Professional Development
In KnowAtom classrooms, most of what teachers need to know about student learning becomes visible long before the end of a unit.
Students plan investigations, test ideas, analyze data, revise explanations, and engage in scientific discourse across many lessons. Along the way, teachers gather rich evidence of understanding embedded directly in the learning process. This is intentional.
KnowAtom’s assessment design reflects a core idea made explicit by the authors of the standards themselves: assessment is most useful when it is formative and embedded in instruction, providing feedback to students and teachers while learning is still underway (National Research Council, 2012; NGSS Lead States, 2013). When assessment happens during learning, students can act on feedback and teachers can respond in real time. When assessment is reserved primarily for the end of a unit, its instructional value is far more limited.
This article clarifies how KnowAtom approaches summative assessment, why it plays a secondary role, and how equity and rigor are better served by shifting assessment into instruction rather than saving it for a single, high-stakes moment.
Why KnowAtom prioritizes formative assessment
The Framework for K–12 Science Education, written by the same body that led the development of NGSS, is explicit about the role of assessment in science learning. Assessment is intended to inform teaching and learning as they occur, not simply document learning after the fact (National Research Council, 2012).
KnowAtom reflects this intent by embedding formative assessment throughout lessons. Teachers gather grades and evidence of learning during:
- Socratic dialogue and scientific discourse
- Student planning and modeling
- Data collection and analysis
- Written explanations tied to investigations
Because this evidence is collected while students are still developing ideas, it is immediately useful. Students can revise their thinking. Teachers can modify their methods and intervene before misunderstandings harden.
This approach aligns with a strong body of research showing that formative assessment has a greater impact on learning than summative assessment, particularly for students who have been historically underserved (Black & Wiliam, 2009).
The limits of relying on end-of-unit assessment
Any written assessment reflects a combination of conceptual understanding, language production, stamina, and familiarity with academic tasks. The issue emerges when a single written assessment carries disproportionate weight in representing what a student understands.
When assessment evidence is gathered primarily at the end of a unit:
- Teachers have fewer opportunities to compare written responses with students’ thinking during investigations and discourse
- Students have limited opportunity to use feedback to improve their understanding
- Misinterpretations of student understanding are more likely to persist
This is why KnowAtom intentionally de-centers end-of-unit assessment as the primary source of evidence.
How KnowAtom positions summative assessment
KnowAtom summative assessments are optional. They are not designed to be the primary way teachers gather evidence of student understanding.
When teachers choose to use them, KnowAtom summatives are designed to:
- Reflect the same phenomena students investigated during the unit
- Ask students to explain relationships rather than recall isolated facts
- Surface patterns in reasoning that teachers may want to revisit
Just as importantly, KnowAtom summatives are designed so they can be used formatively.
Rather than serving as a final judgment, they can be:
- Reviewed and discussed with students
- Used to identify class-wide misconceptions
- Broken apart and revisited in later lessons
- Treated as another opportunity to practice explanation and sensemaking
In this way, summative assessments function less like an endpoint and more like an additional checkpoint where students can demonstrate performance across all three dimensions of the standards in an ongoing learning process.
Equity comes from how assessment happens, not from eliminating challenge
Equity in assessment is not primarily about simplifying language or removing disciplinary expectations. By their very nature, summatives remain text-heavy and require students to explain their thinking using scientific language, because communicating science through language is part of doing science.
The equity shift comes from not relying on a single, high-stakes assessment to define what students know.
Because most assessment evidence is gathered during instruction:
- English learners have multiple opportunities to demonstrate understanding through talk, models, and revisions
- Students are less likely to be defined by one written product
- Teachers can more accurately distinguish between conceptual understanding and language production
By the time a summative assessment is given, it is no longer the sole or primary source of evidence. It becomes one data point among many.
Rigor is preserved by keeping assessment tied to sensemaking
KnowAtom maintains rigor by asking students to do the same intellectual work in assessment that they do during learning:
- Figure out and explain phenomena
- Use evidence from investigations
- Connect ideas across lessons
Kindergarten:
In Making Things Move, students figure out why objects moved differently depending on the surface material.
Grades 1–2:
In Land and Water, students figure out patterns in water movement using models they created earlier.
Grades 3–5:
In Sound Waves (Grade 4), students figure out how changes in vibration affected pitch.
Grades 6–8:
In Atoms and Molecules (Grade 6), students explain energy changes in chemical reactions using particle-level models.
What equity-focused assessment looks like in KnowAtom classrooms
In KnowAtom classrooms:
- Most grades are gathered during learning, not after it
- Students receive feedback when they can still act on it
- Summative assessments do not carry disproportionate weight
- Assessment supports growth rather than closure
Summative assessment is not eliminated, but it is intentionally de-centered. Rigor remains high. Equity improves not because assessments are easier, but because learning is no longer judged by a single, late-arriving snapshot.
References
- Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
- National Research Council. A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press, 2012.
- NGSS Lead States. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Appendix F: Science and Engineering Practices. National Academies Press, 2013.