Joel Breakstone

Beyond the Bubble in History/Social Studies Assessments.

To prepare students for assessments tied to the Common Core, teachers need tools and tests that help students analyze primary and secondary sources and develop written historical arguments.

Try, Try, Try Again: The Process of Designing New History Assessments

Abstract This article considers the design process for new formative history assessments. Over the course of 3 years, my colleagues from the Stanford History Education Group and I designed, piloted, and revised dozens of History Assessments of Thinking (HATs). As we created HATs, we sought to gather information about their cognitive validity, the relationship between the constructs targeted by the assessments, and the cognitive processes students used to answer them. Three case studies trace the development of different HATs through analyses of draft assessments, student responses, and think-aloud protocols. Design principles specific to formative history assessments emerged from these analyses: (1) assessments must be historically accurate, (2) assessments must target specific historical constructs, (3) assessment structure must align with targeted constructs, (4) assessments must yield useful information for teachers, and (5) pilot data are indispensable for refining HATs. These finding suggest the need for increased attention on the construction and validation of new assessment materials for the history classroom.

Can Students Evaluate Online Sources? Learning From Assessments of Civic Online Reasoning

Abstract To be an informed citizen in today’s information-rich environment, individuals must be able to evaluate information they encounter on the Internet. However, teachers currently have limited options if they want to assess students’ evaluations of digital content. In response, we created a range of short tasks that assess students’ civic online reasoning—the ability to effectively search for, evaluate, and verify social and political information online. Assessments ranged from paper-and-pencil tasks to open Internet search tasks delivered via Google Forms. We outline a process of assessment development in which middle school, high school, and college students in 12 states completed tasks. We present a series of representative tasks and analyses of trends in student performance. Across tasks and grade levels, students struggled to effectively evaluate online claims, sources, and evidence. These results point to a need for curriculum materials that support students’ development of civic online reasoning competencies.

Why We Need a New Approach to Teaching Digital Literacy.

In recent years — and especially since the 2016 presidential election — numerous media organizations, newspapers, and policy advocates have made efforts to help Americans become more careful consumers of the information they see online. In K-12 and higher education, the main approach has been to provide students with checklists they can use to assess the credibility of individual websites. However, the checklist approach is outdated. It would be far better to teach young people to follow the lead of professional fact-checkers: When confronted by a new and unfamiliar website, they begin by looking elsewhere on the web, searching for any information that might shed light on who created the site in question and for what purpose.

Why Google Can’t Save Us

The Stanford History Education Group has prototyped, field tested, and validated a bank of assessments that tap civic online reasoning—the ability to judge the credibility of the information that floods young people’s smartphones, tablets, and computers. We developed 56 tasks and administered them to students across 12 states. In total, we collected and analyzed 7,804 student responses. From pre-teens to seniors in college, students struggled mightily to evaluate online information. To investigate how people determine the credibility of digital information, we sampled 45 individuals: 10 PhD historians, 10 professional fact checkers, and 25 Stanford University undergraduates. We observed them as they evaluated websites and engaged in open web searches on social and political issues. Historians and students often fell victim to easily manipulated features of websites, such as official-looking logos and domain names.

History Assessments of Thinking: A Validity Study

Abstract This article reports a validity study of History Assessments of Thinking (HATs), which are short, constructed-response assessments of historical thinking. In particular, this study focuses on aspects of cognitive validity, which is an examination of whether assessments tap the intended constructs. Think-aloud interviews with 26 high school students were used to examine the thinking elicited by 8 HATs and multiple-choice versions of these tasks. Results showed that although both HATs and multiple-choice items tapped historical thinking processes, HATs better reflected student proficiency in historical thinking than their multiple-choice counterparts. Item format also influenced the thinking elicited, with multiple-choice items eliciting more instances of construct-irrelevant reasoning than the constructed-response versions. Implications for history assessment are discussed.