Teacher Leadership Standard 11
Utilize formative and summative assessment in a standards-based environment.
Background
My initial thoughts about this course was on the “I know a lot about assessments already.” I have already taken college classes about assessments and go through them every year. In all honesty, I came into this course looking for validation for the work I already do. After reading the text and the discussions in my Standard-base Assessments and Curriculum design classes, I began a deeper reflection a lot on my practice. I didn’t realize that there are different ways I can engage in formative self-assessment and peer assessments. William D. (2011) wrote, “the term ‘formative’ itself is open to a variety of interpretations” (pg. 39). This explained the confusion on the degree of my understanding of formative assessments. In the end, the concept became clearer as I learned more about it. I felt awakened to a whole new concept practices when assessing student learning.
Learning and Applied Practice
In the beginning, my current practice of formative self-assessments and peer assessments was unintentional. This was already part of my classroom culture, but I wasn’t intentional about it. Going through the learning progression in my Standards-Based Assessment class, I learned how to do a little background planning. Once I knew what my students need to be able to do and say, I was able to create little formative assessments along the way to help students build background knowledge needed to reach the standard. In doing this, I can track and pinpoint where students are struggling. The learning progression, along with the rubric, allows me to effectively assess students. In the learning progression, the exit ticket activities are built-in formative assessments to help me determine the next steps for future lessons.
The result of this new learning for my practices is an understanding of the importance of the alignment of all tasks and assessments to the standards. This practice changed the rigor in the types of questions and problems to align more with metacognitive practices. For example, I will give rubrics or exemplars to aid in the quality and performance in the tasks I pose. Using the rubrics and the exemplars allows the students to reflect on what type of work they are providing to me as their evaluator of their learning. Additionally, I can use the same ideology with peer-to-peer metacognitive practices so students can use each other to further progress their learning.
The shift in practice caused me to reflect and be critical of the adopted curriculum. From the SPU Curriculum Design class, I scrutinized our district curriculum for alignment of standards and rigor. For the most part, the curriculum I use aligned with Common Core Standards; however, I have a still believe we need help with the rigor. In some parts, the formative assessments created were often times too high and at times too low. The result is I supplemented or modified my curriculum assessments to the appropriate rigor for my students. I don’t think I would have been aware to make these adjustments had I not taken the SPU Curriculum Design class.
Issues encountered, problems of practice addressed
In my current practice, I subscribed to the district mandated Fully Guided Instruction model. In this model, I feel students are not given enough opportunity to be a “free thinker” for their learning. It was the same “I do, We do, and You do” practice day after day. I feel this strips away their ability to engage in real life problem solving. While I believe that this model works, I also believe in somewhere within the direct instruction framework I need to provide an opportunity for students to engage the skills taught using metacognitive strategies.
One strategy I have learned is giving the opportunity for students to create their own standard based rubrics. One of Arthur Costa’s Habit of Mind is “Thinking about Thinking. He describes this habit as “our ability to plan a strategy for producing what information is needed, to be conscious of our own steps and strategies during the act of problem solving.” I believe this is an important skill to teach students. Giving students a standard and allowing them to create their learning rubrics, if taught well students can drive their own learning. Additionally, it allows students to self-assess their learning and look for help in areas they are struggling with. Metacognition, or what Costa, A calls “Thinking about thinking” is a powerful tool.
Overall Impact
The value of the experience for me in with my SPU classes has been both validating and enlightening. I have learned that there is so much more to learn in education when it comes to teaching practices in regards to formative assessments and curriculum. More importantly, the effect strong formative assessment and a strong curriculum for students of diverse backgrounds. Strong formative assessments allow for a comprehensible curriculum. Zaretta, H. (2017) argues “Classroom studies document the fact that underserved English learners, poor students, and students of color routinely receive less instruction in high order skills development than other students” (pg.12). For this reason, crafting formative assessments should not be done quickly and should done with student cognitive abilities. Often times, our answer is to offer no differentiation with formative assessments or dull down the high order level of thinking thus stripping students the ability and right to learn appropriate for them. This problem is the “achievement gap” Zaretta Hammond speaks of. In another example, Echevarria, J. 2017 writes, “English learners are at a particular disadvantage when they are taking a standardized test that presumes the test taker is English proficient” (pg 229). As a teacher, I need to ensure formative assessments have an access point for these students. Designing formative assessments that inform me of their learning scaffolds their learning. This practice is culturally responsive. So many times, I have seen formative assessments done with a broad stroke. This practice needs to end.
References
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential
characteristics for success. Alexandria, Va: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., Short D. (2017) Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. 5th Edition. Pearson.
Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Yvette. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain : Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, a SAGE Company.
Lalor, M (2017). Ensuring High Quality Curriculum : How to Design Revise or Adopt. ASCD
William, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment.
