| |
“Constructed-response items can be very simple, requiring students to answer
with only a sentence or two, or quite complex, requiring students to read a
prompt or a specified text article, reflect on the key points, and then develop
a meaningful essay or analysis of the information. Whether simple or complex,
all constructed-response questions measure students' ability to apply, analyze,
evaluate, and synthesize the knowledge that they have acquired in a more
abstract way” (Tankersley, 2007.) Constructed-response assessment also allows
the educator to “personalize” the assessment to specifically measure what is
currently being taught in the classroom or meet the unique needs of an
individual student. Examples of constructed-response measures include short
answer, fill-in-the-blank, and essay questions.
The University of South Florida, in Tampa, Florida, in cooperation with the
Florida Center for Instructional Technology, offers an On-line publication for
teachers, Classroom Assessment, that guides them through creating and using
assessment tools in the classroom. According to their research, “The simplest
forms of constructed-response questions are fill-in-the-blank or short answer
questions. They also control for guessing, which can be a major factor,
especially for true or false or multiple-choice questions. Essay questions are a
more complex version of constructed-response assessments. This type of
assessment is very powerful -- it allows the students to express themselves and
demonstrate their reasoning related to a topic. Essay questions often demand the
use of higher level thinking skills, such as analysis, synthesis, and
evaluation.”
Constructed-response assessment encourages the student to apply higher-level
thinking skills. Research has shown, and educators agree, that it is important
to teach students how to think while they are learning, so the same should be
true when they are assessing their students. Rather than ask a student, “Who
wrote Common Sense?” a more meaningful (and challenging) assessment would be to
ask the student why Thomas Paine was looked on as a hero for his writing.
Thinking skills that are beneficial to students in career and life can be
developed and strengthened with the use of constructed-response assessments.
In the past, the time to create quality constructed response assessments was
overwhelming to most teachers. The Internet has made many new resources
available to the classroom teacher. Some of these new products, such as Rapid
Resources® and Learning Plans on Demand™, offer constructed-response
assessments, along with tutorials and practice activities, at the click of a
mouse.
Noted educator and assessment expert R.J. Stiggins, (2001) stated, "Classroom
assessment information is the essential fuel that powers the learning systems
for students" (p. 18). His first principle, Students are the Key Assessment
Users, points out that “assessment information tells a student how well he or
she is progressing.” A clear advantage of formative assessment is that it offers
the educator a current picture of where the student is performing. It is a
systematic process used to gather evidence about learning continuously, rather
than once or twice a year. Assessment should be ongoing. If teachers rely on
standardized test results or Benchmark assessments to analyze what skills
students have or have not mastered, there is often a huge time lapse. Thus,
student assessment should occur on a regular basis. According to Margaret
Heritage, “Assessment should be a moving picture—a video stream, rather than a
periodic snapshot. Formative assessment practices, if implemented effectively,
can provide teachers and their students with the data that they need. Moreover,
there is empirical evidence that formative assessment, unlike benchmark
assessments, is effective in improving student achievement” (Heritage, 2007).
According to education professor Thomas Guskey, assessments that are best suited
to result in improvements in student learning are those that classroom teachers
administer on an ongoing and consistent basis in their own classrooms. Teachers
value such personal assessments because they are in direct correlation with
their classroom instructional goals. Another obvious advantage is that the
results are immediate and easy to evaluate at the individual student level.
An early education leader who saw the importance of formative assessment was
Benjamin Bloom. As he stated back in the early 1980s, “With the feedback and
corrective information gained from a formative assessment, each student has a
detailed prescription of what more needs to be done to master the concepts or
skills from the unit. As a result, many more students learn well, master the
important learning goals in each unit, and gain the necessary prerequisites for
success in subsequent units” (Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, 1981).
In summary, as stated on the California Department of Education’s website, under
the section titled Key Elements of Testing, the following describes the main
difference between selected response and constructed-response items.
“Multiple-choice items constrain students to a single appropriate answer and are
subject to guessing. Constructed-response items allow students to demonstrate
more in-depth understanding of content with less likelihood of guessing.”
A classroom teacher will save time, gain a better understanding of the students’
knowledge, and be able to direct instruction appropriately with formative,
constructed- response assessments. When these assessments are scaffolded to
create a remediation path in a given unit, the teacher will be able to meet each
student’s needs as well as alter instruction and assessment as it becomes
necessary. Because a student’s skill level and knowledge base is constantly
changing, it is paramount that teachers are provided with individualized
assessment materials to meet each student’s needs.
References
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1982). Evaluation to Improve
Learning. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Florida Center for Instructional Technology. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from
http://www.fcit.usf.edu/
Guskey, T. R. (2003, February). How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning.
Educational Leadership, 60, 6-11.
Heritage, M. (2007, October). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to
Know and Do. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 140-145. Retrieved November 29, 2007, from
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kappan.htm
Noddings, N. (2008, February). All Our Students Thinking. Educational
Leadership, 65, 8-13.
State of California Department of Education. Retrieved July 01, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/keyelements0504.pdf
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Guiding Principles for Classroom Assessment (3rd ed.).
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall/Merrill Education.
Tankersley, K. (2007). Constructed Response: Connecting Performance and
Assessment.
Tests that teach using standardized tests to improve instruction. Alexandria,
VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
April
Roethel is Chief Editor for the International
Learning Corporation, developers of Rapid Resources, a tool for creating
Individualized Learning Plans. |