1

Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION

Philosophy of Measurement and Evaluation

Kathryn Pawelko

University of Idaho
2
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
Philosophy of Measurement and Evaluation:

Mastery-based curriculum and assessment within History, Spanish, and English

Measurement and Evaluation is an important area of consideration within content area

curriculum and educational contexts. I recognize that evaluation must include fair, valid, and

multiformat assessment to provide instructors with the ability to recognize learner needs and

communicate individual strengths to students and parents to improve performance. However,

evaluation is also a contentious topic among teachers, students, and parents due to concerns of

“teaching to the test,” academic competition, and standardization of curriculum through tests.

My personal philosophy of evaluation and assessment is influenced by my own

experiences as a student and teacher within the U.S. and Spanish educational systems; as such, I

intend to implement mastery-based curriculum and assessment within my History, Spanish, and

English content-area classrooms. Mastery-based learning supports my believes in continuous

evaluation of content-area knowledge and skills through formative and summative assessments.

Furthermore, mastery-based assessments allow for individual preferences which promote fair

conditions that consider race, gender, culture, and socioeconomic status. Finally, I believe that

mastery-based assessment promotes standards-based grading to increase accurate communication

between instructors and parents and students. Ultimately, I believe that mastery-based learning

and assessment promotes learner self-evaluation and improvement through recognized learner

effort and needed areas of improvement.

Learner-focused curriculum and assessment

As an instructor, I intend to implement mastery-based learning and assessment initially

proposed by Benjamin Bloom in the 1960s. Mastery-based learning evaluates student

achievement through multi-format formative assessments allowing students to continue the

3
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
curriculum once they have proved “mastery” of a specific standard within the content area. As

such, mastery-based learning is learner-centered; this method allows students to recognize their

own strengths and continue practicing required skills within the content area until they are able

to demonstrate understanding of the content area. Learners are encouraged to improve at their

own pace through a content-area curriculum; this practice encourages learner awareness of

preferred learning style while promoting learner independence and responsibility for academic

achievement.

As a future teacher, I value the flexibility of mastery-based learning and assessment;

however, I also recognize the inherent challenge of maintaining multiple-curriculum levels

within a single classroom. To promote mastery-based curriculum and assessment, it is important

that I communicate expectations and a calendar of “end dates” to promote learner achievement.

This measurement and evaluation method must also provide resources to promote the

development of individual skills through in-class and at-home resources such as Kahan

Academy. It is imperative that students are made aware of the system and its value in order to

increase by in and promote learner self-evaluation on a day-to-day level.

Inclusion of Standards

Furthermore, I value the incorporation of state and national standards in mastery-based

learning and assessment. By pre-identifying standards, learners and instructors are able to

communicate regarding academic expectations and required skills. Inclusion of standards within

assessment assists the instructor in identifying the validity of a specific concept or skill within a

content area and ensures support from a vertical curriculum. Furthermore, inclusion of standards

maintains national and state goals following established common core curriculum; this practice
4
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
promotes engagement in education at all levels (national, state, and local) and ensures high-

standards to all learners.

Furthermore, assessment of individual standards provides teachers with a method to self-

evaluate their methodology, assignments, and instruction. This practice will remove “filler”

assignments and promote conscientious development of materials, lessons, and assessments. As a

new teacher, I must recognize that incorporation of assessments will take additional time and

support to achieve; however, in identifying specific standards in all lessons, materials, and

assessments I will ensure an inclusive curriculum across all content-areas while promote learner

awareness of their own achievement.

Multiple-means of assessment

Also, mastery-based evaluation and assessment encourages learners to demonstrate their

learning in a variety of formats. By providing students with multiple means to express their

learning (through traditional methods such as essays, multiple choice, etc. as well as “non-

traditional” methods such as videos, collages, etc.), mastery-based assessment self-differentiates

to meet learner needs and preferences. Students may also specialize their assessment to areas of

interest or needed skill-development to promote learner engagement within content areas which

are traditionally difficult to evaluate.

As such, I will need to develop flexible rubrics following standards and assist students in

understanding these tools to develop awareness of instructor expectation and assessment

methods. I will also need to identify how each assessment may be adapted to assist learners in

competing in traditional assessment and evaluation methods (such as the state and national high-

stakes testing). By identifying both learner needs and interests as well as the importance of state

standards, I hope to create assessment which is learner-centered while preparing students for
5
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
highly competitive exams in a natural way. Thus, rather than “teaching to the test” I will help

students to self-identify areas of weakness and develop strategies to overcome these challenges.

In the future, I will need to develop connections with other content-area instructors to

develop appropriate rubrics and grading practices. Development of portfolios may also

strengthen learner awareness of development and skills and serve as a tool to communicate

growth over time; this practice is particularly important for differently-abled learners. However,

it is important that I also develop whole classroom pre- and post- tests to identify student

learning throughout the class through norm- and criterion- referenced standards. These

assessments do not need to be graded but will serve as evidence by which I may make

instructional and content-area decisions.

Grading

It is important to recognize that mastery-based measurement and evaluation will take

time to develop and implement within a classroom; however, I intend to immediately begin using

a 0-4 grading standard (0=50%, 1=65%, 2=75%, 3=85%, 4=95%, 4+= 100%) to identify student

achievement on specific assignments while encouraging re-evaluation of specific skills.

Assessment will include specific references to standards weighted by importance within the

content area (for example, in an English class incorporation of English conventions may be

weighted at 10% and then evaluated based on below-standard proficiency, meets, above, or

excellent).

By evaluating students on this scale, I will be encouraged to provide additional feedback

to recognize learner strengths and weaknesses for each standard; furthermore, as a

communication tool learners will identify how they can improve within a specific area. This will

increase learner and parent awareness and increase communication with parents Finally, as no
6
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
assignment will be worth 0 (unless it is not turned in) students will be encouraged to “test” new

skills or ideas without fear of negative repercussions with grades.

Content-Area Considerations

History, Spanish, and English content-area curriculums are notoriously difficult to assess

due to learner differences and the multiple skills which are necessary to acquire. Mastery-based

learning and assessment provides me with a model by which I am able to identify learner

development through pre-identified standards using flexible assessment and instruction. By

developing learning and assessment in a flexible way, I will be able to incorporate learner

differences (including race, gender, culture, language, and socioeconomic) to recognize how

individual backgrounds and learner preferences influence learning within the subject areas. This

method also allows me to promote learner engagement through recognition of individual

interests within the standardized curriculum. Furthermore, by promoting multiple means of

assessment, students may incorporate History, English, and Spanish standards with other content

areas to increase communication across the secondary curriculum.

Communication to the Wider Community

I currently evaluate students at the University of Idaho using a Mastery-Based

assessment model; I find that students are both confused by the grades but also recognize the

benefits of attaching specific assignments to individual standards. Learners are able to see where

they need additional practice and “reevaluate” assignments to demonstrate higher proficiency

and skill levels. As such, students are able to self-identify their specific learning style and skills

and areas which need additional supports through one-on-one conferences. However, while this

works in a university classroom, I have recently observed misunderstandings regarding mastery-

based learning and assessment within the Moscow, Idaho community.

7
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
As such, I believe it is important to help students and parents recognize how this method

assists learners and its comparison to “traditional” evaluation. This will require substantial

support from administrators at the school and district level as well as discussions of how this

method allows students to compete with other schools, classes, etc. for important benefits such as

scholarships or financial support. However, I fully believe that when provided with research and

compared to traditional school grades and practices (for example, parents may still receive

traditional “grades” allowing for easy communication and transfer), students and parents will

recognize the benefits of this system to promoting whole-learner achievement.

Instructor Evaluation

Finally, while I recognize the benefits of mastery-based learning and assessment for

secondary learners, the methods are equally valid to evaluate instructor teaching methods and

assignments. By breaking formative and summative assessments into specific standards, I may

self-identify which areas students are struggling in and adapt the curriculum to meet these

individual learner needs. Furthermore, if I continue to not see improvement in learner

assessments, I may work with other professionals to identify my own strengths and deficiencies

as an instructor.
8
Running head: PHILOSOPHY OF MEASUREMENT AND EVALUATION
Works Cited:

Popham, W. J., (2012).  Classroom Assessment: What Teachers Need to Know, 8th ed.

ISBN-13: 978-0-13-489463-8