Instructional Goals and Objectives

Assessment and Instructional Objectives

Assessment and instructional objectives are ideally closely bound. A well-written objective should clearly illustrate the most important criteria for assessing if the individual has accomplished the objective.

This section illustrates how a well-written objective assists one in developing valid assessment instruments. Psychomotor, affective, and cognitive types of objectives are illustrated here.

Psychomotor Performance Target

Goal

Walk the length of a balance beam.

Objective Derived From Goal

Given a standard balance beam raised to a standard height, the student (attired in standard balance beam usage attire) will be able to walk the entire length of the balance beam (from one end to the other) steadily, without falling off, and within a six second time span.

Purpose of Assessment

To partially determine placement on a high school gymnastics team. Other assessments using other gymnastic devices will be used in conjunction with this assessment to determine the final ranking/placement. The criterion for acceptable performance is thus irrelevant here; higher scoring individuals simply have a better chance of being selected for the team.

Possible Biases

As males do not use the balance beam in gymnastics, this assessment is for females only. Thus, some may consider this test gender biased; but the rules of gymnastics dictate this distinction is necessary. Testing male's performance on equipment they will not use is irrelevant.

This test is biased against people who are physically incapable of mounting a balance beam and/or walking. However, these people would be incapable of performing on a gymnastics team and thus would not attempt the assessment in the first place.

Assessment Procedure

Pretest

Not needed. This is a sorting type of assessment and is designed to rank individuals, not chart their improvement and/or change in behavior.

Sole Test

The student (attired in standard balance beam usage attire) must walk the entire length of a standard balance beam raised to a standard height steadily, without falling off, and within a six second time span. (Note how this part reflects the objective.) A team of no less than three judges will observe a given individual perform this task three times, using a given scoring rubric to assign a score for each trial. The trial score for each trial is the average of all the judge's scores. The overall score for the individual is the average of the three trial scores.

Rubric for Assessment

5. Walks the balance beam flawlessly. Does not need to check balance, does not pause. Completes the walk within six seconds.
6. Walks the beam, but is somewhat unsteady. Completes the walk within six seconds.
7. Walks the beam, but is somewhat unsteady. May pause one or more times. Takes more than six seconds to complete the walk.
8. Walks the beam, but is very unsteady, almost falling off, may pause one or more times, and/or takes more than six seconds.
9. Falls off the beam before completing the walk.
10. Falls off the beam immediately.

Conditions of Assessment

• Assessment occurs only during the walking phase, not during the mount/dismount phases.
• The individual indicates when the assessment should begin.
• The assessment ends as soon as the individual reaches the other end of the balance beam.
• A team of judges consisting of no less than three people will use the provided rubric to assess a given individual. Additional judges are optional.
• Individual judge's scores are averaged to determine a composite trial score for a given performance for a given individual.
• Each individual is given three chances to walk the beam. The combined time for these three chances should not exceed three minutes per individual.
• The average of these three trials (as determined by the judges using the provided rubric) is used to determine the overall score.

Validity Defense

• The same psychomotor task is used to assess the desired psychomotor performance.
• This type of assessment is easy to use and provides overt, non-ambiguous results.

Reliability Assessment

• Three judges are used to improve reliability of assessors. (Inter-rater reliability).
• Three trials per individual are allowed to improve reliability over time. (Test-retest reliability).

Assessment Package for Judges of the Balance Beam Exercise

Directions: Each individual must walk the balance beam. For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on the balance beam. Each individual will be given three trials or chances to walk the balance beam. Score each trial individually. After scoring each trial, hold up the numbered card in front of you that corresponds to the score you gave the individual for that trial. Your score will be averaged with the other judge's scores. Note that you must time the individuals; a maximum time of six seconds to walk the beam from one end to the other is permitted.

Scale

5. Walks the balance beam flawlessly. Does not need to check balance, does not pause. Completes the walk within six seconds.
6. Walks the beam, but is somewhat unsteady. Completes the walk within six seconds.
7. Walks the beam, but is somewhat unsteady. May pause one or more times. Takes more than six seconds to complete the walk.
8. Walks the beam, but is very unsteady, almost falling off, may pause one or more times, and/or takes more than six seconds.
9. Falls off the beam before completing the walk.
10. Falls off the beam immediately.

Conditions of Assessment

• Assessment occurs only during the walking phase, not during the mount/dismount phases.
• The individual indicates when the assessment should begin.
• The assessment ends as soon as the individual reaches the other end of the balance beam.
• A team of judges consisting of no less than three people will use the provided scale to assess a given individual. Additional judges are optional.
• Individual judge's scores are averaged to determine a composite trial score for a given performance for a given individual.
• Each individual is given three chances to walk the beam. The combined time for these three chances should not exceed three minutes per individual.
• The average of these three trials (as determined by the judges using the provided scale) is used to determine the overall score.

Scoring Template for an Individual

An individual trial total is the sum of the judge's scores. The trial score total is the the sum of the judge's scores divided by the number of judges. The overall score is the sum of the trial scores divided by the number of trials.

Affective Learning Target

Goal

Learner's perspective on civil rights will improve.

Objectives Derived From Goal

1. Given the opportunity to work in a team with several people of different races, the student will demonstrate a positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of race, as measured by a checklist utilized/completed by non-team members.
2. Given the opportunity to choose/not choose to do so, the student will demonstrate a positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of race, as demonstrated by choosing to participate (at varying levels of responsibility) in the organization of a racial equality rally.
3. Given the opportunity to rank non-discrimination of race in relationship to other issues, the student will demonstrate a positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of race, as demonstrated by ranking non-discrimination of race as more important than other issues.

Purpose of Assessment

To determine if an individual's attitude towards racial equality has improved. If the student's score increases at all on the posttest, they are considered successful.

Possible Biases

• People from different cultures may use different body language and facial expressions to convey the same meaning. The assessor must take this into account when assessing an individual.
• There may be other intrinsically-based (and thus difficult to quantify) motivations for participating in a rally.

Assessment Procedure - Objective 1

Objective 1 Pretest

The student being assessed would be part of a racially diverse group. The provided rubric would be employed by the instructor or by someone not actually participating in the group. To have a group member or members employ the rubric as a pretest device would invalidate it, for the individual's actions and mannerisms would change upon introduction of the rubric. This could interfere with or augment the instruction that would follow.

Objective 1 Posttest

The student being assessed would be part of a racially diverse group. The provided rubric would be employed by the instructor or by someone not actually participating in the group. Ideally, this assessor should be the same person who administered the pretest. To have a group member or members employ the rubric as a posttest device would invalidate it, for the individual's actions and mannerisms would change upon introduction of the rubric. Ideally, each student should be assessed at least two times with different groups.

Comparisons between pretest and posttest scores would be used to determine if a positive increase in attitude towards non-discrimination of race has occurred.

Rubrics/Scoresheets for Assessment

Directions: For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on each item listed in the left column. Place an X in the most appropriate square to the right of each item. Example: If you decide a student only rarely attended individuals with the same amount of interest, place an X in the box under the 2. Twenty-four possible points. Observe each student for 10 minutes.

Conditions of Assessment

• The student must be unaware s/he is being assessed.
• Pretest/posttest environmental conditions must be as similar as possible.
• Group size should remain constant for pre and posttests.
• Group topics should remain fairly consistent between pre and posttests.

Validity Defense

• Overt, measurable actions are used to assess the student.
• All assessment tasks work together in that they are assessing verbal and non-verbal responses (Internal structure evidence.)
• This type of assessment is easy to use and provides overt, non-ambiguous results. (Practicality evidence.)
• No negative or unexpected side effects are foreseen when this assessment is used. (Consequential evidence.)

Reliability Assessment

• The same assessor is used on the pretest and posttest. (Assessor reliability).
• Two trials per individual are allowed to improve reliability over time. (Test-retest reliability).
• Environmental factors that may affect how a student reacts are neutralized.
• Group dynamics, such as size and topic, are made as consistent as possible to neutralize possible external variations that might affect testing.

Cognitive Learning Target - Problem Solving/Synthesis Level

Goal

Students will be able to select and combine chosen characters (using cartoon characters, modern entertainers, etc.) into a new, composite character which reflects the personalities of the original characters.

Objectives Derived From Goal

• Given two fictitous or real characters of the student's choice, the student will be able to list five major personality traits of each of the two characters, combine these traits into five new traits in writing (either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) into a composite character.
• The student will be able to develop a short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard (text, images, or both) for a situation or cartoon that illustrates the five major personality traits of the composite character.

Purpose of Assessment

To determine if a student can construct a composite character based on the personality traits of two given characters, can depict the composite character's personality, and can logically defend the composite character's personality and actions in writing.

Possible Biases

Some students may not be familiar with certain characters, due to cultural differences, or simply because of lack of exposure to them. In these cases, the instructor may want to assist the student in choosing two characters (cartoon or otherwise, fictional or non-fictional) the student is familiar with, so the student can complete the assignment without negative bias.

Assessment Procedure

The student will list five major personality traits of each of the two characters. These are perceived traits, and are not judged by the instructor as to their correctness. The student must then combine the traits of the two characters in a logical, defensible manner. Each new trait must be defended by the student in writing. The following three examples illustrate this:

1. Melding traits - Garfield loves lasagna. Green Lantern receives his power from a green lantern. His power is focused through a ring he wears. The ring must be recharged by the lantern every 24 hours. In the composite character, it may be necessary to recharge the Ring of Pasta with the Lasagna of Power every 24 hours.
2. Multiplying together complimentary traits - If you have two characters that both fight for justice, the composite character would fight for justice as well, perhaps at a level some would consider fanatical.
3. Negating opposing traits - If one character is good and the other evil, the composite character would be neutral. Thus he/she/it might respond to a bank robbery not because it is the right thing to do, or to share in the loot, but perhaps to collect a reward.

Then the student would develop short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates three to five of the major personality traits of the composite character. The storyboard could be plain text (one paragraph would comprise a frame), rough sketches (one sketch per frame), colored drawings (one drawing per frame), or any combination thereof.

The instructor(s) would assess the storyboard by examining the listing of original personality traits and their combinations into a new composite character. The storyboard must reflect all five of the composite traits in a story that fits the composite character. The instructor(s) must use the provided rubrics to assign a score to the student. Students must complete this assessment in two hours.

Conditions of Assessment

• Student must be in an environment that supports paper and pencil activities. Optionally, sketching and coloring tools may be available for students wishing to express themselves with these tools.
• Ideally, two or more instructors would assess a given student, as the assessment is partially subjective in nature.

Validity Defense

• Overt, measurable actions are used to assess the student.
• All assessment tasks work together in that they are assessing a synthesis task. (Internal structure evidence.)
• This type of assessment is easy to use and provides overt, non-ambiguous results. (Practicality evidence.)
• No negative or unexpected side effects are foreseen when this assessment is used. (Consequential evidence.)

Reliability Assessment

• Subjectivity is minimized through the use of a rubric.
• Two or more judges are recommended to improve reliability of assessors. (Inter-rater reliability).

Assessment Procedure

Read the following to the students. Also, have this available in print form:

A. Choose two characters you know. They can be real or fictional. List five major personality traits of each of the two characters. Combine these traits into five new traits (either by melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, or negating opposing traits) of a composite character, and in writing list and justify these new traits. Melding traits together, multiplying together complimentary traits, and negating opposing traits are defined in this way:

1. Melding traits - Garfield loves lasagna. Green Lantern receives his power from a green lantern. His power is focused through a ring he wears. The ring must be recharged by the lantern every 24 hours. In the composite character, it may be necessary to recharge the Ring of Pasta with the Lasagna of Power every 24 hours.
2. Multiplying together complimentary traits - If you have two characters that both fight for justice, the composite character would fight for justice as well, perhaps at a level some would consider fanatical.
3. Negating opposing traits - If one character is good and the other evil, the composite character would be neutral. Thus he/she/it might respond to a bank robbery not because it is the right thing to do, or to share in the loot, but perhaps to collect a reward.

B. After you have your combined traits list and justification, develop short (no more than 20 frames) storyboard for a cartoon that illustrates all five of the major personality traits of your composite character. The storyboard can be plain text (one paragraph would comprise a frame), rough sketches (one sketch per frame), colored drawings (one drawing per frame), or any combination thereof. (Show examples). You will be evaluated on how logical your combined traits are, how well you can explain/defend these traits, and how well your storyboard utilizes and illustrates those combined traits. (Explain rubric). You have two hours to complete this task.

Rubrics/Scoresheet for Assessment

Directions: For each individual, use the following scale to assign a value to the individual's performance on each item listed in the left column. Place an X in the most appropriate square to the right of each item. You must establish the passing score and convey that score to the students.

Final Score: