Showing posts with label Assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assessment. Show all posts

Friday, March 31, 2017

EDU 6945 Helping Students Kick Assessment in the A** - Assessment



EDU6945                              Helping Students Kick Assessment in the A**                     Ian Lewis

Throughout the school year assessments are not simply at set intervals, after a lesson sequence or unit, to test recall. No, it is far more complex than this. Assessment is embedded and interwoven throughout each segment of a lesson, both formative and summative assessment having key roles, to not only provide quick assessment on the go to guide instruction and gauge student learning, but formally/summatively to track student growth points across time. This is exactly what is expressed in Seattle Pacific University program standard 6. Assessment.

Within the internship experience at Narrows View Intermediate, it has been present since the start that Narrows View students are held to exceptionally high standards, and the formal standardized tests, if you agree with the idea that they are an adequate measure of student growth and success, would suggest NVI students consistently surpass state standards. Certainly though, there are other venues with which students may prove they have understanding of what is the central focus for assessment. Thus, as with many situations where it seems there are but two options, the best option could be a hidden (or obvious) third: a combination. Whichever way though, it is important to integrate formative and summative assessment to monitor students and guide practice. With the central focus and end goal in mind first, assessment can be built and/or planned around that which is necessary for students to comprehend in order to be successful. To begin with, plan pre-assessment that will provide information about student background knowledge and allow for measuring student progress and skill acquisition.

At the beginning of the year in social studies we administered a social studies skills pre-assessment. The assessment utilized a student atlas, which students would later use in coursework, but from a section they would not normally experience. The corresponding battery of test questions resembled those that would be encountered on a standardized test, including the multiple choice, true/false, and short response, geared around reading and interpreting text, text features, and primary/secondary source material. The results of the pre-assessment  revealed that students needed most practice with interpreting text features and visual aids, such as maps, charts/tables, and graphs, as well as differentiating primary and secondary source material. As a result of this pre-assessment data, these skills have been continually emphasized and monitored throughout the year, and incorporated across each lesson sequence. The seventh grade classroom based assessment (CBA) we have yet to complete places emphasis on differentiating and effectively utilizing primary and secondary source materials, as do Social Studies CCSS, and therefore it has been of utmost importance to continually monitor student progress in this area. Therefore formative assessment in lessons on multiple occasions, for example, has been geared at student differentiation and interpretation of sources (e.g.: The caption for the graphic aid says, “Miraculously embroidered on soiled dressings in 1428 by a triple amputee soldier in a field hospital during the Battle of Orleans (1428-1429), this medieval tapestry depicts the horrors of medieval combat”, so it must be what type of source?). Informal summative assessments throughout the year have also focused on utilizing multiple source materials. So far students have shown much growth in this area, and come time for CBA, they’ll be ready to kick some assessment a**.

While pre-assessment may be utilized at set points, such as an entry task that serves as a lesson/lesson sequence pre-assessment, other formative assessment must be integrated throughout daily lessons. After all, students (and adults alike) lose attention after a set amount of time (~7  minutes), and therefore, in most instances, stop learning the desired material. Therefore, it is important to consistently and periodically utilize a vast array of formative assessment. By breaking apart lessons into scaffolded segments of direct instruction and associated learning activities interspersed with formative assessment (there’s a reason the SPU standard lesson plan outline is written the way it is…alternating instruction/learning activity and formative assessment), the effect of students’ natural loss of attention is mitigated; the periodic integration of formative assessment helps to keep students engaged in learning while checking loss of natural focus and allowing for continual monitoring of student learning. Examples of formative assessment could include pair/group sharing and then calling on students who raise hands, or randomly selecting a student for response after a pair share, thus practicing ways of covert engagement of all students. Students can physically engage in formative assessment, for example from one lesson in WA state history this quarter, by making a wave motion with a hand to represent a natural boundary or a gaveling motion to represent a political boundary. Choral response can be used as formative assessment and simply traveling amongst students and monitoring their work is also formative assessment. All of these methods have been used successfully throughout the year. Not only do these critically integrated assessments help keep student focus and provide practice, but they allow for on-the-spot feedback for guiding the lesson further, as well as guiding next lessons for the benefit of the teacher.

Regarding summative assessment, the internship has provided much experience in planning and creating assessments (especially in collaboration with staff PLC members), as well as tracking and analyzing student data, and finally reflecting on assessments and student growth. As mentioned earlier, assessment should align with the central focus and goal of any lesson sequence or unit. Prior to giving the last unit assessment, the PLC edited existing test questions and incorporated more questions about Native American spatial patterns and geography, as that was the central focus of the unit. Pre-assessment questionnaire results from the start of the unit about two Native American groups’ spatial patterns could be compared with data from the summative unit assessment to monitor whether students gained proper understanding of the learning targets aligned with the overall focus of the unit. Student responses to questions related to interpreting graphic aids and source materials were monitored to note overall improvement in this area, as was a focus for the year as mentioned prior. Assessment data from classes was also discussed and analyzed at the PLC meeting, at which point reflecting on the data and the test led to more editing. For example, an entire page was rearranged to make a caption clear, as it seemed it had been viewed as a separate, short article, unrelated to its image simply based on poor location. A final means for reflecting and adjusting for the future as a result of assessment came from the end of unit student voice questionnaire; the questions were as follows:

1.       What do you wish would have been asked on the test that you knew about Native Americans, their associated spatial patterns, or the formation of Washington territory?
2.       What instructional strategies and/or activities helped you best understand Native Americans, their associated spatial patterns, or the formation of Washington territory?
3.       Would you change anything if you could, regarding how you engaged in learning/studying about Native Americans, their associated spatial patterns, or the formation of Washington territory?

Results from this survey were quite beneficial for planning the next unit. The questions about beneficial instructional strategies and changes, in particular, revealed interesting information. While many students mentioned the usefulness of the guided and cloze notes for use while reading the lessons in the textbook, a few students explicitly mentioned they did not prefer this method because it was too constraining, slow, and/or not stimulating, nothing we want for our students. Therefore, for the next lesson, multiple styles of note handouts were provided so students could choose how to take notes to better fit their own needs. One student was incredibly appreciative to, “Not be bored”, and I was certainly glad to remedy that with a more engaging instructional tool.

Student suggestion against using cloze notes (red), an example of response from unit end student voice questionnaire.

From pre-assessment to post-assessment, and all the formative in between, assessment is an integral and staple part of any teaching experience. The internship experience at NVI has allowed for much practice with formative and summative assessment methods/strategies, as well as the creation of assessments, analysis and reflection of assessment data, and use of student voice in assessment to better guide overall teaching and assessment practice.  
 

Sunday, November 27, 2016

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 7th 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.