Assignment 1 CTED 0635

docx

School

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

0635

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by ConstableOstrichPerson358

Report
2181-HAWKS-CTED-635ONLINE-SEC0505-3271 Ralph Rogers 2/11/2018 The first assignment required the class “Identify three assessment topics for research and discuss the positives and negatives of each”. Surprisingly, this task proved to be an extremely difficult one for me. My third observation of the year took place on 2/6/ 2018. A number of the resulting comments directly tied into this lesson. I really began to ask myself what was the purpose of the previous assessments I had given the students. What did I really gain from the data? How did I re-craft the upcoming lessons or revise my unit plan? The following three assessment topics were chosen based on their ability to assist me best answer these questions. In reflection, I can tell the majority of my assessments have norm-referenced based. This is partially due to my need for data to complete my personal Student learning outcome. I have been constructing formative and summative assessments that provide information on how well the students are performing on my test. However, the previous question of “What did I really gain from the data” comes to mind. A major positive to this type of assessment is that one can easily create a tier structure that students can be placed into. Once this is done, a teacher can then develop lesson plans that take a student from their current level of ability to meeting a course objective. Taking this approach makes a teacher focus on what can be done to help a student understand the concepts being presented. A major flaw in this type of assessment is that it “cannot convey every possible meaning of the student learning” (Wenger, E., 1998). Hager spoke of educators difficulty in learning “new types because they are the grass roots assessment of most educational Institutions” (Hagar, 1994) . Based on my current experience I believe that both of the negative are true but do not discount the associated positives. Norm-referenced
based assessments still provide a great deal of data with regard to whether a student has or hand not acquired a skill set. Synoptic assessment as described by Bonney (Bonney D.) “test understanding of the inter-relationship between parts of a subject at the end of a course”. This appears to be a summative assessment that ask a student about the entire body of knowledge they possess at the end of a unit. An advantage to this type of assessment is that a student is required to reason and then answer the questions based on the all of the areas related to a concept (Capel S., 2013). The synoptic assessment seems to be primarily in used Physical Education. However, when one considers that many of the skills being in Technology Education I believe this type of assessment can be used with a number of units that are taught. A student who is learning about drafting can easily resist the lesson and state he/she is not artistic. However, drafting may be easier to teach if one thinks about it as a series of movements as opposed to using only geometric terminology. Teaching in this manner allows a student to visualize geometric objects in a similar way to an athlete. It also allows a student to “make connections between different aspects of the course” (Capel S., 2013). A negative to this type of assessment is that a student receives a grade without the ability to prove further understanding. McCarthy has made a strong argument connecting critical thinking and the formative assessment (Moore B., 2010). By using the informal style of formative assessment a teacher can glean information through “observation or oral questioning”. A teacher can also use a more formal assessment such as homework, flashcard, exit cards, and student surveys to get an idea of where a student skill set is. A positive to this method of assessment is that a teacher can consistently mover toward improving the culture of learning within the classroom. To do this McCarthy suggest that one should always be assessing themselves as well as the students. During this process one should intentionally think of ways
to add critical thinking questions to a lesson. The author suggest using a process which includes backwards mapping to create “short cycle assessments organized for results and expectations” (Moore B., 2010). A positive to this method is a teaching can develop pacing that coincides with what a student may have learned. A teacher can also take the data from the formative assessments to improve future lessons and make them more authentic for the students. The author also notes that formative assessment combines with critical thinking produces better achievement in students than other forms. A negative is some of the choices educators have to make when determining which formatives assessments should be implemented (Sharkey N., 2006). As a result when an educator is asked about their formative assessment practice the answers can vary greatly.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
Works Cited Bonney D., I. J. (n.d.). Advanced PE for OCR A2 , 331. Oxford, United Kingdom: Heinemann Educational Publishers. Capel S., L. M. (2013). Learning to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. Learning to Teach Subjects in the Secondary School Series, 6 . Routledge. Hagar, P. G. (1994). General Issues about the Assessment of Competence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 19 , 1:3-15. Moore B., S. T. (2010). Critical Thinking and Formative Assessments: Increasing the Rigor in Your Classroom , 42. New York, NY: Eye On Education. Sharkey N., M. R. (2006, August). Tough Choices in Designing a Formative Assessment System. American Journal of Education(4), 112 , 572-588. Chicago, Il, United States: University of Chicago. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity . Cambridge, United Kingdom: CambridgeUniversity Press.