Why We Assess This Way

Focus on Student Growth

Learning is the primary focus we have for our PSSD students - both academically and behaviourally. The importance of learning is evidenced by the division Mission (Learning without limits in a world of possibilities) and Vision (Learners for Life).

Ultimately learning is about growing, and growing is about stretching beyond our present capabilities to master new knowledge and skills. This process of growing though involves missteps and errors; few among us are able to be successful on our initial attempts at learning something new. In PSSD we believe we need an assessment system that promotes student growth and learning, and avoid incentives that cause students to stagnate.

The main way that we promote learning is through ensuring students understand the learning targets, helping them realize where they are currently, and guiding them through their next steps in their journey towards new learning. All of this is best accomplished through feedback and conversations. It can be very efficient to simply score student evidence with a grade, but not all students are able to interpret grades and determine what they need to do next. Even more, research indicates that when students receive a score on their work, they often ignore any comments that may be present, whereas when there is no score but only comments, students will more readily reflect on the feedback provided which causes growth and learning. This is why one of our foundational beliefs in PSSD is that all students should get the opportunity to receive feedback on their learning before a score is provided for the outcome.

Finally, we assess in a manner where older evidence is replaced by newer evidence. We expect student performance to improve over time and also recognize that the outcomes of a course are what we expect students to know and be able to do by the END of the course (not the first week or even halfway through the course). Because of this, we have an expectation that when new evidence from a student shows that the older evidence is no longer valid, the old evidence is removed.

Distinguishing Between Behaviour and Academic Achievement

When it comes time to report progress to parents and students, the goal is to be as clear and accurate as possible - without overwhelming! One way to ensure that academic grades accurately reflect the academic ability of our students is to ensure that learning behaviours are not included into academic grades. Including aspects such as attendance, work ethic, preparedness, cooperativeness, etc., within the academic grade makes it unclear what portion of the score is because of learning behaviours and what part is because of academic achievement.

As an example, if a student is awarded a score of 70%, perhaps the student has a very solid grasp of the material but does not display good interpersonal skills. Perhaps another student receives the same score, has a fantastic attitude, but does not understand the material and needs more assistance. By combining these two aspects the grade does not effectively communicate the area of growth that needs to be addressed.

By separating academic achievement and learning behaviours, areas of strength and areas of future growth are more obvious.

Defined Levels of Academic Achievement

While giving feedback is the primary way to improve learning, there does come a point when using scores/grades can be valuable - this mainly occurs when it comes time to report learning, or when teachers are looking at a large body of evidence and need to look for the trends. Feedback is useful, but many of us appreciate a more efficient way to communicate and summarize data. Using a system of levels to score and communicate student learning can be valuable for this purpose.

Regardless of the system used, any score that is used is an attempt to be efficient; scores are simply a shorthand way to communicate. The key is to ensure that the levels used are defined, shared, and understood by everyone. Once this happens scores carry shared meaning, which is necessary for clear communication. In PSSD, the four levels of academic achievement are defined in relation to the outcomes covered in class. (See the "How We Report" page for specific information about the grading scales used in PSSD.) The benefit of having only four levels of achievement (as well as two levels indicating that the outcomes were not achieved) is that we can create descriptors that explain to everyone the difference between the levels. This is a huge advantage when compared to percentage grades where trying to define all 101 levels of the 0-100% scale is nearly impossible. In a four level system, the difference between mastery (being able to transfer what has been learned to new situations) and proficiency (understanding what was learned in class) can be explained, where in a percentage system it is very difficult to define the difference between a 73% and a 74% (or a 75%, or a 76%, etc.).

The ability to define levels also has a number of other benefits, which are detailed below.

Defined Levels: Clearer Communication

When levels are defined, communication carries more meaning - because they have a definition! The other benefit is that when a definition exists for a level, criteria can be developed that helps explain why student evidence fits into a certain level. Students can then use this success criteria to help them determine what they need to do to reach that level, or perhaps surpass it and take their next steps.

In addition, having a definition for each level makes the scoring of evidence more transparent for all groups involved. When criteria and descriptions are available and understood, teachers, students, and parents can apply that criteria to student evidence and determine the level of evidence - which, as is noted in the next section, is especially valuable for students!

Defined Levels: Students as Owners of Their Learning

Having defined levels can be beneficial in helping students determine their next steps. As noted on the "How We Assess" page, when students understand the learning destination and their current state they have what they need to determine their next steps. If students understand the criteria for the level that matches their current evidence, they have a good idea of their current state. As students learn to be more assessment literate, they can look at the criteria for the level above and determine what they need to do next to improve their knowledge and skills. For example, a student whose evidence is "Proficient" may look at the levels of achievement and see that in order to reach "Mastery" they need to be able to apply what they know to new contexts. With this knowledge, students can set about growing their skills and abilities. This is a critical skill in helping students own their learning journey and learn to be independent. With enough practice, students can "know what to do when they don't know what to do" - meaning they can independently problem solve, a valuable skill for all learners!

Defined Levels: Easier to Collect Triangulated Evidence

As noted on the "How We Assess" page, the term triangulated evidence means that evidence of student learning is collected through conversations, observations, and products. This evidence is collected to determine how students are progressing in their learning journey and, when appropriate, to report on progress. Collecting triangulated evidence is a recognition that students can demonstrate their understanding of an outcome in a wide variety of ways. Students win when we collect evidence of their learning through methods that highlight their strengths! (When possible - some learning outcomes still demand that learning be demonstrated in a specific format.)

When students demonstrate their learning in a variety of formats, a grading scale needs to be flexible enough to handle all these differences. Traditional point-counting systems typically struggle with different formats since points are awarded based on very narrow criteria. For example, points may be awarded for the correct terminology for a specific question on an exam (as part of a number of questions collecting evidence from a student). But in a conversation or observation, the terminology may emerge, but not in response to the specific that was on the exam - this makes counting all the points difficult. And in a point-counting system, the number of points is very important to calculate an accurate percentage grade.

Assessing with levels does not have this same issue. Because the levels are defined by level of understanding, regardless of whether the evidence comes in the form of a conversation, observation, or product, it is weighed against the criteria for the levels of achievement. Without the need to count exact points to determine a score, evidence can be collected in a variety of formats, which allows for more flexible and authentic opportunities for students to demonstrate what they know and can do.

Defined Levels: Consistent Scoring

Finally, the use of levels allows for more consistent scoring of student evidence (when it comes time to score evidence). A goal for any teacher is to have the same student evidence assessed at the same level of proficiency, regardless of which specific teacher is doing the assessing. Frustration becomes evident when the same product is awarded different scores by different teachers. A situation such as this is known as having very low interrater reliability. When using the percentage system, this issue is more likely than when using the a system of defined levels. Having a grading scale with less gradations or levels leads to better odds of different teachers awarding the same score to the same product (or having high interrater reliability). When levels have definitions attached, the chances of arriving at the same level are greatly increased.

Parents interested in exploring a full discussion on the topic of interrater reliability can read renowned assessment author Thomas Guskey's article, The Case Against Percentage Grades.