ASSESSING STUDENTS

Pramesti Ariyani (0204511044)Devi Hermasari (0204511048)

What changes?What remains the same?

•Formative Evaluation or continuous assessment•Summative EvaluationWhy?•To embrace the principle of ongoing and immediate feedback to both the teacher and the studentsWhen?•Expanded into: not only academic dimensions of learning but also the social dimensions.What?•Shift towards more active roles for students rahter than resting solely with the teacher.Who?

•Methods that reflect the interactive dimensions of learning tasks and the shared ownership of group product should be used. How?

APPROACHES TO ASSESSING THE EFFORT AND ACHIEVEMENT OF

STUDENTS IN GROUPS

Traditional teacher-centered observations

and tests

Innovative student-centered,

collaborative modes of assessment

THE WHOLE GROUP PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BASED

Group scores in a single product

• e.g. report, essay, work sheet, etc.

Random selection of one member’s work

• All members, then, receive the score given to that one person’s work.

Can a single shared group grade be fair?

STEPS TO ENCOURAGE POSITIVE VIEW OF GROUP EVALUATION

Monitor interaction when students work in groups

Make sure thatassessment criteria are consistent and clearly understood by students (students can be involved in developing the criteria)

INDIVIDUAL & GROUP PERFORMANCE COMBINED EVALUATIONIndividual grade (from a test)

* Whether all groups members achieve at or above a pre-established criterion,*Whether the combined score shows improvement over the previous group score,*The lowest individual score in the group,*The average score,*The total score.

Dual Grading

Each group member takes an examination, students’ scores are used according to one of dual grading alternatives.

At the same time, each student is assessed by the teacher and/or their peers and/or themselves in terms of the frequency of performance of specific collaborative skills.

Concurent Grading

&Collaborative Skills

THE CASE AGAINST

GROUP GRADI

NG

Kagan (1995)

KAGAN’S REASONS• Group grading is unfair because two students can do equally well

but receive different grades based on how well their group-mates performed.

• Group grading makes grades more difficult for others, such as parents and university admissions to interpret because they do not know how much of the grade was based on student’s own work.

• Group grading demotivates students because it blurs the connection between student effort and grades, thus violating the key cooperative learning principle of individual accountability.

• Group grading is a key cause of opposition to cooperate learning among parents and others, and could potentially result in legal problems for teachers and schools.

KAGAN’S RECOMENDED ALTERNATIVES

• Use content that is motivating by itself so that grades will not be needed as a motivation tool.

• Provide written feedback, apart from grades, on the work of individual students and of groups.

• Have students establish goals for themselves and, with the help of teachers and peers, assess their own progress toward htose goals.

• Use non-grade reward, such as recognition in class newsletters and notes from teachers.

• Give separate grades on the use of collaborative skills.

CONCLUDING REMARKSThrough a variety of strategies, the achieve role of students in

cooperative learning groups can be extended to student-

generated evaluation criteria and to self and peer-evaluation.

While shifting our students and ourselves away from a

traditional dependency upon externally generated feedback and rewards (Kohn, 1993), we are helping to move students

towards becoming more autonomous, self reflective,

and responsible.

Instead of the use of grades, stars, certificates

and other external rewards, indeed, Cooperative

learning can be a way of restoring to students the

inborn love of learning we humans are capable of

enjoying.