Constructivists view assessment as a process that involves both the instructor and the student. Educators who prefer to use constructivist methods and principles in evaluating student work have several different avenues to choose from that can help enhance the learning experience of students. Similarities between constructivist and traditional methods of assessment do exist. Even though constructivists continue to research and experiment with more interactive, experience based assessments, the more traditional methods still prevail and are being used in classrooms as the predominant means of assessment.
Principles of Assessment in a Constructivist Classroom
One principle of assessment in a constructivist classroom is not to isolate evaluation as a single exercise. Constructivists often see learning as a cyclical process. Since the shape of a circle has no beginning and no end, then the mark of where to assess could become blurry. Constructivists do not see assessment as an ending activity, but rather an ongoing process that helps the student continue to learn.
They isolated “Five Es" of constructivism: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate. Not only is assessment its own category (evaluate), but it is also interwoven throughout each of the other stages of the learning process.
- · For example, when a teacher is engaging students in a learning opportunity, the instructor begins to question. The process of questioning not only interests students in a topic, but also gives the instructor an idea of the amount of prior knowledge a learner will bring to the experience.
- · During the exploring stage, "...students’ inquiry process drives instruction during an exploration." Driving instruction is one purpose of assessment, whether in a traditional or constructivist classroom.
- · During the explain stage, communication occurs between student and teacher. At this point, an instructor can input more information or points of inquiry as needed; again they are actively assessing. Also during the explain stage, artifacts become available that demonstrate concrete evidence of student understanding.
- · When students begin to elaborate on their ideas and observations, possible avenues of future research can develop.
- · Therefore, evaluation as a stage is not meant to be solitary and final, but a constant in each stage of constructivist learning (Miami Museum of Science, 2001).
Another principle of constructivist assessment: not having the instructor as the only source of assessment. Many constructivists encourage self-reflection as a means of assessment, or encourage students to exchange evaluations of each other’s work.
When assessing, no matter who the evaluator is, many constructivists encourage an assessment of how the learner is thinking rather than just the outcome. In assessing, a constructivist's goal is to help the learner acquire knowledge, not make the learning process laborious and undesirable. Therefore, it is important to have a non-critical attitude as one evaluates in a constructivist format.
Principle Tools and Methods Used in Constructivist Assessment
When constructivists assess students, they prefer to use methods that either allow them to engage in dialogue with the learner, or give them opportunities to observe a student as he or she develops knowledge.
Teachers can initiate a wide variety of verbal discussions such as interviews, debates, knowledge telling, co-investigations, or dramatizations. In constructivist evaluation, observation does not only mean listening to a student for comprehension of a concept, but a physical assessment of the whole child as well.
When observed, a constructivist instructor will note physical stance and expression. KWL Charts (and other such baseline assessments), Mind mapping, portfolios, checklists, investigative projects, paper and pencil tests, and performance tasks are also often used to evaluate work in a constructivist frame. Many of the Web 2.0 tools can be integrated into constructivist teaching and assessment, including blogging, podcasting and audio sharing, social networking, video sharing, wiki creation, web authoring, and mashups.
Similarities and Differences Between Constructivist and Traditional Assessment
Similarities
- · Both types of assessment can take on a variety of formats: paper and pencil, physical hands on experience, or some type of exchange.
- · The phrasing and use of critical thinking terminology in questioning can also be similar.
- · Instructors in traditional classroom also use assessments in order to plan lessons and develop activities.
Differences
- · Responses to traditional questions will also require more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer. However, the idea that interactive feedback occurs between evaluators and learners as well as the concept of judging the active construction of thinking as well as the outcome are greater priorities to the constructivist assessor than a traditional method of evaluation.
- · Another difference lies in the support of standardized testing. Traditional learning environments support standardized testing and make many educational decisions off of those scores. Constructivists have a very negative view of this particular testing vehicle. Constructivists prefer that assessments have more of a 'real-life' application. The types of assessment preferred by constructivists would be: authentic, performance, or portfolio assessment. These types of assessment, according to Reeves & Okey, require more genuine thought from the learner and provide a more stimulating form of evaluation than traditional classroom testing.
