Imagine a 8th-grade science class with 13- and 14-year-old students learning to formulate scientific hypotheses. The teacher explains that a hypothesis must propose a possible explanation for a phenomenon, allow us to anticipate what will happen, and be testable. Then, he places a balloon over the mouth of a bottle and poses a challenge: can we inflate it without blowing?

Each student writes down their hypothesis. Then they observe how, when the bottle is submerged in hot water, the balloon inflates, and when it is placed in ice water, it deflates. They record what happens and consult the gas laws to identify which one explains the phenomenon, compare their hypothesis, and write their conclusions in a report.

Learning doesn’t have to end at this point. In fact, the teacher’s assessment methods greatly influence not only what students learn, but also the degree of autonomy and active participation they can achieve.

The accreditation approach (qualification and ‘verdict’)

For any classroom activity, such as this experiment, there are three possible evaluation approaches.

In the first option, the evaluation is used to determine if the work reaches the expected level by assigning a grade (for example, a 5) or a category (“sufficient”).

This approach communicates the final result, often without providing precise information about what went well or how to improve. When teachers give grades, students tend to focus on the number and interpret it as a judgment of their personal ability . From this perspective, any guidance for improvement may have a much smaller impact.

Corrective approach (outcome review)

In the second option, the assessment serves a corrective function. The teacher points out the specific error and explains its cause. In our example, if a student writes that “hot water inflates the balloon,” the teacher clarifies: “You correctly predicted that the balloon will inflate when the bottle is heated, but you still need to explain why this happens. As the temperature increases, the air inside expands and pushes the balloon; incorporate this relationship into your hypothesis.”

This approach focuses on the final product. The teacher’s response helps to correct a specific error. The teacher identifies the error and guides the direct solution, while the students assume a reactive role, that is, they apply the indicated correction, but without analyzing the cause for themselves .

Judgment development approach

When assessing, we can take the opportunity to help each student not only discover their strengths but also identify areas for improvement, thereby gaining a deeper understanding and control over their own learning. The foundation of this approach lies in developing students’ evaluative skills : enabling them to understand the criteria and standards that define quality work and to use them to assess their own efforts.

Since this ability does not arise spontaneously or simply from providing a template, this assessment method requires a deliberate and structured pedagogical design . Evaluating a complex task independently can lead to cognitive overload , and for this reason, the teacher should scaffold (design a series of progressive steps) the process.

To achieve this, each activity can be organized into three phases, with progressively less teacher assistance. Taking the experiment as an example, we can set the objective of evaluating the development of a scientific hypothesis.

In the first phase, which involves explanation and examples , the teacher explains what a self-assessment card is and presents the five criteria that the hypothesis must include: whether it is clear, whether it specifies the situation, whether it anticipates what it expects to observe, whether it explains why it might occur, and whether it can be verified.

In the second phase, guided practice, students work in pairs using the card to evaluate a new hypothesis, different from the examples. The teacher guides this evaluation activity with instructions and questions that help them locate the elements in the text to answer each criterion. Afterward, they compare their evaluations with the teacher’s and discuss the differences.

In the third phase, individual self-assessment, each student reviews their own hypothesis about the balloon. They mark each criterion, justify it with their writing, and conclude with a positive assessment of how many criteria they already meet and which ones they can improve.

Which approach is better?

These assessment methods are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the ideal approach is to use each of the methods described progressively, depending on the nature of the task and the pedagogical context.

The corrective approach makes sense when we are evaluating specific, closed-ended responses. For example, if the task involves memorizing symbols, scientific laws, formulas, or vocabulary. Or if it consists of exercises directly applying the gas laws, unit conversion tables, or short quizzes.

When it comes to complex tasks (such as school inquiry or experimental design), a simple note or a superficial correction is completely insufficient.

When direct correction, the development of evaluative judgment, and accreditation take their rightful place according to the task and the moment, assessment can become the main driver of learning.

Author Bio: Calixto Gutiérrez Braojos works with Research Methods, Assessment and Evaluation in Education at the University of Granada