Techniques September 2012 - 32

CareerTech VISION 2012— Assessment

assessment mirror the tasks we would be performing in the real world when we would graduate?

Authentic Student Performance in All Three Learning Domains
When determining the authenticity of our assessments, Custer, et al (2000) recommend this litmus test: Will our students be evaluated this way in industry? We further suggest investigating Custer’s recommendation at the domain level. Cognitively, will students take recognition-responsebased T/F, matching and M/C tests? Perhaps M/C items are relevant as many certification exams use scenario-based M/C items. But we believe that if a student can construct an answer (constructedresponse items), they can recognize an answer (recognition-response items). Psychomotorly, will students be expected to perform the tasks of their craft with fine motor skills or gross motor skills? From an affective/employability perspective, are we preparing model employees? We may answer “yes” to these questions, but what do authentic assessments and the resulting documentation actually look like? Regarding documentation, when authentically assessing student performance, we recommend two main types:

student-completed and rater-completed (where the instructor, peer or guest rater observes and documents student performance). While not exclusive, the cognitive domain may generally include studentcompleted items while the psychomotor/ affective domains generally include ratercompleted items. The Cognitive Domain Many inservice and preservice teachers indicate using recognition-response items that are easy to grade (T/F, M/C, matching). While we must value teacher time (haven’t we all created assessments with ease-of-grading in mind?), we also must ensure students are authentically performing in the cognitive domain that mirrors how they will perform in industry. When they gain employment, will they be describing and explaining procedures to a patient’s family members? Will they

be charting or journaling occurrences of a daily shift or customer repair order? Or will they be taking T/F, M/C, and matching tests? While recognition-response items may have their place for informal daily checks of understanding and reading quizzes, we propose student cognitive performance in higher-level assessments (chapter exams and above) should mirror how students will perform in their careers, using as many writing and public speaking activities as possible. The Psychomotor Domain Documenting student performance in the psychomotor domain (direct assessment) may shift from student-completed to ratercompleted items. Whether the assessment is an actual project being constructed, a fictional job sheet, or a collaborative capstone project, Erickson and Wentling (1988) recommend using Likert-type rating scales (1–5); graphic rating scales (pictures or text that describe each Likert

…we propose student cognitive performance in higher-level assessments (chapter exams and above) should mirror how students will perform in their careers, using as many writing and public speaking activities as possible.
32
Techniques

Documenting student performance in the psychomotor domain (direct assessment) may shift from studentcompleted to ratercompleted items. We encourage using daily checklists to document student performance and behaviors in the affective domain, which also include employability skills.

September 2012

www.acteonline.org

Techniques September 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Techniques September 2012