Upload
hector
View
40
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM INITIATIVE. Presenter: Nancy Schumacher November 2010. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEMINITIATIVE
Presenter:Nancy Schumacher
November 2010
Assessment MemoryThink of a time in y our life when you were “assessed.”
It might be a memory f rom elementary or high sc hool…From y our professional ex perience…
Or any where else in y our life.
Briefly describe the ex perienc e.
How did the assessment mak e y ou f eel?
New Hope School DistrictHigh-stakes Standardized Testing
(aka “Summative Testing”)Receives a disproportionate amount of
of attention:
Summative vs. Formative
Disadvantages of High Stakes Testing
MINIMAL IMPACT ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
• Time lapse between administration and results• Not easily interpreted at classroom level• Vague individual feedback• Rank-orders students and creates competitiveness• Reinforces feeling of incompetence in
underperforming students and creates student disengagement from learning
New Hope School District
Strength:
“High Standardized Test Scores”
REAL OR PERCEIVED?
New Hope School District
STATUS QUO
• High SES community (Strong relationship between SES and student achievement, Marzano & Waters, 2009)
• Low student mobility rate (High transiency rate negatively affects test scores, Marzano & Waters, 2009)
• Teaching to the test• Focus on how “well” students are doing rather than
“what” students are doing• Data does not drive instructional decision-making
New Hope School District
THREATS TO STATUS QUO
• Closing of local small businesses and plants changing SES
• Foreclosures increasing mobility rate• Increasing gap between “haves” and “have
nots”
New Hope School District
OPPORTUNITY• Systemic change related to district mission of
engaged learning• Systemic change related to district vision of
providing relevant research-based instruction that responds to each student’s unique potential
• Enhanced teaching and learning• Focus on learning vs. achievement
Achievement vs. LearningVideo Clip by Alfie Kohn
Endorsed by W. Edwards Deming in “No Contest”which addresses competition in schools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sywMkf5QhI
Evolve Mindsets and Mental Models
From: Summative AssessmentTo: Formative Assessment
From: Evaluative gradingTo: Planning future instruction
What is Formative Assessment?
Formal Definition:
A planned process in which the ongoing activities undertaken in the classroom increase student engagement and learning by providing timely informational feedback and decision-making data so students can adjust current learning tactics in which they employ and teachers can modify instructional methods in which they implement. ---Nancy Schumacher, 2010
Formative Assessment vs. Summative Assessment
• Formative Assessment: FOR learning – DURING learning
• Summative Assessment:OF learning – AFTER learning
“When the cook tastes the soup it is formative, when the guests taste the soup it is summative.” ---Bob Stake in Marzano, 2010
Goal of Formative Assessment
For teachers to teach more effectively
For students to learn more effectively
HIGH-QUALITY,
EFFECTIVE TEACHING
Links curriculum to
State academic content
standards
Links instruction to
curriculum
Links assessment to
instruction
State-Level High
Stakes SummativeAssessment
District-Level
Common Assessment
Classroom-Level
Formative Assessment
Intentionally AlignedCOMPREHENSIVE
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM to Increase Student Achievement
Nancy Schumacher2010
Classroom Level Formative Assessment
IS BASED ON EFFECTIVE, INFORMATIVE FEEDBACK
“The most powerful single modification that enhances achievement is feedback”
---J. A. Hattie in Marzano, 2007aAfter a meta-analysis of over 8,000 studies
Teachers and Students use FEEDBACK DATA
• Find areas of strengths and weaknesses• Track areas of improvement• Question how to prepare for and improve
performance• Differentiate instruction• Close the achievement gap
New Hope School District
PRE-TEST(Optional)
TEACH TEACH TEACH TEACH TEACH ASSIGN GRADE
PRE-ASSESS
ANALYZE RESULTS
PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED
INSTRUCTIONTEACH
MONITOR, REFLECT,
and ADJUST
TEACH POST-ASSESS
Current Model of Classroom Assessment
Proposed Model of Classroom Level Formative Assessment: Teaching is aligned with curriculum. Formative assessments are not graded.
---Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006
Resources Needed to IntroduceFormative Assessment System
• Classroom level formative assessment is a cost-effective method of school improvement (William, 2007)
• Professional Learning Communities: An effective approach for implementation (Popham, 2008)
• Reading resources: Key stakeholders volunteer to read and discuss the formative assessment process
• Time: Flexible scheduling to promote collaboration
Beyond the Classroom
School and district level formative assessment will require funding for additional professional development (Black & Wiliam, 1998)
Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment
Slow and Steady Process
• November 2010 – Present rationale and process to Board of Education, all district and school leaders, all teachers and community members
• December 2010 – Establish volunteer PLC’s to “pilot” implementation at classroom level
• June 2011 – Positive results from pilot program create “buy-in”
• July-August 2011 – Pilot teachers turnkey train district wide • September 2011 – All teachers begin classroom level
formative assessment across grade levels and departments
Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment
Slow and Steady Process
• December 2011 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Power Standards.”
• January to March 2012 – Determine Power Standards for each grade and content
• April 2012 -- All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – Aligning Power Standards to classroom, district and State standards
• May to June 2012 – Align Power Standards• June 2012 – All teachers district wide inservice on next phase of
intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system – “Common Formative Assessments”
Time Frame to ImplementFormative Assessment
Slow and Steady Process
• July to August 2011 – Design Common Formative Assessments and map horizontally and vertically
• September 2011 – First administration of Common Formative Assessment (CFA)
• October 2011 – Score assessments, collaboratively discuss, evaluate effectiveness, revise CFA
• November 2011 – Second administration of CFA and analyze data
• December 2011 – Meet by schools to plan future phases of intentionally designed comprehensive formative assessment system
Implementation Requires School Administrator Leadership
tied to ISLLC Standards
Standard 1.4 – Mastery of information sources, data collection and data analysis strategies
Standard 1.23 – Ensuring that assessment data related to student learning are used to develop the school vision and goals
Standard 2.33 – Mastery of effective instructionStandard 2.34 – Mastery of measurement, evaluation and
assessment strategiesStandard 2.64 – Ensuring that student learning is assessed using a
variety of techniquesStandard 3.77 – Taking risks to improve schoolsStandard 3.89 – Managing time to maximize attainment of
organizational goals
TIME FRAME FOR RESULTS
15 WEEKS
Bangert-Drowns, Kulick & Kulick in Marzano, 2007b
Two formative assessments per week over a 15-week period produce a 29.0 percentile gain
Fuch & Fuch in Marzano, 2007b
Based on meta-analysis of 21 studies: Two formative assessments per week result in a 30 percentile point gain
New Hope School District
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:MISSION POSSIBLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsBMQUeGx1E
ResourcesAinsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments. Thousand Oaks, California:
Corwin Press.Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment.Phi Delta Kappa, 80(2), 139-144. Retrieved from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/library/ i93438_22.htm
Marzano, R. J. (2007a). Designing a comprehensive approach to classroom assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 103-126). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J. (2007b). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). Setting and monitoring nonnegotiable goals for achievement.
In District leadership that works. (pp. 23-52). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington, IN:
Marzano Research Laboratory.Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.William, D. (2007). Content then process: Teacher learning communities in the service of
formative assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve. (pp. 183-206). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.