Assessing Makers Without Jeopardizing Creativity

Many people view assessment as a summative test that determines whether a student has passed or failed a class. In the twenty-first century, teachers need to be asking students to do much more than memorize facts and take tests. In developing critical thinking skills, learners should be given questions that have more than one right answer. Our goal should be that students “learn not just knowledge as facts, but knowledge as something you produce” (James Paul Gee, 2008). Computers have the facts; therefore, twenty-first century students must be able to innovate, solve problems, produce creative products, and collaborate effectively with one another. Assessment must follow the student through the creative process and provide continuous feedback to the learner, so they can correct themselves, learn, and grow. Written summative assessments that do not inform learning are not the adequate tool for this important task.

In Maker Education, largely built on Project-based Learning, students must be provided with an environment that allows them to experiment, make mistakes, correct their thinking, try new solutions, and expand their creativity. Punitive high-stakes tests and outdated rubrics can squash creativity rather quickly, producing anxiety in students and a fear of making mistakes. Educators should not make the mistake of abandoning assessment, because evaluation is a necessary part of the learning process (Wiggins, 2012). I want to evaluate students in a way that provides regular useful feedback, is learner-centered, and assists their creative process. I also want students to continually assess themselves and the things they are producing, because they must be able to recognize when something of their own creation is not working.

Maker Classrooms are not without criterion, standards, and assigned tasks (Isslehardt, 2013). Rather, students must be given clear directions about their purpose. Wiggins relays it well:

“It is vital when asking students to perform or produce a product that you are crystal-clear on the purpose of the task, and that you state the purpose to make clear that the purpose is to cause an intrinsic effect, NOT please the teacher. That’s one value of our GRASPS acronym in UbD: when the student has clarity about the Goal of the task, their Role, the specific Audience, the specific Setting, the Performance particulars, and the Standards and criteria against which they will be judged, they can be far more effective – and creative! – than without such information.” (Wiggins, 2012)

As an educator charged with the assessment of student learning, I would assess creative problem solving during maker-inspired lessons by focusing on student process, their growth, their product, and their product’s impact. Rubrics are useful for teachers and students in providing clear guidelines for a project. I will use Creativity rubrics to help me and my students define what good work looks like without jeopardizing student risk-taking (Wiggins, 2012). I will also have the student's audience provide them with meaningful and constructive feedback (Hernandez, 2016). I also want students to develop portfolios of their projects to display their long-term learning and celebrate their contributions.

Resources:

Edutopia. (2010, Jul 20). James Paul Gee on Grading with Games. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU3pwCD-ey0

Hernandez, M. (2016, June 6). Evaluating Project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/evaluating-pbl-michael-hernandez

Isslehardt, E. (2013, February 11). Creating Schoolwide PBL Aligned to Common Core [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/PBL-aligned-to-common-core-eric-isslehardt

Wiggins, G. (2012, February 3). On assessing for creativity: yes you can, and yes you should. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/on-assessing-for-creativity-yes-you-can-and-yes-you-should/