| ||||
|
| ||||
|
 |
Transcript for Lesson 6 Presentation: Assessment and Grading |
 |
Grigorenko and Sternberg (1997) report that students who have different learning styles benefit most when teachers use flexible assessment opportunities, and that teachers who systematically vary their assessments meet the needs of a larger number of students, including students who are labeled gifted and talented. Penno, Frank, and Wacker (2000) found that asking students with emotional disturbance about their learning styles and then using that information during instruction improved academic achievement and decreased problem behaviors.
Two types of assessment, formative and summative, can be used to make instructional decisions and determine student progress. Formative assessments consist of things teachers do to gather information during instruction so that appropriate changes (e.g., acceleration of content delivery or more review of content) can be made. Typically, formative assessments are not used to determine grades or scores. For example, some teachers use a group response technique, such as "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" during instruction to determine who does or does not need more review. Other teachers use brief curriculum-based measures that yield graphic depictions of student progress over time (e.g., how many terms and definitions can a student identify in one minute; how many word problems can a student solve in two minutes). Summative assessments are typically used to determine students’ grade in a course, so the assessment and corresponding scoring criteria are provided to students at the onset of instruction. Portfolio assessments can be used as either a formative or a summative assessment. Instructional portfolios may consist of students’ work in progress, such as a research paper that begins as a draft outline and progresses to drafts, then the final paper. The final paper, turned in for scoring purposes, becomes part of an assessment portfolio because that product is used as a portion of a student's grade. |
 |
Inventorying students’ performance level prior to instruction is critical for designing a responsive and challenging instructional environment. Although report card grades, previous completed courses, and standardized test scores provide some useful information for academic programming, a pretest specific to the course you teach is an excellent way to determine which learners know what so you can better plan instruction. Items included on a pretest can be:
For example, in one math class the teacher could use a sampling of 10 one-, two-, and three-step word problems to determine baseline or entering performance for individual students (Montague, Warger, & Morgan, 2000). Periodic sampling of these types of word problems during instruction enables teachers and students to determine their progress. Some teachers and students find it helpful to graph their growth, an activity that overlaps with mathematical concepts of graphing. Several types of pretests, inventories, or observations of performance can help teachers determine the information the students know coming into a course, as well as determine where students who require accommodations or adaptations may need review or reteaching of skills and knowledge in order to be successful in a course. Please refer to Handout #1 for examples. |
 |
It is beneficial for teachers to examine student work to determine if patterns of errors are occurring that have implications for instruction and feedback. Cawley, Parmar, Yan, and Miller (1998) studied the types of arithmetic computation errors that students with learning disabilities made in middle school grades. They found that students made more errors on complex items due to calculation mistakes, not due to algorithm mistakes. These findings suggest two implications: (a) if problem-solving algorithms are the focus of instruction, students who use the accommodation of a calculator can concentrate on applying the algorithm accurately; and (b) teachers who allow students to use calculators when the focus is on mathematics principles can spend more time focusing on the BIG IDEAS of partitioning, measurement, and ratio to facilitate problem solving. Vallecorsa and deBettencourt (1997) used a story map procedure to increase the reading and writing skills of middle school students with learning disabilities. To determine progress as instruction was occurring, they used a data collection form that enabled teachers to get both a total score and figure out specific areas where each learner was having problems. They itemized eight categories (e.g., main character, locale/setting/place, time frame) and a corresponding scoring criteria for each category (i.e., the student received a 0 or 1 or 2 for each category). Using the predetermined criteria enabled the teachers to provide specific and explicit feedback to the students, and also enabled the students to focus more on the areas where they were having problems. While the overall score was helpful for determining a numerical score, an error analysis was beneficial because individual students make errors in different categories. With such detailed feedback, the opportunities for students to self-evaluate their work prior to turning it in can also increase. Teachers who examine students’ work and tailor instruction to respond to errors (e.g., reteaching, providing more or varied examples) and progress can effect greater changes in the students’ achievement. To that end, some secondary special educators have used curriculum-based measurement to assist in making individualized instructional decisions. |
 |
Curriculum-based measurement is the process of taking some curriculum items and frequently assessing students on their performance on those items. The specific curriculum item sets assessed should be directly related and/or correlated to the curriculum competencies such that teachers can get an idea of how a student is performing during instruction. Students who are not performing to expectations need some teaching change. For example, Stecker and Fuchs (2000) found that teachers’ decisions related to one-minute timings of math facts influenced positively the students’ performance. Another example is with vocabulary and its correlation to content learning. Students who are proficient at acquiring and using new vocabulary can more fluidly and flexibly use and apply the vocabulary to content area tasks. Consequently, emphasizing fluency with vocabulary acquisition can minimize the effort placed on remembering terms and definitions and maximize applications using new vocabulary. Three types of curriculum-based measurement (oral reading, maze, and vocabulary measures) were studied to determine which were the strongest predictors of secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks (Espin & Foegen, 1996). Although all three measures were valid indicators of student performance, the vocabulary measure emerged as the most effective and efficient predictor of performance. Based on these findings, a formative assessment teachers could consider include: (a) preteaching vocabulary terms and definitions to familiarize students with them, (b) ensuring students know a strategy for using mnemonics to remember definitions of terms, and (c) using one-minute timings of select students in the class or all students in a class to monitor acquisition and fluency of vocabulary. Most secondary teachers find the time investment for using curriculum-based measures, such as one-minute timings, prohibitive. Several suggestions that may minimize the workload of teachers and maximize the investment of teachers include: (a) teaching students how to assess each other for CBM; (b) accessing volunteers, para-educators, or special educators to focus on specific students; or (c) selecting representative students from their class diversity to use CBM, and use those students’ data as indicators of how similar peers are performing. However, Allinder (1996) notes that collecting CBM data and not using it to make instructional decisions results in fewer academic gains for students. Consequently, teacher efforts to do such formative assessments as CBM is not time well spent if the data is not used to determine refinements or revisions for instruction. |
 |
Scoring rubrics are helpful for both teachers and students when the rubrics contain detailed information related to how a project will be evaluated. Involve students in self-evaluation with projects. Encourage students to tell why they selected specific work for a portfolio, and provoke responses that link clearly to the established scoring criteria or standard. This type of dialoguing with students can be an excellent opportunity to promote mediated scaffolding (one of the six curricular design elements described earlier in this module). Writing persuasive arguments is an outcome found not only in many state and local curriculum standards, but also across subject areas. Consequently, this outcome is an excellent one to approach from a multiple-subject, or integrated, perspective. Morocco, Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, and Clark-Chiarelli (2001) found that middle school students with learning disabilities who were taught in their general education settings how to use a "supported literacy" approach to writing persuasive arguments performed similarly to their peers in regular and honors classes. Techniques used within the supported literacy approach include engaging students in authentic and relevant questions related to the novels being read, providing instruction in processes used by good writers and readers, and using peer conversation circles as well as large group discussions led by students. Moreover, teachers taught and used a scoring rubric that explicitly described the criteria and content by which students’ persuasive writings would be scored (Morocco et al, 2001). When students with mild disabilities were taught using a combination of the approaches described above, they were able to verbally and in writing attain complex and higher-order skills that teachers may typically think them incapable of achieving. Schirmer and Bailey (2000) note that students with learning problems typically struggle with writing. Module readers can refer to their rubrics for some "universally-designed" writing rubrics. For examples of scoring rubrics, please refer to Morocco et al (2001) and Schirmer and Bailey (2000). |
 |
Many teachers use homework assignments as a portion of course grades for students (Munk & Bursuck, 2001). Interestingly, students with mild disabilities report mixed feelings about whether accommodations or adaptations in their homework assignments are desirable. For example, middle school students who were surveyed on their preferences for homework assignments preferred to (a) finish the assignments at school so they could receive teacher assistance if needed, (b) work in small groups to complete the assignment, and (c) earn extra credit for assignment completion (Nelson, Epstein, Bursuck, Jayanthi, & Sawyer, 1998). Less desired preferences were (a) giving fewer assignments to certain students, (b) giving different assignments to different students, or (c) requiring use of an assignment notebook. Students with and without learning disabilities responded in this study from their individual perspective to specific types of homework, which could account for findings that differ from those of other studies in which students responded to more general and generic questions about homework assignments. Teachers could consider querying students in their classes who require accommodations and adaptations to determine what their preferences are regarding homework. |
 |
Portfolio assessment is considered as a review of a body of student work that can either show formative progress (as in multiple drafts of a research paper) or summative progress (as in the finalized research paper) of student work. Generally speaking, the student work is contained within a folder, or portfolio, and portfolio content can be examined throughout a course to determine student progress. For students who require accommodations and adaptations, it may be that their portfolio is not necessarily containable within a portfolio or folder (such as a three-dimensional project, like a map showing topographic features). Similar variations in types of projects may also be completed by other students in the class. Cole, Struyk, Kinder, Sheehan, and Kish (1997) describe how portfolio assessments can be used by high school teachers to determine progress and grades for students with disabilities, English-language learners, and other learners in content classes. They suggest that teachers engage students in determining the rationale for portfolio use, talking about the criteria for the work placed within the portfolio, and self-evaluating projects according to set criteria. Prior to using portfolios, teachers should answer the following questions and determine if any of the responses change for students who require accommodations or adaptations:
|
 |
There is no consensus on how a student with mild disabilities who receives accommodations or adaptations should be graded for the report card. It is easier to determine the grade in the same way as it is determined for the rest or most of the students in the class if the scoring criteria for varied projects is the same. For example, the same scoring criteria is applied regardless of whether the project was an illustration, written report, or computer graphics product. It becomes a more controversial issue, however, when the scoring criteria are varied (such as for adaptations), and there is no one right answer to this. It does not seem fair to penalize a student with learning disabilities who made a 30% first grading period, then made a 60% second grading period (basically doubling his performance) but still receives a failing report card grade. Munk and Bursuck (2001) found that parents, general educators, special educators, and students perceived that the grading process was fairer and more effective when personalized grading plans were used. Using this approach, teachers, students, and parents met to develop the grading plan, and one of the first things they established was what their rationale was for determining that a more personalized grading plan was needed for the youngster. Next, they agreed on specific accommodations or adaptations, and linked those to curriculum and instruction. Roles and responsibilities for each team member were delineated, and each team member signed the plan to indicate agreement. (Some examples of the accommodations or adaptations of four students’ grading plans are shown in the Munk and Bursuck (2001, 1998) research articles.) One of the most common adaptations was altering the weight of some assignments or aspects of assignments for courses. A second common adaptation was changing the grading scale, so that if other students earned an A by making a 90% score, a specific student with a personalized grading plan could make an A by making an 80% score. Munk and Bursuck noted that, although the personalized grading plans were time-intensive, the team involved in developing and using them were satisfied, and there was an increased sense of responsibility among all involved. The authors caution, however, that no type of grading adaptation has been proven more effective than other adaptations. Munk and Bursuck do suggest that some time may be saved in the long run by linking personalized grading plans directly to the IEP. Some school districts do have official policies and procedures in place for grading students who receive accommodations and adaptations. Note that some students who receive accommodations may be receiving them within an instructional context that maintains the integrity and proficiency of the content for all learners in that context. Consequently, their grades are recorded the same as for all other learners. However, some students’ accommodations and adaptations may result in specialized or modified input or output processes or difficulty level. Teachers find it helpful if their school district provides explicit guidance on how to reflect this on report cards. Yet, most school districts decline to have an explicit policy on how to record such information on report cards. This omission is particularly troublesome for high school grades when students earn credits toward graduation. You are encouraged to investigate how your school system provides guidance in this area. It may be that official policies are published, but the policies may be vague or unclear about how to make decisions for report card grading and high school credits. Because teachers need to comply with how their school system operates, their best guidance for grading and high school credits must come from personnel within their school system. Consequently, readers are referred to those personnel for procedures that guide grades and high school credits toward graduation. Fairbanks School District in Alaska (1999) publishes policies on grading, with flexible and varied interpretation. Whether or not this district’s interpretation is significantly different from the standard curriculum means an accommodation, adaptation, or parallel curriculum choice as described in this module is an area teachers would need further defined by their individual school system. The Fairbanks policy for modified grades is as follows: Students with exceptional needs including students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Section 504 Plans, and emerging English language skills (i.e., ESL), may receive instruction utilizing grading accommodations and/or a modified curriculum. In order to identify circumstances where students are working on curricula or assignments which are significantly different from the standard curriculum, modified grades shall be assigned to report student performance. |
 |
In summary, Lesson 6 describes how students who require accommodations for instruction, assessments, and grading may be graded the same as the other students in the course (that is, same content and same criteria for proficiency) but with flexibility in how they receive and express their learning. Students who require adaptations may need each of the items described in Lesson 6 to be modified in a minor way to reflect that the content is the same as for other students but that the difficulty level has been changed. Teachers should keep in mind that such adaptations are also appropriate for students who do not have mild disabilities, but who receive adaptations so that their course challenges are individualized (for example, a more difficult level of the content for a student labeled gifted and talented). Report card grading methods and notations vary within school districts and states. Some school districts have official policies that provide some guidance for teachers. Such guidance may be open-ended in interpretation and application, or it may be explicit. For report card grading purposes, teachers should seek and follow the guidance provided in their school district. Finally, the extent to which teachers can explicitly convey course content, assignments, scoring criteria, and the way in which grades are determined is essential for students with mild disabilities who benefit from unambiguous guidance. Moreover, teachers who involve students in the responsibility and accountability for developing and scoring their assignments can build into their instruction an excellent way to share teaching and learning tasks with students. Such sharing is invaluable for students with mild disabilities who need to assume control of and responsibility for their learning. These skills will continue to benefit them in their future, whether as college students or employees. Thus, students with mild disabilities learn essential life and content skills in middle and high school grades that can benefit them in many ways in their future. Teachers who are responsive to their needs and yet promote their independence in figuring out what they need and how to get it are providing students with mild disabilities life-long tools that can be used way beyond secondary grades and graduation. |
   |
