When developing an assessment plan you must make sure important learning targets are identified and they must be at the cognitive level you identified. The benefit of these factors are that the team will come to a consensus on those targets.
In order to meet the authors' main goal of making sure our assessments are as accurate (valid AND reliable) as possible, we need to focus on the specific learning targets the group uncovered as well as the expected thinking level(s) required for each target. Based on this information, we then decide how to assess each target. We choose between the following based on how well each will measure student learning of a particular learning target: selected response (multiple-choice, matching, true/false), constructed-response (open-ended, essay, graphic organizer), performance assessment (performance evaluated with a rubric), and/or personal communication (student conference). We can then input this information into our assessment plan, which the authors show in table format. We should additionally include in our preparations things like opportunities for students to demonstrate beyond-proficiency cognitive levels, the number of questions per assessment, and the amount of time between each assessment.
This plan benefits a PLC by giving it a specific structure to follow in the assessment creation process and ensures less confusion and more agreement between group members.
During our PLC when we develop an assessment we always start with the state standards. I like how tables 5.1 and 5.2 start with "learning targets" based on the standards and from there decide which type of question goes best with that particular target. Because the math STAAR is mostly multiple choice, our current common assessments are mostly multiple choice questions based on the state standards. I look forward to going back to those assessments this year and developing in assessment plan that includes a bigger variety of selected-response, such as fill-in the blank, true/ false and matching. Formative assessments will also be a bigger part of our assessment plan, like constructed-responses and rubrics for more student created projects.
"What should your team consider when developing an assessment plan? Review tables 5.1 and 5.2, and discuss the benefits for your PLC."
As everyone has stated, one must considered the learning targets that were identified in unwrapping the standards. Other factors to consider are the type of formative assessment that will work best, the level of learning being assessed and the length of time that the assessment will require. The tables help us see how specific and targeted learning can be and that assessments can address multiple levels of learning. I especially like assessing beyond application to identify students who are prepared for extension activities.
Assessments must provide students and teachers a clear understanding of the targets, provide results in a timely manner and pinpoint a course to plan, do, study and act.
The organizers provide your PLC’s with a plan for setting up their assessments that PLC’s could share with their students before instruction begins and ultimately give a running record of what’s working or not.
Common assessments that monitor students' grasp of the power standards, establish agreed upon criteria for mastery and proficiency of the assessment, consistency in a scoring process with a time table to monitor achievement of all students (I believe this is where RTI might fit in as well), and student engagement is very important when developing an assessment plan.
In addition to the previous comments, a team also needs to consider the number of items on a test and the frequency of tests.
Question: On page 55, the author states that on a test "...include enough [questions] so that they get accurate information about student mastery of learning targets." It then states that "Gareis and Grant recommend three as the minimum..."
Hmmm...am I missing something???
The team should also consider frequent formative assessments.
What I derived from page 55 is that an assessment should have at least three (3) items for each TEKS addressed for it to be reliable data. Anything less then that would not be accurate data. This is something for us to look at this upcoming year as we pull out last year’s assessments.
The team should consider the learning targets previously identified and assessing student learning at the cognitive level identified by the team.
The tables help PLCs visibly see at what levels they are consistently teaching and learners are exposed to. In turn it will push PLCs to higher levels of Bloom's in teaching and assessment.
You stated why it is so important to go through these steps as we plan. TIER 1 learning needs to be presented in the classrooms everyday. This will be the only way that we can sustain our "Distinguished" Rating.
Teams must ensure two things when developing assessment plans. First, the learning targets which the team identified are included in the assessment. Secondly, students are assessed at a cognitive level that has been identified in the unwrapping process. Using tables similar to 5.1 and 5.2 can be very helpful when deciding how to teach a standard. It allows us to discuss and outline the level of thinking with the assessment method.
I think that our team must first consider what standards we want to be tested. After we know the standard we need to consider the end result as to what the students will be able to do. Secondly, we need to pick a length that we want the assessment to be that allows us to determine how many of each type of question we can put on the test. This also allows a variety of levels based on the same standard. Also, it is important to make sure to test all the different parts of the standard which requires several questions some times. For example a standard may say to come up with an equation based on a problem statement, and the standard also states coming up with a problem situation from an equation. This is two very different things and one more difficult than the other.
As SS teacher, I have found this chapter most frustrating. Within each unit of study (5-10 days), we may have dozens of TEKs to teach/assess. Selecting which TEKs to assess, then writing 3 items for each TEK in order to have reliable data, seems insurmountable. In designing the assessment items, the first order seems to effectively filter the important state standards. I would love to collaborate not only with my campus peers, but also have a template in place district-wide to collaborate more regularly with my subject/grade-level peers.
When creating an assessment plan we must make sure the identified learning targets are included in the assessment and that students are correctly assessed at the appropriate cognitive level.
The tables are extremely beneficial because they show how to hone in on specific objectives and how to break them down in a variety of ways.
When developing an assessment plan, teams should make sure identified learning targets are included and that the test items are assessed at the identified appropriate cognitive level. The Sample Assessment Plans in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 demonstrate how to construct an assessment using various levels of learning and different types of assessment responses to use beyond basic multiple choice test items.
When developing an assessment plan, PLCs should identify the learning target, how to assess it and how long it should take to administer. They should show basic knowledge of the overall topic, but have enough information to accurately assess it. For example - Do they not understand the content or the question?
I agree wholeheartedly with Liz Wilson. When I first read this chapter, I was somewhat discouraged. In one unit, we may cover 15+ TEKS. Writing three questions per standard is a lot and would make our summative tests incredibly long and overwhelming for our students. I believe it is that exact thing that makes it so important to use formative assessments throughout a unit. We have to ensure that we determine what is most important and use the data from the assessments to determine which students have mastered what they need to know and which haven't. We have to focus on making sure the standards we have determined to be most important are actually being assessed and also that we are testing at the cognitive level (verb) in the standard. It is important to have a plan, to have common assessments, both formative and summative in a grade level/subject. The 5.1 and 5.2 tables make it easier to plan.
As has been mentioned, when creating an assessment, the learning targets and the cognitive level to which the students are being taught are two of the primary considerations. Using a template such as the assessment plans found in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are beneficial in that they give structure to what the team is considering, and may assist in shaping the actual assessment.
I think it will help by allowing us to specifically target topics and provide ways to assess student learning. With the data obtained we can create lessons and future assessments based on the results.
5.We must consider the learning target we identified when we wrapped the SE. Our PLC allowed us to discuss our learning targets and how to address them in our classes through our formative assessments, address the learning level we wished for our students to achieve as well as created a time frame for reaching the expectation.
I agree with most of what has been mentioned about the tables. For me though, what stood out in this chapter was step 4 (timeline). “Research has shown that the more frequently students are assessed, the more student achievement will increase.” Something our PLC may need to adjust.
The 5.1 and 5.2 tables make it easier to plan common or formative assessments by identifying targets (verbs) to be tested. I agree with Dallas. We need to create more formative assessments during our grade level PLC.
When developing an assessment plan you must make sure important learning targets are identified and they must be at the cognitive level you identified. The benefit of these factors are that the team will come to a consensus on those targets.
ReplyDeleteIn order to meet the authors' main goal of making sure our assessments are as accurate (valid AND reliable) as possible, we need to focus on the specific learning targets the group uncovered as well as the expected thinking level(s) required for each target. Based on this information, we then decide how to assess each target. We choose between the following based on how well each will measure student learning of a particular learning target: selected response (multiple-choice, matching, true/false), constructed-response (open-ended, essay, graphic organizer), performance assessment (performance evaluated with a rubric), and/or personal communication (student conference). We can then input this information into our assessment plan, which the authors show in table format. We should additionally include in our preparations things like opportunities for students to demonstrate beyond-proficiency cognitive levels, the number of questions per assessment, and the amount of time between each assessment.
ReplyDeleteThis plan benefits a PLC by giving it a specific structure to follow in the assessment creation process and ensures less confusion and more agreement between group members.
During our PLC when we develop an assessment we always start with the state standards. I like how tables 5.1 and 5.2 start with "learning targets" based on the standards and from there decide which type of question goes best with that particular target. Because the math STAAR is mostly multiple choice, our current common assessments are mostly multiple choice questions based on the state standards.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to going back to those assessments this year and developing in assessment plan that includes a bigger variety of selected-response, such as fill-in the blank, true/ false and matching. Formative assessments will also be a bigger part of our assessment plan, like constructed-responses and rubrics for more student created projects.
"What should your team consider when developing an assessment plan? Review tables 5.1 and 5.2, and discuss the benefits for your PLC."
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has stated, one must considered the learning targets that were identified in unwrapping the standards. Other factors to consider are the type of formative assessment that will work best, the level of learning being assessed and the length of time that the assessment will require.
The tables help us see how specific and targeted learning can be and that assessments can address multiple levels of learning. I especially like assessing beyond application to identify students who are prepared for extension activities.
Great comment!! Differentiating and increasing the rigor is how we will raise achievement on our campus.
DeleteAssessments must provide students and teachers a clear understanding of the targets, provide results in a timely manner and pinpoint a course to plan, do, study and act.
ReplyDeleteThe organizers provide your PLC’s with a plan for setting up their assessments that PLC’s could share with their students before instruction begins and ultimately give a running record of what’s working or not.
The team should consider:
ReplyDeleteCommon assessments that monitor students' grasp of the power standards, establish agreed upon criteria for mastery and proficiency of the assessment, consistency in a scoring process with a time table to monitor achievement of all students (I believe this is where RTI might fit in as well), and student engagement is very important when developing an assessment plan.
In addition to the previous comments, a team also needs to consider the number of items on a test and the frequency of tests.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: On page 55, the author states that on a test "...include enough [questions] so that they get accurate information about student mastery of learning targets." It then states that "Gareis and Grant recommend three as the minimum..."
Hmmm...am I missing something???
The team should also consider frequent formative assessments.
What I derived from page 55 is that an assessment should have at least three (3) items for each TEKS addressed for it to be reliable data. Anything less then that would not be accurate data. This is something for us to look at this upcoming year as we pull out last year’s assessments.
DeleteThe team should consider the learning targets previously identified and assessing student learning at the cognitive level identified by the team.
ReplyDeleteThe tables help PLCs visibly see at what levels they are consistently teaching and learners are exposed to. In turn it will push PLCs to higher levels of Bloom's in teaching and assessment.
You stated why it is so important to go through these steps as we plan. TIER 1 learning needs to be presented in the classrooms everyday. This will be the only way that we can sustain our "Distinguished" Rating.
DeleteTeams must ensure two things when developing assessment plans. First, the learning targets which the team identified are included in the assessment. Secondly, students are assessed at a cognitive level that has been identified in the unwrapping process. Using tables similar to 5.1 and 5.2 can be very helpful when deciding how to teach a standard. It allows us to discuss and outline the level of thinking with the assessment method.
ReplyDeleteI think that our team must first consider what standards we want to be tested. After we know the standard we need to consider the end result as to what the students will be able to do. Secondly, we need to pick a length that we want the assessment to be that allows us to determine how many of each type of question we can put on the test. This also allows a variety of levels based on the same standard. Also, it is important to make sure to test all the different parts of the standard which requires several questions some times. For example a standard may say to come up with an equation based on a problem statement, and the standard also states coming up with a problem situation from an equation. This is two very different things and one more difficult than the other.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs SS teacher, I have found this chapter most frustrating. Within each unit of study (5-10 days), we may have dozens of TEKs to teach/assess. Selecting which TEKs to assess, then writing 3 items for each TEK in order to have reliable data, seems insurmountable.
ReplyDeleteIn designing the assessment items, the first order seems to effectively filter the important state standards. I would love to collaborate not only with my campus peers, but also have a template in place district-wide to collaborate more regularly with my subject/grade-level peers.
I agree. Building collaboration and consistency throughout the district has proven results.
DeleteWhen creating an assessment plan we must make sure the identified learning targets are included in the assessment and that students are correctly assessed at the appropriate cognitive level.
ReplyDeleteThe tables are extremely beneficial because they show how to hone in on specific objectives and how to break them down in a variety of ways.
When developing an assessment plan, teams should make sure identified learning targets are included and that the test items are assessed at the identified appropriate cognitive level. The Sample Assessment Plans in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 demonstrate how to construct an assessment using various levels of learning and different types of assessment responses to use beyond basic multiple choice test items.
ReplyDeleteWhen developing an assessment plan, PLCs should identify the learning target, how to assess it and how long it should take to administer. They should show basic knowledge of the overall topic, but have enough information to accurately assess it. For example - Do they not understand the content or the question?
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly with Liz Wilson. When I first read this chapter, I was somewhat discouraged. In one unit, we may cover 15+ TEKS. Writing three questions per standard is a lot and would make our summative tests incredibly long and overwhelming for our students. I believe it is that exact thing that makes it so important to use formative assessments throughout a unit. We have to ensure that we determine what is most important and use the data from the assessments to determine which students have mastered what they need to know and which haven't. We have to focus on making sure the standards we have determined to be most important are actually being assessed and also that we are testing at the cognitive level (verb) in the standard. It is important to have a plan, to have common assessments, both formative and summative in a grade level/subject. The 5.1 and 5.2 tables make it easier to plan.
ReplyDeleteAs has been mentioned, when creating an assessment, the learning targets and the cognitive level to which the students are being taught are two of the primary considerations. Using a template such as the assessment plans found in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 are beneficial in that they give structure to what the team is considering, and may assist in shaping the actual assessment.
ReplyDeleteI think it will help by allowing us to specifically target topics and provide ways to assess student learning. With the data obtained we can create lessons and future assessments based on the results.
ReplyDelete5.We must consider the learning target we identified when we wrapped the SE. Our PLC allowed us to discuss our learning targets and how to address them in our classes through our formative assessments, address the learning level we wished for our students to achieve as well as created a time frame for reaching the expectation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what has been mentioned about the tables. For me though, what stood out in this chapter was step 4 (timeline). “Research has shown that the more frequently students are assessed, the more student achievement will increase.” Something our PLC may need to adjust.
ReplyDeleteLets talk about this some more in the Science PLC too.
DeleteThe 5.1 and 5.2 tables make it easier to plan common or formative assessments by identifying targets (verbs) to be tested. I agree with Dallas. We need to create more formative assessments during our grade level PLC.
ReplyDelete