The New Art and Science of Classroom Assessment. Robert J. Marzano

in the beginning of the grading period, the student demonstrates little knowledge of the topic on his or her own but with help, should have some understanding of the score 2.0 and 3.0 content. By the time the next assessment occurs, the student seems to have a solid knowledge of the score 2.0 content, which carries on into the third assessment. Such content involves basic information the teacher directly teaches. The fourth assessment sees a big jump in understanding, indicating that the student knows the score 2.0 and 3.0 content. However, on the final assessment, the student score of 2.5 indicates a solid understanding of the score 2.0 content but only partial understanding of the score 3.0 content. Even though this student’s pattern does not show growth across every assessment, it still provides enough evidence for the teacher to assign a summative score of at least 2.5. Proficiency scales make the new paradigm for classroom assessments concrete and viable.

This Book

      Chapter 1, “The Assessment-Friendly Curriculum,” provides evidence for the claim that virtually every state’s standards simply contain too much content to effectively assess, let alone teach. Consequently, classroom educators must identify the critical content within the standards to explicitly teach and measure in order to determine students’ current status as well as their growth. Chapter 2, “Proficiency Scales,” points out that it’s not enough to identify specific learning targets for students relative to each topic. To measure student growth, teachers must develop well-defined continua of knowledge for each topic. These continua form the basis for designing scales teachers can use to develop assessments and plan instruction. Chapter 3, “Parallel Assessments,” not only describes the defining characteristics of parallel assessments in detail but also provides specific guidelines about how to create such assessments. In addition, it describes how to score parallel assessments. Chapter 4, “The Measurement Process and Different Types of Assessments,” presents a way of viewing classroom assessment and scoring as a seamless and united endeavor that represents the new paradigm of classroom assessment. Chapter 5, “Summative Scores,” describes techniques that allow teachers to determine the level of precision they can assign to scores for individual students. Some of these techniques require the aid of technology, and some do not. Chapter 6, “Non-Subject-Specific Skills,” addresses subject areas such as cognitive skills and metacognitive skills. These skills are commonly mentioned in standards documents but do not fit into any one subject area. Chapter 7, “Record Keeping and Reporting,” addresses not only how teachers can efficiently keep records of scores from classroom assessments but also how to transform those scores into report cards that demonstrate each student’s status and growth.

      Finally, note that this book does not address the technical and psychometric issues that accompany the recommendations that we make. For a thorough discussion of these matters, the reader should consult Making Classroom Assessments Reliable and Valid (Marzano, 2018).

      If classroom assessments are to fulfill their bright promise, educators must recognize that large-scale assessment theory is not the appropriate tool for designing and administering teacher-designed assessments. Rather, educators must employ a new theory base specific to the classroom. This book presents that theory.

      CHAPTER 1

      The Assessment-Friendly Curriculum

      The starting place for a new assessment paradigm is a curriculum that provides teachers with clear guidance in terms of what they should assess and how they should assess it. At first, this might sound like a very simple undertaking. After all, don’t schools and districts already have standards that teachers are supposed to follow when designing assessments? While the answer to this question is yes, the standards themselves do not provide much assessment guidance. That is one of the primary messages of this chapter. In fact, national, provincial, state, and local standards as currently written actually muddy the waters in terms of classroom assessments. More pointedly, we believe that the standards movement has unwittingly hurt classroom assessment practices as much as it has helped.

      In this chapter, we discuss the problem with standards and practices that render them inconsequential. We describe the limited assessment focus of standards and the need to create supplemental measurement topics.

The Problem With Standards

      There are at least three reasons why standards do not provide classroom teachers with adequate guidance in using classroom assessments: (1) too much content, (2) redundancy, and (3) equivocal descriptions of content.

       Too Much Content

      To illustrate the problem of too much content, consider the following mathematics standard: “Understands the properties of operations with rational numbers (for example, distributive property, commutative and associative properties of addition and multiplication, inverse properties, identity properties)” (standard 3, grades 6–8; Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning [McREL], 2014a).

      If we unpack the content in this standard, it becomes clear that it contains at least five elements. The student:

      1. Understands the distributive property with rational numbers

      2. Understands the commutative property of addition with rational numbers

      3. Understands the commutative property of multiplication with rational numbers

      4. Understands the inverse property of rational numbers

      5. Understands the identity properties of rational numbers

      While this standard is for mathematics, the same problem holds true for other subject areas. This is the crux of the problem that standards documents have created for classroom teachers who wish to design highly focused classroom assessments. For example, consider the following middle school science standard.

      MS-LS1–4. Use argument based on empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to support an explanation for how characteristic animal behaviors and specialized plant structures affect the probability of successful reproduction of animals and plants respectively. (NGSS Lead States, 2013)

      This standard appears relatively straightforward and fairly focused until we consider the clarification statement that accompanies it:

      Examples of behaviors that affect the probability of animal reproduction could include nest building to protect young from cold, herding of animals to protect young from predators, and vocalization of animals and colorful plumage to attract mates for breeding. Examples of animal behaviors that affect the probability of plant reproduction could include transferring pollen or seeds, and creating conditions for seed germination and growth. Examples of plant structures could include bright flowers attracting butterflies that transfer pollen, flower nectar and odors that attract insects that transfer pollen, and hard shells on nuts that squirrels bury. (NGSS Lead States, 2013)

      If we unpack the content in this standard and its clarification statement, a number of topics rise to the surface. The student:

      • Understands how to identify empirical evidence and how to use it in an argument

      • Understands scientific reasoning and how to use it in an argument

      • Understands examples of animal behaviors

      • Understands how specific animal behaviors affect successful reproduction

      • Uses empirical evidence and scientific reasoning to explain how and why specific animal behaviors affect successful reproduction

      • Understands examples