 |
| REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE | POST A NEW MESSAGE |
Author
|
Date
|
Subject
|
Thread
RE: Question 3: Assessment
- Archived: Wed, 05 Jun 07:45
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 01:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
- Author: "Wurman, Ze'ev" <zeev@ieee.org>
- Subject: RE: Question 3: Assessment
- Topic: Student Learning
Sen. VASCONCELLOS wrote:
ONLY BY DESIGNING THE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM SO IT IS TRULY DIAGNOSTIC
RATHER THAN JUDGMENTAL, CRITERIA- RATHER THAN NORM-REFERENCED, AND APPRECIATIVE OF THE MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND DIVERSITY AND DIVERSE LEARNING STYLES OF OUR STUDENTS, INCLUDING DIFFERENT KINDS OF PERFORMANCE AND MULTIPLE ASSESSMENET STRATEGIES. CF APPENDIX G OF OUR MASTER PLAN DRAFT, 'INDICATORS FOR AN ADEQUATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM' FOR PARTICULARS.
We certainly should have a diagnostic system - in fact, much of in-class assessment is exactly that. But shouldn't we *also* have norm referenced and standards-referenced as STAR provides? Don't we also need to know how our students measure on our standards, or vis-a-vis the rest of the nation? How otherwise we will ever improve the *system* as opposed to the individual child?
And I don't believe that the "multiple intelligences" were ever widely accepted in the professional psychological circles. They surely were accepted in the ed schools though. Should we infuse our state assessment with questionable theories?
|
