One of the tenants of the PLC process involves the use of common formative assessments among grade levels and/or content areas. If you as grade levels or content areas have implemented common assessments, talk a little about the steps used to implement them.
What do you see as the benefits of common formative assessments on student learning?
How could common formative assessment improve your classroom instruction?
(Common formative assessments can be defined as assessments created collaboratively by a team of teachers responsible for the same grade level or course in order to improve student learning. They are developed and administered multiple times throughout the school year. Results are used to modify instruction in order to improve student learning. The value of the assessment is not in the grading of the assessments, but the feedback it offers about student learning. The assessments can also provide teachers with feedback regarding the effectiveness of their instruction.)
21 comments:
In preschool we do not do team assessments. What we do is observe the children during center times, etc and note their areas of growth daily. We plan what needs to be retaught based upon observations of how the children carryover certain skills throughout the preschool day.
Preschool/Speech Learning Team
In kindergarten we use a teacher created checksheet initially to assess what the students know. The checksheet is then referred to for small group instruction. Each teacher monitors their student's progress and updates the checksheet weekly or bi-weekly. The sheet is dated to show growth or lack there of. Word list check sheets have been created to monitor the sight words that the students are learning. This allows for each child to learn at their own pace. After discussing these assessments, we realize that we need to create a checklist that assesses higher level skills in math and reading. (kindergarten and speech)
As support personnel, we believe common assessments on grade levels would be useful. We are interested in teachers sharing assessment outcomes with us, so that we can more directly support the learning that is happening in the classroom. We use daily evaluations, both formal and informal, and adjust instruction accordingly.
In EC, it is difficult for us to collaborate as a team because we serve students with such varied levels and types of disabilities. Although at times a teacher does make her own assessments for a student or group of students, these are not necessarily applicable to other EC students. Some of the grade level assessments can help us determine present level of performance on the IEP, but these assessments do not necessarily drive our instruction.
However, we do see the benefit of using formative assessments in general education. Formative assessments can be geared toward standard course of study objectives better than a standardized test. Periodically monitoring student progress through formative assessments can help teachers identify strengths and needs. This could be helpful in SWAT referrals.
7th grade bloggers believe that it is important to assess throughout the year. We feel that formative assessment in all subjects should be the same format as the EOG's. The feedback should be prompt in order to adjust teaching. The assessments should be valid questions based on the standard course of study. These assessments should be created by the central office or designees and should be reflected in student grades to encourage student performance. Assessments could be completed quarterly with interventions immediately to address those students experiencing difficulty. Having the assessments would give teachers an idea of the content that needed to be covered in a specific amount of time.
The second grade team uses formal or informal assessments daily in our classrooms. Our assessments do guide our instruction and our homework is based on individual needs. While many of our assessments are teacher created, they may not fit the definition of a common formative assessment because they were not created collaboratively. Because of the required quarterly assessments for K-2 and our informal daily assessments, we feel that we have an ample amount of information to guide our instruction. K-1, what are your thoughts? Do you feel as if additonal assessments are needed?
First Grade Building assesses all year in math, reading and writing. We discuss and share the results of the assessments to gain ideas and ways of teaching to meet individual needs.Assessment results and the conversations that follow help our team to pace ourselves and cover all the objectives in a timely manner.
However,do we need common formative assessments or should we take that time to refine and explore new methods of teaching?
This formative assessment takes us back to the idea of grading. We read an article about this to help with our post. The example they gave was: What if you were given a grade for every time you got in the car to practice driving before you took your license test at 15. Then you average those grades and this determines if you get your license. Does the means match the end. If you couldn't drive in the begining but could at the end should our poor ability in the begining hurt you.
So I guess it would be our opinion as a team to look at how we assess through grades. It is our understanding that formative should be daily and should include imput from the students. How can we introduce material one day and "pop quiz" for a grade the next...or assign homework and grade this when it should be their time practicing.
Our goal as a team, since we all teach different subjects is to use a common format in our planning of lessons. We clearly state goals, clearly state outcomes as well as clearly state when items will be given for a grade so that students have time to prepare.
How does your grade level develop common assessments (if you use them)? What is the process - what does it look like?
How might you do this if you, as a grade level, decided to teach your curriculum by objective (if you don't already to that)?
Bless their hearts, some of our folks are still having issues blogging. Here is Ms. Vogler's input:
As a grade level we pick and choose assessments, but are not working together on a specific evaluation. One team member and I created a common math assessment for the 1st 9 weeks, and found several "problem" areas. We used NC's assessments we could find and created a test all of our own of subject matter we have taught the 1st nine weeks. We hope to use this formal assessment to create a "reteach" time at the end of the day for students needed help with concepts we have gone over. She and I will work together with both classes to help students understand a concept misunderstood in class. We hope that by having a different teacher work through an idea, a student may have a new perspective. This is new for us, and excited to see the benefits from it!
And from Judy Davis:
Common Formative Assessments are very beneficial in assessing students. It needs to be done on a county level, and carried out, throughout, and consistently. Assessment and collection of data on a regular basis, i.e., quarterly would be very helpful in identifying and then addressing weaknesses in each skill, for each student. We do not assess in this way, at this time, but I would like to see it happen. We could easily show growth quarterly, by the data. Seeing the numbers, in black and white,is very powerful.
As 8th grade teachers, we do not think assessments would work in our present set-up. Ideally in the new schools we would be able to have content area (math, language arts, science, social studies) teams and use assessments to help guide instruction. Feedback would have to be prompt to be beneficial. Assessments would determine remediation, review, and/or enrichment. The assessments could really be helpful if teachers would share teaching strategies, materials, and ideas to help each other (no ego trips).
"How does your grade level develop common assessments? What is the process - what does it look like?"
We worked together as a team last year to develop common assessments for each math chapter test and quarterly assessment. Each teacher was responsible for creating a certain test and placing it on the I:Drive. This year, we have split the chapters again and each of us is responsible for developing a pre-assessment for each chapter and placing it on the I:Drive. We communicate with each other to "divide & conquer" the land of math! :)
In doing formative assessments I hope that we don't forget those non EOG tested subjects. Even though there is no real accountability for them, yet....those of us who teach them think there important....(Think Science :)
And when we are talking about those non EOG tested subjects....why can't we do formative assessments together with other grade levels that share common goals and objectives. May not be the same level of difficulty but two or three minds are much better than one and we learn each others SCOS.
Ok, I have laid some ground work for you. We have talked about what we believe students can do, grading, assessments, a more condensed curriculum, and possibly using fewer textbooks.
The next step - how would you create a common assessment for one objective under one goal in your SCS? Does it really have to look like and EOG test? What would you do with the data if you were not allowed to "grade" it, only use it to to inform instruction and learning?
If you are already doing common assessments, say more about the process. What issues did you encounter? How did you initiate the process?
(Remember, everything that we are doing/talking about is moving us in one direction - PLC's, using common assessments, RTI - different tiers of interventions, using only research-based instructional methods, using a deeper more narrow curriculum, SLC's - student self assessment, objective-based instruction, integrated teaching, a focus on 21st century teaching. All of these things are what we will be using to improve student and adult learning.)
With us moving to a k6 setting next year "common" formative assessment is essential. I think formative assessment among grade levels is important but also just as important is formative assessmnet vertically. Allow grade levels to establish their common assessment then begin on the vertical assessing. Think of the scaffolding that will take place (another catch phrase we all love). This should work well with all areas language arts and math especially. Science and Social Studies would be a bit difficult as only certain topics are covered but these topics tend to grade hop so it would be a matching game with similar cirricula. Use your goal as the benchmark being assessed and the objectives as your indiviual questioning criteria. Then these assessments could follow to the next grade level giving that teacher an accurate picture of what the child has really accomplished (true growth) not just an EOG score. It will be at this point that we can trully start planning for interventions or accelerations.
Next year being in the middle school (where you actually have a team of teachers teaching the same subjects), the PLC will be very important. Teachers working together to teach a concept or objective or creating an assessment is something that will help me as a teacher. This allows for all to benefit and grow in this profession.
The computer teachers across the county meet at the county office on Friday's and share lesson plans, new strategies, and ways of assessing their students or anything that will benefit all of us. This has been extremely helpful to me, since I am still fairly new to this profession.
An example that is used for the 8th grade computer skills test is 20 days of lessons that you can gauge where the students are on their ability to complete the different tasks. It gives the teacher and students a good indication of what has been learned and what is still giving the students a problem.
This has been a helpful tool for me in assessing students for my subject area.
Second grade is a little confused. Bless our hearts. We think what third grade does is a great idea and we operate similarly. But is it truely a common formative assessment if it is not created collaboratively? Are we misunderstanding the definition of common formative assessment?
When I did my student teaching in Guilford County in 1999, they (the county) were using a common quarterly assessment. It was taken, score at the county level, and scores were available by the end of the week. This was done in math, reading, and writing. The county score the reading and math (bubble scans), teachers within their grade level scored the writing using the county implemented rubric. So, each teacher had to follow the pacing guide pretty closely, which I think COULD be a bad thing. What if you were integrating a certain math skill the pacing guide said should be taught in the 3rd nine weeks in the second because it fit perfectly with the science unit? This could lead to inaccuracy in data on the quarterly assessment. The writing was scored by teachers within your grade level at your school, but there was a county-wide prompt and rubric to be used by each grade level.
The cool thing about these assessments was this: There was a database of questions/selections for reading & math problems grouped by goals available to each grade level. One you received the scores you could customize a study guide/re-teaching guide for the students. This was especially helpful in math and was very helpful as a new teacher not knowing the students very well. In addition, this allowed parents to see the things that their child needed to work on.
I think that we do need some kind of ongoing assessment to see were our students are. Even though I get tried of grading many things in Language Arts and Social Studies, I feel that I need an accurate average for each student. My goal is that their Language Arts grades reflect their reading EOG scores. And so far, they have been very close to how my students are performing on the EOG. Parents do not like seeing C’s, D’s, and F’s on report cards, but the bottom line is this: As long as we have EOGs, the state is telling us whether or not our students have meet all the required goals. Some students are going to make C, D, and F, because not all make 4’s on their EOGs.
5th grade feel that there should be some kind of county wide quarterly assessment. Several years ago, the county gave us a quarterly math assessment to do. We checked them on our own and only used them for instruction/re-teaching, not to be graded. This was very time consuming, but the end result was that we were able to use it to modify our instruction. We would like to see this again, and with reading and science included. We feel this is something that should from the county level. It would open the door for tutoring also. Tutors would be better able to focus their instruction on what the students really needed.
Looking at the definition of formative assessment, would indicated that it is an assessment of student learning that informs instruction. Common formative assessments would be assessments of student learning, created collaboratively, that inform instruction.
Thinking about this, I pose the question again. Do common formative assessments have to look like EOG's? Could common formative assessments be used as benchmark assessments?
Post a Comment