Instructional Effectiveness Many Scholars Claim

¶ … Instructional Effectiveness

Many scholars claim that students and their parents expect that instruction be tailored to specific and individual needs because people in our society are used to customizable features in every day life and have grown to expect it (Hur and Suh, 2010). This may be true, but the conclusion drawn from this assertion is not a logical one. Hur and Suh cite Brisk (1998), who states "[i]t is critical for program designers to examine the needs of students and their parents and to develop strategies not only to meet their specific demands but also to ensure the quality of the program." Instructors should not deliver specialized instruction because the market economy has raised expectations in consumers, but because it is the right thing to do to reach students.

The purpose of the paper by Hur and Suh is, partly, to describe the process for using course evaluations to improve content and delivery methods. The course in question was a six-week summer English program with four components (Reading and Writing, English for Speakers of Other Languages [ESOL], Scholastic Aptitude Test [SAT] Preparation, and Adult English). There were a total of 102 adults and children served by the program. Pre- and post-tests, using several different instruments, assessed learners' English language skills and self-concepts. Course designers used the ADDIE model, a five-step process in which the outcome of each step informs the subsequent step (Hur and Suh, 2010).

Interviews with a small number of parents as well as a staff member identified several areas in which improvement was needed. Afterwards, the researchers distributed an open-ended survey to area teachers, asking for recommendations. The researchers also assembled an advisory board that brought together individuals with various areas of expertise. The researchers were able to identify different design components and improvements by combining all provided perspectives (Hur and Suh). Applied to radically different course content, the summative assessments used by Wilhelm, Puckett, Beisser, Wishart, Merideth, & Sivakumaren, 2006) nevertheless were intended for the same purpose, to evaluate a program and identify changes that could be made to improve it. Interestingly, the report by Wilhelm et al. is a summative assessment within a summative assessment. The e-portfolios discussed were created by students in a teacher education program and represented the work they did to meet standards-based certification requirements. The evaluation was not of the student work, but of the e-portfolio process. The information shared by Wilhelm et al. is intended to serve as guidance for other teacher education programs contemplating a move to e-portfolios. Since their article was written in 2006, more programs have switched from paper to electronic portfolios.

In the cases of both studies discussed in this paper, summative assessments were the right tools to evaluate instructional effectiveness. Both programs were new and it seems fair to implement the program in its entirety, as designed, before making changes. During the instructional phase of a program, all emphasis should be on the students and meeting their needs. Though small adjustments may be made during the course, its overall effectiveness cannot fully be judged until completion. Instructors then have the vantage point of the entire course and can have a better idea about what worked and what did not. Formative assessments can be helpful in the process but should not be the basis on which major changes are made.

Task 2:

New perspectives: Throughout the course, the writer has gained new insight into the various types of assessments and their appropriate uses. Assessments cannot be used interchangeably. When they are well designed, they provide instructors with information about students that can be used to tailor instruction to specific needs. Assessments also provide information that should be used in the instructional design process, to build future courses or amend those already in existence, again for the purpose of best meeting student needs.

It is argued that in measuring learning of knowledge, skills and attitudes, it is often better to use a combination of assessment methods (Joosten ten-Brinke, Sluijmans, and Jochems, 2010, p. 55). There is so much teachers need to evaluate. To prepare students for success in today's global economy, there is a broad set of essential skills and abilities that include both practical abilities (e.g., written and oral communication, critical thinking, problem solving) and individual and personal responsibility outcomes (e.g., ethical reasoning, working with diverse others, integrating ones learning across academic boundaries) (Rhodes, 2010, p. 14). Assessments look at much more than content mastery.

Authentic assessments will enable this teacher to determine what students know and what deficiencies need to be addressed. The teacher who is in the classroom with students on a consistent basis is in the best position to observe them and meet their instructional needs. One of the challenges will always be constructing assessments that are fair and accurate measures of student progress. Writing a test that is unambiguous and comprehensive is a time-consuming task. Teachers do not always have time to construct their own assessments and may rely on publisher-created materials, such as chapter tests in textbooks. In some schools, teachers are required to use these tests because it standardizes assessment at the local level. Administrators sometimes feel that the tests should be used because they are part of the package; textbooks and accompanying materials (e.g., teachers' guides) are expensive, and it makes sense to use everything that has been paid for. The advantage is a test standardized at the school or district level, ensuring that all students have been exposed to the same course content. The disadvantage is the temptation to "teach to the test," which may not necessarily meet the needs of all students.

Portfolios are student-created and thus are sometimes forgotten in discussions of assessment. Nevertheless, portfolios are a valuable tool for providing information on student achievement. Grading can be complex and time-consuming, yet they may provide a more complete picture of a student's growth towards mastery.

High-stakes standardized tests are here to stay, even though many teachers do not like them. The public demand for teacher accountability will ensure these tests to not disappear. Like chapter tests that are used throughout a school or district that has adopted the same test, standardized tests are meant to ensure that students have equal access to an agreed-upon body of knowledge. That is what standards are for, to ensure that students are equally prepared, no matter what school or region of the country they come from. In theory, it is a sound idea, but there are problems in practice. Test performance may reflect factors over which teachers have no control, such as socioeconomics. Even something as seemingly simple as whether or not a student ate breakfast can have impact on test performance. Pressure associated with high-stakes testing has led, some teachers feel, to an inordinate amount of time spent on test prep activities. There are also reports of cheating, as stressed-out teachers do what they feel they must in order to help their students achieve good scores.

Challenges: Assessments should always have a purpose. One of the greatest challenges is going to be designing tests (or using ready-made instruments) that will provide useful information about the students and the instruction. Teachers can ensure tests are meaningful by determining what the results convey. Does a student need remedial instruction, or is she a candidate for the Gifted and Talented program? Recommendations for individual learning plans can be made on the basis of assessments. Did most students in class miss a particular question or group of questions? If so, it is likely a failure in instructional delivery rather than a pure student failure.