On the basis of only one factor we cannot take a life long decision in our life. For instance, individuals who are considering purchasing a house look at the house’s age, state, position, style, characteristics, and edifice, as well as the worth of nearby homes. Doctors detecting an illness apply multiple evaluations: the patient’s medical history, lab experiments, answers to questions about how the patient experiences, and so on. The question arises that why do education representatives and practitioners at times choose to make vital decisions based on only one pointer? Here, the concept of multiple measures comes into play.
By the term ‘multiple measures’ we mean that one indicator to make decision about groups such as class, team, educational institutions, etc. Individuals who understand, use, and converse review results have a specialized liability to employ multiple sources and sorts of relevant information about individuals or programs whenever likely in making educational judgments. In any kind of educational backdrop, decisions should not be taken on the basis of one single indicator. If the overall scores and situations are taken into consideration, then the decision making procedure seems to be better.
If our major concern is to make out for certain whether an educational institution has arrived at a goal on a particular accomplishment construct (an attribute one is trying to assess), then we might feel like to apply a compensatory approach joining multiple measures of that construct. If false negatives are a major concern—for example, if rigorous outcomes are in position for failing to meet a standard—then we would like to apply complementary multiple measures so that an educational institution can pass by fulfilling the standard on any one assessment.
However, if we are persuaded that each of several assessments is crucial to quality, we would perhaps want to apply a conjunctive approach in which an educational institution must pass all assessments. This is what Brookhart’s reading is trying to articulate (Brookhart, 2009). According to McMillan, each decision taken about the learners and the educational institutions should be based on something. The educators make use of their knowledge, logical reasoning, experience and convention to come to any decision.
Evaluation of learners is difficult since effectual decision making is based to some extent on the capability of educators to comprehend their learners and to match performances with precise evaluations (McMillan, 2000, p. 3). The teachers need to understand the learners what they are capable of, what are their problems and how they can cope with that problems, then only the educators can come to any decision and make assessments. Assessments start with the recognition of specific purpose for gathering and interpreting the information.
Once the rationale has been identified, accurate techniques for collecting and synthesizing the information can be recognized. What works well for one rationale might not work out for another rationale. The nature of assessment technique should follow from the projected rationale (McMillan, 2000, p. 4). Similar kinds of views have been found in both the arguments placed by Brookhart and McMillan. Thus, the arguments placed by both the proponents have solid ground. Therefore, it is important to use multiple measures in today’s classrooms to assess children’s academic performance.
Youngsters deserve assessment that demonstrates them their strengths as well as their requirements and that directs their educators to devise instruction that will best assist them develop as readers. Formative assessment and summative assessment share a general aim of evaluating learner knowledge. The main distinction between the two is the rationale for which the assessment is carried out. Formative assessment is proposed to notify and direct alterations to teaching on an enduring basis.
Summative assessment is proposed to keep an eye on development and assess the overall achievement of both learners and instructional programs on a continuing basis (Formative and Summative Assessment, n. d. , p. 5). Summative assessments are aimed purposely for execution with uninterrupted progress-examining systems. These systems would permit educators to track learners all through a school year and, preferably, over a total educational career, from nursery through high school (Formative and Summative Assessment, n. d. , p. 8).
The summative assessment can be related to the propositions placed by Brookhart and McMillan. By making use of all the assessment records of any learner, the educators can easily come to any decision of evaluating a student’s performance at the end of any academic year. According to Dylan William, he wanted to find out if using evaluation to support learning, rather than just to assess its results, can improve learners’ accomplishment, even when such accomplishment is evaluated in the form of state-authorized examinations. In assessing 250 studies from around the globe, issued between 1987 and 1998,
he had observed that a focus by educators on evaluation for learning, in preference to assessment of learning, produced a considerable increase in learners’ accomplishment. Since the studies also divulged that day-to-day classroom evaluation was comparatively rare, he felt that substantial improvements would be caused by supporting educators in developing this feature of their practice. The studies did not tell, however, how this could be attained and whether such achievements would be continued over an unlimited period of time.
Each educator will have to find a method of integrating the assessment designs into their own practice, and effectual formative assessment will look very dissimilar in different classrooms. It will, however, have some distinctive characteristics. Learners will be considering more often than they are seeking to remember something, they will think that by working hard, they get intellectual, they will appreciate what they are working in the direction of, and will know how they are advancing. References: 1. Brookhart, S. M. (Nov. 2009). “The Many Meanings of “Multiple Measures””.
Educational leadership. Multiple Measures. Vol. 67, No. 3. Available at: http://www. ascd. org/publications/educational-leadership/nov09/vol67/num03/The-Many-Meanings-of-? Multiple-Measures?. aspx (Accessed on July 15, 2010). 2. McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators. California: Corwin Press. 3. “Formative and Summative Assessment” (n. d. ). Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. Available at: http://www. readingnavigator. com/mkt/assets/formative_and_summative_assessment. pdf (Accessed on July 15, 2010).