Multiple intelligence theory and student evaluation within internship

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 8                            Ian Lewis                                 November 27, 2016

Multiple intelligence theory and student evaluation within internship

The Response to Intervention (RTI) framework for instruction-based assessment discussed by Shermis and Di Vesta (2011, p. 399-404) is an individualized process for student assessment and intervention. It relies heavily upon the idea of zone of proximal development (Vygotskyy, 1978), which drew upon Piaget’s theories of child cognitive development and developmental stages, in that it emphasizes the individual level of student need and how the teacher provides instruction, while considering differentiation in order to meet standards for quality instruction. However, as the discussion of student essay assessments shows (Shermis and Si Vesta, 2011, p. 477-478), teaching to a basic framework, does not necessarily equate to passing more rigorous assessment, which suggests that good teachers need to teach beyond standards. Aspects of the RTI framework can be seen at NVI, and have been applied within my internship. Differentiation in both ELA and social studies is part of everyday instruction. 

In both ELA and social studies, various students would fall into the Tier 2 and Tier 3 of the RTI framework (Shermis and Di Vesta, 2011, p. 401), needing either systematic/remedial instruction or small group/individualized instruction. Some of these students are ELL and some receive special education services with 504 plans. Special attention is taken with planning and with implementation of instruction in order to meet the needs of all students based on their developmental level (linguistically, cognitively, socially, etc.).

Examples of differentiation in ELA are varied. Scaffolded summary paragraphs instead of writing a complete paragraph are used. Individual and small group support is provided especially when writing paragraphs, and soon essays. When answering questions, certain parts may be eliminated or reduced (or added) for students/classes. Providing supplemental material or copies of notes can be useful. Reducing multiple choice options and restructuring short answer prompts are ways to differentiate assessment. If the assessment asks students to use the text to cite specific examples in the story “Rikki-Tikki-Tavi” where suspense builds as a result of Rikki speaking with another character, this could easily be modified to ask a student to provide a single example. Similar strategies are used in social studies as well. Such differentiation all ties back to an understanding of multiple theories of intelligence and their application with our student population.

In order to go beyond the basic standards, as noted with the student essay tests anecdote (Shermis and Di Vesta, 2011, p. 477-478), we also seek to incorporate various effective practices for helping students exceed standards. As noted above, we are soon teaching/writing essays in 7^th grade ELA, and just as the basic paragraph structure was taught, we have also taught a basic essay structure. However, each paragraph (with basic structure emphasized) practice activity built upon an additional, different element (e.g. citing multiple/different types of sources, providing background information before an introduction, expanding sentences to increase sentence fluency, etc.) that will hopefully contribute to taking students beyond basic. When students write their essays, the rubric uses a scaled score of 1-4 (based on 32 points for various essay elements), where 3 is meets standards, and 4 is exceeds. Strict adherence to a writing formula may allow students to meet a standard (and some may also still be approaching, 2). Integrating strategies such as varying sentence structure and fluency so that imagery and detail go beyond the basic script and add flowing, vibrant voice to writing, however, begins to exceed standards. Across the whole essay writing process, as with writing paragraphs, special attention will be directed to students with special needs to ensure they receive the necessary instruction and resources in order to be successful.

Reference List:

Shermis, Mark D. and Di Vesta, Francis J. (2011). Classroom Assessment in Action. Rowman and Lanham: Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Vygotsky, (1978). Interaction Between Learning and Development. Gauvain and Cole (Eds.) Readings on the Development of Children. New York: Scientific America Books. P 34-40.

Summary of Most Recent Statewide Test

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 7                            Ian Lewis                                 November 20, 2016

Summarize the most recent statewide test for a grade level of your choosing, noting any peaks and valleys on subscores.

The University Place School District (UPSD) uses the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBAC) to assess students in math and English Language Arts (ELA). The topic of test scores has been the discussion at various district, multi-school, and individual school meetings. As background information regarding the district, there is just one other intermediate school in addition to Narrows View. Traditionally, it has been the case that the other school has scored higher on the SBAC than Narrows View. It would also be of importance to note that while both schools are equally diverse, the other school has regularly served a smaller percentage of students with free/reduced lunch than Narrows View (OSPI 2016).

At one of the first staff meetings, we were given the district SBAC score summary for % meeting standard for 2015 and 2016, and instructed to briefly review and analyze them before discussing our findings in small groups. I pointed out that, as traditionally was the case, the scores for the other school (grades 5, 6, and 7) were an average of approximately 5% higher than those of Narrows View. However, I also pointed out that, while the other school’s scores were consistently higher, they were also rather consistent of not growing much year to year. In contrast, Narrows View scores showed higher growth of % meeting standard between years. For the ELA SBAC scores for the seventh grade, for example, Narrows View increased from 72.9% meeting standard in 2015 to 81% meeting in 2016 (8.1% growth) while the other school decreased from 83.8% meeting standard in 2015 to 81% meeting standard in 2016; overall, between all grades and over the course of two years, the increase in % meeting standard at Narrows View was 14.3%, while that of the other school was less than half this increase, at 6.3%. Such a pattern may be the result of any one or more of various factors.

While the other school is generally higher across all grade levels with % meeting standard, this higher percentage may represent a plateau. While students may be above grade level, they then do not appear to progress further. The overall higher average of % meeting standard may be a result of smaller % of students with free/reduced lunch. The lack of growth between years could represent multiple situations. Student diversity across years could be a factor. So too could be less effective teacher presentation of material and differentiation practices. While lower students at the other school may be higher in comparison to those at Narrows View, it may be possible that less effective teaching and differentiation strategies contribute to a stagnation of progress. Despite the lower percentage of % meeting standard, Narrows View shows greater growth, which could suggest teaching strategies are more effective, or student engagement is higher, or both, because one tends to cause the other. Thus, this is something to appreciate and continue to try to replicate. With higher scores as a district in general in comparison to other neighboring districts, UPSD places certain value on high stakes testing such as SBAC. As discussed by the guest speaker last class, Dr. Bishop, these tests provide useful data if we use the data wisely. It’s one thing to just note scores as higher than others. It’s another thing to differentiate and analyze trends in the data and create a reflective discussion about how/why such patterns exist and what can be done to change or replicate them.

Reference List:

OSPI (2016). School Report Card. Electronic source,

< http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?schoolId=2157&OrgType=4&reportLevel=School >, accessed November 20, 2016.

Use of Student Grades in Evaluating Teachers, and Use of State Test Results to Evaluate Disctrict

EDU 6160 bPortfolio Post 6                            Ian Lewis                                 November 14, 2016

Discuss the use of student grades as a factor in evaluating teachers, and use of state test results to evaluate a school district.

Conference week (November 7-10) just ended, and while it was very long and exhausting, it was something I was looking forward to for awhile. While grades were an important aspect of the student led conferences, they were just a small part of the whole process of allowing the student to guide their parents through their own learning to date, while using data (e.g. test scores, assignment grades, student reflection in writing folders) to help guide reflection, feedback, and goal-setting for the next quarter. For some of the students, reading the scripted, “I am leading this conference because I am responsible for my own learning” was given, but for some students it was the first time this idea really sunk in despite attempts to continually reinforce this idea in class. At the start of the school year, achievement goals were established based on pre assessment of student learning and these are tracked throughout the year. Conferences at the quarter end offer a way to assess data and progress toward goals, which inevitably factor in evaluating teachers. 

After discussing their greatest accomplishment and biggest worry, students then guide their parents through the pre assessment that has guided their goal setting and reflection in various subject areas, before finishing with class highlights and work examples. Multiple pre assessments, for example, assist with student setting of Accelerated Reader (AR) goals: the STAR test provides a quicker feedback to a usually reliable indicator of student reading level, and the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test offers scores based on percentile rank and extended scaled score of progress across grades two to 12 in areas of vocabulary and comprehension. Both test score ranks provide corresponding AR reading levels and point goal ranges to aid in student goal setting, which is discussed regarding the context of success in completing the goal and setting another for next quarter. Additionally, these reading test scores are presented with last year’s SBAC scores for reading and writing (scaled score 1-4) in order to facilitate conversation with regard to progress for the remainder of the present year and what it will take to raise, keep, and/or (but hopefully not) drop said scores at the end of the year. Traditionally, the University Place School District maintains higher test scores than surrounding districts, and this is also discussed, not just with parents and students at conferences, but as the topic of multiple staff meetings. Because of this standard, high test scores are used as part of the evaluative process of teachers, and while I do not believe low scores would be grounds for discipline, it would suggest a greater need for emphasis on teacher reflection and attention to best practice.

I was excited for the conferences because as an anthropologist, and now teacher, which I would argue share remarkable resemblance, I was able to share what I had observed for the past two months. These observations, as well as those of my mentor, and students and parents alike, all then contributed to a discussion of student progress. As stated before, grades were an important part of this discussion, but not its entirety. Reflecting on grades and goal-setting with regard to growth, however, were just as important. Student grades inevitably factor into teacher evaluation, as do test scores, in teacher and district evaluation, but as the conferences show, the grades and scores are just one piece of the student’s academic puzzle.