Assessment of Learning (Study of Learning)

It is a truism that learning is inferential; we apprehend it not directly, but rather through its concomitant products and outcomes. Researchers and pedagogues, though persuaded of a student's acquisition of knowledge, can only ascertain such acquisition through the rigorous assessment of said learning's manifest products and outcomes.

Assessment encompasses “a formal endeavour to ascertain a student's condition with regard to educational variables of salient interest” (Popham, 2008, p. 6). Within the scholastic milieu, the pre-eminent educational variable is most commonly the student's proficiency in domains such as literacy, composition, mathematics, the sciences, and social studies. The criticality of student achievement, ever present, was rendered all the more conspicuous by the federal government's enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Shaul & Ganson, 2005). This statute, replete with sundry provisions (Popham, 2008), mandates, inter alia, the annual examination of pupils in grades 3 through 8, and again in secondary education, in both literacy and mathematics; it further enjoins scholastic institutions to demonstrate incremental advancements in students' satisfactory yearly progression within these selfsame subjects.

Two points merit particular consideration herein. Firstly, whilst accountability often precipitates the utilization of examinations as the means of assessment, the latter subsumes a plethora of measurement procedures beyond mere testing, as shall be explicated infra. Researchers and practitioners seek to determine whether learning has transpired, and, ergo, might avail themselves of procedures alternative to testing to adduce evidence of student learning. Secondly, though students' skills in specific subject areas frequently constitute the assessed learning outcome, researchers and practitioners may also harbour interest in other modalities of learning. For instance, they may seek to ascertain whether students have assimilated novel attitudes or strategies of self-regulation, or whether their interests, values, self-efficacy, and motivation have undergone transformation as a consequence of subject matter acquisition.

This section shall delineate various methods for assessing the products or outcomes of learning, encompassing direct observations, written submissions, oral presentations, appraisals by external observers, and self-reporting.

Direct observations are instances of student behaviour, closely scrutinised in order to ascertain whether learning hath transpired. Instructors oft employ direct observation. A chemistry master, for example, may desire his charges to master laboratory procedures, and will thus observe them in the laboratory, noting whether they implement the procedures correctly. Similarly, a physical education instructor may observe students dribbling a basketball, thereby assessing their proficiency in the skill. An elementary teacher might also gauge how well students have internalised classroom rules, based on observation of their comportment in the classroom.

Direct observations serve as valid indices of learning when the behaviours in question are unambiguous and entail minimal inference on the part of the observers. They are most efficacious when the behaviours can be precisely specified, and students then observed to ascertain whether their behaviours conform to the established standard.

A difficulty inherent in direct observations lies in their focus solely upon observable phenomena, thereby overlooking the cognitive and affective processes underpinning actions. For example, the chemistry master may ascertain that students have mastered laboratory procedures, yet remain ignorant of their thoughts as they execute these procedures, or of their confidence in their own performance.

A further consideration is that, whilst directly observing a behaviour indicates that learning hath transpired, the absence of appropriate behaviour doth not necessarily signify a lack of learning. Learning and performance are not synonymous. Numerous factors, external to learning, may influence performance. Students may fail to perform learned actions due to lack of motivation, illness, or preoccupation with other matters. To conclude from the absence of performance that learning hath not occurred, we must eliminate these alternative explanations. This necessitates the assumption—which may at times be unwarranted—that students generally strive to perform at their best; thus, if they fail to perform, they have not learned.

The assessment of erudition is oft predicated upon the written responses of scholars, as evinced in examinations, quizzes, scholastic exercises, term papers, and learned reports. The instructor, by judicious appraisal of the level of proficiency demonstrated within these responses, ascertains whether sufficient comprehension hath been achieved, or whether supplementary instruction is requisite, by reason of the pupils' incomplete grasp of the subject matter. By way of illustration, let us postulate that an instructor doth embark upon a unit concerning the geography of the Hawaiian archipelago. Initially, the instructor presumes a dearth of knowledge amongst the students respecting this topic. A preliminary examination, administered antecedent to the commencement of instruction, shall corroborate the instructor's belief should the students perform poorly. Subsequent to the instructional unit, the instructor doth re-examine the students. Augmentations in examination scores lead the instructor to deduce that the learners have acquired a certain degree of cognizance.

Their comparative facility of implementation and aptitude for encompassing a diverse array of material render written responses desirable indicators of erudition. We proceed upon the assumption that written responses are reflective of learning; however, manifold factors may impinge upon the performance of behaviour, even when students have assimilated the knowledge. Written responses necessitate that we impute to the students a striving for their utmost, and that no extraneous factors (such as fatigue, ailment, or academic dishonesty) are operative to the extent that their written work doth not accurately represent the knowledge they have procured. It behoves us to endeavour to identify those extraneous factors which may influence performance and obscure the assessments of erudition.

Oral responses constitute an integral facet of the scholastic milieu. Instructors solicit answers from pupils, thereby gauging their comprehension predicated upon their verbal contributions. Furthermore, students proffer queries during instructional sessions. Should such inquiries evince a lacuna in understanding, this serves as an indication that efficacious learning has not transpired.

Analogous to written responses, we posit that oral responses furnish veridical reflections of the students' extant knowledge, an assumption which may not invariably hold. Moreover, the act of verbalisation represents a task in itself, and impediments may arise in the translation of internal knowledge into its oral manifestation, owing to unfamiliar terminology, apprehension pertaining to public speaking, or linguistic impediments. Educators may paraphrase the utterances of students, albeit such paraphrasing may not faithfully represent the essence of the students' cogitations.

A further avenue for appraising the scholarly attainments of pupils resides in soliciting evaluations from external observers, encompassing instructors, guardians, administrative personnel, learned investigators, and fellow pupils, who may furnish assessments pertaining to the quantum or calibre of a pupil's acquisition of knowledge. Such assessments, evinced by inquiries such as, “To what degree is Timothy adept at resolving mathematical problems of the ilk 52 x 36 = ?” or “To what extent has Alicia augmented her penmanship skills within the preceding semester?”, proffer data of considerable utility and may serve to pinpoint pupils with exceptional requisites, as exemplified by questions such as, “With what frequency does Matthew necessitate additional temporal latitude to assimilate knowledge?” or “With what alacrity does Jennifer conclude her scholastic assignments?”

A salient merit inherent in assessments furnished by external observers lies in the augmented impartiality that such observers may manifest in their appraisals of pupils, as juxtaposed with the self-assessments proffered by the pupils themselves (vide infra, self-reports). Furthermore, external assessments may be levied upon the cognitive processes underpinning actions, such as comprehension, motivation, and attitudinal proclivities, thereby yielding data unattainable via direct observation. For instance, one may inquire, “To what extent does Seth apprehend the causative factors precipitating the Second World War?” However, assessments derived from external observers necessitate a greater degree of inferential reasoning than do direct observations. The accurate evaluation of a pupil's proclivity for facile assimilation of knowledge, profundity of comprehension, or attitudinal disposition may prove problematic. Moreover, assessments predicated upon the recollections of observers are susceptible to distortion, particularly when raters selectively retain exclusively propitious or adverse behaviours.

Self-reports constitute individuals' assessments of, and pronouncements concerning, their very selves. Such self-reports manifest in diverse forms, to wit: questionnaires, interviews, stimulated recalls, think-aloud protocols, and dialogues.

Questionnaires furnish respondents with items or queries anent their thoughts and actions. Respondents may record the types of activities in which they partake, rate their perceived levels of competence, and judge how oft or how long they engage in them (e.g., “For what duration hast thou been studying Spanish?” “How arduous dost thou find it to learn geometric theorems?”). Many a self-report instrument bids respondents record ratings on numerical scales (“Upon a 10-point scale, where 1 = low and 10 = high, rate thy proficiency at reducing fractions.”).

Interviews represent a species of questionnaire wherein an interviewer presents the queries or points for discussion, and the respondent answers orally. Interviews typically are conducted individually, albeit groups may be interviewed. A researcher might delineate a learning context and inquire of students how they typically learn in such a setting (e.g., “When the French teacher commences a lesson, what are thy thoughts? How well dost thou opine thou shalt fare?”). Interviewers may find it necessary to prompt respondents if replies prove too brief or unforthcoming.

In the stimulated recall procedure, individuals labour upon a task and thereafter recall their thoughts at diverse junctures during the task. Interviewers query them (e.g., “Upon what wert thou pondering when thou wert stymied here?”). Should the performance have been videotaped, respondents subsequently observe it and recollect, especially when interviewers halt the recording and pose questions. It is imperative that the recall procedure be accomplished soon after the performance, lest participants forget their thoughts.

Think-aloud protocols are procedures wherein students verbalise their thoughts, actions, and sentiments whilst labouring upon a task. Verbalisations may be recorded by observers and subsequently scored for level of understanding. Think-alouds mandate that respondents verbalise; many a student is unaccustomed to talking aloud whilst working at school. Talking aloud may appear awkward to some, and they may feel self-conscious or otherwise encounter difficulty expressing their thoughts. Investigators may have to prompt students should they not verbalise.

Another type of self-report is the dialogue, which constitutes a conversation 'twixt two or more persons whilst engaged in a learning task. Like think-alouds, dialogues may be recorded and analysed for statements indicative of learning and factors that appear to affect learning in the setting. Albeit dialogues employ actual interactions whilst students are working upon a task, their analysis requires interpretation that may extend beyond the actual elements in the situation.

The choice of self-report measure should correspond to the purpose of the assessment. Questionnaires can encompass a plethora of material; interviews are better suited for exploring a few issues in depth. Stimulated recalls bid respondents recall their thoughts at the time actions transpired; think-alouds examine present thoughts. Dialogues allow for the investigation of social interaction patterns.

Self-report instruments typically are facile to develop and administer; questionnaires are usually easy to complete and score. A problem may arise when inferences must be drawn anent students’ responses. It is essential to possess a reliable scoring system. Other concerns regarding self-reports are whether students are furnishing socially acceptable answers that do not align with their beliefs, whether self-reported information corresponds to actual behaviour, and whether young children are capable of self-reporting accurately. By guaranteeing that data are confidential, researchers can aid in promoting truthful answering. A sound means of validating self-reports is to employ multiple assessments (e.g., self-reports, direct observations, oral and written responses). There exists evidence that, beginning around the third grade, self-reports are valid and reliable indicators of the beliefs and actions they are designed to assess (Assor & Connell, 1992), yet researchers must employ self-reports cautiously, so as to minimise potential problems.