Differentiated Assessment

Tomlinson (2005) stated that we teach as we were taught (p. 183). The typical
frontal lesson that we are accustomed to from childhood is an easy fallback that we
may be attempted to rely on when planning a unit of instruction. Even when a
teacher takes measures to engage students with multiple learning styles and
differentiation, teachers may make the mistake of assessing the same way they
were assessed back in grade school. I would clarify that this is only in terms of
summative assessment not formative assessment. Certainly, a teacher in a
differentiated classroom would find no difficulty in using various active learning
strategies to receive feedback from students in various, differentiated forms.
Indeed, inclusion of active learning strategies have been found to increase the level
of achievement on tests, in comparison to standard, frontal teaching (Lee, Smith &
Croninger, 1995).
When teachers resort to assessment without differentiation, this can send a
confusing message to learners in the class. Students who are accustomed to
scaffolding, active learning strategies and cooperative learning may feel quite
stifled and unable to perform if, when it comes to a test, one size fits all and
everyone is expected to be assessed in the same manner, at the same level. A truly
differentiated classroom needs all the three components of instruction to be
addressed: content, process and products (Tomlinson, 1999). The philosophy of
differentiation dictates that the teacher adapt to the needs of the specific learner. In
keeping with this philosophy, the teacher should have a precise learning destination
for each student (Earl, 2003). By giving the exact same test to every student, the
teacher is ignoring the individualized learning destination that was in mind during
the instructional phase.
It is understandable, however, why teachers are reluctant to differentiate in
assessments. For one, if a top student receives an A for scoring high on his test, it
would seem unfair for a weaker student to get that same A for a differentiated test
at a lower level. Second; fairness aside for an assessment to be valid, students
must be tested on the same information! If there are different versions of the same
test it would be very hard to interpret the level of mastery in the class as a group. In
a standardized-test society, it would appear quite difficult to truly differentiate
assessment.
To be clear, even if differentiated assessment could be considered authentic, there
are other considerations that might make it difficult for a teacher to create
differentiated tests. If there are, for example, three different levels of students in
the class, a teacher may need to write up three separate tests to address the
differing types of students! Confronting such a task may prove daunting, indeed.
If I were to propose a solution for creating a school-wide policy on differentiated
assessments, I would present the following list of recommendations:
(a) Teachers can test the same information; albeit using different modalities for
expression. An auditory learner could take a test orally, while a visual learner

could answer by writing on a paper. In addition, students who find timed tests
stressful should be allowed extra time to complete the assessment.
(b) Instead of all-or-nothing testing, teachers should allow students to take
retests; with no repercussions. If assessments are tools to measure mastery,
students should be allowed to practice until they demonstrate mastery.
(c) Teachers should use performance-based evaluations instead of standard fillin-the-blank type tests. With performance based evaluations, students could
create their own products and choose how they want to demonstrate mastery
of content.
(d) Teachers should use porfolios as a means of assessment. By adding to the
student portfolio, students could demonstrate their mastery of content in a
non-threatening manner, over time.
(e) Teachers should use Understanding by Design (Wiggins, 2005) principles to
guide their test-creation. By emphasising essential understandings, teachers
could require that all students demonstrate mastery over core principles,
while differentiating by adding or subtracting auxiliary details to the
assessment, as per need.