Field Experience Assessment Inventory

Field Experience Assessment Inventory

Assessment Name and Type	Description, and Means by Which Administered	Outcomes Being Assessed	If/How Assessment Improved Teaching or Learning
Warm-Up Drill Questions -Formative	Formative assessment questions (usually multiple choice) posted on a PowerPoint slide. Answers to the questions were discussed after students had some time to write their individual answers.	Many outcomes, depending on what was learned the previous day(s). An example of a drill question was: “The characteristics listed below can be used to describe some molecules. 1.      inorganic 2.      supplies energy and fiber 3.      component of plant cell walls 4.      part of DNA 5.      made of nucleotides Which of these sets of characteristics describes a carbohydrate?” The answer was B. 2,3,4	Yes! These assessments were entirely formative in nature. The questions were never graded, rather, the teacher used them to get the students thinking and determine if they understood the material from the previous class. If they, as a whole, seemed to do well, the teacher would move on. If not, the teacher took the time to review the material and clarify any misconceptions the students had. The questions therefore served as opportunities for the students to test their knowledge and the teacher to determine if/how to modify instruction.
Student Questioning and Observation -Formative	Informal verbal questions and observations throughout class to ensure students are engaged and learning.	Any material being learned at the time. For example, one question asked frequently during the first unit of the course was “what are the independent and dependent variables of this experiment?”	Yes! These questions and observations were entirely formative in nature. Students can become disengaged if they do the same thing for a long time, and some students are shy and unwilling to participate. Therefore, the teacher would break up the PowerPoint or video lectures with questions, walk around the room and ask questions to individual students or groups of students, and make observations regarding student learning that can be used to improve his teaching. If there was something many students didn’t understand, the instructor could elaborate.
Kahoot Quizzes -Formative	Short quizzes in which students participated via smartphones or desktop computers in the classroom. Questions were mostly multiple choice or true/false, and had a time limit of 15 seconds. After each question, the class is provided with a breakdown of how many students selected each possible response.	Multiple topics. The teacher used Kahoot quizzes for membrane transport (hypo/hyper/isotonic solutions, osmosis vs. diffusion, active vs. passive transport, etc.), mitosis and meiosis (diploid vs. haploid, names and descriptions of the phases, etc.), and different cell types (eukaryotic cells vs. prokaryotic cells and the cell parts found in each type) among other topics.	Yes! Kahoot quizzes were entirely formative in nature. These quizzes were not graded, but the teacher took the time to stop the quiz and discuss a topic if the students struggled with it. For example, many students incorrectly answered a question that asked what would happen to a cell placed in a particular solution, given the molarities of the intracellular fluid and extracellular fluid. Students didn’t quite grasp that water moves from low molarity to high molarity, while salts move from high molarity to low molarity, so the teacher addressed this difference between solute and solvent by drawing images on the whiteboard and explaining the mathematical formulas. Such quizzes inform the teacher how well students have learned thus far, so that adjustments can be made to improve learning.
In-class packet: DNA and Mutations Webquest -Mostly formative	In-class formative assessment packet in which students were required to go to a website in groups, watch the required videos, read the required readings, fill in the blanks of their notes, and respond to questions. Some of the questions were answered via computer to advance the activity, while others were completed on the corresponding worksheet and turned in for a grade.	Different types of DNA mutations, including deletions, insertions, substitutions, and frameshift mutations. Knowledge of specific diseases caused by mutations, including sickle cell anemia and hemophilia.	Yes! This assessment was mostly formative in nature, as it was used to teach the students about DNA mutations and provide instant feedback as they responded to questions. Students used the online activities to learn the material for the first time and take notes. In other words, this more engaging assessment replaced the lecture that would traditionally be used to introduce the material. Some of the questions they answered, however, were turned in for a grade, but it was a relatively low-stakes assignment. This activity was therefore a discovery based lab that utilized computers to have students engage in material that would otherwise be inaccessible in a normal high school classroom, such as sickle blood cells and their DNA.
Worksheet: Protein Synthesis and Mutations -Formative	In-class formative assessment worksheet students could complete individually or in groups. Students were given an original DNA sequence (TACGATACT) and a key for converting mRNA codons to amino acids. They were asked to write the complementary DNA sequence, mRNA sequence, tRNA sequence, and amino acid sequence, as well as list the name of each step and where it occurs in a cell. Then, they were asked to repeat the process if one base was changed, and answer some follow-up questions.	Knowledge of the components of gene expression, including transcription and translation: complementary base pairs (A-T and C-G in DNA, and A-U in RNA), where the processes occur, and how a mutation may affect protein structure.	Yes! This worksheet was the first chance for the students to try the full process of gene expression from start to finish, and the teacher pointed out a few learning tips towards the end. For example, he pointed out that because the DNA coding strand and mRNA codon sequence (notice the letter “C”) are both complementary to the DNA template strand, the two should have the same base sequence, with U’s in RNA and T’s in DNA. Similarly, the DNA template strand and tRNA strand (notice the letter “T”) would have the same sequence. This tip improved student understanding of the whole process. The worksheet was formative in nature, as it was not turned in for a grade, and the class discussed the answers to improve student understanding of gene expression.
Classwork/Homework Packet: Making Karyotypes -Summative	A summative packet in which students were required to use scissors to cut chromosomes out of a “cell” and assemble them like they would if they were a scientist making a karyotype. They then compared their karyotypes to other images given, and were required to identify if their karyotype was normal, or if there was a genetic disorder present.	Knowledge of karyotyping, including: chromosomes are ordered by size, there should be 23 pairs of chromosomes, and how to identify certain genetic disorders, such as Turner Syndrome (female with one X chromosome) and Trisomy 21 / Down syndrome (three 21st chromosomes).	No formative component. The first part of the assignment was treated like a performance assessment, as the students were required to create and turn in a karyotype. The follow-up questions were answered and graded as summative constructed-response questions. Because the assessment was used to evaluate student understanding of karyotyping and not improve instruction or learning, this assessment would be considered summative rather than formative.
Lab Assignment: Testing for Macromolecules -Summative	In-class summative assessment. Students were given a sample of a McDonald’s Happy Meal that was blended together. They were required to test known solutions using the Benedict’s test for monosaccharides, Lugol’s test for polysaccharides, Biuret test for proteins, and the Sudan III test for lipids. After, students tested the blended meal to determine which macromolecules were present. Finally, students completed a worksheet with post-lab questions.	Knowledge of the different macromolecules and how to test for their presence, as well as proper lab procedure, including wearing goggles, properly heating substances, cleaning test-tubes between trials, and drawing conclusions from tests conducted on known and unknown substances	Very little formative component. This assessment was primarily summative in nature, as it was given towards the end of the unit on macromolecules. Students already knew the characteristics of the different macromolecules and how to test for them in solution, so this assignment gave them the opportunity to put their knowledge and skills to the test as a real scientist would. It was not used to improve teaching or learning in a significant way, and the grade assigned to this lab activity was weighted more heavily than the others listed.
Lab Assignment: Dialysis Tubing -Formative	In-class formative assessment. Students set-up two dialysis experiments. In the first, starch and water were added to an enclosed dialysis tube and suspended in a beaker of plain water. In the second, glucose and water were added to an enclosed dialysis tube and suspended in a beaker of water. Students took the mass of the bags before suspension in water and after 24 hours, then conducted tests in the beaker of water for the presence of monosaccharides and polysaccharides. Students completed a worksheet after the experiment.	Knowledge of macromolecules and membrane properties. For example, students were supposed to conclude that because the bag with glucose decreased in mass, and glucose was detected in the beaker of water, that glucose could pass through the membrane (bag) and diffused into the hypotonic solution that surrounded it. Starch is too large, causing water to move into the bag via osmosis and increase the mass of the bag.	Yes! This lab was used before membrane transport was covered in detail. Students were introduced to the plasma membrane before the lab in basic detail, but this lab was used as a teaching opportunity that allowed students to see firsthand how osmosis and diffusion work together to maintain homeostasis (osmolarity), and how smaller molecules more readily move through the membrane. A more detailed discussion of membrane transport and a Kahoot quiz followed the lab activity, for additional learning. Post-lab questions were turned in for a small grade, but the assessment should still be considered formative in nature.
Lab Assignment: Introduction to Microscopes and Prokaryotic vs. Eukaryotic cells -Formative	Students were introduced to the basics of microscopes, and used a slide with the letter “e” on it to learn how to operate a microscope. This was followed by an activity that allowed students to look at and draw different types of cells, including animal cells, plant cells, protist cells, and bacteria cells. Their drawings were turned in and graded mostly for completion.	Proper lab technique regarding use of microscopes (focus at each magnification before zooming in, don’t use coarse adjustment knob at high power, etc.). Knowledge of the differences between types of cells, including plant cells (box-shaped, chloroplasts, cell walls, large central vacuoles), animal cells (round-shape, lack chloroplasts and cell walls), protist cells, and bacteria cells (lack membranous organelles and nuclei, have cell walls, often have cilia or flagella).	Yes! After being introduced to the basics of microscopes, students could see the principles in action. For example, they would notice how the image gets larger and the field of vision gets smaller when the magnification is increased, and that the “e” would be flipped upside-down and backwards based on how the light-rays are magnified. Students were also able to see with their own eyes the key differences between the main cell types discussed, and were shown a Venn diagram comparing the cell types afterwards. The lab had a worksheet that was turned in for a grade, but this assessment was mainly used to improve learning by showing students real examples of principles of microscopy and differences in cell types.
Worksheet: Cell Membrane Coloring Worksheet -Formative	In-class formative assessment worksheet. Students were asked to identify the parts of the cell membrane on an image, color code each part according to a key, and match the structure name to the appropriate function.	Knowledge of parts of a cell membrane and their functions, including: phospholipid bilayer, integral protein, fatty acid tails, phosphate heads, peripheral protein, cholesterol, glycoproteins, and glycolipids.	Yes! The teacher checked the worksheets in-class and addressed the class for misconceptions, such as the difference between integral and peripheral proteins, which many students confused. The worksheet was ultimately turned in for a grade, but the primary purpose of the assessment was to improve student understanding of the cell membrane, making it formative in nature.
Unit Test- Skills and Processes and Biological Molecules -Summative	Summative written assessment composed entirely of multiple choice questions administered on paper via scantron. Students were given an hour to answer the fifty-question test individually.	Knowledge of basics of science, including independent vs. dependent variables, control groups, lab safety rules, scientific notation, the scientific method, etc. Knowledge of basic biological molecules including water, vitamins, proteins and enzymes, amino acids, lipids, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, etc.	No formative component; completely summative in nature. Meant to measure learning, but not necessarily improve learning or teaching. Rather, this assessment was used to evaluate student learning at the end of the first unit of the course.
Biology HSA -Summative standardized test	Written assessment containing multiple choice, true/false, and matching questions.	All knowledge students are meant to acquire in Biology I, including basics of science, molecular biology, cell biology, heredity and evolution, organismal diversity, and ecology.	No formative component at all. This assessment is a state-wide test used to evaluate students, but it is given at the end of the course. Teachers may be able to use the results to adjust their teaching for future classes, but they are unable to use the results to improve the learning of the students who took the test, making it summative. The Biology HSA is also considered standardized because the same assessment is given to every student in the state under the same conditions. Furthermore, students receive norm-referenced data weeks after taking the exam.

Interesting things I noticed:

-Most of the assessments were turned in for a grade, but were primarily formative in nature. The worksheets and lab activities, for example, provided students with opportunities to test the knowledge they learned in class before taking a more high-stakes summative assessment.

-I noticed more “informal” assessments than I perhaps would have before I took this course. I remember most of my assessments in school being worksheets, quizzes, and tests. In my field experience, however, I noticed drill questions, Kahoot quizzes, and some worksheets that were never graded. They were instead used to improve learning.

-I didn’t notice any examples of affective assessment. Perhaps the teacher could incorporate affective assessment questions into Kahoot quizzes to evaluate student values and beliefs.

-I also didn’t notice many performance assessments, presentations, or projects. While this may be due to the limited time I’ve spent in the classroom, these assessments are crucial for assessing skill development and knowledge application.

-Lab activities were used in this class far more than any of the courses I took in high school. These were used both before primary instruction, as a sort of inquiry-based engaging activity, and after primary instruction, to allow students to test their knowledge.

Personal Philosophy of Asessment

            Assessment is a key component of teaching. I always knew this to be true, but my perspectives on the importance of assessment and how assessment results can be interpreted have changed drastically over the course of this semester. When I entered the MAT program, I viewed assessment primarily as a tool for evaluating students at a given point in time. I felt that they provided a snapshot of student learning and a numeric value by which students can be compared to each other or an ideal standard. While this is true to an extent, I’ve since learned that my previous views on assessment could be considered very narrow. Assessments needn’t be formal, graded, or even evaluative. Rather, assessments can be tools for monitoring and improving student learning and teacher instruction (McMillan, 2008). My current philosophy of assessment values assessment variety, assessment fairness, and communication with students.

 One important belief I’ve developed during this course is the belief that a variety of assessment techniques should be used to monitor and evaluate student learning. Previously, I valued summative written assessments far more than other assessment varieties because I felt that they provided the most valid and objective measures of student knowledge. This course has given me an appreciation of other assessment techniques that offer additional information to teachers and students. Performance assessments, including research papers, laboratory activities, and oral presentations, can be used not only to assess content knowledge gains like traditional written exams, but to also assess the development of important skills such as collaboration, research, presentation, and creative skills (McMillan, 2008). Learning facts is an important component of a student’s education, but being able to understand the importance of those facts, apply that information to a novel problem, and use their skills to find a solution is arguably more important. Performance assessments may be more difficult to create and less objectively graded than traditional tests, but they are useful for skill development and introduce variety into a teacher’s assessment repertoire (McMillan, 2008).

Using a variety of assessments may also be considered more fair, as alternative assessments could benefit learners who have different strengths, weaknesses, and learning styles. In the past, we’ve discussed Howard Gardner, a theorist whose theory of multiple intelligences suggests that using a variety of teaching styles is key to providing each student with the opportunity to succeed and helping students become more well-rounded learners (Snowman & McCown, 2015). This same logic applies to assessment. I tend to favor written exams as a student because I am an intrapersonal, logical learner who enjoys listening to lectures and reading text. There are many students, however, that prefer audio-visual, kinesthetic, or interpersonal styles. These students may do well on written tests, but they would benefit from performance assessments that allow them to be assessed in areas in which they are stronger. A second theorist that’s inspired me, Robert Sternberg (2008), used a basketball analogy to stress the importance of using performance assessments to teach more than facts. He wrote that teaching a person the rules of basketball and the relevant terminology won’t make that person a good basketball player; you must actually play basketball to get better! If we, as STEM teachers, want to develop students who use STEM practices, shouldn’t we give them to chance to put those skills to the test in an authentic way?

Perhaps the most important thing my assessment class has added to my philosophy of assessment pertains to the use of formative assessment to monitor the learning process. Formative assessments are those that are used by teachers to improve student learning and teacher instruction (McMillan, 2008). These assessments needn’t be formal or graded if they provide the teacher and their students with feedback that improves learning in some way. One of the best ways to do this is with a technological tool such as Kahoot or Socrative. These quizzing applications allow students with device access to answer questions posed by the teacher. The teacher can then use the results of these quizzes to adjust their lessons (Davis, 2015). If, for example, the students as a whole score poorly on quiz questions related to the differences between mitosis and meiosis, the teacher can stop the quiz and clarify some misconceptions, or reteach the material in a new manner. Such quizzes also provide the students with opportunities to test themselves and determine if they truly understand the material, or if they need to change their study strategies (Davis, 2015). I’ve seen the benefits of using formative assessment technologies to enhance learning firsthand, both as a student in college and as an instructor during my field experience. I therefore aim to incorporate formative assessment into my own classrooms in the future.

Another type of assessment I’ve learned to appreciate is affective assessment. The assessment types I’ve discussed thus far have been cognitive in nature, meaning they pertain to knowledge and facts. Affective assessments are used to measure students’ feelings, values, and beliefs towards a subject (Hall, 2011). As discussed by theorists Ramona Hall (2011) and W. James Popham (2009), these are important because students are unlikely to be motivated to work hard in class if they don’t value or enjoy class. Affective assessment items can be easily incorporated with cognitive items in formative assessments such as Kahoot quizzes. For example, teachers could ask students to rate, on a scale of 1-4, how important they felt the material they learned that day was. If students respond with low scores overall, the teacher could try to point out more connections between the content learned in class and real-world problems. If a similar question informed the teacher that students did not enjoy a particular lesson, that teacher could try to change the next lesson to make it more engaging.

When creating and utilizing assessments, it is of crucial importance to take steps to ensure that those assessments are fair and unbiased (McMillan, 2008). This is something I’ve thought about as a student, but I hadn’t understood exactly how to do so until recently. First, there’s absolutely no shame in asking others to evaluate an assessment you’ve written for fairness. In fact, having another teacher look at an assessment is helpful because they may notice something that you did not, like a poorly worded question or a mistake in the answer key. Furthermore, a teacher can reflect on a previously administered assessment using an item analysis. An item analysis provides the teacher with indices of difficulty and discrimination for each assessment item (Making sense of test analysis, n.d.). Assessment items with unreasonably high difficulties or with very low discrimination indices should be reevaluated or eliminated from an assessment altogether. If an assessment was administered more than once, the reliability and validity of the assessment can be considered as well (McMillan, 2008). It is unreasonable to expect any teacher to write a perfect assessment on the first try, but utilizing peer, student, and self-reflective feedback to improve an assessment can help a teacher become more effective over time.

Communication with students is a very important component of assessment. I know first-hand that students are appreciative of clear guidelines, detailed rubrics, and consistent grading. This is partially why it’s necessary to relate every assessment item to a learning outcome for the course or unit. Teachers use national and state-wide standards, such as the Next Generation Science Standards, to write objectives for their course and units that state what students will be capable of doing after instruction. These learning outcomes therefore serve as the foundation for assessments. Assessment items shouldn’t be written unless there is a clear reason for the item to be included. Keeping the learning outcomes in mind, and sharing those learning outcomes with the students, is an important part of communicating with them. Sharing rubrics with students also helps them know exactly how they will be evaluated, which makes the assessment fairer in their eyes.

            Communication is especially important for students with disabilities. Teachers must understand what students are capable of to assess them properly. This information can only be gathered via communication with the student and their parents. Teachers can then use this information to design assessments that are fair for the student. For example, students with intellectual disability struggle with processes that have many parts, such as the processes of gene expression (Snowman & McCown, 2015). Therefore, it would be inappropriate to ask a student with intellectual disability to determine an amino acid sequence from a DNA template. Instead, a teacher should break that task into multiple parts that make more sense to the student. First, have the student determine the mRNA sequence that is complementary to the DNA strand, then have them recognize the tRNA sequence before they finally translate the amino acid sequence. It certainly isn’t easy to appeal to every student, but if teachers communicate with students and use their own observations to determine how students may learn better, they can also determine how to structure assessments that are fair and give the students the best opportunity for success.

            Prior to taking a formal course on assessment methods, I had a very narrow view of assessment. I favored summative written assessments far too heavily because I considered them to be the most objective measures of student learning. I now understand that utilizing a variety of assessment methods is key for assessing all students fairly and improving both teacher instruction and student learning. Performance assessments may not assess content-knowledge memorization as well as written tests, but they assess skill development and knowledge application to a much greater extent (McMillan, 2008). Furthermore, using formative assessments and affective assessments is crucial for monitoring student learning and keeping students engaged (McMillan 2008; Hall, 2011). This can be easily done using technologies including Kahoot and Socrative, which provide instant feedback and fun challenges for participants. Additionally, evaluating assessments for fairness, bias, reliability, validity, and difficulty allows teachers to improve those assessments overtime to ensure that the conclusions drawn from assessment results are accurate (McMillan, 2008). Lastly, communicating with students is a key component of assessment. Students appreciate clear learning outcomes, detailed rubrics, and consistent grading expectations. Taking these steps as a teacher can help me show my students that I truly want them to succeed, and that we can work together to improve the experience of everyone in class.  

References

Davis, V. (2015). 5 Fantastic, Fast, Formative Assessment Tools [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/5-fast-formative-assessment-tools-vicki-davis

Hall, R. A. (2011). Affective assessment: The missing piece of the educational reform puzzle. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin: International Journal for Professional Educators, 77 (2), 7-10. Retrieved from https://blackboard.stevenson.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1317870-dt-content-rid-7002657_1/courses/17S8W1_ED_615_OL1/Hall_2011_Affective%20Assessment%20The%20Missing%20Piece%20in%20the%20Educational%20Reform%20Puzzle.pdf

Making sense of test analysis (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://www.geneseo.edu/sites/default/files/sites/education/p12resources-item-analysis-and-instruction.pdf

McMillan, J. H. (2008). Assessment essentials for standards-based education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Popham, W. J. (2009). Assessing Student Affect. Educational Leadership, 66 (8), 85-86

Snowman, J. & McCown, R. (2015). Psychology Applied to Teaching (14th ed.). Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning.

Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Assessing what matters. Educational Leadership, 65 (4), 20-26. Retrieved from https://blackboard.stevenson.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1317851-dt-content-rid-7002648_1/courses/17S8W1_ED_615_OL1/Sternberg_2008_Assessing%20What%20Matters.pdf