|Grade Level: K-3|
|State Standard: NCLB|
|Objective||Formative Assessment 1||Formative Assessment 2||Summative Assessment|
|1||Implementing an individual approach and help each student improve their knowledge and thus, meet the standards.||Observation||Face-to-face interview with the teacher||Tests|
|2||Developing readiness for self-education in boys and girls and formation of communicative skills||Online-discussions||Portfolio checking||A final project|
|3||Teaching students how to use the acquired knowledge, training skills, and abilities to solve practical problems||Asking schoolchildren to create guidance for younger students||Asking schoolchildren to make a visualization of the material learned||A final project|
Nowadays, there is a necessity to pay great attention to the functional literacy of the entire younger generation and in particular, children. It is important for boys and girls to be adapted to the conditions of the modern life; that is why the issue is relevant (Andersson and Palm 93). The latest tendencies in the sphere of education are individualization of the educational process, increasing educational motivation and educational independence of students (Buchholtz et al., 2018). To benefit from the trends, it is significant to develop appropriate assessment tools (Bruun and Evans 54). The purpose of this paper is to define learning objectives aligned to a grade-level K-3 and a state standard and to develop strategies for them.
On the basis of a grade-level K-3 and a state standard, three learning objectives might be formulated. In fact, social changes of the recent years have led to an increase in the inequality in the starting opportunities for children starting their education. This poses a difficult task, especially for elementary school teachers: in a short time, they have to align this differentiation of children (Steinberg and Donaldson 345). Hence, the first objective is to implement an individual approach and help each student improve their knowledge and thus, meet the standards. At the same time, a teacher should pay attention to the individuality of schoolchildren (Hondrich et al. 355). The second goal is the development of readiness for self-education in boys and girls and formation of communicative skills. The third one consists of teaching students how to use the acquired knowledge, training skills, and abilities to solve practical problems.
Modern assessment should be flexible multi-instrumental, understandable, psychologically comfortable and thus, combine summative and formative tools. The first type is implemented through conducting exams, final tests, and other procedures of the same kind (Dixson & Worrell, 2016). It can help a teacher to reveal the result of students’ learning for a certain period of time (Bazelais et al. 70). Speaking about formative assessment, it is a process of searching and interpreting data used by instructors to determine the stage at which students are (Houston & Thompson, 2017). Unlike summative assessment, formative tools are incorporated in everyday practice (every hour or day) (Dolin et al. 60). They suggest organizing feedback, ensuring progress in learning, choosing the direction of development, and establishing the best ways to achieve the level required (Lau 510). Therefore, both of the parts are of great importance for measuring the successes and failures of a teacher.
For the objective of helping students meet the educational standards, formative assessment strategies of observation and face-to-face interview with the teacher can be chosen. They will help an instructor to find weak and strong points of each student and teach them accordingly (O’Leary 15). For the same purpose, a summative strategy of tests is appropriate. Speaking about developing boys’ and girls’ readiness for self-education, online-discussions and portfolio checking are the best formative assessment strategies for achieving the goal (Ding et al. 220). The first one is important because the use of technologies has a variety of benefits for the learning process (Howard 210). Besides, due to the digitalization, students find it easier to perform many actions online, including studying (Stover et al., 2016). Schoolchildren’s collecting portfolio also contributes to working independently and expressing their individuality. As a summative strategy, instead of giving students tests, a teacher might suggest their completing a final project.
The appropriate formative strategies for the final goal are asking schoolchildren to create guidance for younger students and suggesting their making a visualization of the material. Speaking about the summative strategy, a final project is also suitable here because it allows students to incorporate their knowledge. In conclusion, the assessment of a teacher’s work and thus, students’ progress is a key element of the educational progress. Digitalization gives instructors new opportunities to measure the indicators of their students’ successes and failures; thus, there are numerous strategies a teacher can choose from.
Andersson, C., & Palm, T. (2017). The impact of formative assessment on student achievement: A study of the effects of changes to classroom practice after a comprehensive professional development programme. Learning and Instruction, 49, 92-102.
Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2017). Exploring the Association Between Formative and Summative Assessments in a Pre-University Science Program. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(2), 65-72.
Bruun, J., & Evans, R. H. (2020). Network Analysis of Survey Data to Identify Non-Homogeneous Teacher Self-Efficacy Development in Using Formative Assessment Strategies. Education Sciences, 10(3), 54.
Buchholtz, N. F., Krosanke, N., Orschulik, A. B., & Vorhölter, K. (2018). Combining and integrating formative and summative assessment in mathematics teacher education. ZDM, 50(4), 715-728.
Ding, L., Er, E., & Orey, M. (2018). An exploratory study of student engagement in gamified online discussions. Computers & Education, 120, 213-226.
Dixson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153-159.
Dolin, J., Black, P., Harlen, W., & Tiberghien, A. (2018). Exploring relations between formative and summative assessment. In Transforming assessment (pp. 53-80). Springer, Cham.
Hondrich, A. L., Hertel, S., Adl-Amini, K., & Klieme, E. (2016). Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(3), 353-376.
Houston, D., & Thompson, J. N. (2017). Blending formative and summative assessment in a capstone subject: ‘It’s not your tools, it’s how you use them’. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(3), 2.
Howard, L. (2020). Writing bees, wikis, problem-based learning, and assessment: Teaching with online discussions. In Handbook of Research on Online Discussion-Based Teaching Methods (pp. 202-228). IGI Global.
Lau, A. M. S. (2016). ‘Formative good, summative bad?’–A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. Journal of Further and higher education, 40(4), 509-525.
O’Leary, M. (2020). Classroom observation: A guide to the effective observation of teaching and learning. Routledge.
Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340-359.
Stover, K., Yearta, L., & Harris, C. (2016). Formative assessment in the digital age: Blogging with third graders. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 377-381.