RHETORIC AND REALITY IN SCIENCE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS - AN UPDATE

This article addresses the rhetoric of performance assessment with res earch on important claims about science performance assessments. We fo und the following: (a) Concepts and terminology used to refer to perfo rmance assessments often were not consistent within and across researc hers, educators, and policymakers. (b) Performance assessments are hig hly sensitive not only to the tasks and the occasions sampled, but als o to the method (e.g., hands-on, computer simulation) used to measure performance. (c) Performance assessments do not necessarily tap higher -order thinking, especially when they are poorly designed. (d) Perform ance assessments are expensive to develop and use; technology is neede d for developing these assessments in an efficient way. (e) Performanc e assessments do not necessarily have the expected positive impact on teachers' teaching and students' understanding. (f) If teachers are to use performance assessments in their classrooms, they need profession al development to help them construct the necessary knowledge and skil ls. This article attempts to address some of these realities by presen ting a conceptual framework that might guide the development and the e valuation of performance assessments, as well as steps that might be t aken to create a performance assessment technology and develop teacher inservice programs.