Prototype Assessment Tools and Rubrics

Pre-Assessment Tools

In order to find out students' background knowledge and skills, and misconceptions, if any, that might get in the way of new understandings, the prototype tools provided below may be useful. The tools may be translated into Filipino when used in subjects using that language as medium of instruction, or modified to suit specific contexts. Directions: Fill in the open-ended statements below with information about what you already know (the facts and information), what you can do with the information (skills), what you understand, and what you want to know about the topic: ______.

What I know about _________:


What I can do in relation to ___________:

Text here................
..............................
..............................
..............................

What I understand about ___________:

Text here................
..............................
..............................
..............................

What I want to know about __________:

Text here................
..............................
..............................
..............................

The teacher may also use checklists of information that students can tick off to indicate what they already know or can do, or a rating scale to determine students' level of knowledge, skill, or understanding.

Games may also be used to pre-assess students' background knowledge and skills. Key terms, for example, may be jumbled and, as the students put them together, they may be asked to explain what they know or understand about the terms.

Whatever tool the teacher decides to use should always yield critical information that the teacher should process in order to find out how much students already know, what misunderstandings or misconceptions need to be clarified or corrected at the start or during instruction, pre-requisite skills that students need to learn, or learning gaps that need to be bridged along the way or before the lesson begins.

Formative Assessment Tools

Quizzes are the common formative assessment tools that teachers use to check for student understanding. They are short, easy to administer, and can quickly be corrected even by students. The results can be immediately discussed with the students and used to improve teaching and learning. Being developmental in purpose, the results of formative assessments should be fed back immediately to students so they can be used to improve learning.

Formative assessments need not be written all the time. The teacher can check for student understanding in a variety of ways. The teacher's question to the class, "Does this make sense to you?", is a way of checking whether students understand. The students' answer to this question can be validated by the teacher through further questions the purpose of which is to probe for student understanding. The teacher may also validate the students' understanding through focus group discussions with students or informally through conversations with them. Questions that students raise can also be used as indicator of student understanding. Likewise, the quality of student inputs as they participate in the discussion or group work can indicate the breadth and depth of their thinking or understanding.

Games such as puzzles may also be used to check for student understanding. The focus may be the key terms or facts and information that students need to know, but student understanding of these facts and information should be probed by asking students to explain, illustrate through examples, or apply their understanding.

The idea is to use multiple measures of student learning or understanding in order to produce a comprehensive picture or holistic profile of student growth in understanding.

Whatever results are obtained from the formative assessments should be fed back immediately to students. The students, for their part, should do their own self-check and self-track their progress (which can be done through graphs, or maybe a scale to represent growth in learning over time). Peer assessment is encouraged. Students should reflect on the results of teacher assessments, their own, and their peers', and, on this basis, act on the areas that they need to develop further. This is why immediate feedback should be provided to students, for their guidance.

Summative Assessment Tools

The students' attainment of the content standard shall be evaluated using the facets of understanding. The attainment of the performance standard shall be evaluated through authentic performance tasks using GRASPS as model. Actual products and performances as evidence of transfer of learning or understanding shall also be assessed. A prototype rubric has been provided as scoring guide.

A sample performance assessment in Science using GRASPS is provided below.

Goal: Your goal is to convince the local government unit (LGU) to support your science investigatory project addressing an environmental problem in the community.

Role: You are an environmentalist advocating LGU support for a science investigatory project on an environmental problem in the community.

Audience: You will present your proposal to LGU officials who are looking for a science investigatory project that can be funded.

Situation: The LGU is conducting a search of science investigatory projects that can best address any of the following problems in the community:

1. Fish kill in the river
2. Snail infestation in rice fields
3. Increasing incidence of pulmonary infections among children

Product: A proposed science investigatory project applying the scientific method and addressing an environmental problem in the community.

Standard: Your proposal will be judged based on the following:

1. Understanding of the problem
2. Application of the scientific method
3. Cost effectiveness of the solution to the problem

In rating this performance task, the teacher may use as scoring guides the rubric for assessing understanding and the rubric for assessing products/performances.

Rubrics

A. Assessment of Knowledge

Knowledge (15%) - acquisition of information as evidenced by the following:

(8%) Relevance of data/information to the development of understanding
(7%) Adequacy of data/information to firm up and deepen understanding

Relevance of data/information acquired (8%)

8% - Data/information acquired are completely relevant to the development of understanding.
6-7% - Data/information acquired are to a great extent relevant to the development of understanding.
4-5% - Data/information are to some extent relevant to the development of understanding.
2-3% - Data/information are of very little relevance to the development of understanding.

Adequacy of data/information to firm up and deepen understanding (7%)

7% - Data/information are completely adequate to firm up and deepen understanding.
5-6% - Data/information are to a great extent adequate to firm up and deepen understanding.
3-4% - Data/information are to some extent adequate to firm up and deepen understanding.
1-2% - Data/information are very inadequate to firm up and deepen understanding.

B. Skills (25%) -meaning making as evidenced by the student's ability to process and make sense of information, and is assessed based on the following criteria:

(10%) Understanding of Content
(15%) Critical Thinking

Understanding of Content (10%)

Strong (8-10%) - The student understands completely the full content required by the task and can undertake with a great deal of competence all of the following processes:

• Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/ between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between truth and propaganda/ between what is important and unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content
• Outline the content at the required level of detail
• Organize the information coherently, logically

Developing (5-7%) - The student understands the minimum content required by the task and can undertake with some competence the following processes:

• Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/ between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between truth and propaganda/ between what is important and unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content
• Outline the content at the required level of detail
• Organize the information coherently, logically

Weak (2-4%) - The student understands very little of the minimum content required by the task and has great difficulty undertaking the following processes:

• Distinguish (whatever is appropriate to the subject) between relevant and irrelevant content/ between fact and fiction/ between fact and opinion/ between fact and hearsay/ between truth and propaganda/ between what is important and unimportant/ between accurate and inaccurate content
• Outline the content at the required level of detail
• Organize the information coherently, logically

Critical Thinking (15%)

Strong (13-15%) -The student demonstrates deep analytical processing of information and can perform with a great deal of competence the following processes:

• Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance organizer, etc.
• Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
• Reason logically, coherently

Moderately Strong (10-12%) -The student demonstrates fairly analytical processing of information and can perform with some competence the following processes:

• Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance organizer, etc.
• Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
• Reason logically, coherently

Developing (7-9%) -The student demonstrates little analytical processing of information and strives to perform the following processes:

• Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance organizer, etc.
• Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
• Reason logically, coherently

Weak (4-6%) -The student demonstrates very little analytical processing of information and has great difficulty performing the following processes:

• Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance organizer, etc.
• Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
• Reason logically, coherently

Very Weak (1-3%) -The student can barely demonstrate analytical processing of information and cannot perform the following processes:

• Interpret; translate; convert, or express the information (such as a set of statistics) into another form or format or transform a textual presentation into a flowchart, diagram, advance organizer, etc.
• Draw insights; see beyond the data; read between the lines
• Reason logically, coherently

C. Understanding(s) (30%)- as expressed using the six facets of understanding: Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Empathy, Perspective, and Self-knowledge, and are assessed based on the following criteria:

Breadth of understanding (connection to a wide range of contexts)

Depth of understanding (use of insights, reflection)

Strong (26-30%) -The student demonstrates accurate, very extensive, and very deep understanding of the topic/concept through any three of the six facets of understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of contexts and use of insights and reflection are clearly evident.

Moderately Strong (21-25%) -The student demonstrates accurate, extensive, and deep understanding of the topic/concept through any three of the six facets of understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of contexts and use of insights and reflection are evident.

Developing (16-20%) -The student strives to demonstrate accurate, extensive, and deep understanding of the topic/concept through any three of the six facets of understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective,

Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of contexts and use of insights and reflection are evident.

Weak (11-15%) -The student can barely demonstrate accurate, extensive, and deep understanding of the topic/concept through any three of the six facets of understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of contexts and use of insights and reflection are evident.

Very Weak (6-10%) -The student cannot demonstrate accurate, extensive, and deep understanding of the topic/concept through any of the six facets of understanding-- Explanation, Interpretation, Application, Perspective, Empathy, and Self-Knowledge-- where connection to a wide range of contexts and use of insights and reflection are evident.

D. Transfer of understanding to life situations(30%) as demonstrated through

Products- outputs which are reflective of learner's creative application of understanding; and

Performances- skilful exhibition or creative execution of a process, reflective of masterful application of learning or understanding

Strong ( 26-30%) - The student (or the team) independently demonstrates the ability to create, add value and transfer his/her/their understanding to life situations in the form of products and performances. This means that the product or performance reflects the following attributes:

• The entire process from planning to execution was carried out by the student (or the team), with little or no guidance from the teacher.
• The product or performance is well thought out by the student (or team) from planning to execution. Potential problems have been identified and appropriate remediation has been put in place should problems arise.
• There is evidence of value added by the student (or team) in the execution of the process.
• The product or performance is a demonstration of creative application of enduring understanding in a new or novel context or situation.

Moderately Strong (21-25%) -- The student (or the team) demonstrates the ability to create, add value and transfer his/her/their understanding to life situations in the form of products and performances, but the product or performance can still stand improvement in a number of areas, namely:

• The entire process from planning to execution was carried out by the student (or the team), with some guidance/ coaching from the teacher.
• The product or performance is fairly well thought out by the student (or team) from planning to execution.
• There is some evidence of value added by the student (or team) in the execution of the process. There are attempts at novelty (e.g., formatting, organization, packaging, presentation).
• The product or performance is a demonstration of creative application of enduring understanding, but the context or situation in which the understanding is applied is a little ordinary or common.

Developing (16-20%)- The student (or team) strives to use understanding or learning creatively in producing products or performances as manifested in the following:

• The student or the team attempts to do the task entirely on their own, but seeks the teacher's help for the major part of the process.
• The product or performance has some flaws in the design that the student (or the team) has addressed with some help from the teacher.
• There is little evidence of value added by the student (or team) in the execution of the process. There are limited attempts at novelty (e.g., formatting, organization, packaging, presentation).
• A little creative application of enduring understanding is shown in the product or performance. The context or situation in which the understanding is applied is ordinary or common.

Weak (11-15%)- The student (or team) shows inadequacy in using understanding or learning creatively in producing products or performances. The inadequacy is manifested in the following:

• The entire process from planning to execution could not have been carried out by the student (or the team), without the teacher's guidance and coaching.
• The product or performance is poorly thought out by the student (or team) from planning to execution. There are marked flaws in the design that the student (or the team) is not even aware of.
• There is almost no evidence of value added by the student (or team) in the execution of the process or in the use of understanding or learning.
• Every aspect (e.g., formatting, organization, packaging, presentation) of the product or performance is just a copy of what has been taught in class.

Very Weak (6-10%)- The student (or the team) shows great difficulty in using understanding or learning creatively in producing products or performances. The difficulty is manifested in the following:

• The entire process from planning to execution was poorly carried out by the student (or the team), even with the teacher's guidance and coaching.
• The product or performance is very poorly thought out by the student (or team) from planning to execution. There are many obvious flaws in the design that the student (or the team) has ignored.
• There is no evidence of value added by the student (or team) in the execution of the process. There are no attempts at novelty (e.g., in formatting, organization, packaging, presentation).
• The product or performance does not show creative application of enduring understanding. The context or situation in which the understanding is applied is very ordinary or common.

View here:

Pilot Adoption of Standard-Based Assessment and Rating System at the Secondary Level for School Year (SY) 2011-2012

Standards-Based Student Assessment and Rating System at the Secondary Level - https://www.affordablecebu.com/