“One of the most dangerous and persistent myths in American education is that the challenges of assessing student learning will be met if only the right instrument can be found – the test with psychometric properties so outstanding that we can base high-stakes decisions on the results of performance on that measure alone” (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007, p. vii).
[I] Good assessments yield reasonably accurate and truthful generalizable evidence of student learning that is used to inform meaningful, substantive changes to teaching and learning.
- Good assessments are clear to everyone.
- Good assessments have an appropriate range of outcome levels.
- Good assessments maintain an appropriate balance among quality, dependability, and usefulness.
[II] Good assessments focus on important learning goals.
[III] Good assessments include direct evidence of student learning (Suskie, 2018).
- “No assessment of knowledge, understanding, or thinking or performance skills should consist of indirect evidence alone” (para. 9).
[IV] Good assessments are significant (Suskie, 2018).
- “Quizzes, homework, and class discussions can give us insight into whether students are on track to achieve key learning goals” (para. 10).
- “But far more useful are significant learning activities that ask students to demonstrate or perform the skills they have learned, especially learning activities that mirror real-world experiences” (para. 10).
[V] Good assessments are fair, unbiased, and conducted ethically.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). A brief history of student learning assessment: How we got where we are and a proposal for where to go next. Washington, DC: R. J. Shavelson, C. G. Schneider, & L. S. Shulman.
Suskie, L. (2018). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banta, T. (2008). Trying to clothe the emperor. Assessment Update, 20(2), 3-4.
Berrett, D. (2015, September 21). The unwritten rules of college. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/
Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Goggins Selke, M. J. (2013). Rubric assessment goes to college: Objective, comprehensive evaluation of student work. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield.
Grove, J. (2016, September 29). Mature students do better with non-written assessment. Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/
Huot, B. (1990). The literature of direct writing assessment: Major concerns and prevailing trends. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 237-263.
Lane, S. (2010). Performance assessment: The state of the art. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Lane, S. (2012). Performance-based assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 313-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 15-21.
Parkes, J. (2012). Reliability in classroom assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of Research on Classroom Assessment (pp. 125-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 18-39.