Not that long ago, we were caution by a very smart and thoughtful expert not to report—or perhaps even look for evidence of—misunderstanding or misapplications of the construct or targeted cognition of an assessment. They were concerned that doing so would have the effect of blaming the test taker (or student) for their lack of proficiency. We hear this idea from time to time, that tests should only report what test takers cando or what they do know.
We find this suggestion incredibly destructive of every meaningful purpose for an assessment, including informal assessments.
First, the most important thing that a real teacher can do is to recognize out what a student misunderstands, figure out the nature of their misunderstanding and then provide guidance and support that get them to greater understanding—and even proficiency or mastery. No, mere lecturers and explainers do not have to do this, but that is the difference between a teacher and those far easier roles. Formative assessment is all about looking for those misunderstandings so that teachers can do this special part of their jobs. Assessments must be designed to help teachers with this, and that cannot be done without looking for evidence of those misunderstandings and misapplications.
Second, there is nothing in reporting shortfalls from desired levels of proficiency that assign blame. We do not blame children for being physically short. We do not blame children for not being read to by their parents. We do not blame students for lacking eyeglasses, or for needing them. We do not blame any students for poor instruction, poor curriculum or a lack of appropriate classroom materials.
Yes, it is possible that some students have failed to study or do their homework, and perhaps most of them bear responsibility for that—but not even all of them. Yes, some students are responsible for not paying attention in class, but some distractions are beyond the ability of students to ignore (e.g., an ill family member).
There are so many reasons why a student or test taker might fall short of expectations or our desires for proficiency, and while some of them may fall at the feet of the student or test taker, most of them simply do not. Even disappointing shortcomings in the ease for learning particular types of things (e.g., my own klutziness and lack of straight memorizing abilities) are rarely something to blame students or test takers for.
This gets to the myth of meritocracy we see too often in education. Student success and accomplishments are driven by much more than student effort or even some conception of student ability. Parents, teachers and other influences bear so much responsibility for student successes (and shortcomings) that it would be insane to ascribe it merely to students’ own merit. Moreover, to the extent that there is some sort of innate ability level, it is not as though students earned that.
No, there is no blame involved in looking for evidence of or reporting shortfalls in student proficiency, just as students do not deserve credit for their very really accomplishments that are built upon their lucky advantages.