Q: S​ome people prefer traditional assessments while other prefer

authentic/performance-based assessments. What are the pros and cons

of each? Which do you prefer as a student? Which do you think you will
prefer as a teacher? Why?

A: Traditional assessments are something we are all familiar with. They

are your typical multiple-choice, essay prompt, or fill-in-the-blank tests. Some
pros associated with these types of assessments is that they can be easier to
create. It does not take too much time, energy, or creativity to produce an
assessment such as these. They can also provide number data of how well
your class understood a particular content area. However, traditional
assessments may not accurately portray how well all of your students did.
Some students experience test anxiety, have difficulty focusing, or simply "not
test well", even if they do understand the material. This can cause some
student potential to not be recognized because it does not come through in
the data. Another con of traditional assessments is that much of the material
is memorized, but not fully comprehended. Students may end up studying to
the test without understanding why it is significant. You can also have
students guessing on multiple-choice tests and getting the answers right
despite having no clue why they chose the answer that they did. This also
messes with the class total score data.
On the other hand, we have authentic/performance-based
assessments. These are when students incorporate the material they learned
into a real-life scenario and express their ideas through journals, research
reports, class debates, projects, etc. These types of assessments allow
students multiple opportunities to express their knowledge on a subject. No
two students are alike, so they should be given different ways to demonstrate
that they have learned the material. Another pro is that students are able to
show their comprehension by how they expand on the material. This means
they are not simply memorizing material for a test, but they are engaging in it
and reshaping it. One con is that these types of assessments usually require
more time for both the students and the teachers. For the teacher it takes time
to plan the different assessment types and create rubrics that go along with
grading them, rather than inserting a scantron into a machine. As for the
students, projects and research reports are usually not done in one sitting and
may take days or weeks to expand on.
In all honesty, as a student I probably preferred traditional assessments.
I was good at memorizing material for the test and I never got test anxiety so I
felt that these forms of assessments were easier. However, as soon as the
test was over I would lose most the information I had just "learned" about.
This is why as a teacher I would like to incorporate more authentic and
performance assessments in my future classroom. I want my students to be
successful and have as much knowledge as their brains can hold about the
world around them. If I only ever try to teach to the test, many of the students
will be like me and forget what they had just learned. By engaging the material
with authentic and performance assessments they are likely to remember it
more and really comprehend it. I also understand that many students struggle
with traditional tests, and I don't think it is fair to test all students the same
when each student learns differently. Students deserve a real chance to show
what they know in their own unique way.