Assuming
your district/school has established a vision for science education and
large-scale, specific goals aligned to that vision, you will next need to
determine a system of assessments for evaluating progress toward those goals.
As mentioned in my last post, many districts are working to adopt and implement
new science standards. Strategically assessing science-related outcomes at
multiple levels will provide ongoing evidence of effective change – after all,
why make changes if you don’t know whether they actually make any difference?
While it
might be obvious, an evaluation of a science program based on these goals will
take more than one assessment! In other words, the annual state standardized
test, often the only systematic science test used by a school, will not measure
the full range of outcomes related to a meaningful vision for science
education. That requires leaders to strategically implement a system of assessments. The Wisconsin DPI
has a chart that illustrates some components of such a system, including formative, interim,
and summative elements.
The majority
of assessment will happen formatively at the classroom level. This level is
where teachers see the day-to-day use of scientific practices by their students
as they investigate, communicate, and ask questions about science. It will be
critical for teachers to have the structures to discuss what they’re observing
from their students, collaboratively determining next steps. Processes of informal formative
assessment should
drive instructional practice. If schools are moving toward the NGSS or NRC
Science Framework, formative, as well as all levels of assessment, should be three-dimensional.
Common, interim assessments and rubrics across
classrooms and grade-levels can support collaborative understanding of
students’ abilities. These types of assessments can provide a more formal view
into student growth in relation to science content knowledge and practice. Quality performance tasks can potentially provide the
clearest information for collaborative groups of teachers to reflect on
progress toward their goals. They need to be implemented well, however, in
order to be useful. Teachers must have the time to score papers together and come to
an agreement on how particular examples of student work meet the rubric
criteria.
Large-scale
district summative tests (or state level tests) often afford the least amount
of data for specific instructional guidance. They might, however, suggest areas
for professional development or foci for revised student project rubrics. For
example, a set of district end-of-course exams might all show that students
across the district struggle with using data effectively. Often these types of
tests are multiple-choice, which provide limited information in relation to
authentic science practice, but they can be effectively paired with open-ended
opportunities for students to describe their reasoning.
An often
forgotten element in such an assessment system is an evaluation of student attitudes
about science and their
general scientific literacy. Do they see how science relates
to their lives? Can they make sense of scientific evidence within popular
media? Is science meaningful for them?
In summary,
schools and districts reviewing and attempting to improve their science
programs will have unclear success in that process if they haven’t defined what
outcomes they want and how to measure them. A meaningful and strategic system of science assessment will be an essential part of
this process.
The next
series of blog posts will discuss formative, interim, and summative assessments
in more depth, as well as effective surveys of student attitudes. Each will
provide examples of these assessment types and suggestions for classroom or
school use.
