1 / 23

Aligned Instruction

Aligned Instruction. Andrew C. Porter Vanderbilt University  August, 2006. Tools. Teacher surveys of instruction Daily logs End-of-semester or end-of-year surveys Content analyses of Standards Tests Curriculum materials Alignment indices—e.g, alignment between assessment and standards.

amela-velasquez
Download Presentation

Aligned Instruction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Aligned Instruction Andrew C. PorterVanderbilt University August, 2006

  2. Tools • Teacher surveys of instruction • Daily logs • End-of-semester or end-of-year surveys • Content analyses of • Standards • Tests • Curriculum materials • Alignment indices—e.g, alignment between assessment and standards

  3. Content Matrix

  4. Vertical and Horizontal Alignment Achievement Instruction District Assessment Standards State Assessment Standards

  5. Example Matrices to Measure Alignment ∑ |X-Y| 2 Cognitive Demand Assessment Standards Topics X=Assessment Cell Proportions Y=Standards Cell Proportions Alignment Index =1 -

  6. Alignment of Assessments with Standards7th-Grade Math:Goals Study Average Within-State Alignment = .40 Average Between-State Alignment = .39 Average State-Test-to-NCTM Alignment = .39

  7. Alignment of Instruction with Assessment8th-Grade Math:SCASS Study Average Within-State Alignment = .22 Average Between-State Alignment = .23 Average State-to-NAPE Alignment = .39

  8. Alignment of Instruction with Instruction 8th-Grade Math: SCASS Study Average Alignment = .69

  9. 7th Grade Standards State F NCTM State E

  10. Quality of Data • Response rates • Interrater agreement for content analyses • Validity of teacher self-report • Explaining between-teacher variance in alignment to NAEP • Predicting student achievement gains [Note: The need for a reform-neutral language]

  11. Uses of Tools Describing Instructional Practices • Research • Serve as dependent variable in teacher decision-making research • Describe the implemented curriculum • Measure implementation of new curricula • Assess the validity of transcript studies • Practice • Inform teacher reflections on their own instructional practices [Note: Should not be used for teacher accountability.]

  12. Uses of Tools Describing Instructional Materials • Research • Research effects of textbooks on instruction • Assess the breadth and depth of content in instructional materials • Practice • Build tests • Write content standards • Develop national, state, or district indicator systems

  13. Uses of Indices of Alignment • Research • Serve as a control variable • Serve as a dependent variable • Serve as a descriptive variable • Practice • Align state tests to state standards • Align instructional materials to standards or course frameworks

  14. Increasing Validity and Value • Getting the content language right • Using time samples to describe instruction for an entire school year • Replicating the finding that alignment predicts student achievement gains • Identifying contexts in which teacher self-report on the content of instruction is more or less accurate • Improving the level and consistency of interrater agreement in content analyses • Understanding the distributional properties of the alignment statistics • Building powerful professional development programs for data-based decision making • Developing a content language for reading

  15. Conclusions • Much progress has been made in recognizing the importance of instructional content as a variable in education research. • Some progress has been made in building tools for including content in education research. • There have been several innovative uses of these new tools in both research and practice, and more are on the horizon. • But there is much more work to be done.

  16. 7th-Grade Standards--Close View Number Sense and Numeration State E State F NCTM

  17. 7th-Grade Standards--Close View Data Analysis and Probability State E State F NCTM

  18. Response Rates for Survey Eisenhower Longitudinal Wave 1 75% Wave 2 74% Wave 3 75% Eisenhower Cross-Sectional 72% Reform Up Close 75%

  19. Interrater Agreement Assessment Mean Range Goals Study .51 .77 to .34 CCSSO Study .47 .60 to .37 Standards Goals Study .48 .59 to .33 [Note: In each study, there was one outlier rater.]

  20. Eisenhower Longitudinal Study Longitudinal data on instruction alignment to NAEP yielded: 42% of variance explained by level (elementary, middle, high school) and subject 27% of variance explained by teachers in the same school 0% of variance explained by between school or between years

  21. Alignment to Predict Achievement Gains

  22. Index Intercorrelations

More Related