Image: Cover of And Tango Makes Three

It was a great disappointment when I received the study guide for our final exam. It would be a Blue Book exam over 25 of the terms (e.g. borders, gouache, foil) we had studied throughout the semester. There were three pieces to keep in mind, my instructor explained, as my classmates and I looked at her with panic in our eyes: 

1. The study guide contained 50 terms, and we wouldn’t know which 25 would be selected for the exam 
2. For each term we had to be able to define or identify it (including author and illustrator), give an example of an appropriate work or other term to relate to it, and then make three comments on the item’s significance 
3. We would not be allowed to use our study guide on the test 

Compared to the papers and presentations I had completed earlier in the semester to demonstrate my knowledge, this exam format was a shock. Going through my undergraduate notes, I found my old study guide. A standard entry for one of the terms, Bildungsroman, is shown below. 

Examining this exam through a graduate school lens, I now have the words to describe what I find problematic with this assessment structure. 

• It privileges memorization. On Bloom’s Taxonomy (University of Central Florida, n.d.), recall – a specific type of memorization – is the lowest level. It requires the learner to remember and repeat information as it was presented to them.While foundational, recall does not allow for higher-level thinking such as synthesis and reflection. 
• Regurgitating information exactly as it is presented from facilitator to learner is also a behaviorist (Watson, 1905) form of assessment and I prescribe to a more constructivist approach, as it allows for collaboration and synthesis of ideas. (For more of my thoughts on approaches to learning, see my post Learning in Schools, a Case for Shifting Ideology). 
• This exam also did not utilize Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2024), which calls for multiple means of engagement, representation, action, and expression. Instead, this assessment relied on all students, regardless of background, ability, native language, or learning preference, to complete the same test in the same way. A more UDL informed approach could have looked like offering different options to showcase knowledge from the course such as creating a presentation, writing a paper, or completing a concept map. 
• By limiting the exam to this format, it privileges learners who are used to this format; namely, white, middle to upper class, able-bodied, men. Therefore, it is not culturally responsive. As Montenegro and Jankowski (2017) argued, a culturally responsive exam would have allowed for another type of response entirely, such as an oral response, poster project, or portfolio. 

I was tired the day of the exam, having spent the previous days studying for my other courses and writing papers, and I entered the classroom with no small amount of trepidation. Memorizing the terms had taken it out of me, but I performed well on the exam. I know it was a privilege that I was able to prepare adequately and perform well in the first place. Eight years later, this memorization assessment stands out to me as a reminder of what not to do for a final exam. And before uncovering my study guide, could I regurgitate word for word what the term “bildungsroman” meant or how it related to children’s literature? Definitely not, but I could provide an explanation based on the schema I have created for it as an English teacher. 

References

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2024).  UDL guidelines 3.0. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Cherry, K. (2024, May 13). What is a schema in psychology?. verywell mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-schema-2795873

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and assessment: Moving towards culturally responsive assessment. (Occasional Paper No. 29). University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

University of Central Florida. (n.d.). Bloom’s Taxonomy. https://fctl.ucf.edu/teaching-resources/course-design/blooms-taxonomy

Watson, J. B. (1905). Contributions to the study of the behavior of lower organisms. Psychological Bulletin, 2(4), 144-145.

One of my favorite units to teach from the 11th grade English curriculum at my school is the American Dream. My school’s textbook is full of waxing poeticism on the roots of the dream and only brief allusions to its complications such as placing Langston Hughes’ “I Too” next to Walt Whitman’s “I Hear America Singing,” and then having students compare the pieces. However, I like to toss the textbook out the window. My students instead explore the unit through two guiding questions: What is the American Dream? and For whom is the dream available? 

As part of our journey to answering this question, my students and I read The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. I enjoy teaching this book for the glitz and glamor of the 1920s and also its deep flaws that allow students to dig into literary and historical analysis. We spend weeks learning about the culture of the United States in the 1920s, tracking character development – or lack thereof – digging into symbolism, and analyzing the story. 

When I design units, I always use backward design (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998) and Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2024) to inform my choices. For The Great Gatsby, I emphasize student choice and voice, as well as ensure they have a strong knowledge base to draw from when they go to complete my summative assessment for the unit. Therefore, students encounter assignments informed by behaviorist theory (Watson, 1905) – can they recall information from a specific chapter to answer questions? – and social constructivist theory (e.g, Vygotsky, 1979) – can they work with others to analyze how Gatsby feels about Daisy? I vary assignments to work with the diverse ways my students learn and help guide them towards the learning objectives: the analysis I want them to be able to complete at the end of the unit. 

By the time we get to the end of the book, students are well aware the American Dream will never be – and could never have been – within Gatsby’s grasp, nor was it available to anyone else in the book, even the vapid Tom and Daisy. Throughout the book, students have responded to these ideas in writing and speech, so for their final assessment, I give students autonomy in the way they demonstrate their knowledge.

I therefore follow the RAFT strategy (Santa et al., 2004). RAFT is an acronym for Role, Audience, Format, and Topic. As shown in the following table, students pick a role, assume that writer’s voice, and then construct a piece of writing based on the corresponding information. 

Though initially unsure, with guidance through conferencing with me as their instructor and reviewing with peers, many students come to enjoy this assignment. It does not feel as much like an assessment as the ones they are used to, but critically, as Shephard (2000) suggested, it allows me to see if they truly understand the concepts from the book and are able to apply this knowledge in context. 

By assuming a writer’s identity, be it Daisy writing to Gatsby to explain why she can not run away with him, or a newspaper reporter trying to get the inside scoop on the lavish West Egg parties, students are working on critical skills of the English Language Arts discipline: author’s purpose, authorial voice, diction, syntax, and the writing process. In so, my “classroom routines and corresponding assessments” should reflect the goals of developing students within disciplines (Shepard, 2000, p. 8). 

While some students roll their eyes, and try to complete the assessment for the best grade with the least amount of effort (Schneider and Hutt, 2013), many of them enjoy the activity and end up creating some truly fantastic pieces. For example, this student assumed the role of a psychologist interviewing Nick Carraway after the events of the book – likely informed by the Baz Luhrman framing of the story – and typed session notes. 

Another student created a playlist for the characters, supporting her choices through specific references to the text. Notice how the student uses her unique voice to comment on how she feels about the characters and their journeys.

Yet another student wrote poems loosely from the characters’ points of view. The student clearly works with the symbolism of Dr. T. J. Eckleburg’s eyes without explicitly having to name the symbol.

I grade based on a rubric, which we go over together before students begin their final project. I also show examples so students can get an idea of what this assessment could look like as they enter the brainstorming stage.

This assessment is my favorite because of the creativity and connections to the material students make without even realizing their depth of knowledge on the subject.

References 

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (n.d.). UDL guidelines. CAST. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Fitzgerald, F.S. (1925). The great gatsby. Union Square & Company. 

Santa, C., Havens, L., & Valdes, B. (2004). Project CRISS: Creating independence through student-owned strategies. Kendall Hunt.

Schneider, J. and Hutt, E. (2013). Making the grade: a history of the A–F marking scheme. Journal of Curriculum Studies. DOI 10.1080/00220272.2013.790480

Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Russian Social Science Review, 20(4), 47–79.

Watson, J. B. (1905). Contributions to the study of the behavior of lower organisms. Psychological Bulletin, 2(4), 144-145.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.