Working in a system of standards-referenced assessment: traversing the intersections – Lenore Adie
Unit planning – Intended Learning clearly articulated
SOLO – standards clear A, B, C, etc
Success criteria clear to students – They can then use these to self assess
What did you learn?
How do you know you learned it?
What got in the way of your learning?
What helped your learning?
How do you feel?
What can I do to help you?
||You need to include more descriptive adjectives
||You need to work with your writing buddy to edit this piece of work looking for places to include more descriptive adjectives
||You already know the key features of the opening of an argument. Check to see whether you have incorporated them in your first paragraph.
Bringing it all together
triple-science-guide_assessment-for-learningThe Association for Achievement and Improvement through Assessment
Dylan Wiliam’s Website
Education and Endowment Fund
Learning Sciences – Dylan Wiliam Centre
National STEM Learning Centre
Further Reading/ Resources
Assessment For Learning
Differentiation can occur in regard to:
- intervention – role of adults and students
- journey – how
- process – ways of access
Frameworks – useful reference points
- Blooms Taxonomy
- SOLO Taxonomy – Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes
These structures/ quadrants can be used to allow students to choose a suitable pathway forward, depending on their current level of understanding.
||4. Draw your own…
|Double my number using cubes
Solve the word problem on your table.
Do it using a different method.
|Double muddle! Correct my mistakes.
Gold coins are doubling in the pirate chest.
Using scaffolds – (providing floors not ceilings!) – structure thinking to make meaning
- True/False cards
- Card sorts
- Venn diagrams
- Double Bubble
- SOLO Maps
- Hexagons – connect concepts through the use of subject specific vocabulary
|Blooms Taxonomy Cognitive Level
||Type of Activity
|Evaluate and Create
||Cause and Effect
Through listening to the discussion generated by students working in pairs/ groups on these scaffolds teachers can make judgements about misconceptions/ further challenges needed. Questioning students to build on their ideas, and then allowing time, directing them to resources and peers who can help them, without just explaining answers, can empower students more. Also expecting students to respond orally in fully developed sentences, using appropriate vocabulary, will provide practice for more developed written responses.
A space which students can go to to access further resources/ support structures,
- key word lists
- technoloical support, devices – ipads, tablets, computers
- text books/ revision guides
- graphic organisers
- sentence stems
These can be utilised individual or in pairs.
The aim is to enable all learners, including ourselves, to improve.
Could students do the proposed assessment(s) well but not really have mastered or understood the content in question?
Could students do poorly on the specific assessment(s) but really have mastery of the content in question?
Could students do all the designer-proposed activities in Stage 3 but not really be ready to explain/ justify/ infer meaning or transfer their learning as demanded by assessments in Stage 2?
Could students do all the proposed activities in Stage 3 but still be ready to handle tasks in Stage 2 that require higher-order inference and other kinds of meaning-making?
Calculating an effect size from Cognition Education on Vimeo.
Who is correct?
Is the educational community really not checking researchers?
Would the educational community really put someone in charge of the Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership who has made strong recommendations that now seem to be questioned?
We are being told that we need to use researched based practices. Which research can we trust?
Professional Learning Team (PLT) meeting and cycle:
1. What is the student ready to learn, and what is the evidence for this in terms of what the student can do, say, make or write?
2. What are the possible evidence-based intervention and the associated scaffolding processes for each?
3. What is the preferred intervention, and how will it be resourced and implemented?
4. What is the expected impact on learning, and how will this be evaluated?
5. What was the outcome, and how can this be interpreted?
NAPLAN writing assessment is a tool to assess student writing in either persuasive or narrative texts. The assessment uses a rubric in a number of specific areas to determine a score.
In both text types the following aspects are analysed:
- Text structure
- Sentence structure
Additionally when analysing narratives Language devices are assessed, and when persuasive writing is analysed persuasive devices are also monitored.
Comparatively the EALD Language and Literacy Levels divide the analysis of writing into the following areas:
- Composing learning area texts
- Text Knowledge
- Organisational structures
- Text cohesion- Foregrounding
- Text and paragraph openers
- Sentence openers including using passive voice to change what is foregrounded
- Reference: pronouns, determiners and substitution
- Grammar Knowledge
- Sentence structure
- Sentence level
- Basic punctuation
- Beyond basic
- Words and word groups
- Verbs and verb groups
- Adverbs, adverb groups/ phrases and prepositional phrases
- Noun groups/ phrases, including plurals, articles and nominalisation
- Expressing opinion and point of view
- Evaluative language
- Expressing opinion directly
- Word Knowledge
- Understanding/ using learning area vocabulary
NAPLAN is a measurement tool, providing information about where students are in relation to the aspects measured – a summative assessment.
The EALD Language and Literacy Levels are a description of how language skills develop. Therefore they provide much more information to the teacher about where to next – a great teaching and assessment tool; formative and summative assessment.
Although specifically designed to support the development of language and literacy of high needs students, the Levels are a teaching tool to support teachers with all learners. They provide a framework for “high expectations and high support (Mariani 1997)”, enabling a closing of the gap between a student’s language resources and those required for their year level.
Underpinned by a systematic and explicit pedagogy based in:
- Teaching in advance of language development
- Stretching students’ knowledge and imagination beyond what they can readily do independently
- Encouraging the use of strategies such as self-correction and trial and error
- Customising support for individual learners, including modifying the level of support and the timing of its withdrawal as students move to independence
Implications on practice
Gradual release of responsibility
Zone of proximal development
Explicit teaching – unpacking the demands of the curriculum – How language works, why language choices are made, what the effects of certain choices are and how to use language in powerful ways.
The teaching and learning cycle – 4 key stages
1. Setting the context
2. Modelling and text deconstruction
3. Joint construction
4. Independent construction