Reassessment vs. Reevaluation
By Michael Martinez, World Languages and Anthony Reibel, Assessment, Research & Evaluation
An assessment structure we sometimes see in education today is that of the “better luck next time” model. This model embraces assessment as a singular opportunity to show mastery or competency. Furthermore the teachers that deploy these models tend to state that a singular, culminating experience is how it works in the real world, one chance is all anyone gets. However, many of us know that this is not the real world.
Ken O’Connor, a renowned assessment and grading expert states that “In the real world, very little of consequence depends on a single opportunity for performance.” (pg. 143, 2009) O’Connor continues this argument as he cites examples within the areas of business, theatre and sport where performers are allowed multiple chances to rehearse, perform, or adjust as they develop competency. While we acknowledge that there will always exist a point in time that a final judgment of performance must be applied, the reality is we do get chances. This is an important part of our culture and therefore the same must hold true in schools.
In this new era of student growth, a reliable mechanism to measure student growth is through the practice of reperformance. Thomas Guskey, Professor of Education at the University of Kentucky says, “that assessment must be part of an ongoing effort to help students learn. And if teachers follow assessment with helpful corrective instruction then students should have a second chance to demonstrate their new level of competency and understanding. (pg 10, Guskey 2003)”
We consider re-performance, when done with fidelity, an essential part of learning. However the current state of reperformance is a confused mess. This confusion exists mainly because of a binary application of assessment, this means that there is one chance to perform and no chances in between.
Some practitioners tend to define reperformance in two ways either 1) hypo-assessment: long periods of time between performances, with little to no opportunities to react to feedback or 2) hyper-assessment: a high frequency assessment events occurring very close to one another. Hypo-assessment, while easier logistically, leaves the student with minimal opportunities to react to the feedback provided in the original performances. Hyper-assessment creates a logistically difficult teaching environment as the teacher is constantly assessing and reporting performance while the student may never feel an accountability to their learning. The ideal is to find a balance balance between these two definitions of reperformance.
To better help teachers find this balance we must understand two types of reperformance; reassessment and reevaluation.
Reassessment is defined as the act of repeating a singular event, maybe multiple times. In other words it is an injection of an opportunity that is not naturally occuring within the curricular assessment pattern. In the World Language classroom, this might be an interpersonal speaking assessment where a student has to have a conversation with a peer on a thematic topic. If the student fails to meet the target, feedback is given and the student develops a plan to remediate the areas that need work. After the remediation, the student attempts the assessment event again in order to show growth.
Reevaluation does refer directly to an event. It is defined as the act of reviewing evidence from assessments that occur naturally in a given curricular timeframe. It refers to the moments in time where the teacher will reexamine the evidence of student work, with consideration to the recent evidence. This practice is more common with targets, or learning, that do not logistically support a secondary attempt, such as a research based essay, comprehension demonstration of a text or a large project.
Reassessment, as described above, seems mirror to what the experts describe as the optimal approach to reperformance. Realistically a reassessment model at times can become logistically challenging to implement. For example, when a student is asked to read a large passage for comprehension, perform and then digest feedback it may be difficult for the student to go back read it again and answer the same comprehension questions.
However it may be possible for a team to provide multiple opportunities for a student to demonstrate their proficiency in this target within an amount of time not defined by a unit of study. This is the practice of reevaluation. Students are assessed, given feedback and then asked to use that feedback on the next assessment event(s) that naturally occurs within a given time period and is aligned to the same learning target as the preceding assessment(s). This reevaluation structure allows students to demonstrate growth towards or maintenance of proficiency through many different assessments and over longer periods of time. In addition, the higher amount of evidence produced by this structure gives a clearer picture of the student’s body of work.
We must remember that this is not an either/or conversation. Logistics in reperformance are an important part of the conversation. If teachers can implement a healthy balance of reassessment and reevaluation in their classrooms, they can begin to eliminate the “better luck next time” mindset in the interest of cultivating a mentality that fosters growth and motivates the students to take ownership of their learning.
Ken O’Connor, a renowned assessment and grading expert states that “In the real world, very little of consequence depends on a single opportunity for performance.” (pg. 143, 2009) O’Connor continues this argument as he cites examples within the areas of business, theatre and sport where performers are allowed multiple chances to rehearse, perform, or adjust as they develop competency. While we acknowledge that there will always exist a point in time that a final judgment of performance must be applied, the reality is we do get chances. This is an important part of our culture and therefore the same must hold true in schools.
In this new era of student growth, a reliable mechanism to measure student growth is through the practice of reperformance. Thomas Guskey, Professor of Education at the University of Kentucky says, “that assessment must be part of an ongoing effort to help students learn. And if teachers follow assessment with helpful corrective instruction then students should have a second chance to demonstrate their new level of competency and understanding. (pg 10, Guskey 2003)”
We consider re-performance, when done with fidelity, an essential part of learning. However the current state of reperformance is a confused mess. This confusion exists mainly because of a binary application of assessment, this means that there is one chance to perform and no chances in between.
Some practitioners tend to define reperformance in two ways either 1) hypo-assessment: long periods of time between performances, with little to no opportunities to react to feedback or 2) hyper-assessment: a high frequency assessment events occurring very close to one another. Hypo-assessment, while easier logistically, leaves the student with minimal opportunities to react to the feedback provided in the original performances. Hyper-assessment creates a logistically difficult teaching environment as the teacher is constantly assessing and reporting performance while the student may never feel an accountability to their learning. The ideal is to find a balance balance between these two definitions of reperformance.
To better help teachers find this balance we must understand two types of reperformance; reassessment and reevaluation.
Reassessment is defined as the act of repeating a singular event, maybe multiple times. In other words it is an injection of an opportunity that is not naturally occuring within the curricular assessment pattern. In the World Language classroom, this might be an interpersonal speaking assessment where a student has to have a conversation with a peer on a thematic topic. If the student fails to meet the target, feedback is given and the student develops a plan to remediate the areas that need work. After the remediation, the student attempts the assessment event again in order to show growth.
Reevaluation does refer directly to an event. It is defined as the act of reviewing evidence from assessments that occur naturally in a given curricular timeframe. It refers to the moments in time where the teacher will reexamine the evidence of student work, with consideration to the recent evidence. This practice is more common with targets, or learning, that do not logistically support a secondary attempt, such as a research based essay, comprehension demonstration of a text or a large project.
Reassessment, as described above, seems mirror to what the experts describe as the optimal approach to reperformance. Realistically a reassessment model at times can become logistically challenging to implement. For example, when a student is asked to read a large passage for comprehension, perform and then digest feedback it may be difficult for the student to go back read it again and answer the same comprehension questions.
However it may be possible for a team to provide multiple opportunities for a student to demonstrate their proficiency in this target within an amount of time not defined by a unit of study. This is the practice of reevaluation. Students are assessed, given feedback and then asked to use that feedback on the next assessment event(s) that naturally occurs within a given time period and is aligned to the same learning target as the preceding assessment(s). This reevaluation structure allows students to demonstrate growth towards or maintenance of proficiency through many different assessments and over longer periods of time. In addition, the higher amount of evidence produced by this structure gives a clearer picture of the student’s body of work.
We must remember that this is not an either/or conversation. Logistics in reperformance are an important part of the conversation. If teachers can implement a healthy balance of reassessment and reevaluation in their classrooms, they can begin to eliminate the “better luck next time” mindset in the interest of cultivating a mentality that fosters growth and motivates the students to take ownership of their learning.