Back in school – let’s talk about assessment!

This class is about assessment. Our text is from the National Research Council, and it focuses pretty closely on assessment as related to public schooling. I’m trying to glean the nuggets from it so I can apply them in my corporate training world…

Let’s take a peek and see how it’s going.

This week’s topic:

There are three foundational elements that make up the assessment triangle. What roles do these three elements play in effective assessment? Are they related? If Yes, how and why? How important is the relationship of these three elements to effective assessment?

My response:

The three foundational elements of the assessment triangle are observation, interpretation, and cognition. Effective assessment in corporate training involves a blending of these elements with consideration for how adults learn rather then the focus on learning in childhood presented in the text.

The elements are related in that observation (of a service technician completing a task) is not possible until the service technician has successfully mastered the prerequisite knowledge upon which the skill rests (cognition). The trainer’s interpretation of the task success is the final leg of the assessment process.

Both formative assessment, evaluation as the course proceeds; and summative assessment, final exam confirming mastery of the topics presented; are critical to a successful delivery of a technical training program.

So, I guess I’ve addressed the topic, however I failed to do so with all the proper educator terminology. So, when I read a very well written, and as far as I can tell, accurate response which was full of the terminology I still wrestle with, I was obligated to post this response:

“…but sometimes, since I’m not educated as an educator, I have to stop and think about what each word means. When I do that, usually it means I have to read it through a few times. So I have, but then, it seems to me that anyone who was concerned about doing a good job teaching someone; anyone who wanted to be sure their student had ‘caught’ it, wouldn’t they do these things naturally?

“Wouldn’t they check for understanding (cognition) by asking if the student understands? And, upon receipt of an affirmative answer, ask a more probing question? And then for the observation, maybe after completing a show, and a do-it-together, having the student do it alone. Now, you’ve talked with the student (or done a paper test) and watched the student perform, so you ponder what you’ve seen, and decide how to adjust your teaching. That’s the intrepretation part.

“Am I missing something, or have I over simplified?”

I’d love to hear the viewpoint of other educators!!!

Advertisement