LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Assessments at the Building or Team Levels

      In a far better model than simply relying on ready-made external options, districts engage teams in courageous conversations about reaching higher and then support them in developing the assessment literacy required to make their vision a reality. With focus, commitment, and drive, educators can create a better testing system. But it will take everyone—from all levels of the organization, to all states or provinces participating—to support that effort. Recognized for her work in leading assessment literacy, dean and distinguished professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, Lorrie Shepard (2013) writes:

      The hope, too, is that next-generation assessments will more faithfully represent the new standards than has been the case for large-scale assessments in the past. While the knowledge exists to make it possible to construct much more inventive assessments, this could more easily be done in the context of small-scale curriculum projects than for large-scale, high-stakes accountability tests. (p. xxi)

      Developing such high-quality assessments will not happen overnight. Current large-scale assessment designs have established a pattern of testing that makes teachers leery of taking the risks involved with designing alternative assessments. In addition, collectively, teachers have not had the necessary training or experience with designing accurate assessments at rigorous levels and then extrapolating meaningful learning from the results (Stiggins & Herrick, 2007). The good news is that engaging teachers in learning teams to function as assessment architects can build the necessary assessment literacy faster than any other professional development alternative. However, teams must engage in the full range of the assessment process with regularity and in collaboration: “Groups of teachers jointly analyzing what’s on the test, what’s not, and how to stay true to more complete learning goals creates both greater awareness and a shared commitment to avoid narrow teaching to the test” (Shepard, 2013, p. xxi).

      Shepard (2013) states, “Teachers need access to better tools, not disconnected item banks but rather curriculum tasks that have been carefully designed to elicit student thinking and for which colleagues and curriculum experts have identified and tested out follow-up strategies” (p. xxi). In the absence of practicing skills, developing a clear rationale, and accessing better tools for developing assessment literacy, teachers will default to testing designs and teaching practices that aim solely at the specific test questions in a manner that elicits recall-based responses.

      Leaders oversimplify the complexities of assessment design and use when they buy ready-made solutions. This process opts teachers out of truly understanding the what, why, and how of assessment design and use. Schneider et al. (2013) state:

      To maximize student achievement, teachers and large-scale assessment developers need to (1) have the same interpretations of the standards, (2) identify the same types of student achievement as evidence of mastery of the standards, and (3) collect evidence using the same types of robust practices in building assessments. (p. 55)

      This type of learning cannot be managed through shared documents outlining expectations. Instead, teachers must learn by doing.

      In all of their writings, the Professional Learning Community at Work architects DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker have advocated for teachers engaging in the work of common assessments to improve practice at the classroom level (DuFour et al., 2006, 2008; DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).

      They challenge the premise that outside testing would ever suffice to support teachers in classroom practice:

      The challenge for schools then is to provide each teacher with the most powerful and authentic information in a timely manner so that it can impact his or her professional practices in ways that enhance student learning…. State and provincial assessments fail to provide such feedback. Classroom assessments, on the other hand, can offer the timely feedback teachers need, and when those assessments are developed by a collaborative team of teachers, they also offer a basis of comparison that is essential for informing professional practice. (DuFour et al., 2006, p. 147)

      Common assessments are integral to the work of professional learning teams. Highly effective collaborative teams focus their energies on addressing the instructional concerns for their classrooms.

      Whether functioning as professional learning communities or not, effective teams address the four corollary questions outlined by PLC experts DuFour et al. (2010).

      1. What do students need to know and be able to do?

      2. How will we know when they have learned it and can do it?

      3. How will we respond when students don’t learn it?

      4. How will we respond when they already know it?

      DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker consistently assert that unless teams are doing the work of common assessments, they are not truly functioning as a PLC (DuFour et al., 2006, 2008, 2010). Effective teams use their own data and evidence to adjust, improve, and inform their

      practice. All four of the corollary questions link directly to the work of collaborative common assessments. Table 2.1 provides the links between each of the corollary questions and its direct connection to the work of collaborative common assessments.

Table 2.1: Corollary Questions and Collaborative Common Assessments

Corollary Questions of Effective Teaching Teams	Connection Between the Question and the Practice of Common Assessments
1. What do students need to know and be able to do?	Effective teams identify the essential knowledge and skill expectations for their learners based on required standards and in advance of any instruction. Teams backmap their assessment plans to align with their standard expectations (see figures 1.3 and 1.4 in chapter 1 as an example). Valid and reliable common assessments are contingent upon a team’s ability to develop congruence with required expectations that are answered by corollary question 1.
2. How will we know when they have learned it and can do it?	Teaching teams can only answer this question through the work of common assessments. When teachers review their data in isolation, they frame their experiences and opinions, but the variables that lead to their results cannot be compared in a manner that helps them create information regarding what works and what doesn’t work instructionally. Data can only provide information when reviewed in comparative ways against a valid benchmark; otherwise, they are simply random data points. Common assessments provide teams with the evidence needed to help teams answer corollary question 2. Collaborative common assessments are the engine of a PLC because they can drive teams to make more informed decisions regarding their practice.
3. How will we respond when students don’t learn it?	Teams require the data and evidence generated from common assessments to answer corollary question 3. Reflection and analysis regarding their individual and collective results combined with collaborative problem solving provide the only means to help teams find the best way to target exact learning needs and demystify complex learning issues.
4. How will we respond when they already know it?	Enrichment, extension, and advancement are proving harder to address than interventions. In all of these activities, educators must help learners who have mastered content and skills to extend their learning. Enrichment does not mean doing more work, helping others to learn something they have not yet mastered, or moving to the next chapter. When teams design their common assessment products and processes, they plan for what a true enrichment might look like—one that is engaging and fun while building upon current learning targets that have been newly mastered in challenging ways. When teams design the enrichments in advance of instruction, they can increase motivation and understanding in the following ways.• They clarify even further their own understanding (and that of their learners) of what mastery will need to look like.• They pique interest in advance of instruction by showing learners the possibilities that lie before them if they master the expectations in a timely manner.

      Visit

Скачать книгу