Norm-referenced vs. Criterion-referenced assessment
Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment have their own pros and cons, but one potential mistake would be to think this decision is only made when it comes time to grade. Based on the text, it seems that the content of the assessments should differ in meaningful ways. For criterion-based assessment, the questions should cover the basics of the topic at hand: things every student is expected to know. With norm-referenced assessment, the instructor should be including items they don’t expect every student to know. Norm-referenced assessment, then, seems to be a little more involved than simply grading on a curve after the fact— a classroom’s full range of ability should be represented in the results. Thus, norm-referenced is probably not the best kind of assessment to use for grades. I think it is fairer, where earning credit is concerned, that an instructor’s expectations be clear ahead of time. Still, norm-referenced assessment has its place, and it can be a great tool for understanding students’ width and breadth of knowledge. Criterion-referenced assessment, while it should be able to show mastery and show gaps in areas of knowledge, has its downsides, too. First, it holds everyone to the same standards, which may not seem fair in a classroom of mixed-aptitude students. Secondly, how useful it is as a valid assessment depends very much on *which* criteria are being tested on. It should avoid focusing on trivial things. Neither type seems to be better or worse than the other, just suited towards different goals.
Student accountabilityI wonder about the role of student accountability when it comes to outcomes. Certainly, there are times when the assessment is bad or the instruction is insufficient, but something still sits wrong with me about this. The idea that if someone fails, it is always because the teacher isn’t teaching hard enough is one that seems to put an unfair amount of the responsibility for success on the teacher. I’m not sure *why* I’m uncomfortable with it, necessarily, because it’s obviously a lot of times completely the case— where a teacher needs to adapt methods, or tap into a student’s motivation. But it also seems really intimidating, as a prospective teacher.
Grading without bias
The call to grade each assessment without being biased based on a student’s previous efforts, or by your own emotions, really resonated with me. I feel like my little brother was kind of caught in this when he was in school. He was kind of all over the place for a while, but when he tried to turn things around and make genuine, concentrated efforts, his teachers still seemed to never fully trust or support him. It was like they were always looking for a way to catch him slipping up, to prove that it had been for nothing. Obviously I’m a little biased here too, but I think it’s important to, in general, take a student in good faith. But how can you balance that with using what you learn about your students over time? I feel like so many of the problems I think about in ideology/methodology come down to: how do you balance your ideals and best practices with a bit of common-sense cynicism?
Norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment have their own pros and cons, but one potential mistake would be to think this decision is only made when it comes time to grade. Based on the text, it seems that the content of the assessments should differ in meaningful ways. For criterion-based assessment, the questions should cover the basics of the topic at hand: things every student is expected to know. With norm-referenced assessment, the instructor should be including items they don’t expect every student to know. Norm-referenced assessment, then, seems to be a little more involved than simply grading on a curve after the fact— a classroom’s full range of ability should be represented in the results. Thus, norm-referenced is probably not the best kind of assessment to use for grades. I think it is fairer, where earning credit is concerned, that an instructor’s expectations be clear ahead of time. Still, norm-referenced assessment has its place, and it can be a great tool for understanding students’ width and breadth of knowledge. Criterion-referenced assessment, while it should be able to show mastery and show gaps in areas of knowledge, has its downsides, too. First, it holds everyone to the same standards, which may not seem fair in a classroom of mixed-aptitude students. Secondly, how useful it is as a valid assessment depends very much on *which* criteria are being tested on. It should avoid focusing on trivial things. Neither type seems to be better or worse than the other, just suited towards different goals.
Student accountabilityI wonder about the role of student accountability when it comes to outcomes. Certainly, there are times when the assessment is bad or the instruction is insufficient, but something still sits wrong with me about this. The idea that if someone fails, it is always because the teacher isn’t teaching hard enough is one that seems to put an unfair amount of the responsibility for success on the teacher. I’m not sure *why* I’m uncomfortable with it, necessarily, because it’s obviously a lot of times completely the case— where a teacher needs to adapt methods, or tap into a student’s motivation. But it also seems really intimidating, as a prospective teacher.
Grading without bias
The call to grade each assessment without being biased based on a student’s previous efforts, or by your own emotions, really resonated with me. I feel like my little brother was kind of caught in this when he was in school. He was kind of all over the place for a while, but when he tried to turn things around and make genuine, concentrated efforts, his teachers still seemed to never fully trust or support him. It was like they were always looking for a way to catch him slipping up, to prove that it had been for nothing. Obviously I’m a little biased here too, but I think it’s important to, in general, take a student in good faith. But how can you balance that with using what you learn about your students over time? I feel like so many of the problems I think about in ideology/methodology come down to: how do you balance your ideals and best practices with a bit of common-sense cynicism?
I think that you are correct in your assessment about the usefulness of both criterion and norm referenced assessments. The question is: when is the best time to make use of them in your teaching practice? Think of assessments as a tool of learning. Any carpenter can have a box full of tools, but it is the good carpenter who knows when and how to use each tool to the best effect.
ReplyDeleteAs to your question about student accountability: I don't know if there is an easy answer to this, and I am glad that you feel uncomfortable with this topic. This issue has been a hot button issue in politics and the news lately. This is something that I hope you will continue to think deeply about and that you will share your thoughts with the class.
Finally, I love that you have made a personal connection in this post. Bias is another tricky topic. Few, if any, teachers will admit to bias, yet you have seen it first hand. How do we prevent ourselves from falling into biases as teachers, and how do we best address the biases that we may see exhibited by our peers?