Assessing creativity when it comes to problem solving can be a tricky endeavor. The range in which students express their own creativity as well as the room for creativity in the activity can complicate how a teacher may assess that creativity.
As is the first step in any assessment, it must align with the standards applicable to the subject matter. This idea is one of the foundations of Understanding by Design, both the student and the teacher should know the goal of the learning (Wiggins, 2012). Without alignment to state or national standards, the curriculum lacks focus and direction. Eric Isselhardt (2013) points out the importance of aligning curriculum, placing this as the first step in creating a classroom centered on project-based learning. In assessing my own students I would begin by looking at the Pennsylvania Standards Aligned System in order to determine the content my students should master. In order to introduce Maker Learning into the standards, I would use the Next Generation Science Standards science and engineering practices as well as the crosscutting concepts. Using these sources I could then synthesize the outcome for a specific lesson.
Once the standards were determined, I would use the GRASPS system laid out in UbD. In this system of creating assessments, students first are given 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” (Wiggins, 2012). The goal would come from the standards to ensure alignment. Depending on the standard the role, audience, setting, and performance would vary to allow students room to be creative. The “standard” or criteria that would be used as a final assessment would come from Wiggin’s Creative rubric (Wiggins, 2012). Rubrics can be complicated, especially when it comes to critiquing creativity. You do want to limit the creativity too much with the rubric but you also want to have a standard that can be used for all students. This rubric is laid out in a point system with values 1-6, with 6 being the highest grade possible. With each numerical value, there are multitudes of ways students can express their creativity. For example, a 6 would mean that:
“The work is unusually creative. The ideas/materials/methods used are novel, striking, and highly effective. Important ideas/feelings are illuminated or highlighted in sophisticated ways. The creation shows great imagination, insight, style, and daring. The work has an elegant power that derives from clarity about aims and control over intended effects. The creator takes risks in form, style, and/or content.”
This broad definition would ensure that students feel comfortable expressing their creativity in different ways and do not feel as if they have to conform to a certain type of creativity.
The challenge, I believe, for myself and other teachers that are embracing the Maker Movement is the “P” part of the GRASPS system, that is the performance particulars. This performance portion is what students will ultimately be assessed in the manner outlined above. In order to truly assess creativity students must have the opportunity to be creative. As James Paul Gee (2010) points out, the current system benefits those that can memorize facts but does not encourage problem solving. To make a shift, as teachers we must change our method of student “performance” to that which would encourage solving problems. This is where the Maker Movement really comes into play. Using Maker activities encourages students to solve novel problems and provides the opportunity to have more than one correct “answer” or way to solve that problem. Gee describes video games as assessments, where you try, learn from mistakes, and attempt to pass the final assessment-the “boss” (2010). This same line of thinking applies to using Maker Education in the classroom. Students are given materials, they try to complete the task given to them, and while they are working they may fail. These failures become learning opportunities and in the end the apply everything they have learned to complete the final performance portion of the lesson.
Assessing creative problem solving has many layers in order to be effective. The material itself must align to standards. Those standards must be the goal of the overall learning in order for a rubric to assist in assessing the creativity. Most importantly, students must be given “performance” activities that allow for their creativity.
Resources
Gee, J. P. [Edutopia]. (2010, July 20). James Paul Gee on grading with games [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU3pwCD-ey0
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/
As is the first step in any assessment, it must align with the standards applicable to the subject matter. This idea is one of the foundations of Understanding by Design, both the student and the teacher should know the goal of the learning (Wiggins, 2012). Without alignment to state or national standards, the curriculum lacks focus and direction. Eric Isselhardt (2013) points out the importance of aligning curriculum, placing this as the first step in creating a classroom centered on project-based learning. In assessing my own students I would begin by looking at the Pennsylvania Standards Aligned System in order to determine the content my students should master. In order to introduce Maker Learning into the standards, I would use the Next Generation Science Standards science and engineering practices as well as the crosscutting concepts. Using these sources I could then synthesize the outcome for a specific lesson.
Once the standards were determined, I would use the GRASPS system laid out in UbD. In this system of creating assessments, students first are given 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” (Wiggins, 2012). The goal would come from the standards to ensure alignment. Depending on the standard the role, audience, setting, and performance would vary to allow students room to be creative. The “standard” or criteria that would be used as a final assessment would come from Wiggin’s Creative rubric (Wiggins, 2012). Rubrics can be complicated, especially when it comes to critiquing creativity. You do want to limit the creativity too much with the rubric but you also want to have a standard that can be used for all students. This rubric is laid out in a point system with values 1-6, with 6 being the highest grade possible. With each numerical value, there are multitudes of ways students can express their creativity. For example, a 6 would mean that:
“The work is unusually creative. The ideas/materials/methods used are novel, striking, and highly effective. Important ideas/feelings are illuminated or highlighted in sophisticated ways. The creation shows great imagination, insight, style, and daring. The work has an elegant power that derives from clarity about aims and control over intended effects. The creator takes risks in form, style, and/or content.”
This broad definition would ensure that students feel comfortable expressing their creativity in different ways and do not feel as if they have to conform to a certain type of creativity.
The challenge, I believe, for myself and other teachers that are embracing the Maker Movement is the “P” part of the GRASPS system, that is the performance particulars. This performance portion is what students will ultimately be assessed in the manner outlined above. In order to truly assess creativity students must have the opportunity to be creative. As James Paul Gee (2010) points out, the current system benefits those that can memorize facts but does not encourage problem solving. To make a shift, as teachers we must change our method of student “performance” to that which would encourage solving problems. This is where the Maker Movement really comes into play. Using Maker activities encourages students to solve novel problems and provides the opportunity to have more than one correct “answer” or way to solve that problem. Gee describes video games as assessments, where you try, learn from mistakes, and attempt to pass the final assessment-the “boss” (2010). This same line of thinking applies to using Maker Education in the classroom. Students are given materials, they try to complete the task given to them, and while they are working they may fail. These failures become learning opportunities and in the end the apply everything they have learned to complete the final performance portion of the lesson.
Assessing creative problem solving has many layers in order to be effective. The material itself must align to standards. Those standards must be the goal of the overall learning in order for a rubric to assist in assessing the creativity. Most importantly, students must be given “performance” activities that allow for their creativity.
Resources
Gee, J. P. [Edutopia]. (2010, July 20). James Paul Gee on grading with games [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU3pwCD-ey0
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/