Using assessment results to guide writing instruction

Testing

There are two major strategies in linking assessment and instruction: 1) making instructional decisions in light of assessment results or 2) planning instruction to achieve the objectives represented by an assessment.

Which strategy is most applicable to your work or educational setting?

While both strategies are applicable to my teaching setting, I find that using assessment results to make instructional decision provides the most benefit for my students. This includes the use of all types of assessments, summative assessments such as high-stakes state assessments, formative assessments the students complete in class and pre-assessments prior to each writing assignment.

According to Belfiore et al. (2005) the mindset of using assessment for accountability must be changed to a mindset of dynamic accountability which includes: "(a) analysis of assessment data as disaggregate, (b) analysis of assessment data as improvement (i.e., pre- and posttest analysis within 1 academic year, and/or running records of academic-year performance), and more importantly, (c) using assessment data to differentiate instruction" (p. 856).

As a result of No Child Left Behind legislation students in every state are required to be assessed with state assessments. Rather than dreading these assessments and trying to plan instruction around what is tested, I use the data these assessments provide to plan my instruction. Much information is provided not only about how individual students perform on the test, but also on how the class and grade level performed on test objectives and on tested student expectations. However, this still provides an incomplete picture. Not all of the student expectations that are required to be taught in a particular grade and subject can possibly be assessed on a high-stakes test. It is impossible, for example, to test student expectations related to listening and speaking. Additionally, writing tests normally only assesses one type of writing.

Explain how you implement the process to insure student success.

On the first day of school each year, I ask my students to complete an information card. On the front of the card they write basic information such as their name and birthday; on the back of the card I ask them to write one sentence about their favorite memory. This information card serves multiple purposes. First of all, it provides basic information about the student and gives me a little information about their interests. However, the main purpose for this activity is to provide me with a quick assessment of the students' writing abilities. This activity is indicative of how I use assessment results to make instructional decisions.

In planning my classroom writing instruction I use the principles suggested by Wilhelm (2003):

Use pre-assessment.

Set goals depending on students' current achievement.

Use results of pre-assessment to pitch instruction, in various groups or individually, to students' current point of need.

Teach students to use rubrics and scales.

Peer edit and revise using the articulated criteria (p. 46).

The information card activity described earlier is an example of how I use pre-assessment. I work in a school with a high percentage of English language learners, so my students' abilities vary from completely unable to write in English to students who write prolifically. This simple activity answers a number of questions for me related to the students' writing ability. I know right away if a student is unable to write a complete sentence in English, if a student writes primarily in simple sentences, or if the student is versed in descriptive writing. I can then begin to plan instruction based on the needs of the individual students. As we progress through the school year, I continually use this type of assessment to determine the instructional needs of my students. I learn very quickly if students are having difficulty with grammatical issues such as pronoun case or subject / verb agreement, or if they need assistance with organizing their ideas or adding more voice to their writing.

How should one separate test preparation vs. cheating?

While it might be tempting to argue the politics of these assessments and whether or not they accurately reflect student achievement, at least for the foreseeable future, they are our reality in education. Therefore, teachers have to learn to adequately prepare their students without "teaching to the test." Volante (2004) suggests several alternatives to teaching to the test. First of all, teachers need to teach test-represented content rather than specific test items. For example if fourth graders are tested on two digit division, they should have authentic opportunities to demonstrate their skills rather than on worksheets with test clone items. Additionally, administrators need to be trained to recognize appropriate and inappropriate test preparation strategies. Teachers also need to be trained on developing authentic assessments with the same rigor as the state assessments. Popham (2001) suggests the use of multiple measures including writing, open-ended response questions, and performance-based tasks. The use of these types of assessment may provide a more accurate picture of student learning. Additionally, the public must become more critical consumers of educational data. A significant increase in test scores might be the result of better teaching practices, but it might also be the result of teaching to the test.

Finally as suggested by both Popham (2001) and Volante (2004) teachers need to have an understanding of, teach, and assess the entire curriculum. Belfiore et al. (2005) argue that this is especially true for schools in areas of high poverty, stating that this begins with "(a) teachers believing all children have the potential to learn, which in turn results in (b) teacher designing and implementing pedagogically sound practices that (c) create an academically challenging (i.e., not watered-down) curriculum. Within a challenging, educatively supportive curriculum, students increase academic performance, which in turn increases self-efficacy and, ultimately reaching the goal of all urban education, an increase in the academic risk taking of students" (p. 861).

As a teacher in an inner-city school in a low socioeconomic area, I have often seen the results of teaching to the test. I want my students to appreciate the perspective provided by good literature and, at the very least, to be able to write well enough to communicate effectively. If I only teach to the test, I am doing them a great disservice.

References:

Belfiore, P.J., Auld, R., & Lee, D.L. (2005). The disconnect of poor-urban education: Equal access and a pedagogy of risk taking. Psychology in the schools, 42(8), 855-863. doi:10.1002/pits.20116

Popham, W.J., (2001). Teaching to the test. Educational leadership, 58(6), 16-20.

Volante, L., (2004). Teaching to the test: What every educator and policy-maker should know. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 35. Retrieved from: http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/volante.html.

Wilhelm, J. (2003). Assessment: The alpha and omega of achievement National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213932421?accountid=27965