What a Difference a Word Makes: Review

Stiggens, R., & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes: Assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning helps students succeed. Journal for Staff Development, National Staff Development Council, Vol.27, NO.1.

Reading this article brought forward a realization of how little I think about assessment in the classroom. I have devoted much time reflecting on the current state of education, specifically, the outdated Language Arts Curriculum, 21st century skills, or restrictive NCLB laws. Conversely, assesment has not been a major element of reflection.
In sum, the article encourages "assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning"(Stiggens and Chappuis, 2006). One aspect of the article that I found myself agreeing with is getting students involved in the assessment process. The authors of the article encourage students and their teachers to become "partners in the classroom assessments process, relying on students-involved assessmetn, record-keeping, and communication to help students understand what success looks like, see where they are now, and learn to close the gap between the two."(Stiggens and Chappuis, 2006). In my own classroom, students keep a grade sheet where they figure out their grades and keep track of their progress throughout the year. I find that keeping grades a secret from students until the end of a marking period is unecessary and somewhat elitist.

In addition to students' involvement in assessment, Stiggens and Chappuis mention four other essential aspects of successful assessment: clear purposes, clear targets, sound design, and effective communication. Most of the objectives for effective assessment are fairly obvious and what I believe effective teachers currently practice.

In Language Arts, majority of assessment includes writing samples which are incredibly time consuming to assess and grade. So when the article suggested that teachers "must figure out ways to comment on the quality of students' work and then schedule time for students to act on that feedback before being graded" (Stiggens and Chappuis, 2006), I was taken back. I was sure the next suggestion was for teachers to grow another pair of hands and an extra brain, yet the authors conceeded that it would be difficult to accomodate such practices on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this is old news. I learned to write by following my teacher's criticism and correcting my mistakes. Although I try to give my students the same opportunity, I agree that in addition to the myriad of tasks that already fill up the teaching day, this would be difficult to accomplish.

Furthermore, the article suggests use of learning teams where teachers can experiment with different types of assessment and collaborate with other collegues to improve teaching practices. I have always been a proponent of peer coaching and believe that peer collaboration is an integral part of professional development.

Although the article did not contain anything groundbreaking, the authors neverthelss agree that "if we don't begin this dialogue, this study of assessment for learning, we are relegating assessment to its accountability role and passing up its potential benefits to students." (Stiggens and Chapuis, 2006). While we have little power to change standardized testing imposed by law, inside our classrooms we can certainly maximize student acheivement through clear and effective assessment.

Video: Our Competition