See Instructions

Student Evaluation Terminology

Evaluation has become, in a sense, a central part of education, insofar as performance indicators are generally used to observe and advance students within the system. As a result, assessment types are often emphasized today in the educational setting. However, as this discussion shows, the mixed methodologies informing these assessment frameworks also informs the mix of positive and negative impacts experienced by students. Even more, the very terminology which is applied to this discussion bears with it implications that impact our general perception of student competence and improvement. Indeed, one of the core discussions in our course concerns the language used to describe the process of evaluating student performances, with different voices in the academic discourse offering different ideas on how best to describe this process.

According to Popham, for instance, there is a bevy of terms which can be used to described the process. He includes among them assessment, measurement and testing, which he determines are fairly identical concepts. To his perception, these are static semantic issues which all essentially describe the same interest of monitoring and qualifying student performance metrics. With this in mind though, we note that as a direct contrast, Kizlik contends nothing less than the notion "that understanding the differences between measurement, assessment, and evaluation is fundamental to the knowledge base of teaching, and certainly to the processes employed in the education of future teachers." (Kizlik, 1) and quite certainly, the implication here is a heightened interest in the nuances of individuality in education, with the terms of measurement and testing specifically seeming to suggest something of a static measuring stick and a rigid understanding of that which qualifies as adequate or excellent performance. As Kizlik argues, this has something of a stultifying impact on the student's comfort within the context of his or her responsibilities. Namely, his article denotes that there is a potential harm to the quality of using strictly 'measurement,' which he determines is used to describe the dimensions and observable characteristics of a 'physical object.'

This perception alludes to a certain inflexibility which might be fundamentally obscuring of real performance values and indicators.

The same may be said of 'testing,' if we are to leave this concept to stand on its own. While many educators are rather comfortable with this terminology, it is a concept which is intimidating to many students. The desire to view learning as an opportunity is here, semantically overshadowed by the perception that one is being given a pass/fail consideration. Combining the punitive perception of testing with the implications of measurement to the bypassing of individual learning standards can be very damaging both to a student's desire to achieve and to the educator's ability to create standards and approaches which address individuals rates and styles of learning.