Teaching and Testing vs. Student Learning and Assessment

In a 2011 issue of Ed Weekly, Peter DeWitt published an article discussing how our focus on testing should be shifted to assessment. This idea of assessment, whether formative or summative, has been widely spoken and debated for quite some time. Our movement towards common core standards and PARCC assessment has forced our shift to summative testing. In other words, we are preparing students for end of course summative assessments that provide an "autopsy" of how well the students have mastered skills and content. By incorporating "Student Growth Percentage Scores (SGP's)" in teacher evaluations we are also assessing how well teachers have done in ensuring such mastery with a defined group of students. 

While there is value and relevance to summative assessments, our goal as educators is not to teach, it is to ensure student learning. In order to meet that demand we need to employ formative assessment to constantly check for understanding. The results of which will impact our pacing, lesson plans, follow-up assessments, interventions and support models.

In most schools teachers embark on this challenge in isolation. They develop tests, quizzes and other formative assessments  on their own. Teachers calculate percentage scores, averages, and hopefully varied levels of itemization resulting in data analysis for their group of students.

The work of DuFour, DuFour and Eaker support a hybrid approach to formative assessment by introducing common formative assessment.  The advantages of teachers teaching the same content developing common assessments are highlighted in their many works.  It is important to note that they are speaking of assessments and not content tests. These assessments provide a variety of prompts, questions sets and tasks that assess the skills, critical thinking, problem solving and content connected to the standards. The results of each assessment are itemized and discussed collaboratively. Interventions, curriculum changes, and  instructional planning are developed collaborative as a result of the data.

"If five teachers teaching the same course or grade level are responsible for ensuring all students acquire the same knowledge and skills, it make sense those teachers would work together to determine the best methods to assess student learning. A team of teachers could divide responsibilities for creating a unit and developing assessments. Teachers working in isolation replicate and duplicate effort. They work hard, but they do not work smart.", (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, 2007).  Other advantages cite equity, collaborative problem solving, improvement of individual and teams of teachers, systematic interventions and increased student achievement.

Teachers of the same content working together to develop 3 or 4 benchmark assessments, aligned to standards, presented timely, and analyzed and discussed collaboratively will undoubtedly have a greater opportunity to ensure student learning than high stakes, summative tests.

Collaborative Teaching Teams in a High School

In high schools across the country teachers meet as departments or entire faculties. These standardized, contractual, meetings typcially involve the dissemination of information, schoolwide PD, or discussion about curriculum and assessment. While these gatherings are valuable and necessary, they may fall short in meeting the needs of at-risk students. The establishment of inter-disciplinary teaching teams provides an opportunity for teachers from multiple content areas, who teach the same students to meet on a regular basis. The collaboration of such teachers shifts the focus of conversation from curriculum and instruction to students.

Popular topics for the planning meetings may include the establishment of consistent policies and procedures, communication strategies, classroom interventions, classroom accoommodations, student achievement, and behavior observations.

In order to organize such a team it it necessary to identify grade levels and courses that share a significant percentage of common students. When scheduling, teacher must be provided with a common planning period. To meet contract obligations consider substituting a non-instructional duty for this assignment.

 

Student Reflection on a Lesson with Blogs

As part of our teacher training programs and evaluation protocols we have a focus on lesson reflection. We encourage and sometimes mandate that teachers reflect on a lesson after its completion. What worked? What didn't work? Did you have a clearly aligned objective and did you meet that objective? Did the students understand? How do you know ? What would you do differently next time? etc....

What we typically do not formalize is the collection of feedback from students regarding a lesson. We do evaluate and assess understanding through formative and summative assessment, but do we know how they truly felt about the delivery of a lesson? Do our students have insights that could improve the instructional delivery, method of assessment or expected outcomes? I am sure they do!

Blogging in the classroom and the development of student blogs provides students with a voice. It is an opportunity to publish their thoughts and ideas for an audience. We encourage students to take part in online discussions or possibly comment on a publication. How about asking student to provide feedback regarding a lesson? While they may require a framework regarding effective feedback, I would believe that what they provide a teacher may be as valuable as the results of the formative/summative assessment used to measure a lessons effectiveness.

Blogger, Kidblog, Edublogs or Moodle are all great classroom blogging options.

Strategies for Improving Writing

During my time in education I have worked with a number of school districts. Having been in charge of educational technology during most of my time I have been called upon to provide technological resources that can help these districts improve writing. Teachers and administrators across all grade levels have sought out my knowledge on digital writing resources in order to fill their toolbox, engage students, and increase the quality of writing. While I have successfully curated a number of resources and found success with implementing technology to improve writing, I have concluded that  the best way to improve writing is not high tech at all.

What I believe is that writing can be improved by the following:

Consistency - Writing should be interdisciplinary. The expectations for writing across disciplines should be somewhat uniform. While the expectation of a DBQ writing in social studies may be different from a character analysis in English the fundamental components of a quality written piece should be consistent. Common rubrics, writing mini lessons, graphic organizers  and common vocabulary should be part of inter department collaboration.

Writing Every Day - Students should be provided with an opportunity and expectation to write in every class, every day. Do Now and Closure activities may provide opportunities for reflection or quick writes. Art and Music classes may provide opportunities for reflection and critique. Publishing a class blog or threaded discussion provides a writing opportunity that extends the school day.

Publishing - Here is were technology provides the most value. Students should be given the opportunity to write for an audience. By publishing student work we provide them with an authentic task that is engaging and may be rich with feedback. Google Docs provides opportunities for students to  publish electronically. The documents may be shared for peer review. A class blog or online discussion provides opportunities for students to publish for an audience. Requiring students to publish on online discussion boards, blogs, or just publishing their writing on social sharing sites provides a voice, a global audience and intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to produce quality work.

When a school, not a teacher commits to a collaborative effort to improve writing that is when we can expect change. Professional development and common planning time should be focused on defining good writing, developing and sharing rubrics, graphic organizers,  mini-lessons, and common vocabulary. When teachers are provided such a tool box with time to review and discuss the results we can have an expectation of growth and improvement.

High Achiever or Creative Thinker...Developing Deep Thinking?

A couple of recent publications that arrived in my Google Reader prompted my thinking regarding "defining student achievement" .With such a high focus on standardized testing and data driven evaluations these articles present a fresh perspective as to "how should we define achievement?" What type of outcome are we looking for in our classrooms? Who will find more success in our global landscape, a high achiever or a creative thinker?

Grant Wiggins recent posting on "thoughtlessness" discusses our focus on "covering content" vs. developing depth of thought. He discusses a system in which achievement is obtained by working hard, completing assignments and testing well on materials that were taught. This is a system that does not dive deep into content. The below quote summarizes this thought process.

" But teaching is not about what you will do; I am interested in what the student will be able to do of value as a result of your teaching, because that is all that matters. Thoughtful teachers don’t design backward from the content (the inputs); they design backward from worthy performance in using content (the outputs)." - Wiggins.

In many of our classrooms we focus our attention on how to address students who do not know content. The reaction to this results in differentiation, specific interventions and formative assessments. What about the student's who do know the content? What do we do to develop these students depth of knowledge? Are we providing a classroom environment that offers growth for these students?

I believe it is important to spend some time reflecting on our instruction. Can we spend less time developing pacing guides and more time discussing methods to develop high order thinking within our units of study? How can we challenge our "high achiever", "content masters" to become creative thinkers? Are we providing opportunities to solve and discuss problems, ideas and questions?

This chart published on a blog posting by Bertie Kingore, Ph.D. discusses the differences between a high achiever, gifted learner and creative thinker. As we review the descriptors we should reflect on how we are creating classroom environments that support each.

A High Achiever...	A Gifted Learner...	A Creative Thinker...
Remembers the answers. Poses unforeseen questions. Sees exceptions. Is interested. Is curious. Wonders. Is attentive. Is selectively mentally engaged. Daydreams; may seem off task. Generates advanced ideas. Generates complex, abstract ideas. Overflows with ideas, many of which will never be developed. Works hard to achieve. Knows without working hard. Plays with ideas and concepts. Answer the questions in detail. Ponders with depth and multiple perspectives. Injects new possibilities. Performs at the top of the group. Is beyond the group. Is in own group. Responds with interest and opinions. Exhibits feelings and opinions from multiple perspectives. Shares bizarre, sometimes conflicting opinions. Learns with ease. Already knows. Questions: What if... Needs 6 to 8 repetitions to master. Needs 1 to 3 repetitions to master. Questions the need for mastery. Comprehends at a high level. Comprehends in-depth, complex ideas. Overflows with ideas--many of which will never be developed. Enjoys the company of age peers. Prefers the company of intellectual peers. Prefers the company of creative peers but often works alone. Understands complex, abstract humor. Creates complex, abstract humor. Relishes wild, off-the-wall humor. Grasps the meaning. Infers and connects concepts. Makes mental leaps: Aha! Completes assignments on time. Initiates projects and extensions of assignments. Initiates more projects that will ever be completed. Is receptive. Is intense. Is independent and unconventional. Is accurate and complete. Is original and continually developing. Is original and continually developing. Enjoys school often. Enjoys self-directed learning. Enjoys creating. Absorbs information. Manipulates information. Improvises. Is a technician with expertise in a field. Is an expert who abstracts beyond the field. Is an inventor and idea generator. Memorizes well. Guesses and infers well. Creates and brainstorms well. Is highly alert and observant. Anticipates and relates observations. Is intuitive. Is pleased with own learning. Is self-critical. Is never finished with possibilities. Gets A's. May not be motivated by grades. May not be motivated by grades. Is able. Is intellectual. Is idiosyncratic.

References

Szabos, J. (1989). Bright child, gifted learner. Challenge, 34. Good Apple.

Granted - http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/thinking-about-a-lack-of-thinking/

http://www.bertiekingore.com/index.htm

No Technology Until High School?

This weekend there was an article in the NYTimes that spoke about the Waldorf School located in northern California. Below is a quote from the article:

"This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans."




The school does not believe that technology is necessary or a valuable tool in education. They perceive it as a distraction. Their philosophy is to focus on the basics of reading and writing with traditional instructional methods.

This is a topic that may bring about a lot of debate. I would be interested to hear your comments? I believe that it is important to focus our curriculum. We sometimes get caught up in the fads and new gadgets. However, if used "as a tool" i believe that technology has an impact on student achievement. It is my belief that we should not be teaching technology. It is not about the technology itself. That will always be changing. The students will adapt to those changes on their own. It should be about the content. How can we use technology as a tool to suppport the essentials within our curriculum?

I support the universal design for learning framework. In order to address the various needs in our classroom we need to differentiate content, process and product. We can use technology to represent content in a multitude of ways.  When used appropriately it engages students and allows for alternative methods of evaluation and assessment. Our public schools have students with a variety of backgrounds, experiences, and needs. As educators we must do our best to individualize the learning experiences for our students to be sure they are successful. Technology is a tool to aid in this process.

I also believe it is iresponsible for educators to ignore the footprint of information and breadth of knowledge available through the web. How do we not teach students to manage and vet the information that is available to them on the internet? The web and mobile technologies allows students to collaborate with others. It allows students to make connections, write for an audience and compare perspectives of others. Ignoring this opportunity and limiting a child's education to what is available within the four walls of a classroom is not an effective education in the 21st century.

 

What are your thoughts?