Directions: In 150-200 reply to each classmate's discussion board post below. For each reply, provide at least 2 suggestions for using faith-based methods to improve assessment strategies. Be sure to separate each reply so I know which reply you are addressing. Be sure to also list references and any outside sources.In your replies, address the extent to which your colleagues identify the observable learning outcome (e.g. the task); the conditions under which the task is performed; and the criterion level (e.g. the standard to which the task must be performed).

William Reply #1:For the first scenario, I chose Mr. Smith. Kubiszyn and Borich repeated on more than one occasion in the reading that marks should reflect academic achievement and that things like conduct and attitude should not factor into a student's marks. When a single mark represents factors beyond achievement or systems, interpretation or comparison of such marks becomes a hopeless task (Kubiszyn and Borich, p. 214).

Given this information, Mr. Smith's grading practices seem out of line. Multiple portions of his grading scale are not about his students' achievements, but about their attitude or conduct. In addition, some of the headings are also based on entirely subjective ideas. Would other teachers agree with Mr. Smith about what constitutes a "proper attitude towards the subject matter" or what constitutes "good study habits"? There are multiple ideas about what these phrases mean, so they are not useful as objective measures of achievement.

Mr. Smith does have one good component in his system, and that is the fact that he has very clearly spelled out the approximate weight that is to be placed on each part of his system. Even if the measures themselves are clearly subjective, parents and students will at least understand where Mr. Smith got his measurements from when they see the student's final grade.

For the second scenario, I chose Ms. White. Grading in comparison to a student's aptitude only works well with students who have a high aptitude to begin with, as shown in the text (p. 218). Students who have a high aptitude must work hard to live up to that high standard of achievement, so if they receive high marks or low marks, it is because they did well or did badly on an assignment, respectively.

The problem with this system is when it is applied to children of average or low aptitude. How are we to compare a high aptitude child's A (which would indicate high level of mastery) to a low aptitude child's A (which could indicate a much lower level of mastery)? These marks look the same on paper, but they could mean very different things when you take each student's aptitude into account. As the text says, this system may seem appealing to some, but it is not practical (p. 218). The approximate weight that will be placed on each part of the system will be decided by the aptitude of the student doing the work, as high aptitude students must continually do well to obtain high marks and lower students can turn in lower quality work and still receive high marks, relative to their aptitude.

Educators must remember to choose fair marking systems. The Bible tells us that those who observe justice and who are righteous at all times are blessed (Psalm 106:3, ESV), and so we must always strive to grade in an equitable fashion.

References

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G. D. (2016). Educational testing and measurement: Classroom application and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Classmate Reply #2:Mr. Smith, a ninth grade teacher who is keen to develop criteria which best serves students, has included assignments and tests in his marking as expected, but has also calculated participation, aptitude, and student attitude into student grades. Although there is merit to Mr. Smith's desire to put emphasis on student sharing, individual student skills, and students' character, marks should be assigned to give feedback on academic achievement alone (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2016, p. 214). Parents of these students may also raise concerns regarding Mr. Smith's lack of academic focus thus an immediate change of marking systems is needed. Surprisingly, Mr Smith has developed 65% of a students' grade based on non-academic marks. These highlighted areas are difficult to interpret and will not bode well when compared to other students in similar grades. When marks reflect solely on academic achievement with steady organization, then marks may be considered having validity (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2016, p. 214). Mr. Smith should be encouraged to adjust his marking system with an approximate weight such as the following: portfolio (15%), in-school projects (25%), homework assignments (25%), tests (35%). This breakdown would include all academic-type of work necessary for establishing standards and yet still balance classwork with testing scores.

Another teacher, Mr. Williams, has the opposite marking system as Mr. Smith. Mr. Williams is taking the academic achievement of his students seriously and believes test scores are the closest measuring tool for his grading system. The only exception is the "A" factor. Mr. Williams obviously has established standards which are critical for validity. Unfortunately, his marking system does not allow for other types of marking such as assignments and projects. Not all students test well so having 100% of a grade dependent on tests will cause shock for some students. Another disadvantage Mr. Williams shows in his marking is making comparisons between students. Although Mr. Williams does not grade based on a curve, he has created an unnatural competition between students by awarding an "A" to the student who improves most over the term. Because students are at all different places on a spectrum, this type of rivalry will be unfair for intellectually gifted students who may advance only slightly during the term. In addition, maybe that student who ends up with the "A" knew about Mr. Williams system and purposely planned out his or her scheme to be that student who improved the most. I would suggest that Mr. Williams include a breakdown such as the following: in-school project work and/or portfolio (20%), homework assignments (20%), and tests (60%). This marking system would still highlight Mr. William's desire for testing to bear heavily but also give an opportunity for a more balanced approach for various types of learners. It would also be wise of Mr. Williams to do away with the "A" factor to make it fair for all students without causing rivalry and chaos in the classroom.

References

Kubiszyn, T., & Borich, G., D. (2016). Educational testing & measurement: Classroom applications and practice (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.