Measuring teachers' use of formative assessment:

1. Measuring teachers' use of formative assessment:  A learning progressions approach Brent Duckor (SJSU) Diana Wilmot (PAUSD) Bill Conrad & Jimmy ScheRrer (SCCOE) Amy Dray (UCB)

2. Why formative assessment? • Black and Wiliam (1998) report that studies of formative assessment (FA) show an effect size on standardized tests between 0.4 and 0.7, far larger than most educational interventions and equivalent to approximately 8 months of additional instruction; • Further, FA is particularly effective for low achieving students, narrowing the gap between them and high achievers, while raising overall achievement; • Enhancing FA would be an extremely cost-effective way to improve teaching practice; • Unfortunately, they also find that FA is relatively rare in the classroom, and that most teachers lack effective FA skills.

3. Measuring Effective FA practice: Toward a cycle of psychometric inquiry • Define constructs in multi-dimensional space • Design items and observations protocol • Iterate scoring strategy in alignment construct maps • Apply measurement model to validate teacher and item-level claims and to warrant inferences about effective practice

5. Ask an expert teachers who practice assessment for learning know and can • understand and articulate in advance of teaching the achievement targets that their students are to hit; • inform their students about those learning goals, in terms that students understand; • translate classroom assessment results into frequent descriptive feedback • for students, providing them with specific insights as to how to improve; • continuously adjusting instruction based on the results of classroom assessments.

6. FA 1.0 Research suggests

7. FA 2.0 Good formative feedback • Types of feedback (Butler, 1998; Butler & Neuman, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996); • Level of specificity and task relatedness (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986); • The “next steps” required of students (Butler & Neuman, 1995) can influence the effectiveness of formative assessment on classroom learning.

8. The Zone of study

9. Construct Map Items Design Reliability Validity Measurement Model Outcome Space

10. Phase 1: Construct Mapping

11. Knowledge of formative assessment Bin Strategic Tag Probe Bounce Pause Propositional Pose

12. FA 3.0 Mapping a Route … Expert teaching Novice teaching

13. Skills Allocationat “Soliciting responses” level

14. Item Design Construct Map Reliability Validity Measurement Model Outcome Space

15. Phase 2: Items Design • Align items (tasks, prompts, scenarios) with the levels on the construct map. • Building items to map onto a refined set of formative assessment practices. • Consider various item types and delivery platforms. • Review an example of a simulated scenario with focus on turns of talk. • Consider content and construct validity, as well as inter-rater reliability in construction and use of items.

16. Consider the context: The Lesson Cycle • Initial framing of a question within a HIGH LEVEL Task. • Study the enactment of formative assessment implementation within a science classroom engaged in HL tasks in ecology.

17. The evolution of a Task The Enacted Task Stein, Remillard, & Smith (2007)

18. Delivery Platforms for data collection • Traditional “paper and pencil” questions • Classroom based “authentic” tasks • Lesson planning/enactment/reflections • Lesson study of best formative assessment practices • Innovative adaptive virtual scenarios (AVS) • Video episodes • Web-based virtual platforms

19. Adaptive VIRTUAL scenarios • Ability to share a range of novice through expert formative assessment practice in video format. • Pause videos throughout teacher enactment to measure teachers level of sophistication.

20. Potential items within Simulated SCENARIOs • Pause video and ask the teacher: • How would you characterize this initial move? • What do you notice about the teachers’ questioning strategy? • How might you compare one questioning strategy with another? • What would you do next? • Replay video and show teachers’ follow up moves. • Pause and ask the teacher what they think: • How would you negotiate this student response? • What kind of question would you pose next?

21. Sample of teacher responses • Initial move was “literal”, ”more open ended”. • Teacher’s response to students was: • “too directed towards the right answer”, • “thoughtfully provoking misconceptions”, • “open enough to provoke deeper conceptual knowledge across the classroom” • I would have asked a question like,”…[a question that uses student thinking as a basis]”

22. Administration of tools • Administer tools with widest range of teachers possible • pre-service • Induction years • Veteran 5-9 years • Veteran 10+ years • Use adaptive technology to capture teacher’s zone of proximal development in their expertise of formative assessment practices • Examine relationship (if any) between scores on multiple tools

23. Items Design Construct Map Reliability Validity Measurement Model Outcome Space

24. Phase 3: Defining the outcome space • Link each item response back to the levels on the construct map. • Using scoring guides to capture granularity of formative assessment practices. • Consider various types e.g. rubrics, observation protocols, coding • Provide exemplars of practice to assist in scoring protocols. • Consider content and construct validity, as well as inter-rater reliability in construction and use of scoring guides.

25. Problem of Practice:Formative assessment • Teachers have difficulty scaffolding student thinking and reasoning through discourse • As a result, the cognitive demand of a task often declines during implementation (e.g., TIMSS, QUASAR)

26. A Tool for Measuring Teachers’ use of most-formative assessment Scherrer & Stein (In Press) Initiate participation in classroom discussions Respond to students contributions during a discussion

27. An Example of How to Apply the Codes in Context • Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? • Juan: It has 4 right angles. • Teacher: What else can you tell me? • Kayla: It is a rectangle. • Teacher: Okay, a rectangle. Why do you think it is a rectangle? • Kayla: It has 4 sides. • Teacher: Are all shapes that have 4 sides rectangles? • Yasmin: It could also be a quadrilateral. • Teacher: Wait. I am asking if all shapes with 4 sides are rectangles. • Launch • Collect • Repeat, Uptake • Uptake-Literal • Terminal, Reinitiate

28. Scoring the Codes +1 +0 +0 +1 • Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? • Juan: It is a quadrilateral. • Teacher: What else can you tell me? • Kayla: It is a rectangle. • Teacher: Okay, what else? • Yasmin: It has four right angles. • Teacher: Okay, what about this shape over here? What can you tell me about this one? • Launch • Collect • Collect • Launch In this example, the teacher did not “do” anything with the student responses.

29. Scoring the Codes +1 +1 +2 • Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? • Juan: It is a quadrilateral. • Teacher: What else can you tell me? • Kayla: It is a rectangle. • Teacher: Okay, Juan said this shape is a quadrilateral, and Kayla said it is a rectangle. What is similar about quadrilaterals and rectangles? • Launch • Collect • Connect In this example, the teacher asked an open-ended question, gathered an additional response to that question, and then connected the two responses.

30. Connecting codes to response levels on the construct map Response Levels Scoring designations L4 L3 L2 L1 L0 • Launch, Collect, Connect, Uptake • Launch, Collect, Uptake • Launch, Collect, Literal • Launch, Literal, Literal • Literal, Literal, Literal

31. Items Design Construct Map Reliability Validity Measurement Model Outcome Space

32. Phase 4: applying measurement models • Cross reference qualitative construct maps with technically calibrated Wright Maps using IRT. • Employ person and item statistics to check on model fit • Consider various types of measurement models including facets. • Provide individual and group level data on progress. • Consider “internal structure” validity evidence for construct maps, in addition to checks on reliability of tools.

33. Berkeley Evaluation And Assessment Research Center Item response theory can model a “learning progression” within a particular domain. For example: • KSC: Knowledge of science content • KST: Knowledge of student thinking • KFA: Knowledge of formative assessment

34. Berkeley Evaluation And Assessment Research Center

38. Case study: Developing an integrated assessment system (DIAS) for teacher education Pamela Moss, University of Michigan Mark Wilson, University of California, Berkeley Goal is to develop an assessment systemthat: • focuses on teaching practice grounded in professional and disciplinary knowledge as it develops over time; • addresses multiple purposes of a broad array of stakeholders working in different contexts; and • creates the foundation for programmatic coherence and professional development across time and institutional contexts.

39. Case study: DIAS The research team identified the ways in which student teachers can learn to use formative and summative assessment to guide their students’ learning. • Developed a construct map that outlined a progression of learning in “Assessment.” • Described the different aspects of “Assessment,” such as: • Identifying the mathematical target to be assessed; • Understanding the purposes of the assessment; • Designing appropriate and feasible tasks (such as end of class checks); • Developing accurate inferences about individual student and whole class learning.

40. Case study: DIAS • The research team collected data from student teachers enrolled in the elementary mathematics teacher education program at the University of Michigan. • Designed scoring guides based on our construct map. • Coded videotapes from over 100 student teachers as they conducted lessons in the classroom. • Coded associated collected data, such as lesson plans and reflections, since these documents contain information about what the student teachers hope to learn from the assessment(s), and what they infer about the students in their classroom. • Using item response methods to determine which aspects of assessment practice are easier or more difficult for the student teachers and to thereby inform the teacher education program.

41. Synopsis • Incredible partnership • Filling an important educational research space • Identified the assessment space • Focus on the content • Emphasis on student thinking • Contributions to instrumentation and methodology • Marry qualitative and quantitative data using IRT framework • Next steps: pilot study

42. Contact Information Bill Conrad Jimmy Scherrrer Santa Clara County Office of Education jimmy_scherrer@sccoe.org 408-453-4332 (Office) 510-761-2007 (Cell) Bill_Conrad@sccoe.org Brent Duckor, Ph.D. Diana Wilmot, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Coordinator, Research & Evaluation College of Education Palo Alto Unified School District San Jose State University dwilmot@pausd.org brent.duckor@sjsu.edu Amy Dray, Ph.D. UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education adray@berkeley.edu

43. Measuring teachers' use of formative assessment:  A learning progressions approach Brent Duckor (SJSU) Diana Wilmot (PAUSD) Bill Conrad & Jimmy ScheRrer (SCCOE) Amy Dray (UCB)