Western Mindanao State University

College of Teacher Education

GRADUATE SCHOOL
Curuan Campus
S.Y. 2019-2020

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements in EDAD 206
(Seminar in Educational Measurement &
Development)
─ Critical Analysis Paper ─

Submitted to:

DR. CARLO T. NABO

Course Professor

Submitted by:

CHRISTOPHER CONTRERAS
MAED- EDAD Student
The Paradox of Classroom Assessment: A Challenge for the 21st Century
Katz, S., Earl, L., & Olson, D. (2001). McGill Journal of Education, 36(1), 13.

Summary
In this article, “The Paradox of Classroom Assessment: A Challenge for the 21st
Century”, the authors are discussing about the contradictions between/ within the roles
and purposes of educational assessment, particularly in the classroom settings.
Specifically, it draws two contrasting assumptions of competence in which educational
assessment tries to measure, those are “what is known collectively” and “what is known
subjectively” thereby leading to an ultimate paradox.
The article commenced with an epigram from previous studies that outline the
confusion about the assessment process of most educational systems today. In simple
terms, the epigram is arguing that the present assessment practices of adjusting
standards to level down with pupils’ competence are simply degrading the quality of
learners that we are having. Thereafter, are the rationales of the authors as to why they
believe that paradoxes do indeed exist in the educational assessment culture of every
society today and that is the concern for accountability. The article started its argument
proper by introducing and discussing basic paradoxical concepts in philosophy; they are,
“the known and the knower.” The authors began by defining and explaining the “known”
citing many other pieces of research on it. Known as explained in this article is the
knowledge or fact independent of the knower. According to the authors, assessment
practices of today which focus on the “known” tend to be uniform or standardized leading
to a disagreeing view against the principles of individual difference.
Subsequently, the authors continued by explaining “the knower”. As explicitly
stated, the “knower” is the person who possesses the knowledge who actively processes
and is responsible for his or her own beliefs, opinion and way of thinking. Educational
practices that support this concept tend to favor individual ability or diversity of the
children; and, their choice of assessment methods tends to be those that address
individual differences such as portfolio assessment and assessment based on the unique
ability of the learner.
Lastly, the authors explain that the many and often opposing goals and purposes
of assessment is what brings it to a paradox within. They also discuss the different roles
of teachers in classroom (Wilson, 1996. as cited in the article).
 Critical Analysis

The stated paradox in the article is well explained and strongly supported by numerous
philosophical and psychological concepts and studies of some well-known authorities.
The paradox of classroom assessment is an article that digs deep down the very roots of
the often unseen conflicts between the supposedly educational standards-based
assessment (e.g. national standardized test or international assessment) and the
apparently learner-centered and diversity-oriented ones (assessment based on child’s
unique ability and intelligence).

The explanation given by the authors in this article as to what causes this paradox is
anchored on the long debatable paradoxical concept of “the known and the knower”. It
is such a wise choice. The authors are unquestionably knowledgeable and are insightful
enough to use these basic conceptions in coming up with paradox in classroom
assessment. The contradicting conceptions outlined in the article as termed by the
authors as “what is known collectively” and “what is known subjectively” wherein the
former being “known” constitutes the common realistic educational practice of today and
that is, the use of educational standards and standardized assessment; and, latter being
the “knower” constitutes the battle cry of many educators, an assessment that should be
based on individually unique skills, competence and talents of the learners. The use of
these concepts in coming up with the paradox in classroom assessment is absolutely on
point.

In addition to what the authors have related about this dichotomy, opposing views
between “the known” and “the knower” in this article are somehow similar to the two
conflicting fundamental philosophies in education: realism and idealism.

The concept of the “known” is related to the belief of realism having the strong support
towards the view that facts about the world continue to exist whether there is someone
who perceives it or not (Lynch, M. 2016). That having said, following this principle,
assessment then should be about facts, knowledge and skills input by an expert (e.i. the
teacher) and it should be uniform or standardized hence, increasing the accountability of
the results and what is supposed to measure. Children then should be taught only with
what is real or what can scientifically be verified. This type of view about assessment may
provide high accountability but it also refutes the principle of individual differences. There
may be ease in such assessment practices but is it often one-sided because it is more
favorable only for the teachers and the curriculum planners than for the learners.

The concept of the “knower” on the other hand supports that of idealism. Classroom
instruction and assessment in this view must be a kind that aims to acknowledge,
encourage and promote the individual self of the learner. Hence, teachers must engage
more in differentiated instruction and assessment so to better serve all aspects of
development in each child. Nevertheless, as pointed in the paradox, neither can
educational system totally follow merely this principle for it often lead to the problem of
accountability, nor should it be totally ignored for it will be children at the tragic end.

Needless to say, with many considerable challenges, in assessment focusing on the

“knower” (child’s unique interests and skills), there are still a myriad of uncertainties
concerning how to achieve these goals, and, importantly, how to assess progress along
the way (Care & Vista, 2017). With the recent advances in technology and the fast
changes happening in the way people learn and interact (e.g. the use of the Internet)
educators are left with no choice but to try to cope with these changes.

Going back to the concept of the “known”, it should also be the focus of change and even
subject of debate among those who formulate the curriculum. This is because such a
pedagogical bias is also evident in our very own curriculum (DepEd K to 12). For instance,
the universal use of “curriculum guides”; in which, regardless of the cultural, social,
economic and demographic background of the pupils, curriculum implementers (e.i. the
teachers) must teach and inculcate the same knowledge, skills, and values. According to
the Classroom Assessment Resource Book of DepEd, published 2018, Classroom
assessment in our present curriculum focuses on interpreting and evaluating each
learner’s performance against the curriculum standards and competencies (which are
primarily concept-based. Hence, consequently resulting in uniform mode and type of
assessment leaving the other potentials of the learners isolated and undiscovered.
In the current Philippines’ K to 12 programs, bigger percentage of the total grade of the
learner must come from performances and less with test scores (e.g. in Science, 30
percent is for quizzes, 20 percent for quarterly exam and half is intended for performance).
In addition, teachers are encouraged if not required, to create lessons that uses ICTs and
differentiated instruction and assessment, presumably so as to cater the unique needs of
the learners. This seems to be a positive progress. However, the true situations in the
field is actually far from what is supposed to be. Teachers are not well supported and so
are the pupils (e.g. lack of books and many other educational materials). Much of the
emphasis is still rest on the test scores of the pupils. If, for instance, division supervisors
will come and evaluate teachers, the focus would still be almost only on the cognitive
aspect of the child’s learning. Most evidently, at the end of child’s certain chapter in basic
education (let say after Grade 6), the child or the school’s performance or achievement
level would still be judged according to test scores, specifically in National Achievement
Test (Coloma, B. 2017). Yet still, teachers are mandated to be child-centered at all times
when it comes to instruction and assessment. In analogy, it’s like asking your mother to
cook “tinola” and afterwards expect it to taste like “adobo”.

Supposedly, with all the current changes happening in most educational systems, the
paradox should have been already acknowledged and has been lessened or weakened.
Presumably, since this article came out in 2001 and it has been already almost two
decades, it should be outdated in today’s situations already for most of the curriculum in
many countries including the Philippines should have already shifted their focus from the
traditional score-based assessment to skills-based. Most countries today already have
their educational programs focused on 21st-century skills such as problem-solving,
communication, cooperation and digital literacy (Care & Vista, 2017) rather than merely
factual intelligence. Despite all that, our educational system’s assessment focus seems
to be still in test scores which is pretty much traditional and not child-centered. This is a
clear evidence of the existence of this paradox in our country’s public educational system;
and, if this will continue, our educational performance will only get worse.

Still and all, no educational system can completely ignore totally rely on any of the two
conceptions of competence in classroom assessment. That is, if we follow only the
concept of “the known” or what is known collectively though objective, we will end up
negating the principle of individual differences. On the other hand, if “the concept of “the
knower” or what is known subjectively will be followed alone, classroom assessment in
its true purpose will be lost. Plainly, this is the thought that the authors is trying to
elucidate.

Lastly, this paradox in classroom assessment that exist in our educational system may
well be managed but not limited through the following: limit the focus on appraising
learners’ achievement and performance through test scores, instead provide them with
assessment that promotes all types of learning (Care & Vista, 2017); shift practices to
learner centered-teaching and assessment; grading system should be based on multiple
exposures, multiple occasions, multiple devices complemented by students' self-
assessment and peer assessment (Farhady, H. 2003); provide greater chance for school
autonomy and decentralization; and, Greater variety of evaluation and assessment
activities (OECD, 2013.)

To end, let us conclude this paper with a quotation from Herman (1992) as cited by
Fahardy (2003) which states:
Life is not multiple-choice. As children and adults, we must be able to apply what
we know to create solutions, approach and solve novel problems, and
communicate effectively to name just a few areas that call out for other than
multiple-choice assessment (p. 3).

References:
Care, E. & Vista, A. (2017, March 27). Education is Changing. It’s Time Assessment
Caught Up. Retrieved from:
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/education_is_changingits_time_assessment_caught_up#

Classroom Assessment Resource Book (2018). Retrieved from:

https://www.coursehero.com/file/40725011/CARB-Finalpdf/

Coloma, B. (2015, August 25). ORIENTATION: National Career Assessment

Examination (NCAE). Retrieved from: https://prezi.com/7u82uvowl_8r/orientation-
national-career-assessment-examination-ncae/

Farhady, H. (2003). Classroom Assessment: A Plea for Change. Iran University for
Science and Technology. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/21204034/Classroom_Assessment_A_Plea_for_Change

Herman, J. H. (1992). Effects of standardized testing on teaching and learning: Another

look. CSE Technical report 334. UCLA, Center for Research Evaluation, Standards and
Students Evaluation (CRESST).

Lynch, Matthew, August 5, 2016. Understanding the 4 Main Schools of Philosophy:

Principle of Realism. https://www.theedadvocate.org/understanding-4-main-schools-
philosophy-principle-realism/

OECD (2013), “Trends in evaluation and assessment”, in Synergies for Better Learning:
An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-5-en