Assessment and instructional objectives are ideally closely bound. A well-written objective should clearly illustrate the most important criteria for assessing if the individual has accomplished the objective.
This section illustrates how a well-written objective assists one in developing valid assessment instruments. Psychomotor, affective, and cognitive types of objectives are illustrated here.
Walk the length of a balance beam.
Given a standard balance beam raised to a standard height, the student (attired in standard balance beam usage attire) will be able to walk the entire length of the balance beam (from one end to the other) steadily, without falling off, and within a six second time span.
To partially determine placement on a high school gymnastics team. Other assessments using other gymnastic devices will be used in conjunction with this assessment to determine the final ranking/placement. The criterion for acceptable performance is thus irrelevant here; higher scoring individuals simply have a better chance of being selected for the team.
As males do not use the balance beam in gymnastics, this assessment is for females only. Thus, some may consider this test gender biased; but the rules of gymnastics dictate this distinction is necessary. Testing male's performance on equipment they will not use is irrelevant.
This test is biased against people who are physically incapable of mounting a balance beam and/or walking. However, these people would be incapable of performing on a gymnastics team and thus would not attempt the assessment in the first place.
Not needed. This is a sorting type of assessment and is designed to rank individuals, not chart their improvement and/or change in behavior.
The student (attired in standard balance beam usage attire) must walk the entire length of a standard balance beam raised to a standard height steadily, without falling off, and within a six second time span. (Note how this part reflects the objective.) A team of no less than three judges will observe a given individual perform this task three times, using a given scoring rubric to assign a score for each trial. The trial score for each trial is the average of all the judge's scores. The overall score for the individual is the average of the three trial scores.
Directions: Each individual must walk the balance beam. For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on the balance beam. Each individual will be given three trials or chances to walk the balance beam. Score each trial individually. After scoring each trial, hold up the numbered card in front of you that corresponds to the score you gave the individual for that trial. Your score will be averaged with the other judge's scores. Note that you must time the individuals; a maximum time of six seconds to walk the beam from one end to the other is permitted.
|Judge 1||Judge 2||Judge 3||Trial Total||Trial Score|
An individual trial total is the sum of the judge's scores. The trial score total is the the sum of the judge's scores divided by the number of judges. The overall score is the sum of the trial scores divided by the number of trials.
Learner's perspective on civil rights will improve.
To determine if an individual's attitude towards racial equality has improved. If the student's score increases at all on the posttest, they are considered successful.
Objective 1 Pretest
The student being assessed would be part of a racially diverse group. The provided rubric would be employed by the instructor or by someone not actually participating in the group. To have a group member or members employ the rubric as a pretest device would invalidate it, for the individual's actions and mannerisms would change upon introduction of the rubric. This could interfere with or augment the instruction that would follow.
Objective 1 Posttest
The student being assessed would be part of a racially diverse group. The provided rubric would be employed by the instructor or by someone not actually participating in the group. Ideally, this assessor should be the same person who administered the pretest. To have a group member or members employ the rubric as a posttest device would invalidate it, for the individual's actions and mannerisms would change upon introduction of the rubric. Ideally, each student should be assessed at least two times with different groups.
Comparisons between pretest and posttest scores would be used to determine if a positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of race has occurred.
Directions: For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on each item listed in the left column. Place an X in the most appropriate square to the right of each item. Example: If you decide a student only rarely attended individuals with the same amount of interest, place an X in the box under the 2. Twenty-four possible points. Observe each student for 10 minutes.
|Most (90%+ of the time)||Usually (60-89%)||Somewhat (30-59%)||Rarely (1-29%)||Never (0%)|
|Student attends to each individual with the same amount of interest.|
|Student uses the same respectful tone of voice when addressing each team member.|
|Student does not make culturally sensitive or degrading remarks. (Example: "You Brugians are always thinking about yourselves.")|
|When a disagreement occurs, the student addresses the disagreement and not the other team member(s). (Example: "I don't believe that is true because..." NOT "Maybe where you come from that's true, but...")|
|Student generally maintains the same body language and facial expressions for all other team members. (Example: The student frowns at Xavier all the time, but smiles at Jessica all the time.)|
|Student maintains same level of eye contact with all other group members.|
Students will be able to select and combine chosen characters (using cartoon characters, modern entertainers, etc.) into a new, composite character which reflects the personalities of the original characters.
To determine if a student can construct a composite character based on the personality traits of two given characters, can depict the composite character's personality, and can logically defend the composite character's personality and actions in writing.
Some students may not be familiar with certain characters, due to cultural differences, or simply because of lack of exposure to them. In these cases, the instructor may want to assist the student in choosing two characters (cartoon or otherwise, fictional or non-fictional) the student is familiar with, so the student can complete the assignment without negative bias.
The student will list five major personality traits of each of the two characters. These are perceived traits, and are not judged by the instructor as to their correctness. The student must then combine the traits of the two characters in a logical, defensible manner. Each new trait must be defended by the student in writing. The following three examples illustrate this:
Then the student would develop short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates three to five of the major personality traits of the composite character. The storyboard could be plain text (one paragraph would comprise a frame), rough sketches (one sketch per frame), colored drawings (one drawing per frame), or any combination thereof.
The instructor(s) would assess the storyboard by examining the listing of original personality traits and their combinations into a new composite character. The storyboard must reflect all five of the composite traits in a story that fits the composite character. The instructor(s) must use the provided rubrics to assign a score to the student. Students must complete this assessment in two hours.
Read the following to the students. Also, have this available in print form:
A. Choose two characters you know. They can be real or fictional. List five major personality traits of each of the two characters. Combine these traits into five new traits (either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) of a composite character, and in writing list and justify these new traits. Melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, and negating opposing traits are defined in this way:
B. After you have your combined traits list and justification, develop short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates all five of the major personality traits of your composite character. The storyboard can be plain text (one paragraph would comprise a frame), rough sketches (one sketch per frame), colored drawings (one drawing per frame), or any combination thereof. (Show examples). You will be evaluated on how logical your combined traits are, how well you can explain/defend these traits, and how well your storyboard utilizes and illustrates those combined traits. (Explain rubric). You have two hours to complete this task.
Directions: For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on each item listed in the left column. Place an X in the most appropriate square to the right of each item. You must establish the passing score and convey that score to the students.
|Student Name||3 - Excellent. The combination of traits is logical.||2 - Fair. The combination of traits is somewhat logical, but other interpretations are more so.||1 - Poor. The combination of traits is not logical.||0 - The student did not combine any traits.|
|Combined traits 1|
|Combined traits 2|
|Combined traits 3|
|Combined traits 4|
|Combined traits 5|
|Student Name||3 - Excellent. The student used all five of the combined traits in the storyboard.||2 - Fair. The student used three to four of the combined traits in the storyboard.||1 - Poor. The student used aone to two of the combined traits in the storyboard.||0 - The student did not use any traits in the storyboard.|