21st Century Assessment Reporting

Challenges

There were many challenges Mr. Ho and his team faced when they marked their students' tests using levels and then converted the levels into a percentage for reporting.  First, if a student wrote a test with two questions, one scored as level 3+ (77%-79%) and another scored as level 2– (60%-62%) using some levelled marking scheme, what would the overall average of this test be?  Remember that level 3+ and level 2– correspond to a range of marks, not one particular mark.  How should Mr. Ho and his team report to this student his/her overall test average?  Next, what if Mr. Ho and his team now interpreted level 3+ as B+ and level 2– as C–?  Could they then calculate the average between B+ and C–?  This was another challenge because they could not apply an arithmetic mean to qualitative measures, such as letter grades or levels, unless they first converted levels to numerical marks.

Now, let's consider converting level 3+ and level 2– to their numerical marks first before calculating their average.  However, how do they determine the numerical mark for level 3+, for example?  According to the Ontario Math Curriculum document, level 3 refers to any mark between 70% and 79%, inclusive.  Some teachers would then consider level 3+ as a range of marks from 77% to 79%.  Should the teacher now convert level 3+ to 77%, 78%, or 79%?  Which one should the teacher pick and why?  This is another challenge.

Another challenge in marking the students' tests based on levels was that, for example, if a student made one mistake, should the teacher deduct one sublevel from this student's work?  How much should one sublevel be worth?  Would it be fair to deduct this much or this little?  If not, then how many mistakes would a student need to make before getting one sublevel off in his/her work?  This was another challenge that Mr. Ho and his team faced.

Proposed Solution: 21st Century Assessment Reporting

Mr. Ho and his colleague, Mr. Karim, proposed that the math teacher would continue to mark their students' tests using their traditional method of marking, but attach a new one-page summary rubric report to the front of each student's test at the end of the marking.  Here is how Mr. Ho's and Mr. Karim's proposed solution works.

First, as in the traditional method of marking, the math teacher would continue to give 1 mark for each correct key step the students show in each question of the test.  For each mistake the students make, the math teacher would deduct 0.5 marks or 1 mark, depending on professional judgment (e.g., minor careless mistakes or major conceptual mistakes).  Then, the math teacher would calculate the weighted average of marks of all questions based on the four categories of knowledge and skills (i.e., knowledge/understanding, application, thinking, and communication).  

Next, to meet the Ontario Math Curriculum document's requirements for informing math students of their achievements using levels, the math teacher would convert the numerical overall test mark into a rubric level and then attach a one-page summary rubric report that describes their students' overall achievements using levels with descriptive and meaningful feedback to the front of the test.  This proposal would, therefore, resolve all the challenges mentioned earlier and also meet the requirements of reporting student achievements using levels in the Ontario Math Curriculum document.  Mr. Ho and Mr. Karim called their proposal the 21st century assessment reporting.