Assessment: unpacking the holy grail

Those 3 marks are important!

A teacher once narrated the following incident to me. “At the end of last year, a parent had a grievance. Her son had scored a C Grade in one of the ‘formatives.’ She was convinced that this was not possible, and that the teacher must have overlooked something, because he was otherwise consistently scoring A Grades. The irony is, this was a 5-mark test, in the First Term. The boy must have scored 2, which translates to a C Grade. She was seeking evidence for her son’s performance almost eight months later, at the end of the year.” This incident led me to reflect on the following questions. What is the place of assessment in primary schooling and beyond? What exactly is formative assessment? How do educators and parents understand it? Has formative assessment become high stake? Why?

A friend of mine, who has worked in assessment for several decades, once remarked that, “Assessment is the holy grail of Indian education system. And, nobody likes to meddle with it.” Indeed, despite several decades of reforms, the area of assessment remains challenging. It is not hard to see that educators do not sufficiently understand the different purposes of assessment, and the means to achieve these purposes. This flawed understanding is inadvertently communicated to students, parents and the community alike. Assessment of any and every kind is viewed as a high-stakes process. Invariably this results in the phenomenon called ‘teaching to the test.’ This, in our opinion, may be the crux of the issue.

Assessment reform in India

The Report of the Secondary Education Commission (also known as the Mudaliar Commission Report) calls out the challenges as early as in 1953. In Chapter XI, titled ‘A New Approach to Evaluation and Examination,’ the report describes ‘internal examinations’ as those conducted by schools and ‘external examinations’ as something that come generally at the end of the school stage and the purpose of which is “selecting those who have successfully completed a course and qualifying them from among many for the next higher stage.”

The issues pointed out are the following. The narrow scope – confining to students’ intellectual achievement and ignoring emotional, social and physical development of children. The methods – since examinations consisted largely of essaytype questions, it leaves “much scope for subjectivity of the examiner that it cannot be relied upon to any great extent.” The effects – “they (examinations) have so pervaded the entire atmosphere of school life that they have become the main motivating force of all efforts on the part of pupil as well as teacher.”

While making critical remarks on the scope, methods and effects of educational evaluation, the report notes that “external examination cannot be altogether be done away with.” To “minimise its undesirable effects,” the report suggests, among other things, that “the final assessment of the pupil should not be based entirely on the results of external examination; other things such as internal tests and school records maintained by teachers should be taken into consideration and due credit given to them.” This last point, while well-meaning, may lead to other issues that we will later come to.

The Kothari Commission Report (1966) notes that “A major goal of examination reforms should be to improve the reliability and validity of examinations and to make evaluation a continuous process aimed at helping the student improve his level of achievement rather than certifying the quality of his performance at any given point of time.” While the intent here is laudable, the emphasis still seems to be on examinations.

The NCF Position Paper on Examination Reform (2005) proposes that there should be “more varied modes of assessment, including oral testing & group work evaluation.” It even goes on to suggest that since students learn at different paces, they should be given the flexibility of taking exams at different points in time, mentioning that “there is no reason, other than administrative convenience, to test them after two years of higher secondary course in all subjects simultaneously.”

The Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) system launched by CBSE may perhaps be a significant milestone in this long list of reforms. It went ahead to put in place a system that would help practice some of the long pending recommendations mentioned earlier. The CCE Manual for Teachers for Classes VI to VIII (2010) suggests that that evaluation be seen as “an integral part built into the teaching learning process,” and further that this will “lead to diagnosis, remedial action and enhancement of learning.” This is the ‘continuous’ aspect. The manual recommends that evaluation should include “both scholastic and co-scholastic areas, i.e., it should be comprehensive in nature.” The manual also describes formative assessment as “a tool used by the teacher to continuously monitor student progress in a non-threatening, supportive environment. It involves regular descriptive feedback, a chance for the student to reflect on performance, taken advice and improve upon it.”

However, as lofty as these ideals may be, further on in the document, we encounter some potentially problematic areas. Continuous, by definition, means something that happens without interruption or set periodicity. The document, however, proposes ‘six assessments’ and further a way to collate the results of these six assessments, as shown in the excerpt below (reproduced from page 26 of the Manual)

Remembering the need for examination reform described earlier in this document, we must understand that the above scheme, when applied to Grade 10 and 12, certainly offers greater flexibility of using multiple assessments. It also empowers the teacher to assess students and not rely entirely on the school-leaving / Board examinations. However, when this is applied to the lower grades, this effectively meant that all assessments were essentially being collated into one ‘score’ and ran into the potential risk of unintentionally becoming high-stakes assessments, as they were reported to parents and others as well.

Another problematic area has to do with the comprehensive aspect of evaluation. The document elaborates this idea and recommends evaluation of “life skills, work education, visual & performing arts, attitudes & values, and co-curricular activities.” It also recommends identifying qualities, specifying behaviors or indicators, recording and analyzing evidence. While all this is laudable in intent, the problem arises when subsequent recommendations go to the extent of grading or marking these areas, as shown in the following extract from page 48 of the Manual. Expanding the scope of assessment to areas beyond the cognitive domain may be desirable. But how these scores can be awarded remains a question. It is also not clear why scoring may be necessary in the first place.

A survey of around 750 teachers from CBSE affiliated schools conducted by Chrysalis, and supported by Wipro, in the year 2016, shows the following. Only around 5% of the teachers said that the purpose of assessment was to “understand the effectiveness of teaching and if teaching methods have to be altered.” In other words, most teachers looked at assessment primarily as a means to ascertain where students stood at any given point in time. This, despite the sweeping reforms suggested by CBSE as part of CCE, a few years prior to this study.

Toward a solution

The first step in educational assessment should be to recognize at least two different purposes of assessment. These are briefly described below.

Administrative: This is usually to ascertain and possibly certify the achievement of educational objectives, and therefore the attainment or non-attainment of benchmarked ‘levels of learning,’ like school leaving, etc.

Pedagogic: This is usually when the results of the assessment are used to make inferences, and therefore, course corrections, either by way of altering pedagogic methods, or providing feedback for improvement to specific students, or both. With detention being done away with, assessment, at least until Grade 9, can afford to focus on the pedagogic aspects. This is not to be confused with passing or promotion to subsequent grades.

Assessment which is done specifically to fulfill mainly the pedagogic purpose, that is to make meaningful course corrections and improve the teaching-learning process, is called formative assessment. Given that this is a necessary condition for formative assessment, by implication, it must be done at frequencies that enable course correction to actually occur. In other words, if a large section of learning has been completed, there may be very little scope for the teacher to affect any course correction.

A point to caution against is that this does not imply a higher frequency of ‘tests’ being conducted. Some characteristics of formative assessment are the following. It is usually informal in the sense that it’s not binding that the same method or instrument of assessment be used for all students.

Neither is it essential that all students be assessed at the same point in time, or all aspects of learning be assessed at the same time. It is centered on efforts to elicit behavior (this could be in the form of the spoken word, written word, drawings, and so on) in natural classroom settings, which would help the teacher make inferences about student learning and performance.

Formative assessment must provide opportunities for a teacher to understand non-performance in a student and the reasons for it. In that sense, formative assessment has a close linkage with the curriculum, specifically with designing ways to elicit behaviors that form the evidence of attainment of educational objectives, and these being incorporated into the everyday teaching-learning process.

In other words, we imply that we are creating opportunities to observe, interpret and cultivate ‘behaviors,’ which is usually considered part of ‘teaching.’ Designing appropriate methods to observe and interpret student behavior and learning is thus driven by and rests with the teacher in a classroom setting.

Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment

It is evident that formative assessment as described above, cannot be implemented without first ensuring a pedagogy that requires students to play an active role in the learning process, rather than be mere listeners or consumers of knowledge. Such a kind of assessment necessitates that the pedagogy incorporates designed opportunities for students to express their understanding.

This is done by asking questions and allowing students to express their understanding in multiple ways, as a part of the learning, as opposed to a separate test. Therefore, this entire process is carried out in a low-stakes classroom environment.

Let’s illustrate this with an example. Say we want to teach children of Grade 3/4 about animal classification based on habitats, food habits, skin covering, group/solitary and movement. Even before we start the lesson, let’s imagine asking them to solve a puzzle –

The puzzle is a fun activity for children. It allows them to get warmed up. It also informs the teacher whether or not her students know the names of some common animals. She could extend this to a conversation to elicit a few more. Having assessed the preknowledge, she can move forward confidently to the content of the lesson that the students are supposed to learn.

Then, suppose after teaching them about animal habitats (as forests, grasslands, ocean, snow and so on) we ask them the following question –

The above question would allow children to explore and observe their immediate environment and apply what they have just learnt. This can be an interesting homeactivity. However, it allows the teacher to gather evidences of understanding. Evidently, this question has been designed for urban school-goers. It may have to be modified appropriately in other contexts.

When we talk about body covering, imagine we also teach children about the idea of camouflage. And then we ask them the following question –

In the above case, more than one answer is possible, and students need to justify their response. This can lead to mini debates.

However, all the while, for the teachers, these provide opportunities to observe how their kids are performing. Further on, the lesson mentions group animals like monkeys and solitary ones like bears. And as kids are learning this, they can be asked to imagine the possible answers to the following question.

In the above questions, interesting responses are possible. A child once told us that she would prefer to be a solitary animal. This is because she could then be free of her big brother who bullies her. The bonus in such a question is that the response can also give the teacher a peek into other facets of the child. It can be a great means to understand children better and promote socio-emotional learning.

The important thing to remember is that each of the examples described above share the following characteristics. The questions are meant to elicit behavior (spoken, written, drawings, etc.) which when observed can serve as ‘assessment.’ All these questions serve as part of the pedagogy. Learning happens through these discussions, debates and exploration as far as the child is concerned. The assessment, therefore, is informal and happens as a part of the teaching-learning process. It is completely low stakes as opposed to conducting more and more tests.

Remember, each of the questions increases the possibility of engaging with the topic in the first place. It allows students and teachers together to dwell on interesting conversations which are woven around the topic. We think that such opportunities constitute formative assessment in the truest sense. Teachers may then be encouraged to ask these questions, observe students’ responses and decide on a future course of action. Are most students able to demonstrate evidence of learning? If not, should we revisit any topic? In such a scenario, it must be remembered that not all students can (or for that matter need to be assessed) at the same time using the same questions, simply given the paucity of time. There may also be no need to do it. The teacher, who is closest to her students, already has a sense and is able to prioritize which students she wants to focus on, from past performance in her classrooms. This kind of assessment offers greater flexibility and emphasizes on greater agency on the part of the teacher.

Role of technology

In such a setting as described above, a large amount of data is likely to be generated. It could be written evidences, photographs of group work, and videos of conversations. The possibilities are endless. It is here that technology may come in handy in terms of helping the teacher store, tag and archive various artefacts for future reference. Let’s say, we want to assess speaking skills. One way of doing it could be to record a child’s speech and repeat the same at a future point in time. Such artefacts allow assessment in real time and the capturing of evidence. They can also give the teacher insights into areas where she may need to improve her pedagogy.

With newer tools emerging, one only needs to explore. Plickers is one such example. All the teacher needs are a set of cards that she hands out to each student. Each card looks like a QR code. It can be held in four different orientations, each of which can be uniquely captured by the teacher using a camera app. This tool has been demonstrated to allow for quick multiple choice question type assessment. It is fun, engaging and gives teachers immediate feedback on which she can act upon.

The need for professional development

While this features towards the end of this article, the need for teacher professional development is critical. The teacher needs to reorient herself to the need and purpose of assessment. She needs to look at formative assessment as something which primarily informs her on what to do next, rather than as certifying the student. And this change in mindset must begin with the teacher and slowly move outward through her, to the parents and the communities.

The professional development process must also equip the teacher to redesign her pedagogy in ways that offer students opportunities to express, and these expressions become evidence of learning, as described above. This is easier said than done. It may be tempting to ‘tell’ students the facts, compared with the more longwinded process of asking them meaningful questions and guiding them in the process of drawing their conclusions. Patience in teachers’ abilities to learn and trust in their intent are paramount.

In summary, strong professional development and support circles for teachers, along with curricular reforms and technology can pave the way for true and meaningful assessment, the role of which is primarily to inform educators on how they can further guide their students to achieve their fullest potential. It may sound utopian. However, it is very achievable, if we are willing to let go of the burden of examinations.