The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment Crisis: The Absence of Assessment for Learning
Abstract
A real voyage of discovery consists not of seeking new landscapes but of seeing through new eyes. - Marcel Proust IF WE ARE finally to connect assessment to school improvement in meaningful ways, we must come to see assessment through new eyes. Our failure to find a potent connection has resulted in a deep and intensifying crisis in assessment in American education. Few elected officials are aware of this crisis, and almost no school officials know how to address it. Our current assessment systems are harming huge numbers of students for reasons that few understand. And that harm arises directly from our failure to balance our use of standardized tests and classroom assessments in the service of school improvement. When it comes to assessment, we have been trying to find answers to the wrong questions. Politicians routinely ask, How can we use assessment as the basis for doling out rewards and punishments to increase teacher and student effort? They want to know how we can intensify the intimidation associated with annual testing so as to force greater achievement. How we answer these questions will certainly affect schools. But that impact will not always be positive. Moreover, politicians who ask such questions typically look past a far more important pair of prior questions: How can we use assessment to help all our students want to learn? How can we help them feel able to learn? Without answers to these questions, there will be no school improvement. I explain why below. School administrators in federal, state, and local education agencies contribute to our increasingly damaging assessment crisis when they merely bow to politicians' beliefs and focus unwaveringly on the question of how to make our test scores go up. To be sure, accountability for student learning is important. I am not opposed to high-stakes testing to verify school quality -- as long as the tests are of sound quality.1 However, our concern for test scores must be preceded by a consideration of more fundamental questions: Are our current approaches to assessment improving student learning? Might other approaches to assessment have a greater impact? Can we design state and district assessment systems that have the effect of helping our students want to learn and feel able to learn? Furthermore, the measurement community, of which I am a member, also has missed an essential point. For decades, our priorities have manifested the belief that our job is to discover ever more sophisticated and efficient ways of generating valid and reliable test scores. Again, to be sure, accurate scores are essential. But there remains an unasked prior question: How can we maximize the positive impact of our scores on learners? Put another way, How can we be sure that our assessment instruments, procedures, and scores serve to help learners want to learn and feel able to learn? We are a nation obsessed with the belief that the path to school improvement is paved with better, more frequent, and more intense standardized testing. The problem is that such tests, ostensibly developed to leave no student behind, are in fact causing major segments of our student population to be left behind because the tests cause many to give up in hopelessness -- just the opposite effect from that which politicians intended. Student achievement suffers because these once-a-year tests are incapable of providing teachers with the moment-to-moment and day-to- day information about student achievement that they need to make crucial instructional decisions. Teachers must rely on classroom assessment to do this. The problem is that teachers are unable to gather or effectively use dependable information on student achievement each day because of the drain of resources for excessive standardized testing. There are no resources left to train teachers to create and conduct appropriate classroom assessments. …
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171009200119 · Cited by 4,231
Cited by
Preparing for the Plunge: Preservice Teachers’ Assessment Literacy
Siegel, M. A., & Wissehr, C. (2011) · Journal of Science Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9231-6 · Cited by 127
Identifying and Monitoring Students' Learning Needs With Technology
Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005) · Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR) · doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_6 · Cited by 93
Examining the utility of elementary science notebooks for formative assessment purposes
Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. (2006) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1103&4_3 · Cited by 77
Gottheiner, D. M., & Siegel, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Science Teacher Education · doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9278-z · Cited by 53
Getting assessment right at the classroom level: using formative assessment for decision making
Curry, K. A., Mwavita, M., Holter, A., & Harris, E. (2016) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-015-9226-5 · Cited by 38
Villeneuve, A., & Bouchamma, Y. (2023) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2023.104198 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Stiggins, R. J.
- Venue
- Phi Delta Kappan
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 758-765
- ISSN
- 0031-7217 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-6487
- OpenAlex
- W2144924867
- Cited by
- 866
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 37.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.