SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY – TOMAS OPPUS

San Isidro, Tomas Oppus, Southern Leyte

Self-Paced Learning Plan

Course : Teaching Science in the Elementary Grades (Physics, Earth and

Space Science)
Title of the Topic : Lesson 2: Using Performance Task

Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, the students are expected to:

1. Characterize effective use of performance tasks in classroom instruction;

2. Discuss guidelines in designing and implementing performance tasks;
3. Distinguish among the type of performance task;
4. Examine samples of performance tasks; and
5. Design performance task for earth science and physics.

Content of the Lesson:

Introduction
What is Performance-based Assessment?
A performance-based assessment is the assessment of a student’s ability to apply
knowledge, skills, and understanding, usually in authentic, real-life settings that are similar to
those encountered in the world outside the classroom (Murchan & Shiel, 2017). Typically, the
students are required to create a product or demonstrate a process. Performance-based
assessment can be used to measure a broad range of learning outcomes, including more
complex outcomes that cannot be assessed using indirect measures, such a s multiple choice
tests and written examinations. Some examples of performance-based assessments include:
 Representing a character from a drama or play;
 Keeping a portfolio of artwork;
 Demonstrating a routine, movement, or dance;
 Making a video to dramatize a historical theme;
 Editing a story, term paper, or essay;
 Conducting a science experiment;
 Working with a group of students to design a student attitude survey;
 Using equipment/machine to complete task;
 Preparing a meal/baking pastries or cakes in a culinary subject; and
 Reporting on a project by delivering a multimedia presentation.
Typically, assessing performance involves evaluating student learning. The evaluation
(making judgement about the quality of a performance) can be conducted by a teacher, an
external marker, or the students themselves. Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith (2014) addressed
student self-assessment, whereby the students evaluate their own learning, and most
importantly, internalize assessment standards or criteria, as a major benefit of performance-
based assessment. In conducting an assessment, the rater may use a scoring tool such as
checklist, a rating scale, or a scoring rubric. The use of an appropriate coring tool is essential to
ensure that relevant aspects of the performance are assessed (validity) and that the assessment
is marked in a consistent manner (reliability). Evaluation can occur during (e.g., delivery of oral
presentation) or after the performance (e.g., completion of an essay, portfolio, or project).
Performance assessments can vary in length, from activities that take just a few minutes to
complete to tasks that take several weeks and require the students to present their findings to
an audience inside and outside the school.
Various authors have identified aspects of knowledge and dispositions that can best
assessed using performance-based assessments and some of these frameworks overlap:
  Habits of mind – According to Costa and Kallick (2008), these are problem-solving,
life-related skills that are needed to operate effectively in society and include
persisting, thinking flexibly, managing impulsivity, thinking about one’ thinking or
metacognition, applying past knowledge to new situations, taking responsible risks,
thinking independently, and remaining open to continuous learning.
 Collaborative problem-solving – the students are assessed as they work together to
complete a projector or another performance task (e.g., Von Davier & Halpin, 2013).
In judging the outcomes of cooperative learning, there may be learning outcomes
relating to the overall success of the project as well as outcomes specifying the
expected contributions of the individuals.
 Twenty-first century skills – these are skills that are deemed important for the world
of work in the 21st century. Griffin and Care (2015) describe these as: ways of
thinking (creativity and innovation, critical problem-solving, metacognition); ways
of working (communication, collaboration/teamwork); tools for working
(information literacy, ICT literacy); and living in the world (citizenship, life and
career, personal and social responsibility).
 Higher-order thinking skills – these comprise the more advanced skills on Bloom’s
revised taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and include applying (using
information in new situations), analyzing (drawing connections among ideas),
evaluating (justifying a stand or decision), and creating producing new or original
work).
A key rationale in using performance-based assessment is that it is possible to establish
strong links between curriculum (expressed as goals or objectives), learning (expressed as
performance standards or learning outcomes), and assessment. Specifically, aspects of the
curriculum that cannot otherwise be assessed, like collaborative problem-solving, are
emphasized, and the students can demonstrate their strength in these areas. The outcomes of
assessment can then feed into further teaching and learning activities, and gaps in student
performance can be addressed. Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith (2014) proposed that performance-
based assessment, when used effectively, has considerable potential as an instrument of
educational reform and as a disincentive to teaching of the test (that is, preparing to sit
examinations that are often predictable in format and content). In addition, they suggest that it
is consistent with social constructivist learning theories.

Curriculum, including problem-

solving, collaboration, critical
thinking

Performance
Goals/objectives
standards/Learning outcomes

Teaching and learning

Performance assessments
activities

Teaching, learning, and assessment cycle

Implementing a Performance-based Assessment
A performance-based assessment task can be developed and scored by an individual
teacher, a subject department, an external assessor, or an examining board. A performance task
seeks to assess learning targets or objectives that are specified in curriculum documents
(Murchan & Shiel, 2017).
Such tasks may be carried out by individuals or groups. They can be scored as the
students work on the task and/or after it has been completed. Often, curriculum objectives are
expressed as standards or learning outcomes, and these become the focus of a rating scale or a
rubric.
A moderation process may be put in place, where a check on the quality of the grades
assigned by the teacher is undertaken (Murchan & Shiel, 2017). This could involve a different
rater taking a random sample of completed tasks and scoring them independently.
Discrepancies between two or more raters can then be addressed in a marking or moderation
conference. Sometimes, when moderation unearths a discrepancy, the assessor may need to
review the standards (learning outcomes) to achieve a better understanding of them.
The final stage in assessing performance on a task is to assign a grade or mark. This may
take the form of a numerical score, a descriptor, or a grade. More extensive feedback may be
provided to the student who completed the task, such as comments, an indication of areas in
need of further improvement, or targets that the student should strive to reach in the future.

Developing Observable Performance Criteria

The value and richness of performance assessments depend heavily on identifying

criteria that can be observed and judged. It is important that the criteria be clear in the teacher’s
mind and that the students be taught the criteria. Rusell and Airasian (2012) proposed the
following guidelines that are useful for the said purpose:
1) Select the performance or product to be assessed and either perform it yourself or
imagine yourself performing it.
2) List the important aspects of the performance or product.
3) Try to limit the number of performance criteria, so they all can be observed during a
students’ performance.
4) If possible, have groups of teachers think through the important criteria included in a task.
5) Express the performance criteria in terms of observable student behaviors or product
characteristics.
6) Do not use ambiguous words that cloud the meaning of the performance criteria. Avoid
adverbs such as those ending in-ly, remarks such as good or appropriate, etc.
7) Arrange the performance criteria in the order in which they are likely to be observed.
8) Check for existing performance criteria before defining your own.

Tools in Assessing Performance-based Assessment

There are four tools that can be used to assess how well the students do on a
performance- based task: anecdotal records, observational checklists, rating scales, and scoring
rubrics.

1. Anecdotal records
These are notes based on the teachers’ observations about the students as they
perform an assessment task. They allow the teachers to document the students’
strengths and weaknesses as they edit a text, solve a problem, or search for information.
Data gleaned from anecdotal notes can be reviewed with other information (such as a
finished product) to arrive at an overall judgment of a student’s performance (Murchan
& Shiel, 2017).
Of all the tools use in assessing the student’s performance, the anecdotal record
is the most detailed yet the most time consuming. It is not meant to be a free-flowing
report or a description of a student’s performance. Rather, it should provide a
purposeful, detailed description of the strengths and weaknesses of student’s
performance based on per specified performance criteria intended to be used as a guide
for the observer’s decision. Thu, judgment and recommendations are absent from the
record and are made when the record is reviewed at a later time.
2. Observational checklist
A checklist consists of a list of behaviors, characteristics, or activities and a place
for marking whether each is present or absent. It can focus on a procedure, a behavior,
or a product (Murchan & Shiel, 2017). Checklist are diagnostic, reusable, and capable of
charting the student progress. They provide a detailed record of the students’
performances, one that can and should be shown to the students to help them see where
improvement is needed (Rusell &Airasian, 2012).
The students may use a self-evaluation checklist to review their own work. This
may enable them to internalize the criteria for performing well on a task, and they can
also build metacognitive knowledge as their understanding of their own learning
processes increases. On the other hand, a potential disadvantage of a checklist is that it
does not show degrees of quality – only whether a criterion has been met or not.
There are, however, disadvantages associated with checklists. One important
disadvantage is that checklists give the teacher only two choices for each criterion:
performed or not performed. A checklist provides no middle ground for scoring (Russel
& Airasian, 2012). Another drawback is the difficulty of summarizing a student’s
performance into a single score.
In order to solve these concerns, summarizing performances from a checklist
can be done by setting up rating standards or by calculating the percentage of criteria
accomplished (Russel & Airasian, 2012)

3. Rating scales
These are often used for aspects of a complex performance that do not lend
themselves to a yes-no or present-absent judgment. A rating scale assess the degree to
which a student has attained the learning outcomes linked to a performance task. It can
be used as a teaching tool (to familiarize the students with what is required to achieve a
standard) as well as an assessment tool. The end points of a rating scale are usually
anchored (“always,” “never”), with intermediate points defining levels of performance
(“seldom,” “occasionally,” “frequently”). In general, more points on the rating scale
indicate more reliable scores.
Three of the most common types of rating scales are the numerical, graphic, and
descriptive scales (Rusell & Airasian, 2012). In numerical scales, a number stands for a
point on the rating scale. For example, you can use “1” that corresponds to a student
“always” performing the behavior, “2” for a student “usually” performing the behavior,
and so on. Graphical scales require the rater to mark a position on a line divided into
sections based on the scale. The rater marks an “X” at the point on the line that best
describes the student’s performance. Descriptive rating scales are also known as scoring
rubrics, where the rater is required to use the different descriptions of the actual
performance.
Regardless of the type of rating scale the teacher will use, two general rules will
improve their accuracy. The first rule is to limit the number of rating categories. There is
a tendency to think that the greater the number of rating categories to choose from, the
better the rating scale is. Only few observers can make reliable distinctions of a
performance when the rating scale has more than five categories. Adding a larger
number of categories on a rating scale is likely to make the rating less, not more, reliable.
Stick to three to five well-defined and distinct rating scale points (Russell & Airasian,
2012). The second rule is to use the same rating scale for each performance criterion.
This is not usually possible in descriptive rating scale where the descriptions vary with
each performance criterion. For numerical and graphic scales, however, it is best to elect
a single rating scale and use it for all performance criteria. Using many different rating
categories requires the observer to change focus frequently and will decrease rating
accuracy by distancing the rater’s attention from the performance.
Numerical summarization is the most straightforward and commonly used
approach to summarize performance on rating scales. It assigns a point value to each
category in the scale and sums the points across the performance criteria.
 4. Scoring rubrics
According to Murchan and Shiel (2017), these are the types of rating scale on
which each level has a complete description of performance and quality. A rubric also
lays out the criteria for different levels of performance, which are usually descriptive
rather than numerical (Russell & Airasian, 2012).
They may be analytic, where each of several dimensions is assessed, or holistic,
where either a judgment about overall quality or an overall judgment on performance is
made. Rubrics may also be general (e.g., the same rubric can be applied to different
tasks) or task-specific (where the rubric describes quality with respect to a particular
task). An analytical rubric has the potential to generate specific feedback on strengths
and weaknesses on each dimension of a task (Murchan & Shiel, 2017).

Russell and Airasian (2012) explained how rubrics help the teachers and the students in
various ways. It helps teachers by:
 Specifying criteria to focus instruction on what is important;
 Specifying criteria to focus student assessments;
 Increasing the consistency of assessments;
 Limiting arguments over grading because clear criteria and scoring levels reduce
subjectivity; and
 Providing descriptions of student performance that are informative to both the parents
and the students.
Furthermore, rubrics help the students by:
 Clarifying the teacher’s expectations about performance;
 Pointing out what is important in a process or product;
 Helping them monitor and critique their own work; and
 Providing clearer performance information than traditional letter grades provide.

General Steps in Preparing and Using Rubrics

A rubric includes both aspects or characteristics of a performance that will be assessed
and a description of the criteria that is used to assess each aspect. The following steps are
simplified (Russell & Airasian, 2012) in order to help teachers find ease in preparing rubrics.
1) Select a process or product to be taught.
2) State performance criteria for the process or product.
3) Decide on the number of scoring levels for the rubric, usually three to five.
4) State the description of performance criteria at the highest level of student performance.
5) State the description of performance criteria at the remaining scoring levels (e.g., the
“good” and the “poor” levels of the book report rubric).
6) Compare each student’s performance with each scoring level.
7) Select the scoring level closest to a student’s actual performance or product.
8) Grade the student.

Self-Learning Activities:

Activity 1
Answer the following guide question.
1. What are the possibilities and applications when using the performance assessment
with very young children and primary school students?
2. To what extent can young students engage with the self-assessment aspects of the
performance assessment?

Activity 2
Answer the exercises below:

1. Two challenges in implementing performance assessments are time constraints and

workload management for the teachers and the students. Think of a subject in which
you
 can introduce a performance assessment such as a portfolio or project. What steps can
you take to make it more manageable?
2. Think of a certain performance task that can help the students utilize their knowledge
and skills in physics and earth science. You can also include other disciplines where the
students are most exposed to. Provide a rubric for assessing their performance.

Activity 3

Answer this question:

1. How can performance tasks be more effective and manageable for both the teacher and
the students?