The authors of this article ask three questions: Is there evidence that improving formative assessment raises standards? Is there evidence that there is room for improvement? Is there evidence about how to improve formative assessment?
Catherine Garrison says that an easy way to think about formative assessment is "practice and feedback". Intuitively, the more guided or focused practice, the more mastery students may gain. Yet there is room for improvement in the quality of practice, in the quality of feedback and even in measurements of improvement. More in my next post. http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx
The authors are right on when they say change in the system will be a slow process. SDUSD has tried many "quick fixes" that went by the wayside when something new came along. The authors have the right ideas about assessment needing both student and teacher buy in!
Déjà vu! I remember doing an advisory lesson addressing the "fixed IQ view" vs. the "untapped potential" view. When I read that "delivery" and "coverage" with poor understanding are pointless, it reminded me of a similar argument against the "spray and pray" approach that I had read elsewhere. As a result I've already slowed down and stopped worrying about "covering" everything. It was encouraging to find more support for my decision.
Although I agree that students need feedback on tests and seatwork, many times the problem isn't lack of understanding, but lack of studying. It is hard to convince students, who are content to 'get by' to improve when it depends on memorizing information, such as verb endings.
I also agree that external tests have a negative influence. Teaching to the test has already been acknowledged as a widespread dilemma. I even overheard some of our teachers, during staff development, deciding not to focus on a particular skill because there were only 4 questions on it. That skill could be just as important or even more important than the skills with more questions. Teachers, not tests, should be making these decisions!
Something new! I like attending staff development for Foreign Language; however, I, too, find it difficult to implement many of the ideas I learn about. I do try to adapt them to my needs as much as possible. It was comforting to read that the authors of this article understand this issue.
Finally, even though I've read plenty about the practice of waiting long enough for students to respond, this article came in handy recently during my French class. For years I've been waiting patiently for students to respond. It's the students who have a problem with it. Someone is always blurting out the answer. This time I whipped out the article and read that paragraph to the class. They were stunned! That moment made the time I had to spend reading this article worth it.
The answer to your first question as absolutely yes. Students learn more effectively if they truly buy into the reason they are learning is for learning's sake and not just to pass a standardized or other type test. The second question is also yes. There is room for improvement all across the spectrum of students but mostly with the low achievers which raises achievement overall. The third question is also yes. It takes time and patience but with proper teacher and 'politico" training, taken slowly with profession development and discussion formative assessment can be very valuable and improved.
I think that our current road toward the Paideia seminar concept is a path which can greatly improve the formative assessment. Students are given a chance to explore their thoughts and voice their opinions and beliefs without the fear of being chastised for being wrong. And the teacher can assess what the student knows and expresses at the same time.
Is there evidence that improving formative assessment raises standards? Is there evidence that there is room for improvement? Is there evidence about how to improve formative assessment? The authors answer "yes" to all three questions.
The authors first present evidence that formative assessments raise scores, and then they connect scores and standards. They make the global claim that the improvements shown in formative assessment experiments would be significant enough to raise US scores from about a ranking of twenty to a ranking of one of the top five internationally. This improvement might be accomplished with significant feedback which would bring up students benefiting from the technique to a level equal to the top third of students not benefiting from the technique. Then they say that higher scores reflect higher standards in class work for those students previously “content to get by…” I find it significant that the deeper connection with individuals comes before score improvement. This means that the longer a student stays at Muir, the higher his scores should be if indeed we are connecting with our students.
The authors clarify that until students and teachers are both involved in the determination of what constitutes a culture of questioning and deep thinking, there is room for improvement. They see useful advice and learning under-emphasized in practice, and grading overemphasized. This reminds me of the Paediea seminars (which Richard also mentioned) and the possibility that higher levels of thinking will translate into higher standards and improved scores.
In order for improved formative assessments to become a part of classroom teaching, teachers need to see examples of formative assessments in classrooms. Then, each teacher must incorporate the ideas into his own pattern of classroom work. I found it interesting that the authors suggested undoing the bad habits of students (and by implication, of teachers). Anne
It's clear that we all agree that students and teachers both gain from the continuous experience of communicating learning and understanding. The arguments presented in the article are difficult to dispute, given that finding ways to help students comprehend/internalize the value of what they are learning is, well, good teaching. Can we improve our teaching? Jeez, I hope we all want to do that!
I suppose the last question is most open to discussion for me. If the evidence becomes test performance (of a standardized nature), the shift to successful formative assessment will be slow for several reasons. Students need to view testing/assessment as a positive experience; one that demonstrates (proudly) their competence and mastery. Sadly, in many instances, testing is viewed by student as negative. I agree with Anne that practice is critical, but practice that includes positive feedback and confidence-building. No matter how well an individual is fluent in content, they must FEEL as though they truly know to perform well. Thus, it is the manner in which students engage with the teacher and their peers on a daily basis that will shape performance.
I agree with both Anne and Richard regarding our Paediea training. Training ourselves and our students to learn to think in stages (pre-seminar), select personal and group goals (setting foci), and encouraging thoughtful listening and responding will certainly help all students to "buy in" to learning and, eventually, positive attitudes toward standards and all manner of assessment.
Thanks for the blog, Nancy! This is a very cool way for us to communicate.
Using the information we gain from formative assessments is the critical piece and we can get better at doing this by learning from our colleagues at all grade levels. "Recognition of the desired goal, evidence about present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two" fits nicely into the "coaching" component of the Paideia three column model.
9 comments:
Catherine Garrison says that an easy way to think about formative assessment is "practice and feedback". Intuitively, the more guided or focused practice, the more mastery students may gain. Yet there is room for improvement in the quality of practice, in the quality of feedback and even in measurements of improvement. More in my next post.
http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx
Hello
At last! This really makes sense-- to align standards with student goals, instruction and assessment!
The authors are right on when they say change in the system will be a slow process. SDUSD has tried many "quick fixes" that went by the wayside when something new came along. The authors have the right ideas about assessment needing both student and teacher buy in!
Déjà vu! I remember doing an advisory lesson addressing the "fixed IQ view" vs. the "untapped potential" view. When I read that "delivery" and "coverage" with poor understanding are pointless, it reminded me of a similar argument against the "spray and pray" approach that I had read elsewhere. As a result I've already slowed down and stopped worrying about "covering" everything. It was encouraging to find more support for my decision.
Although I agree that students need feedback on tests and seatwork, many times the problem isn't lack of understanding, but lack of studying. It is hard to convince students, who are content to 'get by' to improve when it depends on memorizing information, such as verb endings.
I also agree that external tests have a negative influence. Teaching to the test has already been acknowledged as a widespread dilemma. I even overheard some of our teachers, during staff development, deciding not to focus on a particular skill because there were only 4 questions on it. That skill could be just as important or even more important than the skills with more questions. Teachers, not tests, should be making these decisions!
Something new! I like attending staff development for Foreign Language; however, I, too, find it difficult to implement many of the ideas I learn about. I do try to adapt them to my needs as much as possible. It was comforting to read that the authors of this article understand this issue.
Finally, even though I've read plenty about the practice of waiting long enough for students to respond, this article came in handy recently during my French class. For years I've been waiting patiently for students to respond. It's the students who have a problem with it. Someone is always blurting out the answer. This time I whipped out the article and read that paragraph to the class. They were stunned! That moment made the time I had to spend reading this article worth it.
The answer to your first question as absolutely yes. Students learn more effectively if they truly buy into the reason they are learning is for learning's sake and not just to pass a standardized or other type test.
The second question is also yes. There is room for improvement all across the spectrum of students but mostly with the low achievers which raises achievement overall.
The third question is also yes. It takes time and patience but with proper teacher and 'politico" training, taken slowly with profession development and discussion formative assessment can be very valuable and improved.
I think that our current road toward the Paideia seminar concept is a path which can greatly improve the formative assessment. Students are given a chance to explore their thoughts and voice their opinions and beliefs without the fear of being chastised for being wrong. And the teacher can assess what the student knows and expresses at the same time.
Is there evidence that improving formative assessment raises standards? Is there evidence that there is room for improvement? Is there evidence about how to improve formative assessment? The authors answer "yes" to all three questions.
The authors first present evidence that formative assessments raise scores, and then they connect scores and standards. They make the global claim that the improvements shown in formative assessment experiments would be significant enough to raise US scores from about a ranking of twenty to a ranking of one of the top five internationally. This improvement might be accomplished with significant feedback which would bring up students benefiting from the technique to a level equal to the top third of students not benefiting from the technique. Then they say that higher scores reflect higher standards in class work for those students previously “content to get by…” I find it significant that the deeper connection with individuals comes before score improvement. This means that the longer a student stays at Muir, the higher his scores should be if indeed we are connecting with our students.
The authors clarify that until students and teachers are both involved in the determination of what constitutes a culture of questioning and deep thinking, there is room for improvement. They see useful advice and learning under-emphasized in practice, and grading overemphasized. This reminds me of the Paediea seminars (which Richard also mentioned) and the possibility that higher levels of thinking will translate into higher standards and improved scores.
In order for improved formative assessments to become a part of classroom teaching, teachers need to see examples of formative assessments in classrooms. Then, each teacher must incorporate the ideas into his own pattern of classroom work. I found it interesting that the authors suggested undoing the bad habits of students (and by implication, of teachers).
Anne
It's clear that we all agree that students and teachers both gain from the continuous experience of communicating learning and understanding. The arguments presented in the article are difficult to dispute, given that finding ways to help students comprehend/internalize the value of what they are learning is, well, good teaching. Can we improve our teaching? Jeez, I hope we all want to do that!
I suppose the last question is most open to discussion for me. If the evidence becomes test performance (of a standardized nature), the shift to successful formative assessment will be slow for several reasons. Students need to view testing/assessment as a positive experience; one that demonstrates (proudly) their competence and mastery. Sadly, in many instances, testing is viewed by student as negative. I agree with Anne that practice is critical, but practice that includes positive feedback and confidence-building. No matter how well an individual is fluent in content, they must FEEL as though they truly know to perform well. Thus, it is the manner in which students engage with the teacher and their peers on a daily basis that will shape performance.
I agree with both Anne and Richard regarding our Paediea training. Training ourselves and our students to learn to think in stages (pre-seminar), select personal and group goals (setting foci), and encouraging thoughtful listening and responding will certainly help all students to "buy in" to learning and, eventually, positive attitudes toward standards and all manner of assessment.
Thanks for the blog, Nancy! This is a very cool way for us to communicate.
Using the information we gain from formative assessments is the critical piece and we can get better at doing this by learning from our colleagues at all grade levels. "Recognition of the desired goal, evidence about present position, and some understanding of a way to close the gap between the two" fits nicely into the "coaching" component of the Paideia three column model.
Post a Comment