A Personal View of Curriculum-Based Assessment: A Response to “Critical Reflections…”

Abstract

* While we applaud efforts to further holistic thought, we feel that Heshusius' (1991) critique has fallen short of a sound foundation for authentic debate. Her misrepresentation of issues and concepts has created a credibility problem weakening the position she wishes to support. A thorough review of the November 1985 issue of Exceptional Children and other current literature, would reveal that there are major within the curriculum-based assessment (CBA) movement. These camps were lumped together by Heshusius without adequate acknowledgement of their diverse perspectives. She added direct (DI) to this diverse pool and with unrestricted liberty determined that CBA/DI was mechanistic in nature, Newtonian in etiology and, therefore, inadequate to do what it professes. In response, it would be an injustice to attempt to represent the various perspectives of other CBA proponents. Instead, we wish to clarify and restate basic assumptions about our own Personal View of CBA (1985). In doing so, we will review certain fundamental concepts of CBA and then focus on specific points of misrepresentation. CLARIFYING FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS The literal interpretation of using one's own curriculum to test what is being taught can be misleading. Assessment should not be approached so narrowly as to be viewed as a series of tasks to be checked off, with students evaluated based on how far they went or what objectives they completed. Data collection, interpretation and application are not independent entities, but are interwoven functions whose primary goal is to facilitate the instructional decision-making (Gickling & Thompson, p. 206). It is how and what the student is doing within the curriculum that becomes the driving force for assessment rather than the standard prescribed curriculum imposed upon the student. CBA assists teachers in understanding how and what by providing them with a blueprint to help guide their instructional decisions. A belief in the frequent sampling of performance to determine a student's instructional need is not unique to special education. Paraphrasing Valencia and Pearson (1987), this type of dynamic daily interactive assessment of one's reading performance could become the norm of the future. To Heshusius, words such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment are described as desperately empty in CBA literature. We find this assertion perplexing inasmuch as the very foundation of CBA rests on these terms. Words such as curriculum, instruction, and assessment are not hollow but have specific meaning. * Curriculum refers to WHAT students are taught. It represents the media of the teacher's instructional craft consisting of ideas, objectives, and the substantive elements of given instructional domains. * Instruction refers to HOW students are taught. It represents the actions of teachers in guiding students through the interplay of curriculum and meaningful learning. As such, it represents the delivery system used to provide students with formal and informal opportunities to learn. * Assessment refers to WHY and WHERE students are taught. It refers to the process of gathering valid evidence to guide decisions about curriculum and instruction, and to evaluate the outcomes of instruction (Calfee, 1987,p.738). These definitions are central to our personal view of CBA, as are the following themes related to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. 1. Curriculum places explicit demands upon learners. It is the inflexible presentation of standard curriculum and the sheer volume of material that is to be covered from day to day regardless of the level and needs of students that creates conditions of failure for many students. 2. Curriculum must be managed or guided if successful learning conditions are to occur for students. A goal of CBA is to eliminate the instructional mismatch between the skills and needs of students and the inordinate demands placed upon them by curriculum assignments. …