Designing an assessment system Presentation to the Scottish Qualifications Authority, August 2007 Dylan Wiliam Institute of Education, University of London www.dylanwiliam.net

Overview The purposes of assessment The structure of the assessment system The locus of assessment The extensiveness of the assessment Assessment format Scoring models Quality issues The role of teachers Contextual issues

Functions of assessment Three functions of assessment: For evaluating institutions (evaluative) For describing individuals (summative) For supporting learning Monitoring learning: Whether learning is taking place Diagnosing (informing) learning: What is not being learnt Forming learning: What to do about it No system can easily support all three functions Traditionally, we have grouped the first two, and ignored the third Learning is sidelined; summative and evaluative functions are weakened Instead, we need to separate the first (evaluative) from the other two

The Lake Wobegon effect “All the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.” Garrison Keillor Scores • Time

Goodhart’s law All performance indicators lose their usefulness when used as objects of policy Privatization of British Rail Targets in the Health Service “Bubble” students in high-stakes settings

Reconciling different pressures The “high-stakes” genie is out of the bottle, and we cannot put it back The clearer you are about what you want, the more likely you are to get it, but the less likely it is to mean anything The only thing left to us is to try to develop “tests worth teaching to” This is fundamentally an issue of validity.

Validity Validity is a property of inferences, not of assessments “One validates, not a test, but an interpretation of data arising from a specified procedure” (Cronbach, 1971; emphasis in original) No such thing as a valid (or indeed invalid) assessment No such thing as a biased assessment A pons asinorum for thinking about assessment

Threats to validity Inadequate reliability Construct-irrelevant variance The assessment includes aspects that are irrelevant to the construct of interest the assessment is “too big” Construct under-representation The assessment fails to include important aspects of the construct of interest the assessment is “too small” With clear construct definition all of these are technical—not value—issues

Two key challenges Construct-irrelevant variance Sensitivity to instruction Construct under-representation Extensiveness of assessment

Sensitivity to instruction 1 year Distribution of attainment on an item highly sensitive to instruction

Sensitivity to instruction (2) 1 year Distribution of attainment on an item moderately sensitive to instruction

Sensitivity to instruction (3) 1 year Distribution of attainment on an item relatively insensitive to instruction

Sensitivity to instruction (4) 1 year Distribution of attainment on an item completely insensitive to instruction

Consequences (1)

Consequences (2)

Consequences (3)

Insensitivity to instruction Primarily attributable to the fact that learning is slower than assumed Exacerbated by the normal mechanisms of test development Leads to erroneous attributions about the effects of schooling

A sensitivity to instruction index Test Sensitivity index IQ-type test (insensitive) NAEP 6 TIMSS 8 ETS “STEP” tests (1957) ITBS 10 Completely sensitive test 100

Extensiveness of assessment Using teacher assessment in certification is attractive: Increases reliability (increased test time) Increases validity (addresses aspects of construct under-representation) But problematic Lack of trust (“Fox guarding the hen house”) Problems of biased inferences (construct-irrelevant variance) Can introduce new kinds of construct under-representation

The challenge To design an assessment system that is: Distributed So that evidence collection is not undertaken entirely at the end Synoptic So that learning has to accumulate

A possible model All students are assessed at test time Different students in the same class are assigned different tasks The performance of the class defines an “envelope” of scores, e.g. Advanced: 5 students Proficient: 8 students Basic: 10 students Below basic: 2 students Teacher allocates levels on the basis of whole-year performance

Benefits and problems Benefits The only way to teach to the test is to improve everyone’s performance on everything (which is what we want!) Validity and reliability are enhanced Problems Students’ scores are not “inspectable” Assumes student motivation

The effects of context Beliefs about what constitutes learning; Beliefs in the reliability and validity of the results of various tools; A preference for and trust in numerical data, with bias towards a single number; Trust in the judgments and integrity of the teaching profession; Belief in the value of competition between students; Belief in the value of competition between schools; Belief that test results measure school effectiveness; Fear of national economic decline and education’s role in this; Belief that the key to schools’ effectiveness is strong top-down management;

Conclusion There is no “perfect” assessment system anywhere. Each nation’s assessment system is exquisitely tuned to local constraints and affordances. Assessment practices have impacts on teaching and learning which may be strongly amplified or attenuated by the national context. The overall impact of particular assessment practices and initiatives is determined at least as much by culture and politics as it is by educational evidence and values.

Conclusion (2) It is probably idle to draw up maps for the ideal assessment policy for a country, even although the principles and the evidence to support such an ideal might be clearly agreed within the ‘expert’ community. Instead, focus on those arguments and initiatives which are least offensive to existing assumptions and beliefs, and which will nevertheless serve to catalyze a shift in them while at the same time improving some aspects of present practice.

Questions? Comments? Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL Tel +44 (0)20 7612 6000 Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6126 Email info@ioe.ac.uk