I have often wondered why some teachers (perhaps even the majority?) evaluate students not on the progress made or even the learning attained across time, but rather measure at specific points in time and then let that measurement represent the totality of learning. Seems epic to me--a past sealed off immutable to the present. Allow me to be a bit more specific.
Student A takes a math test during a Monday in April. Student A's work is evaluated and rendered a grade. Let's say that grade is 42 (and it is not the answer to the universe). Student A corrects the mistakes s/he made (as required by the teacher), has the test signed by a parent, and returns both to the teacher. A month later, Student A aces a math test and interestingly, the skills originally assessed on the April test are embedded into the May test. Something like: In order to solve X you needed to know Y.
At the end of the marking period, both tests along with other "evaluations" are added to the list of "count-ables" and form Student A's marking period grade. What has been measured? How valid is this system of add them all up and divide? What does Student A learn about learning? Measurement? Evaluation?
Now in another classroom, perhaps across the hallway, Teacher B also evaluates student work using the same process with a slight difference: S/he "allows" learners to hand in the corrections (with full work showing) and then averages the two grades (1st attempt and corrections) to figure the final grade (the one that goes into the grade book). In this scenario, what is the student learning about revision? correction? work? I have asked lots of Teacher Bs why the first grade isn't dropped from the grade book as the student has now demonstrated the learning? The responses usually provided include: fairness (there are students who got all correct the first time and that should count more); standard-based evaluation (still not sure what that phase means); Puritan ethic (Makes students want to work harder to get everything "correct" the 1st time); practicing for high stakes test (you don't get a do over).
Wondering what you think about this. Is there some value to establishing points in time where a single test regardless of later performance represents what the learner knew/knows? I can't help but think students must experience these situations like Alice in Wonderland:
You see?
 |
| Image by Centralasian on Flickr. Found Here. |
At the end of the marking period, both tests along with other "evaluations" are added to the list of "count-ables" and form Student A's marking period grade. What has been measured? How valid is this system of add them all up and divide? What does Student A learn about learning? Measurement? Evaluation?
Now in another classroom, perhaps across the hallway, Teacher B also evaluates student work using the same process with a slight difference: S/he "allows" learners to hand in the corrections (with full work showing) and then averages the two grades (1st attempt and corrections) to figure the final grade (the one that goes into the grade book). In this scenario, what is the student learning about revision? correction? work? I have asked lots of Teacher Bs why the first grade isn't dropped from the grade book as the student has now demonstrated the learning? The responses usually provided include: fairness (there are students who got all correct the first time and that should count more); standard-based evaluation (still not sure what that phase means); Puritan ethic (Makes students want to work harder to get everything "correct" the 1st time); practicing for high stakes test (you don't get a do over).
Wondering what you think about this. Is there some value to establishing points in time where a single test regardless of later performance represents what the learner knew/knows? I can't help but think students must experience these situations like Alice in Wonderland:
Alice says, "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"
You see?
