Many of the difficulties met in assessing interpersonal relationships and performances are also encountered when we attempt to measure the quality of student products. Among the most prominent considerations are factors like physical effort required to construct measures, complexity, administrative difficulties, and questions of validity and scoring. While it is true that many products have physical dimensions that may be measured, like size, weight, number of errors and color, a number of qualitative dimensions are also needs to be assessed. Such dimensions may include flavor of the cake, the composition of painting or the neatness of handwriting. Thus, judging the aesthetic qualities of a product is more difficult than assessing its physical properties and attributes.
Process and product are intimately related. The decision to focus on products or process or both rests on the responses of the following questions.
1. Are the steps involved in arriving at the product either indeterminate or covert?
2. Are the important characteristics of the product apparent, and can they be measured accurately and objectively?
3. Is the effectiveness of the performance to be discerned in the product itself?
4. Is there a sample product available to use as a scale?
5. Is evaluation of the procedures leading to the product impractical?
If the answer to each of the foregoing questions is “yes”, the teacher can focus assessment on product evaluation.
Products can easily be assessed by the careful use of rating scales and checklist. Nonetheless, the usefulness of any product assessment will depend on the accuracy with which its distinctive features have been defined and delineated.
Assessing the Quality of an Artistic Product. Assessment is in the artistic and aesthetic areas of human activity are quite difficult. The problem posed by the wide variety of relevant factors is compounded by the subjective nature of aesthetic standards. Nevertheless, the assessment task can be approached systematically and directly through the use of a rating scale.
The following is an example of a rating scale for assessing the quality of an artistic product and for evaluating a specific food product.
A SAMPLE RATING SCALE FOR ASSESSING FREEHAND ART DRAWING
CATEGORIES | A | B | C | D |
1. Drawing (A) Accuracy of proportion of suitability of distortion (B) Relationships of proportion (C) Stability of subjects (D) Ease of interpretation | ||||
2. Composition (A) Balance (B) Rhythm (C) Spatial relations (D) Textural interest | ||||
3. Fell foe Medium (A) Line Quality (B) Tone Quality | ||||
4. Subject Matter (A) Interest (B) Arrangement | ||||
Key to Variations: A = aspects add materiality to the excellence of the picture B = aspects noteworthy, but there is room for improvement at this level C = aspect not well utilized D = drawing shows no regard foe aspect being judged | ||||
Assessing Food Products. In assessing food products, there is a need to consider both physical and aesthetic qualities which will be rated. Through the use of a rating scale, a teacher can gather qualitative data which can be used in confirming more traditional information derived from test scores.
An example of a rating scale for assessing a specific food product, like waffles, is presented below:
FOOD SCORE CARD FOR WAFFLES
CATEGORIES | SCORE | ||
1. appearance | irregular shape | Regular shape | |
2. color | Dark brown or pale | Uniform golden brown | |
3. moisture content | Soggy interior or too dry | Slightly moist interior | |
4. tenderness | Tough or hard | Tender; crisp crust | |
5. lightness | Heavy | light | |
6. taste | Too sweet of flat | Pleasing flavor | |
rate on a scale from 1 to 3 (1 = lowest; 3 = highest) | |||
Oral Exams
Oral exams are similar to an oral supply or completion items where the test taker completes or supplies an answer for a question or series of questions posed by a test giver. The oral exam is a potentially useful technique.
Some principles of oral examinations are cited below (Fiztpatrick & Morrison, 1999).
1. Use oral examinations only for the purposes for which they are best suited
2. Prepare in advance a detailed outline of materials to be sampled in the examination event to the extent of writing questions which will be asked.
3. Determine in advance how records of student performance will be kept and what weights will be assigned to various factors.
4. Keep questioning relevant to the purposes of the course or program.
5. Word questions in such a way that the students can see the point of the question with minimum difficulty.
6. Where several examiners are involved, make each one responsible for questions on a specified part of full examination.
7. Judge students on the basis of their performance precisely defined not in terms of a generalized impression of their total appearance.
8. Use both general and specific questions but do so in some logical order.
9. Pose questions which students with the training which has preceded a particular examination can reasonably be expected to know.
10. Do not spend a disproportionate time probing for the answer to one question. If the first several questions do not elicit the desired response, move on to some other matter.
11. Develop some facility with several basic techniques for successful oral examination creating a friendly atmosphere, asking questions, and recording responses.
12. Make a written record of the student’s performance at the time it is given. Do it without disturbing the student or disrupting the flow of the examination.
13. Allow students ample time to think through and make responses to questions.
14. Avoid arguing with the student. Let the student make the most of it as it is his show.
REFERENCES
Evertson, C.M & JL Green (1992). Handbook of research on Teaching. New York: Macmillan Book Company.
Fritzpatrick, R & EJ Morrison (1999). Performance and Product Evaluation. New York: Macmillan Book Company.
Gronlund, NE & RL Linn (1990). Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: Macmillan Book Company.
Payne, DA (2003). Measuring and evaluating Educational Outcomes. New York: Macmillan Book Company
Shertzer, B & JD Linden (2000). Fundamentals of Individual Appraisal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Book Company.
Stiggins, RJ (1997). Evaluating Students by Classroom Observation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Webb, EJ. Unobstrusive Measures. Nonreative Rerearch in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment