Alternative Assessments: A Constructivist Approach
Betty Jo McCarty
Florida State University
Kathy Davis
Holy Nativity Elementary School
A Case For Authentic Assessment
One of the fundamental issues debated in education today
concerns the role of evaluation. Many educators cling to the
philosophy that schooling should deal primarily with reading,
writing, and arithmetic (the "back to basics" movement). Others
argue the importance of educating the whole child and recognize
the need to assess personal knowledge and connected meanings.
Constructivists realize that norm-referenced, standardized
testing cannot adequately reveal authentic learning or knowledge.
Such tests measure only the student's ability to memorize data or
perhaps having enough information to guess well. These tests
show that a child missed a problem but they offer little insight
into whether it was a simple mistake or the lack of
understanding. Standardized tests focus on basic skills to the
exclusion of critical thinking, reasoning, and problem solving.
Increasing evidence shows poor performance on these higher order
tasks even though achievement test scores are rising (Neil and
Medina, 1989). Emerging from contemporary research into how
children learn, the constructivist paradigm stresses that true
education must be child centered and have relevance to the
child's experiences (von Glasersfeld, 1987).
If our curriculum aims at the education of the whole child,
then assessment must be directed likewise. Our assessment
practices must reflect our philosophy. Noted educator Eliot
Eisner (1990) emphasizes, "it is difficult to imagine a more
potent lever for the priorities of schools than the evaluative
methods we employ. What we count counts. What we measure
matters" (p. 267).
The more educators have examined these problems, the more
they have recognized the need for alternative means to assess the
student and to record growth over the period of the term.
Teachers need to assess the subject matter learned, see a
demonstration of thinking skills, and evaluate products created
by their students. Assessment should reflect what a student
knows, as well as indicating how a student learns best. In order
to appraise understanding in the truest sense, we must explore
the student's responses and observe the connections made in the
mind of the student. This is done through a dialogue between the
teacher and the student (Wiggins, 1989). Evaluation using
alternative assessment certainly offers a more valid means of
assessing knowledge and growth than have previous evaluative
practices. This method is aligned with constructivist
philosophy in its emphasis on the whole child and individualized
instruction through the interaction between student and teacher.
Assessment becomes much more personalized. One of the top three
curriculum trends in education today is the use of portfolios as
one alternative to assess and record student achievement.
A portfolio should be designed to meet and reflect the needs
and stated goals of those who will be using it. It may be used
alone or in addition to other methods of assessment. It may
contain the student's best work only or include the progression
from ideas, through revision, to finished product. Using
portfolios enables the teacher to see and record a student's
progress. Growth can be charted according to the student's own
abilities and goals. The student can monitor his/her own
progress and develop skills in self-evaluation. Having a role in
selecting materials for inclusion in the portfolio allows the
student self direction in his/her education and increases
competence in discerning quality of work.
Some of the items which have become acceptable alternatives
include: concept maps computation
journals story problems
audiotape of oral readinglab reports
workbook pages reflections
poetry solutions to difficult problems
photos of experiments art work
folders self-evaluation
From these items, the teacher and student can choose the
items to put into the portfolio at the end of a unit, nine-week
period, mid-term, or year. Each entry should include a brief
reflection by the teacher. Both teacher and student should
review or "visit" the portfolio together periodically. The
student is responsible for work which is to the best of his
ability, while the teachers is responsible for assessment which
is highly professional.
Methodology and Procedure
The case study method was used to discover the struggle and
transition of one first grade teacher from a behavioristic
paradigm with traditional assessment to the constructivist
epistemology and alternative assessment. An in-depth
investigation and monitoring relationship occurred from fall 1990
to the present. The two teachers employed at Holy Nativity
Episcopal School collaborated together with me to improve their
teaching and student assessment. Both teachers were learning
about constructivist epistemology and were coming to believe that
constructivism reflected their own vision of schooling (von
Glaserfeld, 1989). The methodology included (a.) observing
teachers during instruction and during their bi-weekly
collaborative meetings, (b.) assisting the transition through
team teaching, (c.) writing rich, thick descriptions (Geertz,
1975) based on interviews, field notes, and teacher's journals,
(d.) constructing meaning from the context and through negotiated
meaning with the teachers, (e.) being inductive about the data by
making and testing conjectures about how teachers change, and
(f.) gaining a holistic perspective of teacher change by
comparing individual cases (Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Bogdan &
Biklen, 1982).
Transition
As Janet now sees it, she has created a new vision of
learning and assessment for her classroom. When she began
teaching, she was a thoroughly traditional teacher. She reported
that she followed the textbook religiously and her students spent
most of their time on worksheets. Learning meant memorizing
facts and regurgitating the information back on a pencil and
paper objective test. Early interviews revealed that she felt
comfortable with the worksheet, but thought the tests were too
easy. Chapters were taken in the order presented in the text,
and the one she was on at the beginning of this research project
was not one she particularly liked. After deciding what were her
real goals for this chapter (as opposed to "getting through it"),
we sat together to design alternative instructional activities
which would lend themselves to assessment of the stated
objective. Her objective was to introduce the students to the
scientific method of sorting and classifying items of differing
sizes, shapes, and colors. The first activity involved
sorting construction paper attribute blocks into groups and
gluing them onto paper. There were three different shapes
(triangle, square, and circle), three different colors (blue,
red, and yellow), and three different sizes (small, medium, and
large). The children were told there was no "right" way to do
it; they were to use their own judgment. Their readings and
discussion had focused on the many ways things could be
classified. The purpose of the activity was to provide the
students an opportunity to make judgments and an alternative to
demonstrate their understanding of the concepts. The results of
the assessment showed that the most common configuration was
grouping according to shape and color, although one child grouped
by color only. No one grouped by size alone. One child arranged
the blocks in a pattern with no grouping. The teacher believed
that this child was still focusing on patterns, a skill they had
been working on recently. However, she made a note of the
discrepancy, saying she would watch the child for mastery of
classification as the year progressed. The second activity
involved the student sorting according to size. Following a
discussion of comparisons, the students were asked to choose
pictures from magazines which would portray the set of
superlatives they had chosen from the list on the board (e.g.,
big, bigger, biggest; tall, taller, tallest), arrange them on
another piece of paper, and label them. The children then shared
his/her pictures with the class. This assignment gave them the
opportunity to state their positions, defend them through
negotiations, and come to a consensus. While all were
successful, and most were not controversial, three stood out.
The first student's work depicted the concepts of tall, taller,
tallest. The three pictures were of the same item, and the class
felt that the differences were not clearly discernable. Using a
ruler, the student carefully showed the class that the items were
indeed correctly classified: each one was slightly "taller" than
the one previous.
The second student's paper depicted the concept of big,
bigger, biggest using a picture of a puppy, automobile, and a
small globe. Since the globe was much smaller than the car, the
class argued that the classification was incorrect. Yet, the
student astutely pointed out that the "globe represented the
whole world, which was definitely the biggest." Case dismissed.
The third student paper portrayed the idea of thin, thinner,
thinnest by using pictures of three female models. The students
accepted the first model as thin, but insisted that the second
two were both the same, very thin. Again, the student
successfully pleaded her case and convinced her classmates: "See,
the thinnest one has all her bones showing." In each case the
students demonstrated their ability to defend their choices as
they negotiated with their classmates to reach a consensus.
During my interviews, these were the very skills which the
teacher wanted her students to develop. At this point Janet
reported the changes she observed in her classroom. The children
were very excited about participating in the activities as
opposed to completing worksheets. Though the class was louder
and more mobile, the activities took less time than her usual
routine which included: take the books down from the shelf, pass
them out, read the few pages involved, discuss the pages read, do
the worksheets, and put the books away. Furthermore, she believed
the activities told her much more about the children's thinking
and understanding. For example, students who had not been
performing well on traditional tasks were showing excellent
conceptualization. The next chapter encompassed the concept of
living and non-living. At the end of this chapter Janet wanted
the students to be able to:
1. differentiate between living and non-living things
2. state that living things need food, water, air and
shelter (habitat) 3. understand that living things move
4. identify young and adult stages of life
The alternative means of assessing these goals included a
collage titled "Living and Non-living." The students selected
appropriate pictures to glue on their collages either under the
heading "living" or "non-living." For this chapter she also
administered the standardized test, but did not believe that it
told her as much as the alternative methods of evaluation. This
alternative assessment revealed vividly the students thinking,
understanding, and misconceptions. For example, a few students
included cartoon or animated characters; they believed they were
living. Second, dark-skinned, primitive natives in colorful
makeup and costume were seen as "non-living" by some students.
This further corroborated studies which show that cultural
factors and experiences color a child's knowledge base. These
misconceptions were discussed thus enabling the students to
reconceptualize the idea. Third, two children who were being
considered for possible retention did exceptionally well,
demonstrating creativity as well as conceptual understanding.
Fourth, one very bright child found pictures of Elvis and Abraham
Lincoln to include under "Non-living," thereby taking the concept
one step further. Janet expressed amazement at the skill
demonstrated by her weak students, and delight at the depth of
understanding the students displayed. But," she said, thinking
of her "weaker" students, "the best part is that it allowed them
to succeed!" The next activity was designed to evaluate the
students understanding of the stages of life. The pupils were to
create a small book about an animal of their choice. Using
examples and readings from many issues of Ranger Rick and My Big
Backyard, the students wrote and illustrated a book which showed
the characteristics of the adult animal, its offspring, its
habitat, the food it ate, and how it moved. Janet reported that
although this activity took more time to complete than a
standardized test, it told her much more about the student's
understanding. Again she was amazed at the ability of her
perceived weaker students. They clearly understood the concepts
of the chapter and performed adeptly and creatively.
Additionally, she was able to see that one of her "brightest"
students test-wise had difficulty making independent decisions.
This student continually approached Janet for direction and
confirmation. At the end of the year, Janet felt very
comfortable using these methods to assess the students' knowledge
and intended to modify her curriculum and evaluation practices.
She believed these alternative activities reliably evaluated her
stated objectives, and in fact, were superior because they
exposed "glitches" that she would not have discovered using a
standardized test.
Conclusion
Theoretically, curriculum should be the driving force for
instruction and assessment. Educator Ruth Mitchell puts it
bluntly, "It is a simple fact of life that assessment drives
teaching. What gets tested is what gets taught." Acknowledging
this reality, we decided to begin a change with assessment and
work backwards. Through this project, one traditional teacher
incorporated new methods into her approach to assessment.
Contrary to some fears, she did not find these activities to be
burdensome or time consuming. She did, however, discover much
about the way her students were thinking, learning, and
understanding. Alternative assessment proved a definite
advantage to those students who had previously been considered
possible failures. It allowed them to demonstrate their
abilities to reason and think critically.
Moving toward a new paradigm and understanding of assessment
has far reaching implications. Successful implementation of
alternative assessment should affect the curriculum in several
ways. First, authentic evaluation of student performance will
provide us with a more accurate measure of the effectiveness of
the curriculum. Although the curricular framework may set well
designed standards for ensuring that students are given high
quality assignments, it can provide no guarantee that the work
students produce is of high quality. That is a determination of
assessment, and the close scrutiny required for portfolio
evaluation will offer a more reliable gauge for analyzing the
degree to which curriculum goals are being attained.
Alternative assessment also affects curriculum
decision-making by revising the role of the classroom teachers.
This assessment concept can be viewed as a move toward teacher
empowerment for much responsibility for curriculum
decision-making is vested in teachers. Eisner says, "There is a
temptation in the development of curriculum to try to create
materials that will replace the need for teachers to exercise
judgment", but the success of alternative assessment depends upon
the teacher's exercise of sound professional judgment and
sensitive, intelligent interpretation. It is definitely not
"teacher-proof." Instead, it insists that curriculum development
must utilize the tremendous power and potential in the
experience and wisdom of classroom teachers. Success also depends
a great deal on the personal characteristics of teachers for they
must be open to new ideas and willing to develop new teaching
skills as they guide rather than dominate.
Finally, alternative assessment should affect the impact of
the curriculum on the students. Assessment is the most powerful
signal we give the students in telling what we as educators
expect of them. Any teacher who has been asked, "Will that be on
the test?" realizes this truth. Authentic assessment requires
more from students than merely "correct" answers. It requires
the use of judgment and values and the development of personal,
practical knowledge. The curriculum should become more
meaningful for students as they see its relevance to themselves
and their experiences. Increased student participation in their
assessment will impart a feeling of purpose and sense of control
in their own education. Alternative evaluation is discovery
oriented. Its flexible framework makes the curriculum less rigid
and allows the students to explore the unexpected and to deal
with the unpredictable - and these are important skills for
living in the real world today and in the world of tomorrow. We
must educate our children to cope with "a life of exciting
uncertainty in which the flexible use of intelligence is our most
potent tool" (Eisner, 1979).
REFERENCES
Alexander, M. C. (1989). The use of the personal reflexive
journal in the adult literacy tutorial: The case of Jane.
Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 195-215.
Bog Dan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research
for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Eisner, E. W. (1990). The meaning of alternative paradigms for
practice. In E. Gabby (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialogue. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publishing Company.
Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological
understanding. American Scientist, 63, 47-53.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, S. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine
De Gruyter.
Haney, W., & Madaus, G. (1989). Searching for alternatives to
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
Kirst, M. A. (1991). Interview on assessment issues with Lorrie
Shepard and Interview on assessment issues with James Popham.
Educational Researcher, 20, 21-26.
McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K. L., & Davis, N. T. (1991). A cognitive
framework for teacher change. In Proceedings of the
thirteenth annual meeting: North American chapter of the
International Group for the psychology of mathematics education,
2, 161-167.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A
qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Neil, D. M., & Medina, N. J. (1989). Standardized testing,
harmful to education. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 698-702.
Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Reichardt, C. S., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Qualitative and
quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publishing Company.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). The construction of knowledge.
Seaside, CA: The Systems Inquiry Series, Inter systems
Publications.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and
equitable standardized tests: Whys, whats, and whithers. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70, 683-697.