Practicality and

Efficiency
ment Asses
ss s
sme t Asse

me
nt Asessm

OF ASSESSMENT
n
es

s en
As t

Presented by: Grace Escabas

Objectives Identify the importance of
practical and efficient
classroom assessment

Distinguish different uses of

practical and high quality
At the end of lesson students classroom assessment
would be able to:
Determine and construct
practical and efficient
classroom assessment
 Introduction
festing ~
ani
m

m
ifesting ~

anif ing ~
est
an
m

Practical means “useful”, that is, it can be used to

improve classroom instruction and for outcomes
assessment purposes. It likewise pertains to judicious
use of classroom time. Efficient, in this context,
pertains to development, administration and grading
of assessment with the least waste of resources and
effort.
 Factors to Consider:
Familiarity with the method of assessment
Time required of students to complete the
assessment
Complexity of administering the Assessment
Ease of scoring
Ease of interpretation
Cost
 Teacher Familiarity with
the Method
Knowledge of the strengths

and limitations of the
method
How to administer the assessment
How to score and properly interpret students
responses
Appropriateness of the given method for
given learning targets
 It is desirable to use the shortest assessment possible
that provides credible results. In other words, gather
only as much information as you need for the decision or
other use of the results. The time required should include
how long it takes to construct the assessment, how much
time is needed for students to provide answers, and how
long it takes to score the results. The time needed for
each of these aspects of assessment is different for each
method of assessment.
 Complexity of the
Administration
Practical and efficient assessments are easy to
administer. This means that the directions and
procedures for administration are clear. Assessments
that require long, complicated directions and setup,
like some performance assessments, are less efficient
and may, because of student misunderstanding, have
adverse effects on reliability/precision and validity. m
ani
festing ~

m
ifesting ~

anif ing
est
It is obvious that some methods of assessment, such as objective
tests, are much easier to score than other methods, such as
essays, papers, and oral presentations. In general use the easiest
method of scoring appropriate to the method and purpose of the
assessment.
Objective tests are easiest to score and contribute less scoring
error to reliability/precision. Scoring performance assessments,
essays, papers, and the like is more difficult because more time is
needed to ensure reliability/precision. For these assessments, it
is more practical-to-use-rating-scales and checklists rather than
writing extended individualized evaluations.
A single score from an objective test is easy to interpret
with respect to overall success; individualized written
comments are more difficult to interpret. Many
subjectively evaluated products, for example, from
performance assessments, are given a score on a rubric
enhance ease of interpretation. It is necessary to provide
sufficient information so that whatever interpretation is
made is accurate. Often grades or scores are applied too
quickly without enough thought and detailed feedback to
students. This can be partially remedied by sharing a key
with students and others that provides meaning to
different scores or grades. Interpretation is easier if you
are able to plan, before the assessment, how to use the
results.
Because most classroom assessments are inexpensive,
especially with access to online examples and test banks, cost is
relatively unimportant (except perhaps for the district as a
whole). Some performance assessments are exceptions because
the cost of materials can be an important factor. Like other
practical aspects, it is best to use the most economical
assessment, other things being equal. But economy should be
thought of in the long run, less-expensive tests may eventually
cost more in further assessment.