The trend to complement paper-and-pencil assessments with performance assessments continues at full speed in social studies. Paper-and-pencil tests remain valuable, of course: even advocates of newer approaches recognize that these have their place in a student's portfolio. Such tests can help teachers gather data on how well students understand important concepts and their ability to recall key information. To most teachers and parents, this kind of assessment matters.
Performance assessments serve a different purpose: They help teachers find out whether and how well students can translate this knowledge into action (Airasian 1994). Here, students are asked to carry out a real task—for example, to map the playground, or to present a closing statement in a trial. In doing so, they use and apply information, understandings, and abilities in a specific context—for example, deciding where to locate a swing set, or persuading jurors to acquit Socrates.
In combination, paper-and-pencil tests and performance assessments can provide rich information about student learning.
Devising Criteria and Standards
Social studies teachers who are developing performance assessments face two vexing problems: (1) the need to correlate assessment tasks with the curriculum, and (2) the need to devise scoring rubrics to determine how well students have performed.
The challenge in correlating the tasks with the curriculum is to make sure the assessment is not designed for its own sake, irrespective of the curriculum, but to help students and their teachers find out how well students have learned, or are learning, essential subject matter. This problem also arises with paper-and-pencil tests, of course; indeed, they are notorious for having little to do with valued curriculum objectives.
As for devising scoring rubrics, the problem is to decide on both the criteria and the standards to be used in assessing student performance. Bear in mind that a rubric is “a predetermined set of criteria that will be used to score a student's performance” (McCollum 1994). The criteria, which correspond to performance standards, are the specific aspects of a task—the specific behaviors—that are most important to its successful completion. Standards are gradations of performance based on that criteria. On a rating scale, each criterion in the set will be worth three, four, or five points.
Oakland County's Approach
Among the most valued outcomes of social studies curriculums is the students' ability to understand—and practice—democracy. To assess a student's grasp of the concept of democracy—its history, variants, and the conditions that support it and undermine it—teachers can use traditional paper-and-pencil tests.
But how can teachers evaluate students' ability to put democratic principles into action? In particular, to discuss public issues in small heterogeneous groups in a reasonable, informed, and civilized way—in other words, to engage in civic discourse? This is where performance assessments come in.
Some of the best work in using performance assessments to see how good students are at civic discourse is being done in Oakland County, Michigan. County social studies specialists David Harris and Michael Yocum identified 14 performance criteria (fig. 1) on which to assess students, 6 of which are substantive and 8, procedural. They then developed a four-point rating scale (fig. 2). Students are given one score for the substantive criteria and another for the procedural criteria.
Figure 1. Performance Criteria for Civic Discourse
Substantive
States and identifies issues
Uses foundational knowledge
Stipulates claims or definitions
Elaborates statements with explanations, reasons, or evidence
Recognizes values or value conflict
Argues by analogy
Procedural
Positive
Acknowledges the statements of others
Challenges the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements
Summarizes points of agreement and disagreement
Invites contributions from others
Negative
Makes irrelevant, distracting statements
Interrupts
Monopolizes the conversation
Engages in personal attack
Figure 2. Scoring Rubric for Assessing Civic Discourse
Trends: Social Studies / Assessing Civic Discourse - table
Exemplary (3) | Adequate (2) | Minimal (1) | Unacceptable (0) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive | Weighs multiple perspectives on a policy issue and considers the public good; or uses relevant knowledge to analyze an issue; or employs a higher order discussion strategy, such as argument by analogy, stipulation, or resolution of a value conflict. | Demonstrates knowledge of important ideas related to the issue, or explicity states an issue for the group to consider, or presents more than one viewpoint, or supports a position with reasons or evidence. | Makes statements about the issue that express only personal attitudes, or mentions a potentially important idea but does not pursue it in a way that advances the group's understanding. | Remains silent, or contributes no thoughts of his or her own, or makes only irrelevant comments. |
| Procedural | Engages in more than one sustained interchange, or summarizes and assesses the progress of the discussion. Makes no comments that inhibit others' contributions, and intervenes if others do this. | Engages in an extended interchange with at least one other person, or para-phrases important statements as a transition or summary, or asks another person for an explanation or clarification germane to the discussion. Does not inhibit others' contributions. | Invites contributions implicitly or explicitly, or responds constructively to ideas expressed by at least one other person. Tends not to make negative statements. | Makes no comments that facilitate dialoque, or makes statements that are primarily negative in character. |
Teachers may assess students' performance based on these criteria by directly observing a small group discussion, or by videotaping the discussion for later viewing. Based on field tests Harris and Yocum conducted, they recommend a group of five or six students and a discussion that lasts 15–20 minutes.
Before assessment can be meaningful, the learning target—civic discourse—must be clarified for both teachers and students. To help teachers use the rubric, inservice education is needed. Teachers then need to introduce the rubric to students.
Sixth grade teachers in Oakland County are using this scoring rubric to assess their students' achievement of 1 of the 13 curriculum objectives for that grade: Students will participate constructively in substantive discussions of contemporary public issues faced by people living in Canada and Latin America.
Eighth and eleventh grade American history teachers can use the same rubric for improving their students' ability to discuss public issues. It should also be a good resource for helping students think and talk about current events.
A detailed description of this rubric will appear in Handbook on Teaching Social Issues (Evans and Saxe), to be issued by the National Council for the Social Studies in 1996.
