 |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
|
|
|
|
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 42
6
Concluding Thoughts and
Possible Next Steps
At the end of the two-day program, a panel of participants was convened to
synthesize what they had heard and try to identify some of the key messages.
Referring back to the criteria the committee had asked the presenters to consider
with regard to their programs, the discussants noted that it was clear that selecting
any one of them as most important could not be the key to bridging the kinds of
gaps that were discussed. Rather, the criteria emerged as important ways of
considering the strengths and limitations of different approaches.
Each of the programs presented was tailored to suit a particular set of circum-
stances, and to address particular challenges, and some of the differences among
them were striking. Some served students in relatively disadvantaged circum-
stances; others served greater numbers of advantaged students. The programs
ranged in scale, in their methods, and in the goals they were trying to meet. Thus
no one starting point would make sense for all of them.
The discussants also noted that few of the presenters provided much eve
dence of the effectiveness of their programs.] Moreover, with a few exceptions,
little effort has yet been made to transfer these programs to other settings with
different characteristics. The discussants noted that such follow-up work is badly
needed. The programs discussed for the most part struck them as very promising,
but many are still in early stages of their development. It will be very important,
.
1This may have been partly because the agenda was very full. Such evidence may be available for
many of the programs, and interested readers are encouraged to seek it using the contact information
in Appendix C.
42
OCR for page 43
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS
43
the discussants agreed, to see which elements of them are of use beyond their
own contexts.
At the same time, however, several important common threads were apparent
in the presentations and in the discussion. These are presented not as recommen-
dations to those responsible for assessment programs, but rather as a distillation
of the experiences described at the workshop which may be helpful to others:
.
.
.
.
Responsibility lodged with teachers. In virtually every one of the
programs, the responsibilities that devolve to teachers seem to be critical
to the success of the enterprise. Many speakers were struck by the extent
to which these programs were dependent on teachers who were prepared
to change their thinking and their practice. Teachers were asked to master
new concepts and techniques for assessment, and also, in many cases, to
change other elements of their work as they adapted to the needs of the
assessment program. Perhaps most important, teachers' judgments about
student performance, how and when to assess, and many other issues are
being sought and used in these programs to an extent not often seen.
Commitment to professional development. Presenter after presenter
spoke about how important an investment in professional development
was to their programs. The developers of many of the programs that
placed new responsibilities on teachers realized from the start that teachers
had not had sufficient training in measurement to succeed with the new
requirements without targeted training up front. Ongoing support of
many kinds through summer workshops, shared websites, mentoring
networks, and the like is another key element in many. Experienced
teachers were enlisted in many cases to spread their knowledge to col-
leagues, and teachers were offered opportunities to participate in test
development and scoring sessions. Several presenters expressed concern
that resources to maintain this level of commitment may be at risk but all
seemed convinced that it was crucial.
Clear descriptions of expectations for students. Many of the programs
had in common descriptions of the expectations for students that are
unusually concrete and detailed. Using frameworks, matrices, or some
other structure, many of the examples that were discussed provide teachers
with clear definitions of the stages students are likely to move through as
they progress to mastery of chosen academic objectives. Breaking the
learning process down in this way seemed to be a particularly useful way
of meshing the goals of instructions and accountability.
Plentiful feedback to teachers and students. In many of the programs,
provision of usable feedback is built into the system, and often careful
thought has gone to the form the feedback will take. Reports of assess-
ment results often include analysis that breaks down the student work to
reveal specific misconceptions and gaps in knowledge. The feedback is,
OCR for page 44
44
ASSESSMENT IN SUPPORT OF INSTRUCTION AND LEARNING
in many cases, designed to be folded back into both the teachers' deci-
sions and the students' thinking about where they stand and what they
need to do.
.
.
Summative assessments do not stand alone. Though none of the exam-
ples discussed was perhaps initiated with the explicit goal of bridging a
gap or, certainly, of meeting the criteria the committee has described-
they do mostly share the notion that summative assessments ought not to
be stand-alone exercises, but elements of an integrated system. While
few would likely disagree with that notion, the programs here have taken
a variety of specific steps to try to make it a reality. As each of the
programs proceeds, evidence of their success may influence other states
and districts that are recognizing the consequences of having a system
that is not as coherent and integrated as it could be.
Adherence to professional standards. In many of the programs dis-
cussed, the explicit assistance of measurement experts was sought either
to review new assessment plans or to work with and train the teachers and
officials who would be developing and carrying out the program. The
developers of these programs recognized that they were attempting some-
thing ambitious and that taking particular care that the technical innova-
tions passed professional muster would be important. At the same time,
content specialists were often involved in developing the detailed expec-
tations for students discussed above. The programs that were developed
by researchers were of course also grounded in high professional stan-
dards. Although high professional standards are important to any
assessment program, the participation of experts is perhaps especially
important where educators and administrators are trying to meet expecta-
tions for accountability in new ways.
This workshop is just a step toward the National Research Council's goal of
fostering the understanding of and commitment to assessment for learning. The
information presented here will be used in studies just being initiated by all three
of the boards that sponsored the workshop. The Board on Testing and Assess-
ment is overseeing a project that will help states design the science assessments
that will be required under the No Child Left Behind Act. The Mathematical
Sciences Education Board has a study of mathematics assessments underway,
and the Committee on Science Education K-12 is conducting a study on science
learning. The committee hopes that the examples presented here will stimulate
the thinking of each of these committees as they consider the tensions presented
by assessment systems with multiple goals.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
professional development
Items in cart [0]
