This page addresses a major issue, that of how to appraise learning performance. Indeed, more than for other subjects, this is an issue that is particularly relevant to teaching politics because the goals are spread across different levels (see objectives of political education):

"The question as to whether and in what shape teaching politics should encompass a learning appraisal in the narrow sense is, from a pragmatic, educational and learning psychology point of view, an issue of some controversy in the discussions surrounding subject teaching methods. As far as the practical side of political education is concerned, especially in schools, appraising learning is seldom questioned for legitimate and educational reasons. Yet even when coming at the different methods used for measuring performance from a purely application-based standpoint, a number of serious problems have to be borne in mind:

1. Is is possible to appraise performance in politics at all (if yes, in what shape?), or is it impossible because of the subject's inherent order brought about by the predominant role played by values and the subject's complicated and often long-term learning processes which conspire to make an appraisal by outsiders difficult at best? (...)

2. However, should appraising learning performance be deemed necessary (...) or, indeed, if an alternative approach is out of the question (because of the nature of the curriculum and its demands...), then we are faced with considerable difficulties and a big problem. One of the most major of these is the fact that when looking at most curriculums objectively, they contain little help with regards to the appraisal of learning. This raises questions that affect the core aspects of the way in which political education sees itself:

a) How far should and can teaching goals associated with political education be operationalized in an attempt make them recognizable by learning processes as »observable behavior« and accessible for evaluation purposes? Political education is also aimed at qualifications in terms of behavioral tendencies, which can neither be operationalized nor tested at all points during the learning process. This means, then, that the appraisal of learning in political education can never offer a comprehensive measurement of effectiveness but rather a patchwork of results. These results refer to cognitive learning intentions (i.e. controversial opinions, alternatives) and to formal qualifications rather than to value-based decisions or behavioral patterns.

b) Is is possible to measure performance in all areas of political education or is it only possible for the » teaching processes«, while the »reflection processes«, that is, the discourse is deprived of an evaluation? Given that the intention of political education is to achieve more than »the acquisition or enhancement of a certain describable objective skill (opening it up to objective testing)«, taught during targeted »teaching processes«, the problem is how to draw individual »initiative« without a predetermined end and processes associated with »self-reflection« (...) into the appraisal system (...).

c) How can the difficulties associated with achieving adequate appraisal/grading be overcome? One way of doing this might be to leave out completely »personal individual values« (F. Marz) and limit lessons to positivistic questions that can be clearly marked in terms of whether they are »right« or »wrong« (»who elects the president?«). This would give the appraisal process a scientific test-like character, which would mean limiting teaching politics (...) to a rather mechanical and formal form of learning. The result of this would be to repress the components of political education associated with raising awareness which, in turn, would reduce political education to teaching factual and specialized knowledge (»institution education«).

Given that it's very difficult to operationalize and appraise the »reflexive« aspects of political education, while at the same time bearing in mind that it's almost impossible to do without these aspects because of their central importance, it might be a surprise to learn that limiting the appraisal process to formal criteria does indeed provide a way out; instead of inquiring as to the opinion of the student and then assessing this view, the student should be assessed according to how he analyses the problem and justifies his opinion. This formal kind of yardstick could be taught to students and discussed drawing on examples; this approach would certainly contribute towards creating transparency in the appraisal process. Therefore an essential part of this approach is making sure that appraisal factors are made known.

When it comes to establishing and assessing the achievements made by students, it is essential to bear in mind that students might be adjusting their approach in line with certain goals and requirements, since they now know »what's important«. Teachers should also be aware that there is a real possibility of unintentionally marking the work of a student in a negative light because they (the teachers) my have a tendency to place particular emphasis on »weak argumentation« and »lack of reasoning«, to enable them to provide (pretend-) objective supporting data for poor grades (and visa versa). By critically watching their own behavior and by encouraging an open relationship »symmetrical communication« between themselves and the students, teachers should take steps to minimize this danger.

Set against this problematic background, then, it is only fair to question the value of assessing achievement in political education in a written form. Should written assessment of success give way completely to assessing orally the achievement made by students? From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this solution is faced with a huge obstacle in that state education systems in particular demand that formal educational requirements be met willing or not, and these systems want to see writing-based assessments of students' work. As far as everyday political education lessons are concerned, this means making preparations for this form of performance testing, or rather, teaching and practicing methodical and tool-based skills, as well as working on developing a robust mentality.

Yet when considering fundamental aspects, it would also seem sensible to include written work: Not only can written work be used to restore »competitive equality, which cannot be achieved in oral work alone«, (W. Mickel), it can also be used to achieve a more intensive and concentrated assessment of how much progress is being made towards the teaching objectives (in so far as they can be operationalized) than could be achieved by assessing oral statements made by students in isolation. Even »reflection processes« that obstruct operationalization can be prepared and continued using written work, which, in this case, goes beyond the boundaries of a limited assessment framework, particularly since these serve in the development of general educational skills (the ability to tackle and concentrate on a problem and present it in writing while expressing one's own opinion; promoting writing skills) (...).

To finish, it is a good idea to provide a rather theoretical summary of what it means in practice for teaching politics based on the aspects already considered:

1. The approach to be adopted for assessing the achievement of students should form a fundamental part of the teaching-method planning process; the assessment approach should be designed to provide teachers with feedback and offer students the opportunity for self-assessment. In order to maintain openness and flexibility during lessons, however, and to avoid the danger of ordering lessons along input and output lines, whatever system is used for assessment it should only be developed and formulated in detail at the end of a teaching unit.

2. In terms of the state education sector, there is currently no question of doing away with performance assessment in political education because of institutional constraints and the conceptual development status of political education. This does not mean, however, that every aspect of performance should be assessed; on the contrary, this should be the exception rather than the rule if learning is to remain assured and and open (...).

3. Performance assessment can take a written or oral form in political education. As far as oral assessment is concerned, the best approach would seem to be to integrate assessment into lessons and to forego schematization (»What have we been doing over the last hour?«), in order to better understand individual progress and to make learning assessment a structural part of the teaching process, for example review and outlook. In the middle of a lesson on »fringe groups« for instance, the teacher could ask a pupil to name the main fringe groups in society (...) and the specific problems that they face in each instance (repeating that learned) and then ask him whether and how in his opinion the state should respond. This continuative impetus also serves in touching upon the affective aspects of the learning process.

Writing-based assessment should have a secure place at every stage of the political education process. It is important to bear in mind, however, that »knowledge tests« that are based on recalling facts contradict the central goals and intentions of political education and should only be implemented in exceptional circumstances.

When beginning political education at a school (...) its also possible to introduce mixed tasks that are designed to reproduce the material taught in the lesson and to stimulate students to problemize certain circumstances and develop their own critical opinion. At a more advanced level (...) performance assessment should take on the form of addressing a problem parallel to the task being carried out (ideally on a material-based foundation), which makes it possible for both teachers and students to get a deeper understanding and insight (...)."

[Andreas Unger, Lernkontrolle and Leistungsmessung; in: Wolfgang W. Mickel (publisher), Handbuch zur politischen Bildung, published by the Federal Centre for Political Education Band 358, Bonn 1999, p. 293-297]

[Back to top of page]