Media embedded on December 1, 2024

As an English teacher, what type of assessment to use to evaluate student learning is always a consideration when creating a new unit. Assessment has always played such a fundamental role within the classroom because state mandated testing has always governed assessments to deem whether or not a student is performing at grade level. But as any teacher will tell you, standardized testing or most summative assessments only offer a snapshot of what a student is capable of at a given moment rather than what he/she actually learned through the process or lesson unit. It is quite mind boggling the time and effort that goes into preparing students to take a state mandated standardized test with the hopes of convincing the state that a school’s teachers are doing their part to educate today’s youth. Summative assessments are intended to measure student learning at the end of a unit whereas formative assessments are meant to monitor student learning throughout the unit to provide continuous feedback to optimize student learning and growth. Some argue that summative are a true picture of what knowledge a student has acquired at the end of a unit rather than “poking and prodding” the students throughout the learning process.

As I progressed as a teacher, I quickly realized that to truly assess student learning, assessments have to dig deeper than just filling out a scantron sheet or simply regurgitating information through repetition. The first half of my career was spent teaching seventh graders the fundamentals of grammar and writing. While that was somewhat frustrating yet rewarding, I have relished the second half of my career as I have had the privilege of teaching at the high school level. While most students would prefer not to take English (regardless of grade level), I do at least feel that most of my high school students understand the need to be able to write coherently or at least create a piece of work that can be appreciated – not necessarily by me but rather their peers. Throughout my years of teaching, I have spent a great deal of time evaluating the various assessments I use in the classroom with the hopes of determining which ones highlight student growth. While there are times that a simple summative assessment will gauge the effectiveness of the lesson being taught, more often than not I prefer to use formative assessments in my classroom.

 

                                               Media embedded on December 1, 2024

My experience with both summative and formative assessments has driven my desire to continuously identify or create assessments that are a true representation of what my students know and how effectively they can apply that knowledge to the task at hand. This has proven to be a more equitable tool to measure growth as well as giving students a more expressive outlet in their learning. Formative assessments do not always generate the data that you would acquire from a summative assessment, but you are still able to monitor individual growth through pre and post assessments. My students are more relaxed when it comes to formative assessments because the tasks are usually more self-paced where as many of them become quite nervous or agitated with summative assessments. They feel as though they are under fire to perform within a time constraint that they otherwise would not be required to meet. I refer to summative assessments much like that of being on a firing range. Students are expected to hit the bullseye as fast as they can, as many times as they can. Where as with formative assessments, students can outline their game plan and put into action with each step of creating the assessment.

With formative assessments being so challenging or arduous, teachers will often revert back to summative assessments. Formative assessments often provide students with various ways for fulfilling the final ‘testing’ require which many believe can be interpreted in various ways which may or may not mean growth took place. After analyzing the results of a study conducted by Kingston and Nash, McMillan (2013) stated “The effect of formative assessment on K-12 student achievement may not be as robust as widely believed. The questionable quality of their methodologies, and multiple ways formative assessments were defined and operationalized, often without inclusion of recognized formative assessment characteristics that are needed for successful practice.” This goes back to the formative assessment process has various strategies that must be adhered to in order for it to be effective which can often be a deterrent for many educators.

While both summative and formative assessments measure student achievement, it is important for educators to determine the best form of assessment based on the material being taught. Wei (2010) states, “Assessments refer to all those activities undertaken by teachers, and by students in assessing themselves, which provides information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they are engaged” (p. 838). Standardized or summative assessments offer immediate feedback, while formative assessments require a great deal of evaluation in an effort to adjust one’s instructional experience. Even though formative assessments are time consuming, it assists students in understanding their deficits and how to adjust their learning. Clark (2012) states, “…formative assessment hinges on the strategic adaptation of instruction to meet student needs. This entails collaborative activity between adults and students as mutual partners who share responsibility and play different roles” (p. 211). Such collaboration is often viewed as being unrealistic when there is one teacher responsible for the growth of a room full of students. The success of formative assessments relies heavily on the creativity of the students or their willingness to think outside the box; students have to be willing to play a role in the learning process.

                                          Media embedded on December 11, 2024

Even with the commitment of the students, formative assessments can be difficult for an instructor to effectively implement and maintain if he or she is not fully versed in the process or committed to every step of the procedure that completes the circle. Schildkamp (2020) states, One of the problems in implementation of formative assessment is that often only certain ‘principles’ of formative assessment have been adopted, with much consideration of the broader implications for classroom practice. Formative assessment is not an add-on activity, but rather needs to be an integrated element of instruction.” If it is not implemented the way it was designed, formative assessments leave the teacher believing you will get more accurate data from summative assessments. If the process is not implemented from beginning to end, the student is not likely to retain the information or show growth.

Most teachers would agree that the preeminent teaching tool in the classroom is that of hands-on experience. In a constructivist learning environment, students are active participants in the learning process. As Shah (2019) states, “An individual’s own learning experience shapes his unique perspective about the process of education which in turn influences his/her decisions as an administrator, a manager, a policy maker, etc.” (p. 1). Every teacher would give anything for his or her students to walk into the classroom with all the knowledge needed to easily excel at the next level but rarely does that ever happen. It is the responsibility of the teacher to provide students with the skills to transfer new knowledge into new skills – a mental examination that permits growth and creativity through experience. These experiences are often related to the real world and how we convert new knowledge to either build upon what we already know or abort our prior knowledge to adopt a new understanding of old information. Bada (2015) states, “People construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world, through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences. When we encounter something new, we have to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experiences, maybe changing what we believe, or maybe discarding the new information as irrelevant” (p. 67). In the classroom, the constructivist theory is allowing students to actively engage themselves in the experiences or techniques being taught to acquire new knowledge, but then to reflect on that knowledge and determine if their understanding has changed or slightly altered. Either way, students should have a deeper understanding of a prior topic or technique and how they can use that knowledge to rise to the next level of learning.

                                             Media embedded on December 1, 2024

As an English teacher, I do a lot of self and peer review/assessment in my classroom. I feel this is an opportunity for students to really engage in the learning process and view other students’ work to absorb other’s thoughts and writing style. By allowing the students to share in the learning process, they discover new ways to transform their own writing. Shah (2019) states, “Students transform from a passive recipient of information to an active participant in the learning process. Students construct their knowledge actively rather than just mechanically ingesting knowledge from the teacher or the textbook” (p. 5). Through the constructivism theory and peer assessment, students are constructing their own beliefs rather than simply accepting what the classroom or world has to offer. When teachers allow their students to interact with one another as well as the world, they formulate their own values and actively participate in shaping the world’s belief system.

                                                Media embedded on December 1, 2024

In correlation with the constructivist approach is that of the zone of proximal development. The zone is the gap where a student’s knowledge is challenged and the teacher steps in to assist him or her to be successful at the next level. Sabani (2010) states, “Vygotsky describes the zone of proximal development as the current or actual level of development of the learner and the next level attainable through the use of environmental tools and capable adult or peer facilitation” (p. 238). Every student has a level of learning that they can acquire independently, but that level of learning can be increased when provided with assistance either from the teacher or a student’s peers. When students have the opportunity to bounce ideas off of one another or simply talk through new knowledge with an instructor, they can often deduct a new level of understanding or simply determine how to apply that knowledge to prior knowledge. Allal (2000) states, “Vygotsky introduced the notion of the zone of proximal development in an effort to deal with two practical problems in educational psychology: the assessment of children’s intellectual abilities and the evaluation of instructional practices” (p. 138). Instruction and assessment are often viewed as two separate entities, but as learning takes place as well as students demonstrating growth, the relationship between the two has come into question. Is instruction and assessment independent of one another or do they complement each other?

	Perspective 1: Integration of teaching in assessment	Perspective 2: Integration of assessment in teaching
Educational Aims	Optimize assessment	Optimize assessment
	Diagnosis of learning difficulties and prediction of learning potential	Analysis of teaching-learning processes
	Decisions about placement and about allocation of instructional resources	Decisions about regulation and differentiation of classroom instruction
	Construction of special programs of cognitive education	Development of student implication in assessment
Objects of Assessment	General cognitive structures	Understanding of subject-matter knowledge
	Cognitive and metacognitive functions	Mastery of meaningful tasks in context
	General conative dispositions	Strategies of self-regulation and engagement in school activities
Assessment Procedures	Test-teach-test paradigm (or variations thereof)	Interactive regulation of learning-teaching processes
	Standardization of assessment tasks	Variable tasks according to content and classroom setting
	Highly scripted teaching interventions	Individualized, non-scripted teacher interventions
	Quantitative data with good psychometric properties	Qualitative observations (minimal instrumentation and record-keeping)
Relationship to the ZPD	Assessment of the ZPD	Assessment in the ZPD

                                 Table embedded on December 1, 2024

The table provides two perspectives with relevant outcomes that suggest it is conceivable to measure a student’s zone of proximal development by integrating teaching into assessment and vice versa. While each perspective presents a different educational outcome, both offer an assessment that falls into the zone of proximal development which ultimately would demonstrate student growth. Assessment for a classroom full of students should be varied rather than regimented to fit the needs of each student’s zone of proximal development. Each student thinks and operates differently depending on his or her surroundings. Shah (2019) states, Vygotsky’s concept of ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ enables us to realize that human learning, development, and knowledge are all embedded in a particular social and cultural context in which people exist and grow” (p. 5). Allowing students to discover themselves will assist teachers in understanding how each student learns and how to help them achieve optimal growth.

                                            Media embedded on December 1, 2024

While I lean towards formative assessment, I always find myself wishing it wasn’t such an overwhelming process. I believe in the process, so I continue to use it even though at times I find myself beating at odds with how time consuming it is. This is where I began to research AI and how it could possibly become my friend even though I am quite intimidated by it. As I read Big Date Comes to School, I really began to think about the process behind intelligent writing systems and how humans play a role in establishing the system’s ability. As stated by Cope and Kalantis (2016), “The question then is, how can users constantly train intelligent writing systems by adding a layer of computable structure as they write, self-assess, and assess each other to the unstructured data of natural language?” (p. 13). For me to fully absorb how AI works, I began to read more about it with the hopes of acquiring a new level of understanding so I would be comfortable using it in the classroom. Without an understanding of how the AI process works or how it acquires new text or data, I do not feel one fully appreciates what AI can accomplish. This knowledge presents itself as a buffer for those that question AI’s authenticity versus that of what one might consider a normal assessment tool. AI does not replace the teacher, but rather it assists the teacher in effusively monitoring students while supporting them in the assessment process. As Bailey (2023) states, “Technology does not revolutionize education; humans do. It is humans who create systems that educate children, and it is the leaders of those systems who decide which tools to use and how to use them” (p. 28). Teachers are always looking for instruments to use in the classroom that can add to the learning process and AI is one of those instruments that is going to transform the learning curve.

AI has the ability to assess students’ writing and generate questions to provoke a deeper level of thinking. While this may seem like a task that should be completed by the teacher, AI is imply a tool to assist in the classroom. Since it is computer generated, most would assume that it is unbiased but that is not always the case which is why the use of AI can become so controversial. No matter how you look at it, AI is a predictive tool that generates feedback from patterns or structures based on human response. As it is with any technological tool, it is hard to completely remove the bias that may exist, but it still provides relative feedback. Ozan (2017) states, “Asking questions in formative assessment is crucial to obtaining information for students’ learning and understanding. This objective is achieved if the questions are active and effective at determining the learner’s depth of knowledge” (p. 87). To truly assess a student’s depth of knowledge and provide real-time feedback, AI is going to produce an assessment that is relative to that of a teacher in attempting to help the student rethink certain aspects of his or her work, but there will always be some degree of bias whether it is teacher feedback or AI feedback.

There has been a lot of pushback when it comes to using AI technology in the classroom, but I truly do feel the potential it offers could provide a wealth of knowledge to move students along in the learning process. Zhai (2023) states, “AI is a technology that can mimic humans’ thinking and problem-solving processes, and the current popularity of AI is led by the adventure of machine learning algorithms. Machine learning has been applied to automatically score students’ understanding, explanations, and arguments” (p. 1391). The ability for a machine to accomplish a task in such a short amount of time is almost unconceivable, but it is also exhilarating to think about the potential of such a feat. Assessing AI in the classroom, Hamilton (2024) describes the results from a survey given to 500 practicing educators in the hopes of better understanding their experiences with AI in the classroom. The survey was able to pinpoint actual AI programs being utilized in connection with the type of assessment used within each program. Teachers were able to share their AI concerns as well as the benefits they witnessed within their classroom. More importantly, the survey presented the teachers’ outlook on education and the impact AI will have on it.

Within my corporation, we utilize Khan Academy and Grammarly at most grade levels. While I realize both programs involve some form of AI, I do not necessarily feel that they embody the true potential that AI has to offer. Both Khan Academy and Grammarly act as tutors for students as they complete assignments or exercises that have been chosen for them by the teacher. As the students complete each task, these programs generate feedback as well as providing additional activities for them to continue to master the assigned skills. Khanmigo, Khan Academy’s tutor, challenges students to think critically in various subjects. Some students refer to Khanmigo as their friend because they view the AI tutor as being less intimidating than being in the classroom and a true partner in helping them be successful. The founder of Khan Academy, Sal Khan, described AI as “…probably the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen” (Bailey, 2023). In addition, Bill Gates stated, “…this new wave of AI is as fundamental as the creation of the microprocess, the personal computer, the Internet, and the mobile phone” (Bailey, 2023). This type of technology has the power to alter the way our students look at education and their willingness to play an active role in being students.

These AI programs utilize OpenAI’s GPT 4 language model to help guide the students rather than providing them with the answers. Khan Academy, as well as many other programs, work with other companies to help create the best product possible to guide students rather than simply acting as a fill in for deeper thinking and hard work. For example, Khan Academy partners with Code.org, Common Sense Education, and aiEDU to ensure the AI experience students are being exposed to is leading them down a path of learning and growth. While researching assessments and AI, I took a deeper look at ChatGTP. This is not a program we currently utilize, but I do feel it could be beneficial to our students. With ChatGTP, students are provided with feedback and help with their writing (at least grammatically). Just as Khan Academy and Grammarly does, ChatGTP acts as a tutor for students but appears to take things to the next level. ChatGTP generates responses, analyzes data, summarizes articles, etc. Such programs are getting to the point that their capabilities continue to multiply as AI continues to transform itself even more each day. With that said, there will always be cons to utilizing such programs, but just as any other tool used in the classroom, students must have a clear explanation as to how it is to be utilized.

                                              Media embedded on December 1, 2024

There is no doubt that artificial intelligence will continue to alter and hopefully improve the way in which we live our lives. It has greatly begun to impact the learning taking place in the classroom. Programs such as Khan Academy and ChatGTP will continue to pop up with each one offering the latest and greatest in AI and we have to be prepared to embrace them and use them to their potential. Daniel Oppenheimer, a professor of psychology at Carnegie Mellon, states, “We should be thinking about the world we’re preparing our students to enter and what habits of thinking we want to instill in them so they can successfully represent the discipline. That means figuring out how to incorporate novel technology they will be using in the real world into classroom exercises” (Abramson, 2023). This will not be achieved overnight, but we can continue to move forward and find the best practices for helping our students understand what AI has to offer and how to use it appropriately.

                                                Media embedded on December 11, 2024

Artificial intelligence or AI is not going anywhere; if anything, it is on a path to become so accelerated we may struggle to keep up with its advances - especially in the classroom. Summative and formative assessments have been used in the classroom for years and continue to be used daily. It is going to become necessary for teachers to find a balance between that of regular assessments and integrating the use of AI. This will not be an easy sale for some, but teachers are beginning to realize that AI has its benefits, and it can possibly provide more accurate student data or growth. As Barrett (2023) states, "By harnessing Generative AI, educators can design assessments that prompt students to demonstrate their understanding through tasks that focus on creativity, originality, and deeper conceptual mastery. These can be assessments where students generate hypotheses, design experiments, compose music, or develop innovative solutions to real-world problems. These tasks not only assess their comprehension but also foster skills essential for success beyond the classroom." The growth demonstrated through AI assists students in recognizing their own strengths which could be that extra little push they needed to see the value of excelling in the classroom. 

Many teachers have dug their heels in when it comes to utilizing AI in the classroom because they feel it encourages cheating or plagiarism. Such battles will always create problems in the classroom but identifying those tools that can help boost students learning as well as fight such issues is one that should be embraced rather than criticized. AI is a tool that highlights the opportunity for students to engage in performance-based assessments which could include anything from a science lab, a research paper, or a piece of artwork. All these works would align with the upper tiers of what one might consider to be 'old school' or Bloom's Taxonomy.

                                   Media embedded on December 11, 2024

 In Bloom's Taxonomy, learning objectives are categorized by their complexity with students being challenged as they work their way through each tier. Performance-based assessments or formative assessments encourage students to apply their level of understanding to be creative and investigative - much like artificial intelligence. Barrett (2023) states, "While current forms of assessment often focus merely on facts and rote memorization — which students can typically get by with last-minute cramming and quickly forget — this age of advanced AI makes fostering originality and critical thinking in students more crucial than ever." Students will continue to do the bare minimum or feel the need to cheat or plagiarize rather than reaching their full potential if they feel that nothing more is expected of them. AI does exactly that and it continues to reach new levels as far as pushing one to his or her full potential.

It is hard to know to what extent AI will be accepted in the classroom as teachers become more informed or educataed but it is going to impact the overall way in which lessons are created and administered. If it is fully embraced, teachers will have a better understanding of how it can assist in student assessment and provide valuable data. It appears that the only logical decision one has as a teacher is to nurture the AI trend and support what it has to offer.

 

Abramson, A. (2023). How to use ChatGTP as a learning tool. American Psychological Association, 54(4), 67.

Allal, L., & Ducrey, G.P. (2000). Assessment of – or in – the zone of proximal development. Science Direct, 10(2), 137 – 152.

Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66–70.

Bailey, J. (2023). AI in Education: The leap into a new era of machine intelligence carries risks and challenges, but also plenty of promise. Education Next, 23(4), 28-35.

Bailey, J. (2023, Aug 8). AI in Education. Education Next, 23(4), 23 – 30.

Barrett, A. & Pack, A. (2023). Not quite eye to AI: Student and teacher perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence in the writing process. International Journal of Educational Technology in Education, 20(59). 

https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-023-00427-0

Braiki, B.A., Harous, S., Zaki, N., & Aluajjar, F. (2020, Oct). Artificial intelligence in education and assessment methods. Bullentin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, 9(5), 1998-2007. https://beei.org/index.php/EEI/article/view/1984/0

Carney, E.A., Zhang, X., Charsha, A., Taylor, J.N., & Hoshaw, J.P. (2022). Formative assessment helps students learn over time: Why aren’t we paying more attention to it? Intersection: A journal at the intersection of assessment and learning, 4(1).

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2022). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8, 75264-75278.

Clark. I. (2012). Formative Assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Education Psychology Review, 24, 205-249.

Cope, B & Kalantzis, M. (2016). Big data comes to school: Implications for learning assessment and research. AERA Open, 2(2), 1-19.

Gardner, J., O’Leary, M., & Yuan, L. (2021, Oct). Artificial intelligence in educational assessment: ‘Breakthrough? Or buncombe and ballyhoo?’ Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1207-1216.

Gibson, D., Kovanovic, V., Ifenthaler, D., Dexter, S., & Feng, S. (2023). Learning theories for artificial intelligence promoting learning processes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1125-1146.

Gonzalez-Calatayud, V., Prendes-Espinosa, P., & Roig-Vila, R. (2021, June). Artificial intelligence for student assessment: A systematic review. Applied Sciences, 11(6), 5467. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125467

Hamilton, I. (2024, June 6). Artificial intelligence in education: Teachers’ opinions on AI in the classroom. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/education/it-and-tech/artificial-intelligence-in-school/

Ho, A.D. 2024). Artificial intelligence and educational measurement: Opportunities and threats. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 49(5), 715-722.

How is Artificial Intelligence Impacting Higher Education? School of Communication and Information/Rutgers University. (2024, Feb 28).

https://comminfo.rutgers.edu/news/how-artificial-intelligence-impacting-higher-education#:~:text=AI%2Dpowered%20tools%20can%20also,best%20practices%20for%20instructional%20design.

Hutt, S., & Hieb, G. (2024). Scaling up mastery learning with generative AI: Exploring how generative AI can assist in the generation and evaluation of mastery quiz questions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '24). ACM.

Kizilcec, R.F., Huber, E., Papanastasiou, E.C., Cram, A., Makridis, C.A., Smolansky, A., Zeivots, S., & Raduescu, C. (2024, Dec). Perceived impact of generative AI on assessments: Comparing educator and student perspectives in Australia, Cyprus, and the United States. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666920X24000729

McMillan, J.H., Venable, J.C., & Varier, D. (2013). Studies of the effect of formative assessment on student achievement: So much more is needed. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 18 (2).

Owan, V.J., Abang, K.B., Idika, D.O., Etta, E.O., & Bassey, B.A. (2023). Exploring the potential of artificial intelligence tools in educational measurement and assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, 19(8), em2307. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13428

Ozan, C. & Kincal, R.Y. (2017). The effects of formative assessment on academic achievement, attitudes toward the lesson, and self-regulation skills. Educational Sciences: Theory& Practice. https://doi.10.12738/estp.2018.102.16

Pande, M. & Bharathi, S.V. (2020). Theoretical foundations of design thinking – A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100637

Schildkamp, K., Van der Kleij, F.M., Heitink, M.C., Kippers, W.B., & Veldkamp, B.P. (2020). Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016.j.ijer.2020.101602

Shah, R.K. (2019). Effective constructivist teaching learning in the classroom. International Journal of Education, 7(4), 1-13.

Stanoyevitch, A. (2024). Online assessment in the age of artificial intelligence. Discovery Education, 3(126). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00212-9

Wei, L. (2010). Formative assessment: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6), 838-841.

Willmore, J. (2023, Oct 20). AI education and AI in education. National Science Foundation. https://new.nsf.gov/science-matters/ai-education-ai-eduction

Zhai, X., & Nehm, R. H. (2023). AI and formative assessment: The train has left the station. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(6), 1390–1398. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21885