Reflective Journal Entry #8

Description

           The focus of reading and discussion in EDAT 6115 this week was about assessing student learning.  Assessing student learning requires the teacher to reflective of their instructional practices and understand how students’ needs can be evaluated.  Slavin (2012) stated, “Every teacher should have a clear idea of where the class is going, how it will get there, and how to know whether it has arrived” (p.397).     

Analysis

           

             Slavin (2012) reported, “Writing good achievement tests is a critical skill for effective teaching” (p.413).  At my school our teachers write all of our formative assessments and summative assessments together.  This helps ensure that all of our second graders are being assessed on the same content and that the assessments fairly align to our grade level standards.  We first analyze the standards being covered by the tests, then we plan questions using varied depth of knowledge questions.

            With the push of Georgia Milestones constructive response type questions have been the new buzz word and shift in teaching.  “Constructed-response items require the student to supply rather than to select the answer” (Slavin, 2012, p.422).  Asking appropriate constructive response questions means the teacher needs to be very specific in the expectations.  If questions are too broad, then students will interpret how to answer the question in various ways.  These types of questions are good because they allow the student to produce their own thinking and ideas.  On the other hand, however, scoring constructive response can be unreliable due to teacher judgement.

            Grading is another aspect of education that seems to be a hot topic.  The idea of retesting and reassessing is a very controversial topic.  At my school currently students are allowed to retest anything that they score below a 70% on.  The rationale behind this is to ensure that students are finding mastery of the standards and not just “moving on” because it’s time for the next unit.  However, does retesting them show that they have mastered that standard, or is it taking away student motivation and reflection knowing they can always retest?  Maybe a better idea would be using performance grading.  With performance grading “teachers determine what children know and can do and then report this in a way that is easy for parents and students to understand” (Guskey, 2006).  The parents can then understand if their child is performing around the expected range for their grade level.

            We can look at students’ performance based on two types of evaluation, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced.  “Norm referenced interpretations focus on comparisons of a student’s scores with those of other students” in contrast “Criterion-referenced interpretations focus on assessing students’ mastery of specific skills, regardless of how other students did on the same skills” (Slavin, 2012, p.411).  In most cases formative assessments are criterion to show what students are having trouble with what skills.  

Reflection

            The concept of assessing student learning is an important concept to all teachers.  Intentional teachers plan their lessons and ideas around individualized students learning.  As teachers we cannot teach the same lessons the same way each year.  Our students are all different and learn differently.  If we use assessment data to drive our instruction, then we are best meeting the needs of our children.  Using formative assessment to see where students are in their learning as well as for students to track their learning is imperative.  Using summative assessments as a teacher is a way to ensure that your teaching matches up with student learning.  Formative and summative assessments should be closed tied together.         

            Something I learned in this chapter was about lesson objectives.  In my day to day classroom I use learning targets, but I never thought about using lesson objectives.  I am familiar with lesson objectives from conversations during a student’s individualized education plan (IEP), but I have never thought to do them for my general education students.  I could see how this would be helpful in determining the success and achievement level of students, especially my lower learners.  Planning for lesson objectives really makes you be reflective of your students’ needs and what support they need to be successful.  Backward planning with lesson objectives can help you better plan lessons to meet the objectives.

            One thing that I confirmed reading this chapter was ensuring my teaching objectives line up with my assessments.  I feel it is only fair to test students on material that you have already covered or taught.  One way to ensure that this is done is to look at your assessments and plan backwards.  What skills would they need to learn in order to be successful?  In order for your assessments to fairly match up to learning objectives as a teacher you need to make sure your assessments align with your content standards.  Assessments should fairly address what the expected standards to teach are.

            One positive thing about assessments is the use of feedback.  The feedback that assessments give is beneficial for the teacher as well as for the student.  Assessments should provide feedback, information, and incentives.  Students should be reflective of their assessments to realize their strengths and weaknesses.  Teachers should be reflective of student assessments to decide the effectiveness of their instruction.  Many times teachers complain that all of their students fail a test.  Is it really the students’ fault if ALL of them failed?  Maybe there was a flaw in the way the information was presented.  Rather than put the blame on the students, teachers as well need to be accountable for their responsibilities. 

             

References

Guskey, T. (2006). Making high school grades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(9), 670-675.

Slavin, R. E. (2012). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.