Effectively using the data that we gain from our assessments is always important, and perhaps never more so than right now. There is a reason that accurate interpretation is a tenet in the Solution Tree Assessment Center model, and it is certainly worth taking the time to explore. There are a few definitions of the word “interpret”; some focus on more artistic endeavors, while many others focus on the idea of explaining something. As educators, we must interpret things each and every day—from whether we will be able to accomplish everything in our lesson plan to whether our students are really understanding what we want them to know. We should strive to draw informed inferences in our work, recognizing that doing this requires professional knowledge, skill, and ongoing effort. Read more
Tagged: assessment design
Educators across the country are sharing how this school year was far more difficult than the previous two years during the pandemic. There have been many pivots (I know, I know . . . that is like a four-letter word), many shifts, and many concerns raised as students return to school and socialize with peers they have not seen for a long time. This was a year like no other. As it comes to an end, educators have an opportunity to take a breath and reflect on what worked well and areas in which to seek growth. There is also an opportunity to think about going back to the basics with assessment practices. The pace of the year had many teachers juggling way too many responsibilities; summer brings time to reflect and opportunities for collaboration. This time allows teams to dig into the skills and knowledge students struggled with the most and design formative and summative assessment practices that align with the standards. Read more
“Whether we plan it or not, culture will happen. Why not create the culture we want?”
—Carmine Gallo, The Storyteller’s Secret
Have you ever started a new book and just . . . lost interest? Have you ever started a book and found yourself so enthralled that you could hardly put it down? Each school year, educators have the opportunity to write a new story—and the beginning of that story is critical. No matter the setting (face-to-face, virtual, blended), many educators begin with a similar focus: creating a culture of learning. Time dedicated to this work varies. Some educators feel the pressure of beginning content and spend minimal time focused on culture. Some believe the work of culture never truly ends. Regardless of where you fall on this spectrum, do you know the impact your assessment practices have on the culture you are trying to create? Read more
“Feedback is honesty. Don’t just tell me ‘good job’ when I didn’t.” —Middle years student
My colleagues and I work with systems across North America who are undergoing assessment reform. Educators and leaders alike are asking themselves how to shift their assessment practices, when to do it, and what it will entail. The questions generated in a single coaching session illuminate the complexity of this shift. Teachers are wondering how assessment should be designed, which symbol (if any) to attach to products and performances, and how to respond to assessment evidence in ways that will advance learning. This work is both significant and challenging, and no one is taking it lightly. However, in the quest to “get it right,” adults often forget a key source of wisdom and insight available to us every single day. Perhaps we see this source as a receptor of our refined assessment system, rather than as a collaborative partner in its design. Whatever the reason, maybe it is time we turned to this source—our students—and consulted them on decisions we are making.
Despite decades of research on sound assessment practices, misunderstandings and myths still abound. In particular, the summative purpose of assessment continues to be an aspect where opinions, philosophies, and outright falsehoods can take on a life of their own and hijack an otherwise thoughtful discourse about the most effective and efficient processes.
Assessment is merely the means of gathering of information about student learning (Black, 2013). We either use that evidence formatively through the prioritization of feedback and the identification of next steps in learning, or we use it summatively through the prioritization of verifying the degree to which the students have met the intended learning goals. Remember, it is the use of assessment evidence that distinguishes the formative form the summative.
The level of hyperbole that surrounds summative assessment, especially on social media, must stop. It’s not helpful, it’s often performative, and is even sometimes cynically motivated to simply attract followers, likes, and retweets. Outlined below are my responses to six of the most common myths about summative assessment. These aren’t the only myths, of course, but these are the six most common that seem to perpetuate and the six that we have to undercut if we are to have authentic, substantive, and meaningful conversations about summative assessment.
Myth 1: “Summative assessment has no place in our 21st century education system”
While the format and substance of assessments can evolve, the need to summarize the degree to which students have met the learning goals (independent of what those goals are) and report to others (e.g., parents) will always be a necessary of any education system in any century. Whether it’s content, skills, or 21st century competencies, the requirement to report will be ever-present.
However, it’s not just about being required; we should welcome the opportunity to report on student successes because it’s important that parents and even our larger community or the general public understand the impact we’re having on our students. If we started looking at the reporting process as a collective opportunity to demonstrate how effective we’ve been at fulfilling our mission then a different mindset altogether about summative assessment may emerge. It’s easy to become both insular and hyperbolic about summative assessment but using assessment evidence for the summative purpose is part of a balanced assessment system. Cynical caricatures of summative assessment detract from meaningful dialogue.
Myth 2: “Summative assessments are really just formative assessments we choose to count toward grade determination.”
Summative assessment often involves the repacking of standards for the purpose of reaching the full cognitive complexity of the learning. Summative assessment is not just the sum of the carefully selected parts; it’s the whole in its totality where the underpinnings are contextualized.
A collection of ingredients is not a meal. It’s a meal when all of those ingredients are thoughtfully combined. The ingredients are necessary to isolate in preparation; we need to know what ingredients are necessary and their quantity. But it’s not a meal until the ingredients are purposefully combined to make a whole.
Unpacking standards to identify granular underpinnings is necessary to create a learning progression toward success. We unpack standards for teaching (formative assessment) but we repack standards for grading (summative assessment). Isolated skills are not the same thing as a synthesized demonstration of learning. Reaching the full cognitive complexity of the standards often involves the combination of skills in a more authentic application, so again, pull apart for instruction, but pull back together for grading.
Myth 3: “Summative assessment is a culminating test or project at the end of the learning.”
While it can be, summative assessment is really a moment in time where a teacher examines the preponderance of evidence to determine the degree to which the students have met the learning goals or standard; it need not be limited to an epic, high stakes event at the end. It can be a culminating test or project as those would provide more recent evidence, but since we know some students need longer to learn, there always needs to be a pathway to recovery in that these culminating events don’t become disproportionately pressure packed and one-shot deals.
Thinking of assessment as a verb often helps. We have, understandably, come to see assessment as a noun – and they often are – but it is crucial that teachers expand their understanding of assessment to know that all of the evidence examined along the way also matters; evidence is evidence. Examining all of the evidence to determine student proficiency along a few gradations of quality (i.e., a rubric) is not only a valid process, but is one that should be embraced.
Myth 4: “Give students a grade and the learning stops.”
This causal relationship has never been established in the research. While it is true that grades and scores can interfere with a student’s willingness to keep learning, that reaction is not automatic. The nuances of whether the feedback was directed to the learning or the learner matters. Avraham Kluger & Angelo DeNisi (1996) emphasized the importance of student responses to feedback as the litmus test for determining whether feedback was effective.
There are no perfect feedback strategies but there are more favorable responses. If we provide a formative score alongside feedback, and the students reengage with the learning and attempts to increase their proficiency then, as the expression goes, no harm, no foul. If they disengage from the learning then clearly there is an issue to be addressed. But again, despite the many forceful assertions made on social media and in other forums, that relationship is not causal.
Again, context and nuance matters, especially when it comes to the quality of feedback. Remember, when it comes to feedback, substance matters more than form. Tom Guskey (2019) submits that had the Ruth Butler (1988) study, the one so widely cited to support this assertion that grades stop learning, examined the impact of grades that were criterion-referenced and learning focused versus ego-based feedback toward the learner (as in you need to work a little harder) then the results of those studies may have been quite different.
The impact in those studies was disproportionate to lower achieving students so common sense would dictate that if you received a low score and were told something to the effect of, “You need to work harder” or “This is a poor effort” that a student would likely want to stop learning. But a low score alongside a “now let’s work on” or “here’s what’s next” comment could produce a different response.
Myth 5: “Grades are arbitrary, meaningless, and subjective.”
Grades will be as meaningful or as meaningless as the adults make them; their existence is not the issue. Grades will be meaningful when they are representative of a gradation of quality derived from clear criteria articulated in advance. What some call subjective is really professional judgment. Judging quality against the articulated learning goals and criteria is our expertise at work.
Pure objectivity is the real myth. Teachers decide what to assess, what not to assess, the question stems or prompts, the number of questions, the format, the length, etc. We use our expertise to decide what sampling of learning provides the clearest picture. It is an erroneous goal to think one can eliminate all teacher choice or judgment from the assessment process. During one of our recent #ATAssessment chats on Twitter, Ken O’Connor reminded participants that the late, great Grant Wiggins often said: (1) We shouldn’t use subjective pejoratively and (2) The issue isn’t subjective or objective; the issue is whether our professional judgments are credible and defensible.
Myth 6: “Students should determine their own grades; they know better than us.”
Students should definitely be brought inside the process of grade determination; even asked to participate and understand how evidence is synthesized. But the teacher is the final arbiter of student learning; that is our expertise at work. This claim might sound like student empowerment but it marginalizes teacher expertise. Are we really saying a student’s first experience is greater than a teacher’s total experience? Again, bring them inside the process, give them the full experience, but don’t diminish your expertise while doing so.
This does not have to be a zero-sum game; more student involvement need not lead to less teacher involvement. This is about expansion within the process to include students along every step of the way; however, our training, expertise, and experience matter in terms of accurately determining student proficiency. Students and parents are not the only users of assessment evidence. Many important decisions both in and out of school depend on the accuracy of what is reported about student learning which means teacher must remain disproportionately involved in the summative process.
Combating these myths is important because there continues to be an oversimplified narrative that vilifies summative assessment as all things evil when it comes to our assessment practices. That mindset, assertion, or narrative is not credible. Not to mention, it’s naïve and really does reveal a lack of understanding of how a balanced assessment system operates within a classroom.
The overall point here is that we need grounded, honest, and reasoned conversations about summative assessment that are anchored in the research, not some performative label or hollow assertion that we defend at all costs through clever turns of phrases and quibbles over semantics.
Black, P. (2013). Formative and summative aspects of assessment: Theoretical and research foundations
in the context of pedagogy. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 167–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task- involving
and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational
Guskey, T., 2019. Grades versus Feedback: What does the research really tell us?.
[Blog] Thomas R. Guskey & Associates, Available at:
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.
This is a guest post written by Nina Pak Lui and Colin Madland
Assessment is at the heart of formal learning environments. Assessment practices in K-12 contexts have been the subject of significant research, especially since the late 20th century. However, the assessment practices and beliefs of higher education instructors have not been researched to nearly the same degree. This likely stems from the relative lack of preparation university instructors outside of Schools of Education receive in pedagogy and assessment (Massey, 2020). This has led to the current situation in which higher education has much to learn from K-12. In this post, we outline the problem that exists between modern assessment and pedagogical practices in higher education, and provide two ways assessment practices can shift in higher education.
It is helpful to think about assessment in terms of a model. In Knowing what Students Know, Pellegrino, et al. (2001) provide the accessible model of the “assessment triangle”, a modified version of which is shown below. The assessment triangle comprises three interdependent elements: (1) a cognitive model of the domain, which can be understood for our purposes as learning standards; (2) an instrument or process used to gather evidence of proficiency, and; (3) an interpretation of the evidence of learning. High quality assessment practices require that each of these three elements are in alignment with each other. For example, if the learning standard specifies that learners will be able to critically analyze historical texts, and the instrument used to gather evidence asks learners to identify a correct answer, there is misalignment between those two elements and the interpretation will lack validity.
In the mid- to late-20th century, assessment practices and pedagogy in higher education were in quite close alignment. The prevailing theory of learning was that of behaviourism as popularized by BF Skinner who argued that learning is maximized when learners receive immediate, positive feedback when they supply the correct answer to a question. This led to pedagogical practices that prioritized breaking down concepts into smaller and smaller ideas and having learners memorize the correct answers. Accordingly, assessment practices prioritized instruments filled with selected-response items requiring examinees to recognize correct answers.
Over time, however, our understanding of the cognitive processes involved with learning have evolved. We now recognize that learning is a complex social process and that knowledge is constructed through social interactions. As such, the characteristics of pedagogy in K-12 and increasingly in higher education have shifted away from rote memorization and moved towards the 21st century goals of collaboration, critical thinking, analysis, creativity and life-long learning. Unfortunately, however, Shepard (2000) and Lipnevich et al. (2020) point out that assessment practices in higher ed remain stuck in the behaviourist views of the mid-20th century with a heavy emphasis on high-stakes selected-response tests.
For me, Nina, the stages of Chappuis & Stiggins’ Assessment Development Model (ADM) and key principles of Standards Based Learning (SBL) significantly shifted my assessment practices to reflect modern assessment theory and aims of 21st century learning. To illustrate, a “Then and Now” reflection below shows two ways assessment practices can shift in higher education:
1. From using predominantly selected-response methods, toward implementing performance-based and personal communication methods that are better aligned and reflective of course learning standards.
2. From students as passive participants in the assessment process, toward students as active users of assessment as a learning opportunity.
Then and Now
I used to stick to common types of assessment instruments used in higher education. Although learning can be experienced and demonstrated in multiple ways, I was hesitant to take pedagogical risks in the early years of teaching in higher education. Looking back, my lack of assessment literacy and my preconceived assumptions of what assessment practices should look and sound like in higher education were barriers to effective teaching and student learning. Although course learning standards were present in syllabi, I used to plan activities and assessment tasks before identifying priority standards and clarifying proficiency. Wiggins & McTighe (2011) call this the “Twin Sins” of traditional planning.
Then I learned that clearly knowing what is being assessed and choosing the optimal method depends foremost on the kinds of learning being assessed (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2019). In the planning and development stages of ADM and SBL, priority course learning standards are identified, and the underpinning learning targets are clarified with and for students (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2019; Schimmer et al., 2018). Unpacking learning standards and clarifying proficiency allows instructors to thoughtfully consider how they will summatively and formatively assess student learning (Schimmer et al., 2018; White, 2017). This process helps me select appropriate assessment methods and design assessment instruments aligned with proficiency of the learning standards. Before any assessment instruments are used, I take into consideration potential bias and barriers, and critique the overall assessment for quality (Chappuis & Stiggins, 2109). As a result of intentional planning and sound development, I am able to gather information – evidence of learning – to make formative and summative decisions based on interpretations of student learning with greater validity. Chappuis & Stiggins (2019) suggest that if there is no accuracy, there is no way to know if there has been a gain in knowledge, ability, or understanding.
Now I realize that course learning standards are cognitively complex. Students critically analyze, synthesize, make judgments, gain empathy and self-knowledge, transfer, co-create, and apply course learning in meaningful and transformative ways. These aims reflect 21st century learning goals of higher education. Wiggins & McTighe (2011) point out that knowing facts in order to recall them is superficial learning that can be quickly forgotten, whereas the ability to connect facts and create meaning is deeper learning or enduring understanding. In my current practice, assessment methods and instruments are designed for students to demonstrate higher-order thinking and meaning-making (Pak Lui & Skelding, 2021). Students continue to demonstrate their reasoning and creative abilities through written expression. They also engage in free inquiry which gives them the opportunity to choose their own questions related to the course that are of deep personal interest to them. Students communicate their learning through performance-based and personal communication assessment methods. In a free inquiry, instead of prescribing what the authentic piece should be, students choose the creative mediums and share their learning publicly (MacKenzie, 2016).
Here are a couple of examples from my practice, as recounted in a recent book chapter (Pak Lui and Skelding, 2021):
A former student investigated how to destigmatize mental health in education and had the bravery to include their own mental health journey in their authentic piece. They shared a raw and honest four-stanza poem and accompanied it with related and provoking images in the form of a photo essay. There was not a dry eye in the classroom; the community of learners were drawn into their peer’s learning at an intellectual and emotional level. Another example is of a student who inquired about the standardization of assessment in education. They too combined their research findings and unpacked their own educational experiences with high-stakes assessment by writing and performing a musical rap. The lyrics, rhythm and physical expression of the rap illustrated their key inferences and implications of the urgent need for assessment reform in education.
What I noticed as a result of using assessment methods that are a good match for assessing cognitively complex learning standards (such as written response, performance assessment, or personal communication) was an increased ability as an instructor to interpret evidence of learning. I have greater confidence that the inferences I make accurately reflect achievement of intended learning. Additionally, increasing the value of and use of formative assessment practices shifted students from being passive participants in the learning process to students being active users of assessment results as a learning opportunity. Students regularly receive feedback, and they are given time to act on feedback. Moreover, their involvement as self-assessors of their own learning leads to greater awareness of strengths and areas for improvement and growth before evaluation. As my own assessment practices shift and evolve, I notice teaching and learning becoming a genuine partnership. Students and I are able to develop relational trust, and we are more confident in taking risks in pedagogy together (Pak Lui & Skelding, 2021). It is my hope for students to see that my assessment practices have clear purpose, align to course learning standards, and provide necessary support to move their learning forward. According to White (2019), “without continuous formative assessment built into the classroom, creativity would suffer, risk-taking would lack purpose, and products students create would be meaningless” (p. 33).
COVID-19 provides an opportunity for many university instructors to re-examine both pedagogy and assessment practices in higher education. As we look forward to establishing a new normal, research-based shifts in assessment practices can be a way for 21st century learners to experience a high quality education.
Nina Pak Lui is an Assistant Professor of Education at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. She studies and teaches curriculum design and assessment for learning. In 2020, she won the Provost Teaching and Innovation Award. You can find her on Twitter @npaklui.
Colin Madland is a PhD candidate in Educational Technology at the University of Victoria in British Columbia where he is studying approaches to assessment in higher education. You can find him at https://cmad.land and on Twitter @colinmadland.
Chappuis, J. & Stiggins, R. (2019). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right – Using it well (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.
Lipnevich, A. A., Guskey, T. R., Murano, D. M., & Smith, J. K. (2020). What do grades mean? Variation in grading criteria in American college and university courses. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(5), 480–500. https://doi.org/10/ghjw3k
Massey, K. D., DeLuca, C., & LaPointe-McEwan, D. (2020). Assessment literacy in college teaching: Empirical evidence on the role and effectiveness of a faculty training course. To Improve the Academy, 39(1). https://doi.org/10/gj5ngz
MacKenzie, T. (2016). Dive into inquiry: Amplify learning and empower student voice.
McTighe, J. and Wiggins, G. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Pak Lui, N. & Skelding, J. (2021). An emergent course design framework for imaginative pedagogy and assessment in higher education. In Cummings, J. & Fayed, I. (Eds.), Teaching in the post COVID-19 era. [In Print Stage]. Springer Publishing.
Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019
Schimmer, T., Hillman, T., and Stalets, M. (2018). Standards based learning in action: Moving from theory to practice. Solution Tree Press.
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14. https://doi.org/10/cw9jwc
White, K. (2017). Softening the edges: Assessment practices that honor K to 12
teachers and learners. Solution Tree Press.
White, K. (2019). Unlocked: Assessment as the key to everyday creativity in the
classroom. Solution Tree Press.
Let me start by saying the most obvious statement. The past year and a half has been incredibly hard. For everyone. The summer for me is usually a time for reflection, for finishing incomplete to-do lists, and for getting excited about the next year. I do not mind admitting that the last one was pretty hard for me this year. Watching (and re-watching) some episodes of Ted Lasso has helped a little. Reading some of my favorite authors has helped a lot. I found myself revisiting Essential Assessment: Six Tenets for Bringing Hope, Efficacy, and Achievement to the Classroom this summer and revelling again in the authors’ brilliant and elegant ways of describing assessment (and not just because they’re three of my favorite people!)
So I found myself reading the Accurate Interpretation chapter of Essential Assessment, partially to look for some nuggets to share with the educators in my own district. I came across a sentence that is rather perfect for now, “Educators who believe all students can learn deliberately adopt a tone of influence and possibility as a means to promote learning, especially in the toughest situations.” (p. 67) This sentence seems perfectly suited for the 2021-2022 school year and beyond.
Keeping the focus
As educators, we are always working to keep the focus on the things that we can control. There are so many things that can impact a student’s success and many of them do not have anything to do with us. But the educators that truly believe in their hearts that all students can learn are deeply focused on the many, many things that we can control.
One incredibly powerful category of the things we can control is how we use the information that we gain from our assessments. Are we using the data that we have to help us change our actions which we can control, or to blame our students or situations that we cannot control? Do we talk about that data in ways that validate our own influence as educators and reveal the possibilities in how we can respond? Do we see data as a way to build our self-efficacy and our collective efficacy or just another challenge that cannot be met?
In data lies opportunity
In this school year, we should all be looking for ways to talk about our data that communicates how we can leverage that data to influence our actions in creating opportunities for our students. Our language should reflect both our belief that all students can learn and that we are committed to do the things to make that happen.
One of the biggest lessons that I have learned through the years is that there is nothing wrong with starting small. Find an area in the data and work together to address it. We often beat ourselves up for not doing everything all at once and perfectly. Give yourself and your teams permission to take one thing at a time to build knowledge and confidence.
This same perfect and elegant phrase, a tone of influence and possibility, should be applied to how we talk about learning with our students. We have all been inundated with deficit messages about how students and their learning has been impacted by the pandemic. I am encouraged that many of those messages are now focusing on acceleration and not just remediation. We need to continue to make sure that our language emphasizes the strengths in our students as well as the opportunities we are planning to address any concerns. Our assessment data should help students see where they are in relation to that learning goal and our actions should help students see that there is a way for them to reach that goal.
There is much that we can control and one of the most significant things we can control is our language and our reactions. If we move forward with a belief that we can use the information we gain about our students to create better possibilities for our students, the impacts will go far beyond our own psyche. We can also use a quote from another of my idols, Ted Lasso, “Doing the right thing is never the wrong thing,” which feels like it was custom-made for educators today as well.
Erkens, C., Schimmer, T., Dimich Vagle, N. 2017. Essential assessment: Six tenets for bringing hope, efficacy, and achievement to the classroom. Solution Tree Press.
If your classroom was to become (or currently is) a picture for a social media post, how many likes would it get? How many retweets?
In truth, to how many of you would that even matter? What if your principal or superintendent suddenly broadcasts a message saying, “Everyone, stop what you’re doing and take a picture of your learning environment right now!” Would you be eager to share or completely mortified? I can admit, at various moments throughout my career, I have been on both ends of that continuum…and everyplace in between! Read more
I apologize for using a rather trite metaphor for the title of this blog, particularly since I never really cared for the dot-to-dot pages that would occasionally appear in my coloring books as a child. I never saw the purpose. I could tell what the picture was going to be and I didn’t need to scour the page to find the next number to make it appear.
As an educator the idea of connecting things has become much more profound to me. Watching the students in my English classes make connections between what we were reading and what was happening in the world were some of my favorite teacher moments. The flip side of that was also enlightening to me. As a principal of a school with many different academic support programs for students I remember a conversation with a student who told me that she didn’t “do reading” when she went to a classroom to work with a teacher who was supporting English Learners, even though I had just been in that room and seen a lesson that was explicitly planned to connect to the general education classroom. The student didn’t see the connection and that was the problem. Read more
Education is a noble profession. It is a profession that aims to cultivate diverse thinkers and aspires to nurture personal growth. It is a profession that can lift humanity’s spirits and help humankind strive to be the best version of itself—the “great equalizer of the conditions of men,” as Horace Mann famously stated in the 19th century. However, even with great people, a worthy goal, and an admirable vision, the opposite can often be the case.
Unfortunately, education can also be the great unequalizer, where personal biases can inform practice and policy development, stifle student growth, enforce discriminatory policies, and even socially isolate students. According to some researchers, implicit educator biases may contribute to a racial achievement gap; precisely, the negative impact of teacher assumptions on students’ ability based on race, culture, or values (van den Bergh et al. 2010). Unknown to an educator, these personal biases may create imagery of an ideal student, which is often seen through a white privilege lens because of society’s tendency toward whiteness, distorting our interactions with students of color.
Without social awareness and continuous self-monitoring, educators may let their implicit bias become an influential factor in their pedagogy, influencing everything from assessment to grading. This blog will discuss how personal biases can appear in our teaching and learning practices if educators are not diligent. I will focus on three of the more considerable teaching and learning modes: assessment, feedback, and grading.
Without attention, teachers may create assessments that reflect their values and experiences and ignore those of their students. The teacher may use language that they are more familiar with in their queries or create prompts influenced by their personal experiences. Ultimately students may find it hard to relate to the questions—potentially leaving some students unable to perform to the best of their abilities. For assessments to be less biased, a teacher must consider all backgrounds, ethnicities, genders, and identities to ensure that their lived experience isn’t the only one represented on an assessment.
By being more introspective when developing assessments, teachers can lessen the chance they produce a personally irrelevant assessment for their students. The impact of this irrelevancy could be low student performance, disinterest in the task, and even apathy toward school.
To help teachers be more aware of their biases when creating assessments, they can ask themselves the following questions as they develop questions:
- Does the assessment give the sense that the teacher has unwavering support and is a partner in a student’s success?
- Are the questions seeking to understand the student or judge them?
- Does the teacher draw on the students’ life situations, interests, and curiosities when creating problems/prompts? – Adapted from Tomlinson (2015).
Microaggressions in Feedback
Suppose we ignore our implicit biases when speaking with students. In that case, we run the risk of putting both parties into what social psychologist Albert Bandura calls “a downward course of mutual discouragement” (Bandura 1997, 234). A student’s reaction to deficit-based feedback may result in the teacher reacting in kind. Once this cycle starts, a student’s self-belief is now at risk.
Microaggressions and subtle discriminations can exist in the feedback process, and when they do, they may severely limit feedback acceptance.
Teachers can limit bias in their feedback to use the student’s thinking to grow the student. For example, let’s look at the following examples:
Feedback that Uses Teacher Thinking: You didn’t include [these details] about [person] in your essay. Try [these words].
Feedback that Uses Student Thinking: Tell me more about these words [here]. I am interested to know why you think [this word] didn’t work instead? Oh, okay, that would work. You should add what you just said to your paragraph, and it was perfect.
Feedback that Uses Teacher Thinking: When I write, I try and think about [detail]. Remember when I taught you the three-step process? No? The one that is in your textbook? That’s the most effective process.
Feedback that Uses Student Thinking: What did you think about when you wrote [this]? Seems like that interests you? Yeah, I can see you are passionate about [that]. What are the first three things you did when you wrote [this]? That is an interesting place to start. Could I convince you to start here? No? Okay, that makes sense. Have to make this work for you.
Feedback that Uses Teacher Thinking: In this graph, I would start [here] because this information is important. Has anyone heard of the [rhyme name] to remember the key features of a graph? No? Oh, this helped me a lot.
Feedback that Uses Student Thinking: In this graph, what information did you think was essential for you to begin this problem? I’m surprised to hear you say that because yesterday you said something different, what changed? Interesting, I saw you smile as you were talking. Why? Yeah, I agree you are getting this concept more. Are you using any strategies to help you learn this? Yes. Well, [that strategy] is undoubtedly helping you.
These scenarios are fictional, but the point here is teachers should always be aware of their language. Otherwise, they can inadvertently make the student feel like an unequal and devalued student in the class and even the school. In short, words matter.
Race Bias in Grading Practices
Teachers must judge student performance fairly and accurately. It is our professional duty. Inaccurate judgments have the potential not only to alter grades but could negatively affect teacher-student relationships, distort a student’s self-concept, or reduce opportunities to learn (Cohen and Steele 2002). One factor that can lead to a misrepresentation of a grade is teacher race and ethnicity bias. A student’s racial or ethnic group, socioeconomic class, or gender can substantially bias a teacher’s judgment of student performance. Any internalized racial biases can activate stereotypes and lead teachers to utilize discriminatory performance evaluations (Wood and Graham 2010).
For example, several studies found substantial differences in students’ performance judgments from various racial subgroups when the teacher subconsciously subscribed to the general stereotype that African American and Latino students generally don’t perform as well as their White and Asian counterparts (Ready and Wright 2011).
Different minority statuses can affect teacher perceptions in performance evaluation, leading to inaccurate grades, potentially harming students’ perception of their academic experience. (Ogbu and Simons 1998). In other words, students may feel like school is insignificant, unsupportive, or even harmful.
To help lessen the likelihood that implicit personal bias influences the grading process, teachers can democratize the grading process. They can use learning evidence instead of points and employ a modal interpretation of gradebook scores instead of averages. They can use a skills-focused curriculum instead of a content-focused one. Perhaps most important, they can involve the student in the grading process by infusing more self-evaluation moments into their instruction.
School leaders should explore ways to evaluate pedagogical practices through a racial and equity lens and observe classroom interactions between teachers and students. School leaders should also continue training on white privilege and its influence over the status quo, and teachers should evaluate student performance to judge its fairness and accuracy.
The Work Ahead
Although we may feel like we are objective and rational people, we all have biases. We all have values, beliefs, and assumptions that help us make sense of what is happening in our lives and guide our interactions with others. For the most part, these values, beliefs, and assumptions guide us in positive and productive directions, but the interplay between these same values and social interactions can produce implicit biases that distort our decisions, perspectives, and actions. We must notice, monitor, and manage these distortions to achieve a goal of racial equity in school and life. If we don’t, we are at risk of our unconscious biases harming our pedagogy, our relationships with students, and our perception of their needs.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman & Co, Publishers.
Cohen, G. L., & Steele, C. M. (2002). A barrier of mistrust: How negative stereotypes affect cross-race mentoring. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 303–327). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Ready, D.D., & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and Inaccuracy in Teachers’ Perceptions of Young Children’s Cognitive Abilities: The Role of Child Background and Classroom Context. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210374874
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minorities than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253–273.
“Teaching Up” – Carol Ann Tomlinson: Teaching for Excellence in Academically Diverse Classrooms (2015).
van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R.W., (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 497–527.
Wood, D., & Graham, S. (2010). “Why race matters: social context and achievement motivation in African American youth.” In Urdan, T. and Karabenick, S. (Eds.) The Decade Ahead: Applications and Contexts of Motivation and Achievement (Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 16 Part B) (pp. 175-209). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.