25 Biggest Mistakes Teachers Make and How to Avoid Them (33 page)

Inappropriate Assessment

SCENARIO 15.1
Test Error: Demotion to Promotion

My worst experience was starting private school in sixth grade and being told that I should repeat fifth grade based on some test scores. Later I found out I had been given the wrong form of a test so I didn’t have to repeat fifth grade.

The teachers in this test situation made a serious error that could have resulted in misplacement, stigma, and retarded academic development if the student had to repeat the fifth grade.

Prudent teachers know that placement of students should not rely on one test score. Glaser and Silver (1994) contend that testing has become separated from instruction. Messick (1984) says that testing should be a last resort and quality of instruction should be a primary concern. If it appears that the classroom performance is average and the test score is low, give students the option of moving up to the next grade level or repeating the grade. In this scenario, there was no mention of class performance so it is difficult to determine if instructional outcomes were taken into consideration. The quality of instruction should be considered before a student is tagged, labeled, and shipped off to a lower grade.

SCENARIO 15.2
“F”: Feedback or Folly?

In eighth grade my English teacher was awful! She hated me. I would do a paper and get an F. I even had a certified teacher, who was our neighbor, help me on one paper. I still received an F. We changed teachers for one six-week term, and I received an A that time. My parents finally had me transferred to his class, so I could have a chance to pass. I ended up with As in his class, where I had made Fs in her class. I did nothing different. I can honestly say it was just a personality conflict. I guess there was something she did not like about me. I know I will do my best to never let myself be influenced like that so that I would fail a student. I hope to be fair to all of them and will strive hard to achieve that goal.

Teachers who wield a big sword with an F on it intend to hurt someone. They are no longer evaluating grades; they are carrying out a vendetta of unknown origin. Perhaps as a child, this teacher felt the sting of getting an F, maybe even an undeserved F. Knowing the power of the failure, perhaps this teacher was identifying with her oppressor when she consistently gave Fs to a student she disliked. She effectively used the bad grade as a weapon.

Emotion is often a barrier to effective student assessment. Some teachers allow their personal feelings about students’ academic potential, attitudes and beliefs, personal appearance, social class, race, or gender to bias their grading or assessment. Teacher bias seems apparent in this scenario but the factors underlying the bias are not clear. When a teacher’s assessment of a student embraces bias, the grades or scores are useless; they only reflect the inaccuracy of bias and offer no meaningful feedback on student achievement. The inaccuracy of biased grading is evident in this scenario where the student consistently made Fs in one class and made As upon transferring to another class. The disparity in grading is a red flag that perhaps the student was right. The teacher probably disliked the student and tried to use grades as a punishment.

Fair-minded teachers have high expectations for all students. They are aware of their responsibility to set appropriate achievement goals for all students, including students they dislike. Delivering quality feedback is virtually impossible in the presence of bias. Using appropriate assessment to identify student needs allows teachers to target instruction to address those needs, which effectively enhances the achievement of all students, particularly low achievers (O’Connor, 1998).

Informed teachers realize that the purpose of assessment is to provide quality feedback that can be used to improve student performance. They know that a grade of F is only a form of feedback. They also realize that using grades for punitive reasons is pure folly that is doomed to end in failure for the student . . . and the teacher!

SCENARIO 15.3
I Am Not My Brother’s Keeper

When I was in high school, we were taking our exit tests. We were placed three at a table in the library to take our tests. The day we got our results back, the boy who sat at my table came up to me with his score. He told me he was so relieved that he passed because he had copied all of my answers and then found out we probably had different test forms. Luckily for him we didn’t, so he passed his test and graduated because of me. When I complained to the counselor and they said they couldn’t do anything, I flattened his tires!

Improper management of a testing session permitted a student to cheat and capitalize on another student’s scores. Experienced teachers use preventive measures and adequate proctoring to discourage cheating. Preventive measures include but are not limited to using parallel forms of the test, spacing students to make it difficult for them to see each other’s tests, scrambling test questions and creating corresponding answer keys, or giving scrambled electronic versions of the test. Wise teachers know that proximity is often a deterrent to cheating. Frequent proctoring and scanning the room should minimize or stop cheating activity.

SCENARIO 15.4
Caustic Critique

I was a freshman in college, and I thought I had made it. I wanted to be a writer, and I thought I could. I had been given so much positive reinforcement in high school. I felt on top of the world. I handed in my first English paper to professor P. (I’ll never forget his name). I anticipated greatness. As he handed my paper back, I flipped to the back page, anxiously awaiting the glorious comments. The simple red print asked, “Is English your first language?”

This scenario has two possible angles: The student was deficient in self-evaluative techniques and the teacher was deficient in effective assessment techniques, or the student was a good writer and the teacher was a sadistic critic. In the first instance, the student possibly had an overinflated sense of her writing ability and the teacher’s grade was justified but the comment was unduly harsh and disparaging. In the second instance, the grade was undeserved and the comment disparaging. The consequences of a disparagement model of assessment are many. Foremost, a personal attack on the student’s competence directs the attention away from legitimate concerns about the manuscript to personal characteristics of the author. This tactic contributes nothing toward the improvement of the manuscript. In fact, a personal attack may close the mind of the recipient to constructive criticism, destroy the writer’s confidence, and discourage aspirations of being a writer.

Encouraging educators would instinctively know that sarcasm and ridicule are not effective for improving student performance. In lieu of the disparagement model, they would opt for a germination model of assessment where the topic is the seed and students’ first attempts at writing are
viewed as the planting of the seed. Teacher feedback on specific errors and strategies for improvement help to cultivate and weed the growing seed. Helpful comments and suggestions water the seed. Encouragement and praise provide the sunshine. Rewrites of the paper simulate stages of germination. A finished paper that is well-written is the blossom of the endeavor. A caustic critique can nip the germination process in the bud.

SCENARIO 15.5
Being Taught Red-Handed

In third grade our teacher Miss Y. decided to give us a quiz on our multiplication tables. The day before the test she told us that if we didn’t make a 100, we would get a spanking (with a yardstick) on our hands. So of course I was upset and nervous. The day after the quiz Miss Y. went up and down the rows. When she came up to me all I got was my paper with a grade of 100 percent. I was relieved but upset because some children actually got the spankings in front of the whole class.

The multiplication assessment in this scenario is reminiscent of the Gestapo tactics of old. In this case, having 100% on the quiz was the equivalent of having “papers.” Going row by row and systematically spanking those who did not have 100% may be likened to stopping people to ask for their papers and arresting or punishing those that did not have them. Some of the teacher’s misconceptions that are apparent here are that threats of punishment can guarantee outcomes or that assessment should be used to determine who needs punishment. The teacher seems unaware that assessment can be used to determine who needs remediation.

The teacher’s terroristic tactics polluted the classroom climate with stress and anxiety that possibly affected everyone. The student in this scenario reported being relieved but upset because the class had to watch the children get spankings. The class probably experienced the spankings vicariously. The pressure to perform and the potential for punishment also contributed stress and anxiety to the classroom climate. Wigfield and Eccles (1989) warn of the perils of this combination.