Return-Path: <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h8FJ5wT16343; Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030915145950.030af3a0@pop.utk.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Brenda Bell <bsbell@utk.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-4eff@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-4EFF:2544] Re: Assessment Questions X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 7773 Lines: 134 Lisa --thank you for sharing your reflections and asking these questions. I will answer them below. Meanwhile, others on the 4EFF list need some background in order to understand the questions and the answers! Lisa participated in the recent EFF Institute: Taking the Mystery Out of Content Standards, as part of a team from Tennessee composed of practitioners and state staff. The Institute attracted over 100 people (most in teams of 2-4) from 25 states as far away as Hawaii and as close-to-home as Washington, DC, where the Institute was held. (The Washington, DC state education office co-sponsored the Institute). The Institute was designed to introduce standards-based instruction in Reading and Math. Over the course of 3 days, participants were engaged in workshops on teaching and assessing with two of the EFF standards: Use Math to Solve Problems and Communicate, and Read with Understanding. A workshop strand for program administrators focused on standards-based assessments for accountability purposes. In addition, two key note speakers provided perspectives on standards-based educational improvement. Matt Gandal, vice-president of Achieve, Inc, (the non-profit, bi-partisan organization that helps states set educational standards), reviewed some of the lessons learned through K-12 standards development and implementation. Eva Baker, director of CRESST (National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing), reviewed issues in developing assessments and aligning assessments with standards. The Institute notebook included excerpts from EFF materials as well as a selection of articles from other sources on standards-based educational reform. Now for Lisa's questions: >I spent the week-end reviewing all the materials presented to us at the >EFF institute. I found some answers to the problems I am having with >planning for my lessons using EFF. I found in the article about the >assessment instruments that I may be going from end to beginning instead >of beginning to end.. (I don't have the materials with me, so I forget the >title) I realize after reading this article that the big mistake I am >making is to plan the activity then try to link the assessment to it. I >should be planning the assessment then linking the activity to it. Is this >correct? Lisa, I'm guessing that you are referring to the article "The Instructional Demands of Standards-Based Reform" (American Federation of Teachers, 2001), which focuses on the differences between standards-based instructional planning and traditional planning. It describes the standards-based process of 'planning backwards', that is, starting with what students will need to produce/do in order to demonstrate achievement of a particular standard and then planning instruction that will assure that students are able to do what is required. The steps in the EFF Teaching-Learning Cycle, based on this same concept, include designing a plan for capturing evidence and reporting learning (assessment) as a learning activity is designed. These steps (3 and 4) are actually interactive and a teacher goes back and forth between the steps as she develops instructional plans. So yes, in part, you are correct. But the process is more integrated than you describe. Remember that we are starting with learner goals and designing instruction that improves students' abilities to use the standards to accomplish purposes in their lives. By thinking about how we will know what students have learned as we design a set of learning activities, we can make sure that we keep focused on the standards that are important to students. The level descriptors for the EFF standards (available Read with Understanding, Use Math, and Convey Ideas in Writing) are the guide for helping you define the performance that students should be able to demonstrate. >I also understand better the process of the assessment and the use of the >assessment. I read the Scenarios of State X. I see now that the assessment >is a process that has several components. For example, I need to have 3 >different types of assessment in mind for my activities. Then, someone >else delivers an assessment never before seen by myself or the students. >These 4 assessments are combined to determine if the student can move on >the performance continuum. Is this correct? If so I am on a roll, if not >then I need advise or at least clarification. Here Lisa is referring to an excerpt from the Working Draft of an EFF publication that is in process: The Guide to Using the EFF Read with Understanding Assessments. In the section on Scenarios of Use, we describe one possible scenario for implementation of Read with Understanding assessments for accountability purposes, that is, for reporting to the National Reporting System. We use hypothetical State X to show what practitioners are doing at the classroom, program, and state agency levels. We distributed draft excerpts from this new Guide to participants in the Institute sessions on assessment for accountability, in order to illustrate how the EFF assessments work. The final publication will give clear and complete guidelines for administration of assessment tasks and for reporting results. One of the guidelines is suggested in the Scenario of Use that Lisa refers to: students complete and score proficient or above on a minimum of three RWU assessment tasks in order to move to the next Educational Functioning Level. Additionally, because the RWU assessments are a prototype for further assessment development that includes only a relatively small number of model assessment tasks, we assume that a state or agency will use them to supplement currently available standardized assessments such as TABE, CASAS or BEST. Lisa, I'm assuming that by "3 different types of assessment" you are referring to three separate RWU assessment tasks. However, there is another 'set of 3' that is important in understanding how assessment works in standards-based instruction: the 3 different times that we need assessment (rather than just different types of assessment). We need assessment before instruction (to help us decide what to teach and at what level). We need assessment during instruction (to monitor progress and guide further learning and instruction). Finally, we need assessment after instruction (to show learning outcomes, results). We use different forms of assessment for these different times, but all of these can and should be aligned with the standard in a standards-based instructional system. For the third purpose (assessing learning results), we need a standardized approach to assessment (to meet National Reporting System guidelines). To standardize an assessment means that it can be used reliably and validly (with comparable results) in many different settings. This means that test items need to be secure (not available to students before the test) and the administration and scoring of the test items has to be done consistently (reliably) following standard procedures. The teacher can give the test (following strict procedural directions). Teachers can also score the test, but independent scoring of the test (by someone trained as a test rater) will also be needed. The EFF Assessment Consortium is developing a set of Frequently Asked Questions about the RWU Assessments. We will share them with the 4EFF list when they are completed. Brenda Brenda Bell, Associate Director, Center for Literacy Studies Co-Director, EFF Assessment Consortium Management Team, EFF Center for Training and Technical Assistance office/voice mail 865-974-6654 fax 865-974-3857 bsbell@utk.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:14:45 EST