The evaluation and grading process of students depends on a number of factors including the effort made by a student. This process should be used to analyse the understanding of the student in relation to course material. The process of evaluation and grading according to Violet was undertaken in order to understand the needs of the students. According to her, this would help her devise the relevant approaches to teaching her students. The main aim for testing is to assess the student’s understanding of the course material properly.
The student is required to answer questions that are set by a standard that is identified by an authority in order to assess the understanding of course material by students. Violet is, therefore, required to use the grading system to assess the level of understanding of her students of the course material.
A test should be tailored in such a way as to ensure that the students’ learning ability is assessed correctly. It involves the application of a uniform standard against which the students are assessed to provide information on the students’ understanding and ability to learn (Wasserman, 32).
These standards are objective in the sense that they require the teacher to administer a test to all students. This is regardless of the effort they put in class participation and other factors that a teacher may consider relevant in evaluation. This objective nature ensures an even playing field for the students.
Evaluation, therefore, takes the form of standardised tests that are administered to all students in a given jurisdiction. This is especially so with students who have undergone the same curriculum. The students are required to overcome and solve similar tasks by the use of skills acquired in the classroom.
One justification for the application of a ‘blanket’ standard is that the students undergo the same curriculum and are, therefore, exposed to the same information. Though the level of understanding and speed at which the students grasp the content during the learning process differs, the basis upon which they are being assessed is not the speed at which they understood the course material. Rather, it is the understanding of the course material that is being tested. The evaluation process is, therefore, objective.
Violet made a mistake by personalising the evaluation process and using it to assess the speed at which the student grasps the course content. In doing so, she sought to grade the students according to the effort made to understand the course as well as the participation of a student in the classroom. These standards, as applied by Violet, focus on something totally out of the scope for which evaluation was initially administered. This subjectivity is also seen where she attempts to use the process to change her teaching methods. According to her, she intended to use the evaluation as a means of understanding the various capabilities of her students with the aim of tailoring the learning process to suit their needs.
This is contrary to the basis upon which the standardised evaluation tests are administered. The main reason, as discussed earlier, is to ensure that all students have an equal ground upon which they will be evaluated (Wasserman, 33). Violet also became subjective by assuming that her student, Adam, was going to fail the final examination. This assumption may have impeded her ability to understand the problems which Adam was facing both academically and emotionally.
Violet adopted a marking and grading system that took into consideration the abilities of the student as well as their effort in completing tasks that are required of them. This mode of grading helps to check the excesses of the standardised tests that assume the level of understanding of all students is at par with each other. The assumption of these standardised tests is that the students have learned the same content during the learning period and, therefore, should be able to be assessed on the same universal standard.
It is argued that the standardised tests fail to recognise the disparities in learning ability of the students (Goldberg, 364). These tests apply a uniform standard despite such disparities in both the ability to understand the course material and the amount of input of each student in the learning process. In my opinion, Violet used a fair process that categorised the grading process into groups that assess the different abilities of the students in learning and understanding.
Violet should administer a test to assess Adam’s abilities based on her own assessment of his progress during the entire learning process. This aim of this should be to aid the student in putting down the information he has acquired through studying the course and understanding such material. One of the most likely effects of this action will be opposition from the school administration whose position is that the student’s marks should be increased up to the pass mark to allow him to pass and not to, primarily, assess his understanding and performance in relation to the course material.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Mark. The Test Mess, Phi Delta Kappan, 2004.
“Relative Resource Manager.” webct. N.p., n.d. Web.
Wasserman, Selma. Quantum Theory, the Uncertainty Alchemy of Standardizing Testing, Phi Delta Kappan, 2001.