Activity 3.1

Performance Tasks—Keys to Success

Purposes:

  1. To learn the dimensions along which performance tasks differ

  2. To develop skill in identifying the characteristics of quality performance tasks

  3. To practice matching assessment tasks to the purpose for the assessment, one's instructional philosophy, and one's vision of integrating assessment and instruction

Uses:

This is an advanced level activity that can be used in Chapter 3 to illustrate different task types, how task type relates to purpose and learning target to be assessed, the advantages and disadvantages of different types of tasks, and what constitutes a good quality task. Prerequisites might include (a) an activity on the rationale for alternative assessment (e.g., Activities 1.1—Changing Assessment Practices..., 1.6—Comparing Multiple-Choice and Alternative Assessment, or 1.12—Assessment Principles); (b) Chapter 1 text or Activity 1.7—Target Method Match; (c) Chapter 2 text or an activity, such as 2.3—Ms. Toliver, illustrating integrating assessment tasks into instruction; and (d) one of the activities providing a gentle introduction to quality issues, such as 1.5—Clapping Hands or 1.11—Assessment Principles.

Rationale:

A variety of performance task types are being developed—everything from short answers that look like multiple-choice with the choices taken off to complex, long term, group projects. These differ in complexity, the degree to which they require integration of skills or test individual skills in isolation, amount of collaboration, length of time required, presentation and response modes, amount of student choice, and the number of correct answers. It is necessary for educators to consider which of these options will accomplish their assessment purposes.

Materials:

  1. Overhead projector, screen, blank transparencies, transparency pens

  2. Overheads A3.1,O1—Performance Tasks Keys Purposes, A3.1,O2—Sample Oral Presentation Task, and A3.1,O3—How Tasks Differ

  3. Handouts A3.1,H1—Criteria For Performance Tasks and A3.1,H2—Mathematical Applications Test

  4. Sample performance tasks that illustrate various dimensions of task design. Samples and guidance on their use are included in the Activity 3.1—Index in Appendix A—Sampler. Run these off as handouts as well as prepare them as overheads.

Time Required

60-90 minutes

Facilitator's Notes

  1. (10 minutes) As needed, review the purposes for the activity (A3.1,O1—Purposes) and what performance tasks are.

    There are two parts to a performance assessment—tasks and criteria.

    We use the term "tasks" to refer to whatever activity, project, prompt, problem, or assignment is given to the students to do. The quality of the student response to the task is what is assessed using the criteria (scoring guide, rubric).

    As needed, brainstorm examples of tasks. Examples of tasks: oral reading, writing a research paper, doing a science lab, group discussion, doing a worksheet on fractions, taking a multiple-choice test. Some assessment tasks are developed specifically to assess student skills; other tasks are those that occur as part on normal on-going instruction. The point is that assessment doesn't have to be conceived of as something that occurs at the end of, and is separate from, instruction.

    There are two important quality considerations when designing performance tasks—will it elicit the right performance and will there be anything about the task that might get in the way of any group of students showing what they can do. The first question is covered below in steps 2-5. Steps 6-7 cover the second question.

  2. (5 minutes) The main purpose of the task in an alternative assessment is to elicit the right performance while avoiding sources of bias and distortion—things that can cause us to make an incorrect judgment of student skill level. By "eliciting the right performance" we mean that we get from students what we wanted to get. Here are some examples of times that the task did not elicit the right performance. (Come up with your own examples, or use the examples below.)

    a. On a third grade writing assessment, the students were given the prompt: "You've heard the story about how the camel got its hump. Think of something in nature and write a story about how it got that way." The intent was to assess imaginative writing by asking students to write an "Aesop's Fable." What was actually obtained were thousands of student essays on why camels have humps. Imaginative writing could not be assessed because the students wrote informational pieces instead.

    b. Would a math problem assess problem solving if students had just completed several problems just like it? In this case, the problem might be eliciting recall of information, not problem solving.

    c. Two sixth-grade teachers asked students to choose a novel and participate weekly in a book group. They planned to assess student reading comprehension, in part, by means of a final project—an oral presentation. What they got was a good assessment of oral presentation skills, but not a good assessment of reading comprehension skills.

    The point here is that if you want to assess critical thinking, for example, you have to have a task that results in students thinking critically. Or, if you want to assess, for example, group process skills, you have to give students a task that enables them to work cooperatively.

    Ask the participants to provide examples from their own classrooms of tasks or activities that did not work as intended.

  1. (10 minutes) Whatever the nature of the student learning target being assessed, whether simple or complex, the task needs to elicit the right performance or it can't be assessed. For simple learning targets (e.g., can students spell 15 words), the task can be simple. For complex learning targets, such as critical thinking, problem solving, writing, etc., you need tasks that are complex. We need "meaty" tasks or the right performance will not be elicited.

    To get this point across, ask participants to think of a successful activity they have used in their classroom with students, and what made it so. Give participants 3-4 minutes to come up with a list of attributes that made their classroom activity successful. Then convene the large group and make a list on an overhead. Common responses at all grade levels are: student choice, active, clear instructions, engaging, relevant, organized, students know the purpose, enough time, several ways to approach the task, proper resources, and accommodates different learning styles.

    The interesting thing about the list that teachers generate is that this is the same list used by many authors to illustrate what is meant by "authentic" assessment. For example, see Handout A3.1,H1—Criteria for Performance Tasks. Point this out to participants. Good assessment tasks that will elicit complex, meaty performances from students look a lot like good meaty instructional tasks.

  2. (10 minutes) Use A3.1,H1, the "meatiness" scale, to evaluate and discuss several performance tasks. Take each example and ask participants two questions: What skills are elicited by this task? How meaty is the task on the meatiness scale? Keep repeating the mantra simple skill, simple task; complex skill, complex task.

    Use examples you have discussed previously; or, if this is a stand-alone activity, a thought-provoking set of tasks are listed in the Activity 3.1—Index in Appendix A—Sampler. This set was selected to represent a range of "meatiness." Therefore, these task types can be though of as "anchors" for the "meatiness" scale. Handout A3.1,H2—Mathematical Applications Test can be used to demonstrate how a multiple-choice test measures up on the "meatiness" scale. Overhead A3.1,O2—Sample Oral Presentation Task can be used to illustrate the weak end of the meatiness scale.

  3. (15 minutes) Go back over the task examples to see what features tend to make them more or less "meaty." Teachers need to become expert at designing performance tasks that will elicit the right performances on the part of students. So, they need to think about what features lend themselves to meatiness. For example, heavily scaffolded tasks do not assess problem solving ability. Handout A3.1,O3—How Tasks Differ can be used to focus the discussion.

    On Handout A3.1,O3, you might highlight the features that tend to make a task "meaty." (Remember that one always has to take into account what one is trying to assess when making the call about "meatiness." For example, if you want to see whether students can write an essay, you must have them write an essay; therefore, choice on ways to respond might not be relevant.)

    • One right answer vs. more than one

    • Written, oral and/or visual instructions/activities: MAXIMIZE THE VARIETY OF WAYS TO DO THE TASK (as much as possible)

    • Amount of choice on how to respond—written, oral and/or visual: MAXIMIZE THE VARIETY OF WAYS TO REPOND (as much as possible)

    • Format—short answer, essay, project, portfolio: IN GENERAL MORE COMPLEX TASKS (essay, project, portfolio) ARE MEATIER

    • Specifying each skill that the student needs to use or ALLOWING STUDENTS TO CHOOSE WHATEVER SKILLS THEY THINK APPROPRIATE TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE TASK

    • Individual and/or group work: EITHER

    • Timed or UNTIMED

    • STUDENT CHOICE ON WHICH TASK TO COMPLETE

  4. (10 minutes) The second characteristic of a good task is to avoid pitfalls—sources of bias and distortion. Some of these probably came up during the discussion of tasks above. Participants may have said things like:

    a. "This requires a lot of writing. What about students who don't write well?"

    b. "This requires a lot of reading. What about students who are ESL?"

    c. "Will students who have had experience with carnivals do better than students who haven't?"

    d. "How will group work affect the judgment of ability of individuals?"

    When these comments arise, note that this is what is meant by "sources of bias and distortion" (and other terms like reliability and validity) and keep a running list. Then, at this point, have participants brainstorm additions to the list. You could even categorize the list into major sources of bias and distortion: equity, fairness, and bias; extraneous interference; sampling.

  5. (10 minutes) Go back to the tasks reviewed previously for "meatiness" and critique them for "potential sources of bias and distortion."

  6. (30 minutes) An extension would be to have participants attempt to develop a performance task that would elicit a valued student skill and avoid sources of bias and distortion.