Introduction
The acquisition and accumulation of new knowledge through the learning process is a crucial component of education. A critical aspect of this process involves the presentation of new material to students, followed by its adaptation and evaluation of the student’s understanding of the topic. This is necessary to ensure that students have correctly learned the material being studied and can move on to the next topic.
Without analyzing the mistakes made and correcting them with the students, the learning system will not be as effective as intended. Identifying problem areas in students’ knowledge can motivate them to learn if approached correctly. Thus, assessment systems become one of the most critical aspects of the educational process.
Main Body
One of the most common and effective methods of assessing student knowledge is through a diagnostic assessment. This method implies that the teacher collects data on what students have already learned on the topic they are studying. Such type of testing can take place as a process of answering a series of written questions that reveal the student’s attitude to the topic and their awareness of it (Soeharto et al., 2019). This method aims to identify the level at which students are intellectually and emotionally. In diagnostic assessment, Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) can be implemented as a minute paper.
Such a way means that at the end of the lesson, the teacher conducts a short oral or written survey to determine the student’s level of understanding of the material (Cseh & Jeffries, 2019). In this manner, a good level of diagnostics can be achieved, and comprehension scores can be improved in the following sessions. A diagnostic assessment can be applied at the end of the lesson as it tests the topic just learned.
Another approach to verifying student knowledge is through formative assessment, which involves constant monitoring of the educational process by the teacher. The complete guidance of the teacher over the learning process can positively affect the perceptual capabilities of students. This is explained by the fact that there is always a person to whom a student can turn for advice or ask a question on the topic in such learning conditions (Prashanti & Ramnarayan, 2019).
In addition, formative assessment provides for the presence of feedback, which is implemented in order to better understand the needs of students. Thus, when assessing their understanding of the material, the teacher can rely on those points that are unclear to each student. For this estimation strategy, the muddiest point can be implemented as an example of CAT (Cseh & Jeffries, 2019). The technique involves posing a single concise inquiry to students in order to identify which aspect of the topic is the most confusing to them. The formative assessment can be used at any time during the lesson or after, as it can be the closing one for a topic or the opening one if asking about a previous topic.
The third method of testing is a summative assessment, which is much more formal than the previous one. It differs because it is carried out as part of a well-defined program to determine how much students have learned from a whole cascade of topics (Bazvand & Rasooli, 2022). This type of assessment takes place at the end of a specific period of study, which could be a year or a semester. Thus, teachers will be able to check how well the students perceived the information throughout the entire training period. Part of this assessment could be the CAT, which is the principal method that involves students solving a problem through the use of their problem-solving skills.
The fourth type of testing students’ knowledge is ipsative assessment, which provides a test form. However, it differs from the previous ones in that it requires a student to choose one of the acceptable options (Seery et al., 2019). In this situation, the determination of the success of passing the test does not depend on the choice of the correct answer but on the most optimal and appropriate for a particular situation. Thus, the testing makes students uncomfortable, forcing them to choose only one suitable option. The ipsative assessment can be implemented before the start of training since one of its goals is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the students. In this case, the CAT background knowledge probe may be suitable for this option since it is a simple test before starting a new topic.
The fifth way to test students is the norm-referenced assessment, characterized by the fact that it sets clear limits within which the student must complete the work. Such sets specific additional difficulties, overcoming which the student learns to better select information and use critical thinking (Lockwood et al., 2022). This type of evaluation differs because it does not use points for evaluation and a representative scale showing compliance with specified standards. As part of the assignment, a defining features matrix can be used, which implies some restrictions on the layout and sorting of material and is a suitable example of a norm-referenced assessment (Cseh & Jeffries, 2019). A similar task is most suitable for carrying out at the end of specific topics because, in this way, it will be possible to set more precise parameters for testing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it should be said that the selection of an appropriate student assessment system plays a crucial role in evaluating their level of preparedness. Thus, the choice of the preferred testing system depends more on the curriculum planners or on the teachers. The listed methods of assessment may be suitable for testing knowledge in any field of science, while each focuses on different aspects of the educational process. The studied methods of assessing students’ knowledge can help the teacher’s work by revealing students’ weaknesses.
References
Bazvand, A. D., & Rasooli, A. (2022). Students’ experiences of fairness in summative assessment: A study in a higher education context. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 72. Web.
Cseh, G. M., & Jeffries, K. K. (2019). A scattered CAT: A critical evaluation of the consensual assessment technique for creativity research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 159. Web.
Lockwood, A. B., Farmer, R. L., Schmitt, M., Sealander, K., Lanterman, C., & Adkins, M. (2022). The course on norm‐referenced academic assessment: A survey of special education faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2), 398-412. Web.
Prashanti, E., & Ramnarayan, K. (2019). Ten maxims of formative assessment. Advances in physiology education, 43(2), 99-102. Web.
Seery, N., Buckley, J., Delahunty, T., & Canty, D. (2019). Integrating learners into the assessment process using adaptive comparative judgement with an ipsative approach to identifying competence based gains relative to student ability levels. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(4), 701-715. Web.
Soeharto, S., Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247-266. Web.