Performance assessment

Performance Assessment
Performance assessment is assessment based on observation
and judgment; we look at a performance or product and make a
judgment as to its quality.
Examples include the following:
Complex performances such as speaking a foreign language,
reading aloud with fluency, or working productively in a group.
In these cases it is the doing—the process—that is important.
Creating complex products such as a term paper, or a work of
literature. In these cases what counts is not so much the
process of creation (although that may be evaluated, too), but
the level of quality of the product itself.
As with extended written response assessments,
performance assessments have two parts: a performance
task or exercise and a scoring guide.
The scoring guide can award points for specific features of
a performance or product that are present, or it can take
the form of a rubric, in which levels of quality are
described.
For example, to assess the ability to do a simple process,
points might be awarded for each step done in the correct
order.
For more complex processes or products, you might have a
rubric for judging quality that has several dimensions,
such as ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence
fluency and conventions in writing, or content,
organization, presentation, and use of language in an oral
presentation.
Again, scores could be reported in number or percent of
points earned, or in terms of a rubric score.
Assessing Knowledge Targets
Performance assessment is usually not a good choice for
assessing knowledge targets, for three reasons.
The first reason, if our initial objective was to assess mastery
of specific knowledge, why go through the extra work? To
save time and increase accuracy, we recommend using
selected response, short answer, and extended written
response assessments to evaluate knowledge targets.
The second reason this is not a good match is because it is
inefficient to assess all content knowledge with a
performance assessment.
The third reason that performance assessments are
usually not a good match for knowledge learning targets
has again to do with practicality. It just isn’t practical (or
safe) to conduct some performance assessments.
Assessing Reasoning Proficiency
This is a partial match for assessing reasoning. If students
do well on a performance task requiring specific patterns
of reasoning, we can assume that reasoning is sound.
However, if they don’t do well, it could be due to lack of
prerequisite knowledge, lack of motivation, or to
imprecise reasoning. Without engaging in additional
time-consuming assessment, we may not be able to judge
level of achievement on reasoning targets.
Assessing Performance Skills
There is really only one assessment method that adequately
covers performance skills targets, and that is performance
assessment.
We can use other assessment methods to determine if students
possess the knowledge required to perform skillfully, but the only
way to determine whether students can actually perform skillfully
is to watch them do it and then judge their level of achievement.
For example, we can ask students to answer selected response or
oral questions about how to conduct themselves during a job
interview, but the only way to determine how well they can do it
is to watch them during a simulated job interview.
Assessing Proficiency in Creating Products
As with performance skills, the only option for
determining whether students can create a certain kind of
product is performance assessment: have them create the
product or performance and then judge its quality.
Once again, we can assess the knowledge required for
creating a quality product with a less time-consuming
method, but the only way to determine students’ levels of
proficiency in creating the product is to have them create
it.
Barriers with performance assessment
• Lack of reading skills
• Inappropriate or nonexistent scoring criteria
• Evaluator untrained in applying scoring criteria
• Bias due to stereotypic thinking
• Insufficient time or patience to observe and score carefully
• Student doesn’t feel safe
• Unfocused or unclear tasks
• Tasks that don’t elicit the correct performance
• Biased tasks
• Students don’t know the criteria by which they’ll be judged
• Insufficient sampling
 Summary of Basic Components
Design Factor Options
1 Clarifying Performance
Nature of Performance Behaviour to be demonstrated
Product to be created
Focus of the assessment Individual performance
Group performance
Performance criteria Reflect key aspects of specific target
2 Developing exercise
Nature of exercise Structured assignment
Naturally occurring events
Content of exercise Defines target, conditions and standard
Number of exercise Function of purpose, target, and available
sources
 Summary of Basic Components
Design Factor Options
3 Scoring and recording result
Level of detail of results Holistic
Analytic
Recording procedures Checklist
Rating
Anecdotal record
Mental records
Identifying the rater Teacher
Outside expert
Student self-evaluation
Student peer evaluation
Options for Recording Performance
Judgements
Definition Strength Limitation
Checklist List if key Quick, useful Result can lack
attributes of good with large number depth
performance of criteria
checked present
or absent
Rating scales Performance Can record Can demand
continuum judgement and extensive
mapped on rationale with one development and
several numerical rating training for raters
scale ranging
from low to high
Options for Recording Performance
Judgements
Definition Strength Limitation
Anecdotal records Student Can provide rich Time consuming
performance is portraits of to read, write, and
described in achievement interpret
detail in writing
Mental records Assessor stores Quick and easy Difficult to retain
judgements way to record accurate
and/or remembrance,
descriptions in especially as time
memory passes
Example of Checklist
Performed
No Criteria Indicators
1 2 3 4
1 Students are actively  The students do the improvisations and assess the performer √
involved during the
teaching and learning
 The participation in class activity is even (all get chances to √
process
speak)
2 Students are highly  There is no more inhibition in part of the students √
motivated in the
 The students are eager to speak √
activity of speaking
 They are interested in the topic √
 They have something new to say √
3 Students are more  The students are not reluctant to say anything √
confident in speaking
 They do not think too much about the form and rules of the √
language
 They can express themselves freely √

Notes: 1= 0% -25% of the students do

2= 26%-50% of the students do
3= 51%-75% of the students do
4= 75%-100% of the students do
Sample Rating Scale for Writing
Organization
5 The organization enhances and showcases the central idea
or theme. The order, structure or presentation is
compelling and moves the reader through the text.
3 The organization structure is strong enough to move the
reader from point to point without too much confusion.
1 The writing lacks a clear sense of direction. Ideas, details or
events seem strung together in a random, disorganized
fashion—or else there is no identifiable internal structure
at all.
Sample Rating Scale for Writing
Voice
5 The writer speaks directly to the reader in a way that is
individualistic, expressive, and engaging. Clearly, the writer is
involved in the text and is writing to be read.
3 The writer seems sincere, but not genuinely engaged,
committed, or involved. The result is pleasant and sometimes
even personable, but short of compelling.
1 The writer seems indifferent, uninvolved, or distanced from the
topic and/or the audience. As a result, the writing is flat,
lifeless, or mechanical; depending on the topic, it may be
overly technical or jargonistic.
Sample Rating Scale for Speaking
a. Accent
1= Pronunciation frequently unintelligible.
2= Frequent gross errors and a very heavy accent make
understanding difficult, require frequent repetition.
3= “Foreign accent” requires concentrated listening and
mispronunciation lead to occasional misunderstanding and
apparent errors in grammar or vocabulary.
4=Marked “foreign accent” and occasional mispronunciations
which do not interfere with understanding.
5=No conspicuous mispronunciations, but would not be
taken for a native speaker.
6= Native pronunciation, which no trace of “foreign accent”.
Sample Rating Scale for Speaking
b. Grammar
1= Grammar almost entirely inaccurate except in stock
phrases.
2= Constant errors showing control of very few major
patterns and frequently preventing communication.
3= Frequent errors showing some major patterns
uncontrolled and causing occasional irritation and
misunderstanding.
4=Occasional errors showing imperfect control of some
patterns but no weakness that causing misunderstanding.
5=Few errors, with no patterns of failure.
6=No more than two errors during the interview.
Sample Rating Scale for Speaking
c. Vocabulary
1=Vocabulary inadequate for even the simplest conversation.
2=Vocabulary limited to basic personal and survival areas (time, food,
transportation, family, etc.)
3= Choice of words sometimes inaccurate, limitation of vocabulary
prevent discussion of some common professional and social topics
4=Professional vocabulary adequate to discuss special interest; general
vocabulary permits discussion of any non-technical subject with some
circumlocutions.
5=Professional vocabulary broad and precise; general vocabulary
adequate to cope with complex practical problems and varied social
situation.
6=Vocabulary apparently as accurate and extensive as that of an
educated native speaker
Sample Rating Scale for Speaking
d. Fluency
1=Speech is so halting and fragmentary that conversation is
virtually impossible.
2=Speech is very slowly and uneven except for short or routine
sentences.
3= Speech is frequently hesitant and jerky; sentences may be left
uncompleted.
4=Speech is occasionally hesitant, with some unevenness caused
by rephrasing and grouping for words.
5=Speech is effortless and smooth, but perceptibly non-native in
speed and evenness.
6=Speech is on all professional and general topics as effortless and
smooth as a native speaker’s.
Sample Rating Scale for Speaking
e. Comprehension
1=Understand too little for the simplest type of conversation.
2=Understands only slow, very simple speech on common social
and touristic topic; requires constant repetition and rephrasing.
3= Understand careful, somewhat simplified speech directed to
him, with considerable repetition and rephrasing.
4=Understands quite well normal educated speech directed to
him, but requires occasional repetition and rephrasing.
5=Understands everything in normal educated conversation
except for every colloquial or low-frequency items, or exceptionally
rapid or slurred speech.
6=Understands everything in both formal and colloquial speech to
be expected of an educated native speaker.
Assignment
Write tasks for students to perform
5 instructions for various writing types from 2013
curriculum.
5 instructions for various speaking types from 2013
curriculum.