Informal Assessments: An Authentic and Informative Perspective of Student Work

My last blog (see “Are High Stakes Assessments Testing Students or Our Patience” below) explored the limitations of formal assessments. In particular it questioned the practice of attaching such high stakes to tests that may not even accurately characterize students’ abilities—especially when instructional time and content are negatively impacted by these assessments.

This week, my attention shifts to informal assessments. Unlike their formal counterparts, informal assessments are typically selected/created and administered by teachers themselves in an authentic classroom setting. Thus, they have a lot of potential to capture a student’s true abilities. Consider, for example, the difference between a high-stakes test like the FSA and observing a student systematically as that student works. There is really no comparison. In the case of observation, the teacher pays careful attention to what a student is doing as the student performs an actual classroom task. Far from simply knowing whether a student is getting a test question right or wrong (as is the case for most formal assessments), in observation, a teacher gains insight into what is helping a child succeed or what factors may be causing the child to get stuck. For instance, in an example provided by Fisher and Frey (2010), the teacher observed that a child was able to instantly start working on a writing prompt four out of five times. However, that same child was only able to finish one of the five prompts. Because of this careful observation, the teacher then decided to work individually with the child while that child was completing another prompt and discovered that the child was not planning the writing at all—which prevented the child from finishing the task (p. 100). A failing score on a state writing exam would never reveal such important information, nor would it suggest how to remedy the problem in the way that this observation did.

Other types of informal observation seem similarly fruitful. Consider, for example, the idea of creating a checklist of skills or strategies that a child needs to master in a particular year. As the child masters the skill, a teacher could check off that skill. The teacher could also note when or if a child was struggling with a particular skill. This is invaluable information that could help guide a teacher’s instruction. The information could also be shared with the child and the child’s parents so that they were aware of the student’s progress.

Or consider the idea of having a child use self-assessment. In self-assessment, a student would have to understand what was being asked of him or her in order to self-assess in a meaningful way. However, shouldn’t children always have a clear understanding of what is expected of them? It is just that for self-assessment, there is no avoiding this understanding. What’s more, self-assessment “can serve as a student motivator” since with self-assessment, control is given to the student him- or herself (Fisher & Frey, 2010, p. 101). Fisher and Frey explain, “Students who are taught to plan and monitor their work habits begin to take ownership of their work” (p. 102).

Rubrics, the fourth type of informal assessment outlined by Fisher and Frey, can be used with self-assessment. Even when they are not, rubrics “provide students with criteria for each level of achievement and can be used to determine needed instruction as well as mastered content” (p. 101).

Portfolio assessment is yet another way to informally assess students. To create portfolios, either the student, or the teacher and student working together, select representative samples of student work on which the child then reflects. The fact that portfolios include several pieces means that portfolios give a much richer picture of what a student can actually achieve. Moreover, piecing together a portfolio can help the student understand the deeper themes linking individual lessons and tasks. With portfolio, students are also able to see the connection between their effort and the grades they receive—which can be a powerful motivator. Alvermann (2011) writes, “When they [i.e., students] are asked to select, polish, arrange, and analyze their own work, they have a chance to see that learning is not haphazard or incidental to any efforts of their own. They also have more direct input into what ultimately goes on their report cards” (p. 157).

Caldwell (2008) writes, “It would be difficult to imagine a reading classroom where teachers or coaches did not listen to their students read and did not evaluate their comprehension” (p. 49). Administering an Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) requires a teacher to do just that. In the process, the teacher acquires a wealth of information about a student’s reading abilities. After all, so much can be learned by sitting one-on-one with a student and experiencing a text with the child as that child reads. No formal assessment could possibly be sensitive enough to capture every miscue a child makes and to note patterns or judge fluency. Although undoubtedly the most formal of informal assessments, an IRI can provide teachers with a student’s independent, instructional, and frustration levels of reading. And if a teacher is not interested in systematically determining these levels, an IRI process can still be used to determine whether or not a specific passage or text is appropriate for a child. In this case, a teacher would be able to determine if classroom texts are so challenging that they are preventing the child from succeeding in that class. This is especially relevant in a content area, such as science or history, where a student’s reading level is usually not considered (but should be).

Thus far, the picture I have given of informal assessment should assure you that this type of assessment is far superior to a short, high-stakes, end-of-year exam precisely because it reflects what a child does each and every day. Moreover, these assessments can help to shape what kind of instruction happens next. Black and William (1998) write, “Assessment becomes formative assessment when the evidence is actually used to adapt the teaching to meet student needs” (p. 140). That is, rather than just entering the results of an assessment onto a report card or into a calculation of whether or not the student should advance to the next grade, the results of formative assessment are used by the teacher to decide what kind of instruction should be given to help the student. Any of the informal assessments described earlier could and should be used as formative assessments. The fact that these informal assessments are so authentic, so aligned to what is actually happening in the classroom, means that the flow between assessment and instruction should be natural.

Part of the power of formative assessment should lie in how a teacher responds to any assessment—even more traditional assessments such as essays or quizzes. Black and William (1998) note, “Marking is usually conscientious but often fails to offer guidance on how work can be improved” (p. 141). But this need not be the case. They write that “feedback has been shown to improve learning when it gives each pupil specific guidance on strengths and weaknesses, preferably without any overall marks” (p. 144). While avoiding grades may not be possible, Torgesen and Miller write, “Communication to the student based on formative assessments needs to energize and empower improved performance and not be discouraging” (p. 37). Such guidance is essential if students are to actually make progress. It can also prevent low-achieving students from feeling powerless to change their classroom fate. This is extremely important since “pupils who come to see themselves as unable to learn usually cease to take school seriously. Many become disruptive; others resort to truancy” (Black & William, 1998, p. 141). The sad truth of the matter is that “students have “become accustomed to receiving classroom teaching as an arbitrary sequence of exercises with no overarching rationale” (Black & William, 1998, p. 143). But using informal assessments as formative assessments can reverse this negative trend. They can give students—even struggling students—a sense of control over their learning. Ideally, students would feel empowered to continually learn and progress towards their goals as a result of the feedback formative assessments provide to them.

References

Alvermann, D.E., Phelps, S.F., & Gillis, V.R. (2011). Content area reading and literacy (6^th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-144, 146-148 .

Caldwell, J.S. (2008). Reading assessment: A primer for teachers and coaches (2^nd ed.). NY: The Guilford Press.

Fisher, D., and Frey, N. (2010). Enhancing rti: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction & intervention. Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Torgesen, J.K., & Miller, D.H. (2009). Assessments to guide adolescent literacy instruction. Florida Center for Reading Research Center on Instruction.