Assessment- Is it necessary?

Do we really need a gleaming signpost declaring to us as teachers that what we are trying to teach our students has been assimilated? And if this be a necessity, what parameters guide us to understanding that this is learning by assimilation and not simply learning by memory?

On a broader level, is assessment necessary for the teaching-learning environment? Can teachers not be satisfied that they have imparted quality education- without assessing how well they have imparted it/ how well it has been received by students? On the flip side, can students not be learning for the sake of learning and continue to learn for the sake of learning?

I am a student of the 1990s and a teacher of the 21st century. I have studied in an environment where assessments were benchmarks in our path to glory! We studied to "score", to "top" and to outdo others in examinations. In retrospect, what did we think were we doing? I didn't ever study to learn something new, I don't remember ever being curious about anything! The only thing I recall is I wanted to be top of the class, I wanted a full score and I wanted to beat that girl in class.

I teach in classrooms of students with varying abilities and strengths. I teach through active participation, audio-visuals, kinesthetics and problem solving games. In spite of a holistic method of teaching, I have learned that assessments teach me minimally about my style of teaching or my students ability to learn. Then why exactly do we assess?

Some educators talk about assessments aiming at driving performance, effort and policy at the system level- be it the government, university, school or teacher level. The traditional need for assessment was to guage the deficit in understanding by students. What do students not know? How can it be taught better?

Teaching students with disabilities gives you a fresh insight into the way we learn.
1. Every individual learns at his own pace
2. Every individual learns in a different manner
3. Every individual may learn a certain proportion of the overall concept; which most of the times will be very different from another individual.

This insight led me to explore how cognitive development takes place in humans.

That's when I came across the works of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) and Robert Glaser (1921- 2012)

Their work brings out 3 main points:

1. Learning  (both cognitive and social) is developmental.

2. Every individual has a base level of development and a zone of proximal development (ZPD) which is defined as the difference between this base level and the potential level of development that may be achieved by the individual. 

3. Learning is not a categorical quantity;

not simply "Understood" or "Not understood" 

But it is a continuous variable

i.e. When we learn something, it may be to some degree that we understand it, and this degree may be represented on a continuum from 0% understanding to 100 % understanding; or more qualitatively in terms of behaviours representing proficiency gained. 

So, if we can quantify at what level of development an individual has achieved, this knowledge may be instrumental in designing teaching objectives, focussing skill development and improving overall learning outcomes of students. 

Is it then maybe, a better idea to assess the level of development of individuals rather than their deficiencies?

Further readings

1.  Care, E. (2014). Assessing 21st century skills. Centre for Education Research and Practice, 21 January 2014  https://cerp.aqa.org.uk/perspectives/assessing-21st-century-skill
2. Patrick Griffin, Kerry Woods, Roz Mountain, Claire Scoular, Developmental learning frameworks, Module 1 ATC21S™ © Assessment Research Centre, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, 2013