Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

when formative assessment is done well, differentiation comes naturally. Again, easier said than done....so we need to be patient in this area as we learn the common misconceptions of students in our curriculum, this practice will become more visible over time.

I saw this on a large scale when I visited Knoxville West Elementary school as part of our IDM team. They had reading data on all students and used it to adjust the instruction for all kids. Do you think formative assessment flows naturally from the assessment to the remedial instruction? What I mean is, say a teacher formatively assesses students, do we assume that teacher is using that data to influence instruction? Is the "changing intruction" part of the definition of formative assessment?

You hit the big "aha" moment ICC is going to (hopefully) help so many educators in Iowa realize. I sort of feel like differentiation and formative assessment aren't mutually exclusive...one in the same (assess, use data to create new individualized/group instruction to help students move along the continuum of learning; repeat). Not sure if it's worth debating the definitions, but rather seeing the ideas as working together to improve classroom practice. Yes, it is possible to collect data and do nothing with it. This is the major misconception of 'formative assessment,' in my opinion. The analogy of "formative assessment is chef's ongoing soup tasting during prep; summative assessment is restaurant customer liking or disliking soup" seems to fit, but when some educators hear this, they only taste the soup (collect data, quiz more often, etc.) but never make any changes to the soup recipe (instruction). I'm guilty and to be honest thought this way until earlier this year. We can't just assume the data is being used, you're right. In a quality classroom, I think it would be pretty obvious that the data was being used (maybe my class next year?!).

The only reason I bring up the definition is so everyone is on the same page when discussing it. If some think "formative assessment" is only the assessment and others think it includes the instruction-adjustment, there's a disconnect. That's all. Plus I'm an English guy, so I like definitions. I'm already loving this ICC stuff now that I get "the point." So here's my big thought of the day: how are college education programs going to use the ICC? If the state has defined effective practices, will colleges follow suit in what they focus their teaching on...both in the ed. training programs and how the faculty teaches?

I think ICC defines formative assessment as a process of both collecting the data and modifying instruction: From ICC, Module 5: "Assessment FOR Learning (Formative Assessment): Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students as part of instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students' achievement of core content. As assessment FOR learning, formative assessment practices provide students with clear learning targets, examples and models of strong and weak work, regular descriptive feedback, and the ability to self-assess, track learning, and set goals. (Adapted from Council of Chief State School Officers, FAST SCASS)."

Not sure how/if it will impact higher ed. Impact on higher ed. will surely aid in determining success of ICC, but won't necessarily directly affect our day-to-day instruction. If new staff are trained with ICC in mind, it would help the process along. To be realistic, I think it takes extended classroom experience to get a grasp on what an abstract idea such as "assessment for learning" truly is. Nonetheless a theoretical framework (aside from modifying/extending student teaching/practicum as you and I have discussed previously), is one possible step forward.

You both make excellent points, and I like the "chef" anaology. As far as post-secondary ed is concerned, some of them are coming to the table to at least sniff the soup. Eventually, I think they'll buy the whole meal because (1) schools will be demanding that teacher ed programs include the IC, and (2) students who have experienced full implementation of the IC in high school will demand the same of their experiences at the post-secondary level. It's just going to be a long-term process.

From what I know about you, Russ, I think you'll do well in this area (student-centered classroom). Realistically, this can only be done "well" with a solid classroom management plan coupled with a focused look on the desired culture of your classroom.

I appreciate you saying that, Matt. It struck me as funny, mainly because of what I emailed you last night: "I'm nervous about classroom management/atmosphere." :)

See other bookmark in this group, re: Harry Wong and procedures. Wish I would have known Wong (and implemented it) earlier on. You'll be much wiser and knowledgeable than me. Read the book and/or the website. Becky probably has the book. I can email you my procedures if you're interested. Rehearse! It seems goofy and a strange use of time for the first few weeks, but pays huge dividends. Once procedures are established, you can shape the culture (a la more student-centered) and build relationships with students to your heart's content.

Amen, Evan! See my notes on differentiation and formative assessment. They go together!

It's my gut feeling that the DE thinks this is implicit; that everyone knows this. But given that the DE's main role is in checklist accredidation, they'll need to be a bit more explicit to districts, or I think they will have districts treating each one separately.

Great point, Evan. I would venture to guess that the majority of the educators I know would say that "assessment" and "instruction" are mutually exclusive entities. I hear things all the time like "Today is quiz day" rather than viewing it as an ongoing activity. I discussed my thoughts related to this topic here: http://bit.ly/NBqyH This will be a HUGE task on the DE/AEAs part, in my opinion...helping Iowa educators see the conceptual connection as well as how it looks (and doesn't look) in practice.

This characteristic is always one that concerns me because of the word "understanding" I think it will be interesting how these definitions of understanding evolve through the process