. Although, we may never know the source of that myth, we are well aware of its impact... every year, the misassumption that the SAT is not teachable prevents some sadly misled students from actively working to improve their scores!

In the early 1990s, rumors began to circulate suggesting that the College Board (the company that designs and administers the SAT), in an effort to promote the purity of the SAT test design, might have been one of the original proponents of this myth. These rumors may have been the result of the notion that, if the College Board were to have admitted that SAT preparation courses were valuable assets in improving scores, such an admission would be tantamount to an acknowledgement that the test was not even close to being the "pristine" evaluation tool that, ideally, many people thought that it should have been. Such an admission would, in turn, open wider the Pandora's Box of cultural and economic bias claims... "The rich can afford the prep courses that will ultimately get a student into a prestigious college or university." Nonetheless, whether or not College Board originally promoted the notion of a pristine test, it clearly has not done so for many years. As a matter of fact, the College Board currently markets its own SAT preparation coursework, an indirect suggestion, that one can, indeed, improve one's scores through study and practice!

Yet, in spite of overwhelming evidence substantiating the value of good, solid, SAT-specific preparation, there are still those who diminish or even deny it. Although relatively few in number today, those who would oppose SAT preparation coursework tend to fall into one of two categories: parents who, after subscribing to such a course, have witnessed poor results, and high school counselors and teachers who, years ago, had fallen for the rumors but who have never taken a hard look at the facts.

And those facts are becoming more and more evident each year...the SAT would seem to be a test that yields readily to proper study protocols. Pragmatically speaking, is it not reasonable to suggest that, if SAT preparation truly cannot significantly improve a score, then no one would improve as a result of such preparation? The fact that so many students do improve, however, attests to the value of SAT prep. Although statistics suggest that a score may increase by as much as forty points (about four correct answers) by simply retaking the test, those statistics do not account for the 100-400 point increases that seasoned, professional SAT experts routinely produce. Moreover, merely retaking the test without concerted study is no more than a toss of the dice; a student may or may not improve (and may do even worse). I recall a seventeen year-old high school student who had come to me after taking the test five times and getting roughly the same score at each sitting. That is not an isolated incident, either. Rarely have I seen a student improve his or her score by merely retaking the test!

Clearly, therefore, there are important factors to consider before subscribing to an SAT preparation course. An inappropriate or hasty decision is likely to result in a dismal, discouraging outcome. The following is a list of criteria that I recommend any student interested in preparing for the SAT Reasoning Test take into consideration:

1. Accept the fact that not all SAT prep courses (including some of the more popular ones) are likely to produce substantial results. Avoid the temptation to subscribe to a particular course simply because "everyone else is" or because "the company has made an elaborate presentation at your high school or because you have seen or heard advertisements promising results.

2. Seek a one-to-one or small group environment with a specific, seasoned SAT expert (not merely "someone on staff"), and be sure to inquire as to the number of years that the instructor has coached SAT.

3. Plan on several months' training (typically one or two sessions per week). Most students simply cannot assimilate SAT skills in a few short sessions or in an accelerated program of daily coaching.

4. Be committed to a concerted practice regimen... Input increases the probability of a desired outcome.

5. Beware of programs that "guarantee" results. Some courses may promise a small increase in score that may sound substantial to an unsuspecting client. Does the guarantee really mean, however, that a client will get a full refund if the student does not achieve a certain score, or does it simply mean that the student can sit through additional classes free of charge? The important point here is that there is no way that any SAT program can be certain that a student will show marked improvement.

6. Be suspicious of courses eager to accommodate a student's every whim. While such "feel-good" programs may appear to be client-oriented, they are probably not results-oriented. Remember that students will typically do as little work as they are permitted to do, so it is up to the instructor to maintain a reasonable amount of control and to expect a specific level of compliance.

Although I certainly allow for a limited amount of flexibility, as a general policy I will not work with students unwilling to accept all of the terms listed above. Experience has taught me that any student who does not commit to a strict protocol will simply waste time and money and will occupy an appointment slot that a serious student could use. For students eager and willing to put their shoulders to the wheel, however, SAT prep can be a remarkably rewarding venture. The key is to shop carefully, be selective, and work hard.

Do SAT Preparation Courses Really Work?

Good Sat Score

Do SAT Preparation Courses Really Work?

Do SAT Preparation Courses Really Work?
Do SAT Preparation Courses Really Work?

Good Sat Score