DUE 8 PM (EST) EDU673:Asford Univ. 5 pages APA (not incl. title & reference pg) Please refer to SAMPLE PAPER attached. Last person Plagiarized now it's a day late! :-(

Chapter 6

Assessment

Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.

—Einstein

Learning Outcomes

By the end of the chapter, you will be able to:

• Explain assessment of learning and its purposes.

• Describe assessment for learning and explain its use in differentiating instruction.

• Discuss the value of assessment as learning.

• Define Response to Intervention.

6

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Introduction Chapter 6

Introduction One of the major principles of differentiated instruction is that of making instructional choices in response to differences in student learning. It therefore stands to reason that teach- ers must be aware of what students are learning and how they are applying it in order to vary that instruction. Even though teachers evaluate student learning with great regularity, most of these activities are conducted in order to produce grades, to place or sort students, or to docu- ment student progress on high-stakes exams. While these assessments have their place, teachers also need assessment procedures that inform instruction and strengthen learning (Randall & Engelhard, 2010).

It may be useful to consider whether the assessment is of learning, for learning, or as learning (Earl, 2012). Each serves a valuable and different purpose. Assessment of learning yields sum- mative information after the learning has occurred. The purpose of assessment for learning is to inform the instructional process, to let the teacher know when or how to adjust the content or strategies. Assessment as learning is a move toward greater learner independence, as learners take on greater responsibility, using assessment to direct their learning and to develop meta- cognitive evaluation skills. Figure 6.1 depicts the purposes of each of these different types of assessment.

f06.01_EDU673.ai

Teachers monitor and adjust instruction

Measures students’ knowledge Students monitor and adjust

their understanding

Assessment _____________ Learning

of as

for

Figure 6.1: Purposes of assessment

Each form of assessment has a different purpose, as shown here.

Source: Adapted from Earl, 2012.

Pre-Test Chapter 6

The traditional role of assessment has been assessment of learning, using tests or other activi- ties to judge student performance and to report the results to others, measuring the learning after the fact. These assessments are valuable; they show teachers if learning occurred and can be used to document the results of curriculum and activities. Assessment of learning that is compatible with the philosophy of differentiated instruction begins with identification of what students should know and do as a result of the learning (McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006). This assessment originates with the objectives and standards of the curriculum. In contemporary schooling, two types of assessment of learning prevail. One form is a standardized measure; often referred to as high-stakes testing or other measures that measure student growth against a norm. The second form is classroom assessment, which, in keeping with the philosophy of dif- ferentiation, uses a range of methods and different modes that assess what was learned during a unit or a term.

But in order to differentiate instruction, assessment for learning is also necessary. Teachers use assessment for learning when they use diagnostic processes, formative assessment, and feed- back at various stages in the learning process, and then use this information to adjust or change their practice. Finally, in order to build on the mindset of a differentiated classroom, one where students have formed a respectful environment where learning is a valued activity, assessment as learning, with students assuming responsibility for analyzing and directing their own learn- ing, is a continuing goal. The purpose dictates why an assessment is chosen, how it is developed, and how it is used (Hickey, Taasoobshirazi, & Cross, 2012).

Pre-Test 1. Assessment originates with the objectives and standards of the curriculum and should be

planned a. at the beginning even before learning content and activities are identified. b. during planning and be based on the learning profiles in the classroom. c. at the end when learning content and activities have been identified. d. to direct student learning and meet district goals.

2. Assessment of learning is meant to answer the question, “Did the student learn it?” Assessment for learning a. provides information about what students already know and can do and informs

instruction. b. is the basis for large-scale assessment. c. provides informative measures for progression through grade level standards. d. is meant to answer the question, “Did the teacher teach it well?”

3. Identify the purpose of assessment as learning. a. To provide information for teacher and school effectiveness in assessment data. b. To provide a balance between formative and summative assessment measures. c. To help students develop metacognitive skills to become independent, self-regulated

learners. d. To help students perform better by streamlining instruction for students on target, those

who are not, and to provide feedback to all students.

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

4. The IDEA legislation and regulations helps schools a. provide differentiation for only those students with special needs. b. identify and support students before the difficulties they encounter become more serious. c. offer high-quality core curriculum for those students who can benefit from advanced

instruction. d. decide whether differentiation is needed for specific groups of students and maintain sci-

entific research-based classroom instruction for others.

Answers 1. a. at the beginning even before learning content and activities are identified. The correct

answer can be found in Section 6.1. 2. a. provides information about what students already know and can do and informs instruc-

tion. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.2. 3. c. To help students develop metacognitive skills to become independent, self-regulated

learners. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.3. 4. b. identify and support students before the difficulties they encounter become more serious.

The correct answer can be found in Section 6.4.

6.1 Assessment of Learning Assessment of learning is a summative process that conveys student progress. Two summative practices drive this form of evaluation, standardized tests that include large-scale assessments, and classroom assessments, usually in the form of end-of-unit or end-of-term tests or activities that are used for grading purposes. This distinction is shown in Figure 6.2.

Large-Scale Assessments of Learning

The discussion in Chapter 5 centered on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and their significant shifts toward an emphasis on understanding and coherence in connecting concepts. Standardized measures of achievement that assess the extent to which students meet these standards require a greater variety of approaches. Students, teachers, and parents have expressed dissatisfaction in the overreliance on formats like multiple choice that measure the recall of knowledge instead of higher level learning (Popham, 2011), and some fear that the same types of tests will be used to assess the new standards, reducing their effectiveness. With the advent of the CCSS and their increased emphasis on skills that are difficult to measure, the multiple choice format that played such an important role in classroom and large-scale assessments will have to change. New assessment systems are being developed that include performance-based tasks, such as conducting a science experiment and writing short answers, which are intended to show deeper levels of learning and thinking than multiple choice questions can measure. These concepts are also extended to special populations; assessments for students with severe or multiple disabilities based on alternative standards are under development, as are assessments based on English Language Development standards for students who are learning English. With exceptions for districts and states with implementation difficulties, the large-scale assess- ments and alternative assessments are intended to be ready for the 2014–2015 school year, and

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

language assessments the year after. Assessments aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards are still under development.

In recent years, standardized assessment has become perhaps one of the most polarizing aspects of American education. On one side are those who feel strongly that schools, teachers, and stu- dents themselves must be held accountable for students’ learning, and that test scores provide a measure of how well standards are being met and what corrective actions need to be taken. They wonder what the point of educational standards would be if we did not have a way to make sure learners have obtained fundamental skills.

On the other side are people who believe that recent tests tied to state standards have been too narrow to reflect students’ or teachers’ true abilities, and that the consequences of poor per- formance have been too harsh. The tests have been criticized for privileging factual knowledge tested in a multiple choice format with little emphasis on critical thinking. They have also been criticized for driving the curriculum toward the reading and math skills that are tested, at the expense of other content areas.

Some of the controversy over high-stakes testing may be alleviated by the content of the new assessments. The next generation of large-scale assessments promise to measure the more complex cognitive tasks intended by the CCSS by embedding performance assessments and

f06.02_EDU673.ai

Assessment of Learning

Projects, Performances, Tests, Other Learning Activities

PARCC SBAC DLM NCSS Assets

Alternative Assessments

Large-Scale Assessments

Language Assessment

End of unit End of term

Summative Practices that measure knowledge

Standardized Assessments: Measure individual growth and

proficiency; used for student readiness and system accountability

Classroom Assessments: Measure students’ knowledge

and performance; used for grading or reporting progress

Figure 6.2: Driving practices behind assessment of learning

Two summative practices drive assessment of learning: standardized tests and classroom assessments.

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

attempting to increase the types of responses requiring higher order skills and conceptual understanding. However, some controversial aspects of testing will likely remain, including strong consequences for schools, teachers, and students, as teacher performance evaluations, student promotion, and school and district effectiveness may continue to hinge on test scores.

The transition from one assessment system to another may also come with growing pains. For example, given the magnitude of the changes in curriculum in response to the CCSS, imple- mentation efforts need to begin immediately, even though the CCSS assessment systems are not yet in place. Professional development and instructional resources related to the new assess- ments were scheduled for release in the fall of 2013, which leaves little time for transition activi- ties before the new assessments are implemented. Complicating this issue is that teachers may still be accountable for student performance on current state assessments measuring the old standards for the next few years.

The sections that follow offer information about what to expect when navigating these new assessments, including how they incorporate differentiation and support for students with dis- abilities or who are learning English.

Assessments in Response to CCSS The federal Race to the Top Assessment Program provided the funding to develop a new gen- eration of large-scale assessments that would provide data to support and inform instruction in a timely manner and measure achievement against the CCSS. Two assessment consortia, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) were given more than $175 million each to build new testing and instructional support systems.

Each consortium promises to deliver an assessment system for grades 3-8 and high school that measures students’ individual growth and proficiency. The results will also indicate the extent to which each student is on track toward college or career readiness as defined by the ELA and mathematics standards (Center for K-12 Assessment and Performance Management, 2012). Additionally, the assessments must provide data that can:

• inform teaching, learning, and program improvement; • determine school effectiveness; • determine principal and teacher effectiveness for use in evaluations while offering sup-

port to teachers and principals; and • determine individual student college and career readiness, such as high school exit deci-

sions, placement or credit for college course classes, or college entrance (Center for K-12 Assessment and Performance Management, 2012).

Each consortium has contracted with outside vendors to develop assessment items and perfor- mance tasks; PARCC contracted with Pearson Inc. and SBAC contracted with CTB/McGraw- Hill (PARCC, 2012; SBAC, 2012). These new assessments will replace those currently used by the states that have adopted the CCSS (45 states, plus the District of Columbia, and four territories).

Their charge was to push the boundaries of large-scale assessment as it is currently practiced. Both the PARCC and the SBAC have two components, a performance assessment and an end- of-year assessment, administered during the final weeks of the school year. These tests are to be distributed and completed online. They use a mix of item types—selected response (selecting an

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

answer among options such as multiple choice, true-false, or matching), constructed response (recalling or creating a response, as in short answers or essays), and complex performance tasks (experiments or other means of examining a product or observing student performance). In order to be cost effective, these assessments will be technology enhanced and will use a combination of electronic and human scoring. Each system promises a two-week turnaround in results.

Both the PARCC and the SBAC provide optional interim assessments that can be offered throughout the school year, which provide formative information on student progress but are not used for accountability data. They will pinpoint student strengths and weaknesses using computer-scored components and also provide a bank of performance tasks for hard to mea- sure standards. Teachers will be able to evaluate students’ depth of understanding on these per- formance tasks using samples of typical student responses. These interim assessments provide a preview for the tasks that students may encounter in the end-of-year performance-based assess- ments, and are intended to inform curriculum and instruction practices. And both systems are developing resources and tools to assist teachers in understanding the assessment systems, such as professional development modules, model curricular and instructional units, a vetted digital library for sharing resources, and formative tasks that can be used in the classroom (Center for K-12 Assessment and Performance Management, 2012).

One of the key differences between the assessment systems is the delivery of test items. SBAC uses an adaptive delivery system, Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) to adjust the difficulty of questions throughout the assessment. For example, if a student answers a question correctly, the next question will be more challenging; if it is answered incorrectly, the next question will be less challenging (SBAC, 2012). CAT is designed to give a detailed report of areas where stu- dents are more advanced or where they need more support to aid in differentiation of instruc- tion. Additionally, since students see an individually tailored set of questions, the test items are more secure, making it nearly impossible to obtain the questions before the test. The optional interim assessments will also be computer adaptive. State or local districts will control the number, timing, and scope of the standards that are included in the test. Additionally, SBAC offers a retake option for the end-of-year test.

PARCC uses a fixed form delivery; items within each test are predetermined and are not adjusted based on a previous response. The PARCC tests come in alternate forms, or several versions of tests with items that are different but equal in difficulty. PARCC also provides speak- ing and listening assessments for grades 3-8 and high school, which are locally scored and are not part of the accountability measures. The optional mid-year assessment is constructed with tasks similar to the summative performance-based tasks. PARCC also offers optional K-2 for- mative performance tasks, used to identify strengths and weaknesses in advance of the formal testing requirements that begin in third grade (Center for K-12 Assessment and Performance Management, 2012).

Some educators have expressed concerns about requiring the use of computers in large-scale assessments when schools and districts have uneven access to technology. To this end, SBAC and PARCC have collaborated on a Technology Readiness Tool used by schools and districts to evaluate and report their readiness for the digital assessments so that states can plan and fund accordingly (SBAC, 2012). Although only minimal computer skills, such as the use of a mouse and arrow keys, will be needed to take the assessments online, some still wonder whether stu- dents who regularly use computers in the classroom will have an advantage over those who are

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

less fluent in their use. Both consortia will provide paper-and-pencil tests for the first three years if requested, to give schools more time to make the transition to digital.

Alternative Assessments The mandate for all students, including those with disabilities, to be included in statewide assess- ments is part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These regulations are intended to give each student an equal opportunity to learn the same curriculum as their typically develop- ing peers. Because many assessment systems were not accessible or valid for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, states developed alternate assessments that were linked to their grade-level content standards in mathematics and reading. This alternative assessment system will also undergo change with the advent of the CCSS. Grants were awarded to two consortia—the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium (DLM) and the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) to develop alternative assessments based on alternative achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities. These new alternate assessments will be aligned to the CCSS and will also be ready by the 2014–15 school year. Each consortium is developing an educator’s support system, which includes formative assessment tools and strategies, professional development, and progress monitoring and man- agement systems to ease the burdens of administration and documentation. The systems are designed with UDL principles, accessible to all students through keyboards, switch systems, a computer mouse, or touch-screen technology. The systems also will be compatible with a variety of common assistive technologies and allow for varying levels of teacher assistance. For students unable to use computers without assistance, teachers will administer items offline and enter responses into the system. Summaries of the designs of these two consortia can be found at www.k12center.org/publications.html or by visiting the consortia sites, Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM), http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/ or the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) http://www.ncscpartners.org/.

Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems (ASSETS) The Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems (ASSETS) Consortium will develop the next generation language assessment system for K-12 students learning English. The system will be computer based and includes a summative English Language Proficiency (ELP) score that assesses proficiency across the four language domains of reading, writing, speaking, and listening used in social and academic content areas for each grade level. The assessment system also includes interim assessments, formative assessment tools, and profes- sional development materials. Students may take a diagnostic screener that can be used at any time, such as when entering an English Language Learners (ELL) program. Each of the assess- ment components and accompanying materials are grounded in the 2012 English Language

Development (ELD) standards linked to the CCSS in ELA and mathematics. The assessment system will be designed to produce composite ELP scores that can inform decisions about whether a student should exit from English language instruction programs. They will also be used to inform decisions about district and state performance for accountability purposes and may be used as one of multiple measures to eval- uate principal and teacher effectiveness. The assess- ments and tools developed by this consortium will be

Think About It

How well do the new assessments described here seem to integrate with the new standards you learned about in Chapter 5? What do you find promising about these new assess- ments? What concerns, if any, do you have about them?

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

available to all states by the 2015–16 school year. Sample items are not available, but further information about ASSETS can be found at http://www.assetsproject.org/assessmentSystem/ screener.aspx. Further information about PARCC, SBAC, alternative assessments, and ELL assessments can be found at www.k12center.org/publications/assessment_consortia.html.

Preparing for Large-Scale Assessments There are several things that teachers and districts can do to prepare for the new assessments. Foremost is the area of professional development in the form of collaborative teams working in partnership with teachers, principals, and administrators to design the curriculum (Larson et al., 2012; Zimmerman et al., 2012, Krehbiel, 2011). In order to adequately prepare students for the new assessments, all teachers in all subject areas must be familiar with the extent of the ELA requirements. The requirements are based on the concepts that knowledge is built through reading and writing from content-rich nonfiction and informational texts, building literacy skills includes using evidence from content area as well as narrative text, and students should have an increasing understanding of complex texts and advanced academic vocabulary (Brozo, 2010; Krehbiel, 2011).

A focus on conceptual understanding and practices is a powerful strategy to support the transition to the new assessments in mathematics (Briars, 2011). A school or district-based professional development team of educators can analyze key questions, iden- tify the mathematics content standards that can be implemented immediately even with current assess- ments in place, and the current content that could be eliminated or minimized.

Differentiation in Large-Scale Assessments Differentiation in large-scale assessments is largely limited to ensuring that necessary accom- modations are in place so that barriers to students’ expressing their knowledge are removed, similar to the UDL principles reviewed in Chapter 3. Standard and allowable accommodations vary by state, but usually include:

• presentation accommodations—accessing information that does not require students to visually read standard print, such as reading items to students

• response accommodations—allowing students to complete test items in different ways, such as using someone to enter the answers or by using an assistive device, or writing directly in the test booklet if using a paper version

• timing accommodations—changing the length of time allowed or giving multiple test sessions

• setting accommodations—changing the location or the conditions of the assessment setting

There are a number of ways that the results of these assessments of learning can be used to dif- ferentiate future instruction, however. The SBAC’s Computer Adaptive Testing gives a nod to principles of differentiation, as it sequences harder or easier questions depending on students’ responses. The resulting profile identifies skills that are above or below the current grade level tested, which may be useful for teachers to use when differentiating by readiness.

Think About It

How do these potential changes in large-scale assessments affect teachers’ responses to dif- ferentiated instructional practices?

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

Results from the optional interim assessments may be thought of as mini-summative reports that can predict how students might perform on the end-of- year assessment. These reports will provide a list of strengths and weaknesses that could help teach- ers improve instruction (Foster & Poppers, 2009). If the results reveal concepts where students might have struggled, then that can give teachers insight on what students understand in relationship to the curriculum.

Classroom-Based Assessments of Learning

Teachers exert the most influence over the content and methods used in classroom-based assessments of learning. Classroom assessment is meant to answer the question, “Did the stu- dent learn it?” This form of assessment measures the extent to which students can apply key concepts, knowledge, and attitudes related to curriculum outcomes. It also provides detailed information that can be used to decide next steps in student learning (Earl, 2012).

In differentiated classrooms, essential conditions guide the development of effective assess- ment of learning. Teachers begin by aligning assessments with clear learning outcomes that are grounded in the standards. From this alignment, they develop a common set of evaluative crite- ria, and then decide on varied forms of assessment to ensure that students have the opportunity to express what they have learned without barriers (McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006).

Begin with the End in Mind The first suggestion for effective assessment of learning is to begin with the end in mind, match- ing measures with goals. Goals dictate the nature of the assessments (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Some goals describe declarative knowledge and are informational in nature. With declarative goals, teachers develop measures of what students know or understand. Measures of knowing could include objective test items, such as multiple choice, matching, and fill in the blank. These measures are best for concepts measuring recall. Measures of understanding, while more ambiguous, can be determined by asking students to explain a concept or to apply what is known to a new situation. Understanding is best revealed through explanations that develop arguments supported by evidence, real-world problems and applications, or analysis of perspectives associated with controversial issues (McTighe & Brown, 2005).

Other goals are process oriented. Objectives that describe what a student can do or that describe proficiency in a skill are referred to as procedural knowledge. These objectives are best measured through performance assessments, which require students’ demonstrations of understanding, not just recall of information or formulaic modeling.

Identify a Common Set of Criteria The next suggestion is to identify a common set of evaluative criteria based on the identified objectives. For example, CCSS writing standard 6, second grade, asks students to use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing, and to collaborate with peers. Given a defi- nition of the type of writing desired (such as a report from a field trip or a description of a math model), the common criteria for all students would be to develop clear, accurate, and complete explanations with appropriate examples that illustrate the concept, with evidence of

Think About It

Imagine you are responsible for developing future large-scale assessments. How could you design them to fulfill the current purposes of such assessments, while also being com- patible with the principles of differentiated instruction?

Assessment of Learning Chapter 6

collaboration by two or more students, and with the appropriate use of a digital tool. Note that the criteria are derived primarily from the content goal, not the response mode. Clearly stating the evaluative criteria without specifying the response mode gives students options for demon- strating their skill. This concept was presented in Chapter 3 with the discussion of Universal Design for Learning as an instructional strategy, and is reiterated throughout the differentiated instruction model.

Develop the Assessments The third suggestion is to identify a variety of classroom assessments to gather evidence of learning in a manner that offers students appropriate choice. As was reinforced in explanations of DI in Chapter 1 and UDL in Chapter 3, students differ in how they prefer to demonstrate knowledge. Differentiation in assessment of learning suggests using a variety of activities that allow students to make the learning visible. Within a common set of evaluative criteria, iden- tify a variety of ways the learning could be expressed, such as written or oral responses, and let students choose. Figure 6.3 shows a performance and product tic-tac-toe chart from which stu- dents can choose written, visual, or oral activities. For major projects, students could choose an activity from each category; for shorter projects, the teacher can assign tasks from one column (McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006). Another suggestion is to add a Free space to the options, where students can propose an alternate project to those listed.

Differentiation in Classroom-Based Assessment of Learning Assessment of learning influences students’ educational pathways as well as opportunities for differentiation of future instruction. Allowing for multiple forms of assessment makes stu- dent learning transparent to the teacher and helps students to make sense of their learning (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003). For example, an outcome from the third grade science standards

f06.03_EDU673.ai

Written Visual Oral

Research report using a word processor, upload to a classroom wiki

Write a narrative story and illustrate with a word cloud

Free

Free

Develop a PPT or a Prezi with pictures and links to accompa- nying sources

Write a script, then narrate a presentation (using interactive software like VoiceThread), invite comments

Free

Write and perform a simulated radio or TV interview, post to a class website

Develop a digital poster explaining the main points of the idea (via Glogster or similar program)

Figure 6.3: Product and performance tic-tac-toe chart

A product and performance tic-tac-toe chart can help instructors use a variety of activities to differ- entiate learning.

Source: Adapted from McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006.

Assessment for Learning Chapter 6

is to describe typical weather conditions expected during a particular season and represent the data in tables and graphical displays. This outcome might be demon- strated through visual or written repre- sentations, using pictures, numbers, line graphs, etc. Weather descriptions can be supplemented with pictures, sound, or interviews. As long as writing is not an explicit component of the outcome, stu- dents who have difficulties with written language would have the same opportu- nity to demonstrate their learning as other students. Exemplary assessment practices recognize that there are multiple ways that students can express their understanding, and tests alone may not accurately gauge what students have learned (Popham, 2011). For example, authentic assessments

would allow students to edit rough drafts, in much the same way that scientists, engineers, jour- nalists, and numerous other professionals do while on the job (Frey, Schmitt, & Allen, 2012). Certainly, it is cost and time prohibitive for large-scale testing to allow for these more authen-

tic measures, but teachers have an opportunity to do so, especially if this is systematically included in the instructional cycle.

Finally, while assessment of learning does not always lead teachers to differentiate the assessment itself, it can contribute to their repertoire of skills. When ana- lyzing assessment results, teachers can discern what could be done with current students in a future learn- ing task, or with a future group of students, thereby improving their instructional practice.

6.2 Assessment for Learning Assessment for learning informs the instructional process. Assessment for learning provides information about what students already know and can do, and what confusions, preconcep- tions, or gaps they might have. This allows teachers to design the most appropriate next steps in instruction (Foster & Poppers, 2009; Thompson & Wiliam, 2007; Power & Hazzard, 2010). It is the basis for providing descriptive feedback for students and to determine further groupings, instructional strategies, and resources. Assessment for learning is time sensitive; it requires ongoing assessment of the outcomes of the intended curriculum for current students. When applied systematically, it significantly improves learning outcomes (Foster & Poppers, 2009). Figure 6.4 shows the components of assessment for learning—preassessment, formative assess- ment, and feedback.

Jetta Productions/Lifesize/Thinkstock

▲ In a differentiated classroom, students have options for showing what they know, which do not always have to involve writing. When might nonwritten methods of assessment be appropriate even in language arts class?

Think About It

Responding as a teacher or from your experi- ence as a student, give an example of using an assessment to determine differences in students’ learning. In what way was this information used to adapt the instruction that followed?

Assessment for Learning Chapter 6

Components of Assessment for Learning

Assessment for learning that is compatible with the philosophy of differentiated instruction begins with preassessment and uses other formative activities to determine student progress. These activities are based on tasks that come directly from the curriculum and address the essential questions or ideas of the learning. In keeping with the philosophy of differentiation, teachers continually compare curriculum expectations with levels of learning and adjust their instruction, grouping practices, and resources so students can receive the material, support, and guidance needed to progress. By carefully planning and targeting feedback, teachers can reduce misunderstandings and provide just-in-time support for the next stage of learning, streamlining the learning process. Assessment for learning, using preassessment, formative assessment, and feedback, occurs throughout the learning process (Earl 2012; McTighe & Tomlinson, 2006).

Preassessment Preassessments are used prior to instruction and are developed from the concepts that will be used in the summative assessments (Wormeli, 2007). Their basic function is to identify prior knowledge and readiness levels, to identify areas of weakness, and to show general trends among groups of students that may need to be addressed to improve instruction. Using data from preassessments does not mean adjusting the instruction to meet every student’s possible need, instead, it allows the teacher to address students’ weaknesses, and to avoid reteaching skills and concepts students have already mastered (Moon, 2005).

Formative Assessment Formative assessments are used throughout the learning process. These include highly planned tasks or activities, such as focused observations, questioning, conversations, quizzes, and learn- ing logs. Teachers analyze these responses to identify common misconceptions, errors, or approaches to an issue or problem. When it is clear that students have misunderstood a task, teachers may reconsider their instructional approaches, or personally delve into the subject for a clearer understanding of the concepts (Foster & Poppers, 2009). Other formative assessments are manageable routines that teachers use daily while the lesson unfolds. Examples include

f06.04_EDU673.ai

Assessment for Learning

Monitor and Adjust Instruction

Formative Assessment FeedbackPreassessment

prior knowledge readiness weaknesses planned activites check for understanding descriptive frequent and timely

Figure 6.4: Components of assessment for learning

Assessment for learning is comprised of three parts: 1) preassessment, 2) formative assessment, and 3) feedback.

Assessment for Learning Chapter 6

quick checks for understanding where all participate, such as students displaying their answers on a small whiteboard, reading aloud to a partner, or writing the answer to an exit ticket before the end of class—and endless variations on these common procedures.

The key to effective use of formative assessment is in the analysis of student responses, as the most valuable information for instructional adaptation focuses on student thinking. Students’ responses reveal their thought processes and common misconceptions that must be redirected. Analyzing these responses informs the next steps of instruction. Therefore, the formative assessment task should be one that nearly all students can respond to—even if it is partial or incomplete—in order to make their current state of understanding visible (Foster & Poppers, 2009).

Teachers must decide which assessment approaches are most likely to render information about students’ thinking and learning. As with summative assessment (assessment of learning), the approach should incorporate a variety of ways for students to demonstrate their learning. For example, as indicated in the discussion of UDL strategies (Chapter 3), opportunities for students to complete tasks orally or through visual representation are important for those who struggle with reading or who are English language learners. Similarly, appropriate formative assessment will cue the teacher on advanced students’ thinking and learning. To be asked to go through instruction on concepts that one already knows can lead to lack of motivation, boredom, or an inappropriate mindset regarding the effort required for learning complex tasks (Dweck, 2007, Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003).

Feedback to Students Students learn from feedback that is specific and detailed enough to guide their learning. Feedback is part of the teaching process. For the teacher, it connects the assessment of learning with what needs to follow. For students, it connects thinking with the expected learning. Ideas or concepts that are on the right track are confirmed; ideas that are based on misconceptions or lack of understanding are challenged (Earl, 2012). Descriptive feedback provides manageable next steps with examples.

To be successful, feedback must be frequent and timely, or as close to the assessment as possible. While many researchers write about the importance of immediate feed- back, one must consider various classroom conditions or the task at hand. Teachers can give almost instantaneous feedback for answers sent via electronic clickers or writ- ten on a small whiteboard, but feedback for edited drafts of a research paper is a longer, more reflective process. It does not sim- ply tell students if their answers are right or wrong, or provide short, nonspecific comments of praise or disapproval (Earl, 2012); rather, it offers direction for moving forward.

Chevalier Virginie/Oredia Eurl/SuperStock

▲ When students use small whiteboards like these to write answers to questions, teachers can give immediate feedback to everyone in the class. What might be some other pros, and some cons, of this strategy?

Assessment for Learning Chapter 6

Effective feedback provides opportunities for further learning and growth. On a math quiz, this is not simply marking the incorrect answers and providing a grade, but letting students know what the correct answers were and explaining why they were correct, or asking students to explain the answers to their peers in a supported class discussion. Common mistakes or pat- terns of incorrect reasoning are a good foundation for such a discussion.

An extended project or writing assignment requires different strategies, and feedback is often best used during the drafting process. Students benefit from hearing what they are doing well and what areas need to be strengthened as they revise, since often much of the feedback will be most effectively applied to the same project. For instance, many students are asked to write just one research paper per class each year. Many tips and strategies offered on the final draft of such a paper in history will not be helpful until next year’s social studies research paper, and may be forgotten by then.

Rubrics for assessing writing assignments allow students to understand more clearly what learn- ing will be assessed, and should be handed out and discussed at the beginning of the assign- ment. Teachers can use the rubric to provide feedback on rough drafts and score final drafts, and students can use the same rubric as a self-assessment as they work. Some rubrics contain narrative detail, so that students (and teachers) know exactly what a score of 3 out of 5 for Organization would mean, and what they need to do to achieve a 5. For example, the commonly used 6 + 1 Trait® rubric for writing explains that a 5-point score for the Ideas trait means that in part, “The topic is narrow and manageable; relevant, telling, quality details go beyond the obvi- ous,” while a 3-point score means that “The topic is broad, and support is attempted.” Because versions of the 6 + 1 Trait® rubric exist at different levels of complexity for all grade levels, they can be a good fit for the CCSS anchor standards that are developed across grades. Examples of 6 + 1 Trait® rubrics can be found at the website of the Northwest Regional Laboratory, http://educationnorthwest.org/resource/464.

Even when detailed, rubrics do not fully replace narrative feedback specific to the student’s work on the rough draft. One technique for frequent and timely feedback on writing assignments is to point out places where the student has shown a strength, for example, in writing detailed description, and then point out places where description could be improved, prompting the student to apply the strengths he or she has already exhibited. In this way, students see that they are capable of demonstrating the skill and also receive some specific ideas for how to grow.

Responding to rough drafts in such detail can be prohibitively time consuming. Peer editing is one common method for providing feedback to student writers without requiring teachers to respond to a hundred or more papers two or more times each. In looking at the strengths and areas for improvement in peers’ work, students also gain valuable practice that they may use to enrich their own writing as well.

In peer editing, students learn the rubric and then apply it to a classmate’s work, preassessing to give a score in each rubric category. Teachers can scaffold by providing practice for the whole class. Together, students assess a sample paper, discussing and comparing the rubric scores and narrative feedback they would offer. Many students will need this practice to feel comfortable with peer assessment. A list of specific questions to respond to, including “What is the best thing about the draft so far, and why?” and “What is the biggest area for improvement and why? Use words from the rubric to help explain your answer,” can show students that it is not enough to say that the paper is “good enough” as is.

Assessment as Learning Chapter 6

As mentioned in Guideline 8 of UDL, providing options for sustaining effort and persistence, feedback should not involve comparison or competition, but should emphasize positive efforts that the student has made thus far, and suggest additional effort that would improve the project. Many students believe that strong writing is a natural talent that people either have or don’t have and that prewriting and drafting do little to improve a writer’s work. Feedback that highlights the strength of revisions a student has already made can counter that idea and help students develop the patience necessary to produce polished final drafts.

Differentiation and Assessment for Learning

Assessment for learning helps teachers differentiate instruction by repeatedly checking where students are in relation to the intended curriculum outcomes and gives teachers the informa- tion needed to modify teaching and learning activities. Assessment for learning helps teachers determine how students apply what they know. Teachers differentiate by using the information from formative assessments to streamline instruction for those who are on target, to target instruction for those who are not, and to provide feedback to all students to help them advance.

6.3 Assessment as Learning How do you know that you know what you know? As a student, do you know when a project is going in the right direction, or if you were prepared for a performance assessment? Do you know what is expected of you? As a teacher, how can you move students toward assuming greater responsibility for their own learning?

The purpose of assessment as learning is for students to develop the ability to monitor and reflect on what they know or have accomplished, ultimately directing what they are learning and identifying the next steps in the process. Assessment as learning focuses on metacogni- tive skills, which are the building blocks of independent, self-regulated learners. It also gives students the supports needed to develop these skills, through modeling and learning to self- monitor through record keeping. Figure 6.5 depicts the strategies that support assessment as learning.

Metacognitive Skills

Instructional strategies that build metacognitive skills play a role in how easily one learns new information or skills. Students can more readily apply knowledge acquired in one context to another context when they are aware of themselves as learners and know how to monitor their own strategies. An added bonus is that these skills are reciprocal in nature; improved meta- cognitive skills lead to better learning, which in turn leads to improvements in metacognition (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Metacognitive skills are highly developmental in nature, are unevenly learned across different learning tasks, and may take years to develop. For example, younger students, when learning to

Think About It

Appropriate praise encourages motivation and resilience (as stated in Chapter 2). What is the relationship between appropriate praise and descriptive feedback? How could timely and effective feedback be applied to types of assignments other than multiple choice assess- ments or writing projects? How would they apply to a science project, for example?

Assessment as Learning Chapter 6

read, focus more on decoding the words than understanding what they have read. Yet even very young children can learn to check their work on simple tasks such as subtraction problems or to proofread their written sentences. Similarly, students in graduate programs may still have dif- ficulty evaluating their own performance on more complex tasks, such as explaining a concept in a literature review or crafting the structure of a research proposal. They may become stuck and need guidance in order to move forward.

Assessment as learning attempts to build these skills by developing and supporting student metacogni- tion. Students are actively engaged in this assessment process; they monitor their own learning and use assessment feedback from teachers, self, and peers to determine their next steps and set individual learn- ing goals. The goal is for students to become their own assessors, thus developing their own metacogni- tive awareness, an essential skill for lifelong learning (Wiggins, 2006).

Comparison to a Model

In developing these assessment sensibilities, students learn to compare their work to images of successful learning. Teachers provide models, exemplars, criteria, rubrics, frameworks, and checklists so students can compare what they have produced to a quality standard. In order to improve, students must monitor the quality of their work as they complete it. Therefore, any of the formative assessment methods that have the potential to encourage reflection and review can be used. For example, Figure 6.6 is a simple checklist for everyday writing assign- ments created using the site PBL Checklist (http://pblchecklist.4teachers.org/checklist.shtml). This checklist provides a standard for short writing segments that students could use prior to

f06.05_EDU673.ai

Assessment as Learning

strategies for comparison to a modelstrategies that build metacognitive skills strategies for record keeping

students direct their own learning

Figure 6.5: Strategies that support assessment as learning

Assessment as learning is supported by strategies for building metacognitive skills, comparing to a model, and keeping records.

Think About It

View the Assessing Project Based Work video of students learning to assess themselves by developing their own rubric at http://fcit.usf. edu/assessment/performance/assessb.html. Would this activity work in your area of teach- ing interest? Explain your reasoning.

Assessment as Learning Chapter 6

submission to the teacher for a shared evaluation. After modeling a self-assessment using this checklist, the teacher can ask for a shared assessment of daily writing work. Once students are comfortable with this, and both student and teacher are in agreement on the scoring, a gradual release of responsibility occurs, allowing for a more guided approach as the student develops the knowledge and skill needed to become an independent learner. The same approach could be used with rubrics, visual models, or concept maps, depending on whether the task calls for a rating scale, graphic organizer, or other method of evaluation. Self-Regulation Strategy Development (SRSD) is a strategy that teaches students to use evidence-based writing practices while learning self-regulations skills (The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements, 2008). The Additional Resources section of this chapter provides a link to an online module explaining this practice.

f06.06_EDU673.ai

PBL Writing Checklist: Grades 5–8 Teacher Name: Rita Jones

Student Name:

Date:

Project: Everyday writing assignments

CATEGORY

Ideas I used brainstorming and a concept map or outline to create and organize ideas. Ideas are written in my own words.

Explain or show evidence of each item in the space below.

My report is sequenced in a logical order.

Explain or show evidence of each item in the space below.

I used a lot of descriptive words (adjectives and adverbs).

I used synonyms to add variety.

Explain or show evidence of each item in the space below.

Each of my paragraphs have one main idea.

My printout contains no typos.

Explain or show evidence of each item in the space below.

I used commas, periods, question marks, and exclamation points correctly.

My ideas flow well and are clearly connected to one another.

I have listened to suggestions from the teacher or peer writers.

Organization

Word Choice

Conventions

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Reviewer Name:

Figure 6.6: Example of simple checklist for everyday writing assignments

This simple checklist could be used as a comparison model for students by providing a standard to assess their own writing.

Source: Retrieved from http://pblchecklist.4teachers.org/testing.php?idunique=3&max=6&checklist=4. Reprinted by permission of ALTEC. Work is part of the 4Teachers.org resources supported by ALTEC at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.

Assessment as Learning Chapter 6

Record Keeping

Monitoring one’s own learning and comparing oneself to a model are ways of developing self- evaluation habits of mind, or ways of thinking that will eventually enable students to learn on their own at any point in their lives (Earl, 2012). Developing these skills will require that stu- dents learn some form of record keeping. Two areas in particular, keeping records of learning and developing schedules, help to develop these goals of self-direction.

• Records of learning. Students can be supported in the development of skills and attitudes that allow them to keep systematic records of their learning. Routine opportunities to practice record keeping can begin in the early grades. For example, start in simple ways by marking charts for completion or evaluating work using a Likert scale with a range of faces from smiling to frowning. Records of learning may include learning to manage portfolios, diaries, or learning logs. As students gradually learn to include reflections and insights, these records become the evidence of their progress in learning and document their emerging independent practice (Earl, 2012).

• Schedules. Students need to be empowered to make choices about how they spend their time, and learn to live with the consequences. Developing a written schedule, record- ing planned as well as actual time devoted to projects, study, or fun can help students to organize their time and develop self-adjustment strategies. Learning these skills can start with a sheet of paper with space to record subject areas or a class schedule, a daily calen- dar, or planning books.

The goal of assessment as learning is for students to become confident and competent self- assessors who monitor their own learning. Learning to routinely record information about their ongoing learning and using it to inform the next stage is a habit of mind that will aid in this process.

V O I C E S F R O M T H E C L A S S R O O M

Glass, Bug, Mud

Reading the literature about differentiating instruction can be frustrating at times. Everyone extols its virtues, but actual examples of differentiation in practice with specific curriculum examples tied to the new standards and assessment requirements are hard to come by. Don’t get me wrong— there are thousands of lesson plans and units on the Web, and plenty of professional development books and articles. But none resonated with me. The objectives in the lesson plans felt like “fluff” and were not tied in with any particular unit—so they seemed disjointed. I really enjoyed reading the professional development books and articles on differentiation, but the advice seemed easier to implement in early elementary settings with a grade level team of teachers.

So here is my situation. I teach language arts in an urban, diverse, multicultural middle school. I teach six 45-minute periods per day, with two planning periods; one an individual period and the other for team planning. Five teaching periods are devoted to seventh grade language arts, and one to an area we call intervention/enrichment. Mine is the intervention group.

(continued)

Assessment as Learning Chapter 6

In my language arts classes, I am working on teaching students to paraphrase. Somehow, they have the idea that to cut and paste from the Internet or to copy from a book is all they need to do to show evidence. I am trying to teach them how to put what they know in their own words. I have the students organized into small groups of varying abilities, as is recommended, and we are prac- ticing paraphrasing with informational texts. It is like pulling teeth! I have to put my roller skates on to get to each group—they are so dependent on me for suggestions. I wanted them to be able to evaluate their own answers—and show some confidence in what they are doing.

I ran across an article with an intriguing title—Glass, Bug, Mud—that offers an evidence-based practice that I thought I could use to get the students to evaluate their own work (Grimes & Stevens, 2009). The gist of the article is that students could learn to rate their own work in one of three categories using the metaphor of a windshield on a car. Glass means clarity. The student can see through the windshield and has a strong understanding of the concept. Bug means the wind- shield is somewhat clear, but there are areas that are still a bit messy, or splattered with bugs. The student is not fully confident that the answer is accurate. Mud refers to a covered windshield; the student does not understand the concept.

The problem is that the article’s example was for math concepts and younger students. I decided to adapt this concept for language arts and to keep the title of the categories. I followed the advice at the end of the article. I started with just one class period, and tried this idea out within one unit. As we worked through exercises on paraphrasing, I used a strategy called gisting (Brozo & Puckett, 2009; Chambliss, 1995), where students are taught to write progressively shorter sentences explain- ing the major ideas from progressively longer sections of text. We discussed the meaning of glass, bug, and mud, and worked on applying this concept to their paraphrased writing.

While it was a bit awkward at first, I was amazed by how the students learned to use this evalu- ation tool, and how close their rating was to one that I would have given them. I did not give a grade to these ratings, so that took the tension out of the mix. The students began to connect with where they felt the work resembled bug; why they thought the work was mud; and most impor- tantly, they knew when the work was glass and could tell me why! The students worked in small groups to explain their self-ratings, and edited their writing based on this peer review. By the time the paraphrased writing was turned in, several students had provided input and the writer was even more confident of the rating. It is as if the rating, or assessment, also provided a structure for them to learn by.

I will begin to adapt this concept for other classes and other units. Even though I am still occasion- ally frustrated by the lack of standards-based examples in the literature (I am referring to the new standards), I am learning to take a kernel of an idea about differentiation from here and there, and adapt it to my own situation.

—Pam R., seventh grade language arts teacher

Critical Thinking Questions

1. This teacher believes that much differentiation advice she reads does not apply to her own teaching situation. Have you ever felt that differentiation strategies are unrealistic? How so? What might you do to modify strategies for the context in which you teach or plan to teach?

2. How might you adapt the Glass, Bug, Mud strategy for higher grades or for groups of students who need more enrichment?

Response to Intervention Chapter 6

Differentiation and Assessment as Learning

Assessment as learning provides the conditions for students to build executive functioning skills (see Chapter 3) that lead to lifelong independent learning. These skills do not come easily. They must be built, step by step, using simple models and shared experiences, moving toward greater independence. When students practice the skills that build their self-assessment abili- ties, they learn to know themselves—what they know, how they know it, and how they best learn. These are the same ultimate goals as those of differentiated instruction. Indeed, assess- ment as learning helps to move the responsibility for differentiation away from the teacher and toward the student. Students become empowered and take charge of the learning that suits their learning profiles, readiness, and interests, even if the ultimate reward is perceived as being a long way off. Assessment as learning is also supported by the major theories sup- porting differentiated instruction—how individuals learn (e.g., constructivism, multiple intelligences, and learning styles) as well as their motivation and goals (e.g., self-determination and goal attainment theories). Strategies suggested by the principles of UDL (Guideline 6) (Lapinski, Gravel, & Rose, 2012), problem-based learning, and cooperative learning also support assessment as learning.

6.4 Response to Intervention Any examination of contemporary assessment practices would be incomplete without discuss- ing Response to Intervention (RTI) and its relationship to differentiated instruction. RTI is positioned in this final section of the discussion on assessment, not as an afterthought, but because its processes contain elements of assessment of, for, and as learning.

RTI Defined

The need to differentiate instruction was once thought to apply only to students with special needs. Accommodations were reserved for those whose disability caused them to learn dif- ferently, whether that learning difference resulted in achievement that was above, below, or similar to their peers. The reauthorization of IDEA democratized this process, extending dif- ferentiation to all students, not just those with special needs. This did a number of things. First, it considers that all students’ first instructional home is the general classroom, where teachers provide a high quality core curriculum and scientific research-based classroom instruction. Second, it assumes that teachers will use practices within the core curriculum that optimize success for all students and that differentiation is expected. Third, it offers a framework for offering differentiated support for students who do not respond to instruction in the core cur- riculum before they are considered for special education services. The language of the statute aims to avoid overidentification of students from minority groups as learning disabled, as well as waiting to document failure before offering services (IRA, 2010). The legislation and its regu- lations offer a framework to help schools identify and support students before the difficulties

Think About It

“We must constantly remind ourselves that the ultimate purpose of evaluation is to enable students to evaluate themselves… Fostering students’ ability to direct and redirect them- selves must be a major goal—or what is edu- cation for?” (Costa, 1989, p. 2) How does this quotation support the concept of assessment as learning? What classroom practices have the potential for offering small steps in this direction?

Response to Intervention Chapter 6

they encounter become more serious. This framework is commonly referred to as RTI. The term RTI was not defined in the law and its implementation was left to the states and districts to develop procedures specific for their localities. RTI, or multitiered system of supports (MTSS) as some localities have named it, is not exclusively a general education program or a special edu- cation program. The framework is used in both program areas. Districts are allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of their special education funds for general education interventions designed to identify and prevent learning problems for all students. Most districts implement a three-tiered system of intervention support that is patterned after RTI or MTSS general recommendations.

Tier 1: Core Classroom Instruction Tier 1 is the core curriculum as taught in the general education classroom to all students and is the first line of intervention. A key component of a strong core curriculum is differentiated instruction. Classroom teachers are more likely to meet the learning needs of every student if they are knowledgeable in differentiated instruction practices as well as content area disci- plinary practices. Most models anticipate that appropriately differentiated core instruction will result in successful learning for approximately 80–85 percent of all students (Reed, Wexler, & Vaughn, 2012). Students who do not attain adequate achievement with differentiated core instruction are provided further support with either supplemental or intensive instruction in Tiers 2 or 3. All students, however, continue to receive their core instruction in Tier 1, even while participating in the additional support.

Tier 2: Supplemental Instruction Tier 2 offers supplemental instruction to students encountering difficulties despite differenti- ated approaches in Tier 1. The instruction is delivered by the classroom teacher, specialized teacher, or other trained intervention teacher. Supplemental instruction is specific instruction of targeted skills to small, homogenous groups of students. Individual student progress is regu- larly monitored using curriculum‐based measurements. Students participate in Tier 2 instruc- tion in addition to the core curriculum and regularly scheduled core instructional time. When the student makes adequate progress to be successful in Tier 1, they no longer receive these supplemental services (Reed et al., 2012).

Tier 3: Intense Instruction Tier 3 is intense instruction for students who have not responded to supplemen- tary instruction provided in Tier 2. Tier 3 instruction takes place in even smaller homogenous groupings of students. This is the most intensive of interventions, pro- vided typically for a longer time period and more frequently (usually daily). Students remain with their primary intervention (Tier 1) but do not participate in Tier 2 instruction. Tier 3 instruction is usually provided by specialists. Tier 3 students receive explicit instruction individually or in small groups. Most models anticipate 5–10 percent of the student population will need Tier 3 instruction (Reed et al., 2012).

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

▲ This student uses a laptop while receiving Tier 3 instruction with a specialist within his regular classroom. How can tech- nology be useful in Response to Intervention?

Response to Intervention Chapter 6

In many districts, Tier 3 is delivered as special education service, but some districts may use this level of intervention to determine progress while special education status is being reviewed. Some districts have elected to form an additional tier, or Tier 4 intervention, for students who receive services through an individual educational plan (IEP).

Assessment and RTI

Assessment plays an important role in MTSS. Districts use universal screening assessments to identify students who may be at risk for poor learning outcomes. Universal screening tests are brief, conducted with all students in a grade level. At the secondary level, universal screening procedures examine the student’s academic record to date as well as scores on eighth grade examinations. For students whose screening records (e.g., local benchmark scores or other mea- sures) indicate a problem, diagnostic tests are usually administered in order to target instruc- tional goals. These screening and diagnostic tests may be considered as broad measures for assessment of learning, because they are used to confirm the general areas of student learning and identify further support.

Progress monitoring assessments are also present in MTSS. These assessments are given peri- odically to determine if the student is progressing toward the targeted goals with the inter- vention provided, and can be used as a record in determining if more intense intervention is needed. Progress monitoring assessments could be considered assessment for learning. These frequent measures are used to determine students’ RTI and help to identify adjustments to the content, process, or product of instruction.

Assessment as learning has had little written notice when referring to students who use these tiered supports. This is unfortunate, because students who have learning differences or spe- cial needs, in particular, also need to develop the metacognitive and executive functioning skills that assessment as learning supports. Based on the reciprocal nature of metacognition and learning, assessment as learning should be incorporated routinely throughout the tiers, from general instruction, to progress monitoring, and other formative assessment activities. The implementation of the CCSS, with the emphasis on higher order thinking and subsequent accountability measures, may shift assessment focus in this direction for all students.

The CCSS and their accountability systems also portend changes in current RTI and MTSS assessment and instructional practices. Higher expectations are likely to result in even greater variability in student performance and increase the need for differentiated approaches, both in the classroom and through MTSS. The assessments and instructional procedures used in RTI often target a narrow range of skills that are currently inadequate to address the breadth and depth of the content expectations in the CCSS.

For example, with the CCSS-ELA standards, students will need a different type of beginning reading instruction—one that helps them to quickly learn early reading skills and gives multi- ple opportunities to read independently and flexibly. All students, including those who struggle with language and literacy, need instruction that emphasizes using what is learned in order to respond to the more challenging texts and tasks expected in upper grade levels (Wixson & Lipson, 2012). Similarly, the CCSS shifts the focus from developing reading skills and building fluency through simple narratives toward using reading and writing to gain knowledge. This firmly positions the skill of using language and literacy within the content areas, emphasizing reading and writing from informational text and using domain-specific vocabulary. Moreover,

Response to Intervention Chapter 6

RTI assessment and instructional strategies will have to change focus, from identifying defi- cit skills and developing reading strategies toward using those strategies in a domain-specific, content-related manner (Brozo, 2010). Differentiated instructional practices are more impor- tant than ever, and can facilitate the implementation of those strategies that meet the reading, writing, and learning needs of students with diverse abilities.

Students will also need different types of mathematical instruction, with strategies that allow them to focus on conceptual understandings while building fluency in the early grades. All students need differentiated instruction in Tier 1 that is based on high-leverage mathemati- cal instructional practices linked to the CCSS, approaching mathematical learning as prob- lem solving and instruction that emphasizes cognitively demanding conceptual tasks. Past RTI assessment practices (universal screening and diagnosis) focused on narrow sets of skills meant to identify students eligible for Tier 2 and 3 support but were inconsistent with the broader goals of the CCSS. With the new standards, any student may need intervention; students who excel in some areas may need support in others. Tier 1 instruction must be based on a model of differentiation based on continuous formative assessment processes that support grade level instruction (Larson et al., 2012).

C A S E S T U D Y

Monitoring Progress and Adapting to Student Outcomes

Marie’s sixth grade ELA team (initially described in Chapter 5) continues to meet weekly to revise the CCSS-ELA based units and lessons according to student needs. They are progressing with dif- ferentiated instructional strategies, helping each other brainstorm activities as they work through the units and lessons. They also have a robust RTI program within the sixth grade team, and use diagnostic tests and progress monitoring to keep track of progress.

The first quarter benchmark scores have just arrived, and the team is disappointed. Despite their efforts to implement differentiated instruction, at least 50 percent of students’ scores indicate that they will likely have a problem with the end-of-year assessment. They decided to look at all the progress monitoring scores for students who were receiving RTI support, and noticed that very few students were moving out of Tier 2. They looked at the end-of-unit assessments for the last unit completed and found that most of the scores were acceptable; at least 85 percent scored 80 percent or more on the unit test and on their projects. They wondered what the data was not telling them.

They all felt the pressure to stay within their calendar, so they moved on to the next unit but decided to bring all the scored papers from the unit pretest to the next meeting. As they looked at the stu- dent work, they realized that they were not using the information from the pretest to target the next steps for the unit. They were working with the numeric scores from the pretest to develop initial groups, but they were not looking at the content of the answers. For the objectives in this particular unit, some students were able to summarize a sample paragraph on the pretest but left out many details; others could write a summary but used direct quotes instead of their own words, and still others seemed to misinterpret the passage completely, only stating if they liked the ideas or not.

They decided to develop the next lesson from students’ actual responses. The teachers transcribed (leaving out student names) several correct responses that could be used as models as well as responses that showed confusion or used opinions instead of evidence. Then they asked their

(continued)

Post-Test Chapter 6

Summary The discussion in this chapter centered on the purposes of assessment as students progress through curriculum that is aligned to common standards. It described assessment as a tool that teachers use to discover what students have actually learned and how they may be apply- ing what they have learned in order to confirm learning, adjust learning, or develop habits that lead to lifelong learning. But responding to learner characteristics—students’ interests, their readiness, and their learning profiles, is also a major principle of differentiated instruction, and assessment is a useful tool for understanding these characteristics. Learner characteristics, and assessments’ role in uncovering them, is the topic of the next chapter.

Post-Test 1. Assessment originates with the objectives and standards of the curriculum and should be

planned a. at the beginning even before learning content and activities are identified. b. based on the learner profiles in the classroom and included in the unit plans. c. at the end when learning content and activities have been identified. d. to direct student learning and meet district goals.

2. Assessment of learning is meant to answer the question, “Did the student learn it?” Assessment for learning a. provides information about what students already know and can do and informs

instruction. b. is the basis for large-scale assessment. c. provides informative measures for progression through grade level standards. d. is meant to answer the question, “Did the teacher teach it well?”

classes to explore the collected work and to critique what was correct, how a student might have misunderstood, and what could have made the response better. They called this their anchor les- son, using whole-group instruction to revisit the skill for the 10 percent who were confused and to refresh the memories of successful students.

For each subsequent lesson, they developed a formative assessment and analyzed the students’ responses. They found that some students were ready to move on to more complex text; others needed to stay with grade band level informational texts to continue to practice the skill of summa- rizing the central ideas. Still others needed help with reading but could identify the central idea of the text if it were read to them.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What recommendations would you make to the sixth grade ELA team?

2. Which DI concepts would guide each of the sixth grade classes?

3. What are they not considering?

4. What other advice or suggestions would you give to Marie and her team in moving the sixth grade language arts team forward?

Post-Test Chapter 6

3. Identify the purpose of assessment as learning. a. To provide information for teacher and school effectiveness in assessment data. b. To provide a balance between formative and summative assessment measures. c. To help students develop metacognitive skills to become independent, self-regulated

learners. d. To help students perform better by streamlining instruction for students on target, those

who are not, and to provide feedback to all students. 4. The IDEA legislation and regulations helps schools

a. provide differentiation for only those students with special needs. b. identify and support students before the difficulties they encounter become more serious. c. offer high-quality core curriculum for those students who can benefit from advanced

instruction. d. decide whether differentiation is needed for specific groups of students and maintain sci-

entific research-based classroom instruction for others. 5. Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) is an adaptive delivery system that

a. provides teachers with norm-referenced questions so that students can be taught relevant concepts.

b. allows students with severe or multiple disabilities to take the same assessment without adaptation.

c. adjusts the difficulty of questions throughout the assessment to determine student strengths and weaknesses.

d. allows input from state standards that are not part of the larger Common Core State Standards.

6. For feedback to be successful, it must be a. positive regardless of the student’s demonstration of learning. b. focused on misconceptions or lack of understanding. c. immediate, but not often, to promote self-regulation. d. specific and detailed enough to guide student learning.

7. When teachers provide models of successful learning and require students to monitor the quality of their own work, a gradual release of responsibility occurs that promotes student

a. dependence on peer group feedback so as to reduce the stress level for the teacher. b. reflection and self-regulation skills to become an independent learner. c. interdependence and intrapersonal skills to become a productive team player. d. reliance on personal learning styles as suggested by Gardner’s multiple intelligences.

Key Ideas Chapter 6

8. Isabella is a fourth grade student who receives explicit instruction provided daily by a spe- cialist who works for the school district. She is not on an IEP, but her special education status is being reviewed. What tier, within the RTI model, would best describe the services made available to Isabella? a. Tier 1 b. Tier 2 c. Tier 3 d. Tier 4

Answers 1. a. at the beginning even before learning content and activities are identified. The correct

answer can be found in Section 6.1. 2. a. provides information about what students already know and can do and informs instruc-

tion. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.2. 3. c. To help students develop metacognitive skills to become independent, self-regulated

learners. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.3. 4. b. identify and support students before the difficulties they encounter become more serious.

The correct answer can be found in Section 6.4. 5. c. adjusts the difficulty of questions throughout the assessment to determine student

strengths and weaknesses. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.1. 6. d. specific and detailed enough to guide student learning. The correct answer can be found

in Section 6.2. 7. b. reflection and self-regulation skills to become an independent learner. The correct

answer can be found in Section 6.3. 8. c. Tier 3. The correct answer can be found in Section 6.4.

Key Ideas • Assessment of learning confirms what students know and can do. • Assessment for learning informs teachers of what students know in order to adjust the

learning activities. • Assessment as learning develops metacognitive skills. • The next generation of large-scale assessments (e.g. PARCC, SBAC, DLM, NCSC, and

ASSETS) will assess performance measures and higher order thinking skills using advanced technology.

• Preparing for large-scale assessments of learning presupposes a differentiated learning environment, where teachers are responsive to differences in students’ rates and styles of learning, and are able to adjust instruction accordingly.

• Response to intervention is a multitiered system of supports that uses screening and progress monitoring to further inform the instructional process. Its purpose is to assure that all students have the opportunity to learn using effective practices.

Key Terms Chapter 6

Learning Activities 1. Visit the website of one of the consortia that are developing the large-scale assessment sys-

tem that most applies to your current or intended teaching responsibilities (PARCC, SBAC, DLM, NCSC, or ASSETS). As applicable to your choice, (1) review the prototype test items for the appropriate grade bands listed for ELA or for math, (2) review the sample alternate assessment items and how they are derived from and align to the standards, or (3) review the descriptions of the ELP, its components, and how it will be determined. What are the major changes evident in these assessments that have not been part of current practice? What are the major challenges in preparing students for these changes in assessment? In what ways can principles of differentiated instruction be used to address those challenges?

2. From an existing lesson or unit plan, develop two assessment for learning activities. 3. Consider the various ways that assessment as learning could be implemented. Develop a plan

for a learner-managed assessment for one particular teaching unit. 4. Develop an example of a progress monitoring assessment system or other record keep-

ing system to record frequent formative assessment results. 5. Using the tool Rubistar or similar online rubric maker, develop a rubric for evaluating a

multicomponent project or assignment. Indicate its use as summative assessment, formative assessment, or self-assessment.

6. Using PBL checklist or a similar tool, develop a checklist suitable for a project of your choice.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What changes in assessment practices have come about as the result of the move to the CCSS?

How will these changes support differentiated instruction? 2. How can teachers use the results from assessment of learning to differentiate subsequent

learning? 3. How does the concept of assessment as learning relate to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal

development? 4. When is it appropriate to use assessment for learning? Describe two subject-specific

examples of this form of assessment. 5. Describe some of the challenges you anticipate when implementing RTI or other MTSS. 6. Although the CCSS have been adopted and are being implemented in 45 states, the

assessment systems intended to support these standards are the subject of much contro- versy, with some states pulling out of their assessment consortia. Using an investigation of news accounts, what are the stated reasons for this opposition? Where do you stand in this controversy?

Key Terms Assessment as learning is a process of self-monitoring to direct one’s own learning.

Assessment for learning is an observation of learning in order to adjust the instructional process.

Key Terms Chapter 6

Assessment of learning is a summative measure of learning that conveys student progress.

Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems (ASSETS) is a language assessment system for students in grades K–12 who are learning English. This test yields a summative English Language Proficiency (ELP) score.

Classroom assessment measures the extent to which students can apply key concepts, knowl- edge, and attitudes related to curriculum outcomes.

Complex performance tasks are assessment activities that could include observations of student performance or tasks that ask the student to examine a product or conduct an experiment.

Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) is an adaptive test item delivery system that adjusts the difficulty of the questions throughout the assessment according to student responses.

Constructed response is a test item that asks the student to recall or create a response, as in a short answer or an essay.

Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium (DLM) is developing alterna- tive assessments based on alternative achievement standards aligned to the CCSS for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Fixed form is a test item delivery system that uses the same test items on each of alternate forms of a test.

Formative assessments are used throughout the learning process to identify common misconceptions, errors, or approaches. The results are used to differentiate instructional approaches.

Metacognitive skills are used to gain knowledge of one’s own thought processes.

Multitiered system of supports (MTSS) describes RTI, a framework included in IDEA leg- islation that help schools identify and support students before the learning difficulties they encounter become more serious.

National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) is developing alternative assessments based on alternative achievement standards aligned to the CCSS for students with significant cogni- tive disabilities.

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a U.S. consor- tium that will develop a standardized measure of achievement for use in partner states.

Preassessments are used prior to instruction to provide indicators of prior knowledge and readiness levels.

Progress monitoring is a form of assessment within a multitiered system of support. This assessment is administered periodically to determine if a student is making progress toward targeted goals or if more intense support is needed.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a framework included in IDEA legislation that help schools identify and support students before learning difficulties that they encounter become more serious.

Additional Resources Chapter 6

Selected response is a test item type whereby the student selects an answer among visible choices, as in a multiple choice or true-false test option.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) is a U.S. consortium that will develop a standardized measure of achievement for use in partner states.

Standardized measures of achievement are large-scale assessments that measure achieve- ment against standards and provide data to inform instruction.

Tier 1 is a concept within the RTI model that describes the instruction offered through the core curriculum as taught in the general education classroom with differentiated instruction.

Tier 2 is a concept within the RTI model that describes supplemental instruction to students encountering difficulties despite differentiated approaches in Tier 1.

Tier 3 is a concept within the RTI model that describes intense instruction for students who have not responded to supplementary instruction.

Additional Resources How Differentiated Instruction and Formative Assessment Work at Forest Lake Elementary.

Educators use frequent formative assessments to determine the needs of each student at Forest Lake Elementary School, and then leverage technology to tap into their learn- ing styles. http://www.edutopia.org/stw-differentiated-instruction-learning-styles-video

Rubistar. This is a free online rubric maker, with multiple examples in several subject areas. It was developed through funding by the US Department of Education. http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php

PBL Checklist. Sometimes a rubric with a list of ratings is too much, especially when a sim- ple checklist will suffice. PBL Checklist is an online development tool with multiple suggestions for various grade levels and subject areas. http://pblchecklist.4teachers.org/checklist.shtml

Silicon Valley mathematic initiative. This site has resources for implementing CCSS in mathematics. http://www.svmimac.org/

Reteach and Enrich: How to Make Time for Every Student. This video shows a grade level team making use of formative assessment data to reteach or enrich. http://www.edutopia.org/stw-differentiated-instruction-budget-assessment-video

Formative and Summative Assessment. Listen to Rick Wormeli as he explains the difference between formative assessment (assessment for learning) and summative assessment (assessment of learning). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rJxFXjf B_B4

Assessment Services Supporting ELs through Technology Systems (ASSETS) explains the rationale for the development of language assessments based on English Language

Additional Resources Chapter 6

Development standards. http://www.assetsproject.org/assessmentSystem/screener.aspx

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) explains the rationale for the develop- ment of assessments for CCSS and the states that partner with this consortium. http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) explains the rationale for the development of assessments for CCSS and the states that partner with this consortium. www.parcconline.org/

Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) explains the rationale for alternative assessment develop- ment and the partner states. http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/

National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) explains the rationale for alternative assessment development and the partner states. http://www.ncscpartners.org/

Bubbl.us. The free version of this online mapping tool will allow you to create three maps that can be saved and shared; premium versions with unlimited saving and sharing have a modest annual or monthly charge. https://bubbl.us

SRSD: Using learning strategies to enhance student learning. This module from the IRIS Center for Training Enhancements explains learning strategies that teach self- regulation. http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/srs/