|
| Services | Clients | Successes | Research Base | Pricing | About Us | Contact |  |
 |
|||
|
Research Base A Focus on Essential Standards Schmoker and Marzano (1999) cite case studies of schools and districts where student test scores rose markedly after teachers established common grade-level standards and assessments and then collaborated on strategies to help all students achieve the high expectations. The chief problem is that there is simply too much to teach — U.S. mathematics textbooks cover 175 percent more topics than do German textbooks and 350 percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks; U.S. science textbooks cover 930 percent more topics than do German textbooks and 433 percent more topics than do Japanese textbooks. The authors warn educators to set limits or priorities according to what can be taught and assessed reasonably and effectively. Robert Marzano and McREL are well known for leadership in the standards-based education movement, sample standards and development process (Marzano & Kendall, 1996), and work with states and districts across the nation. In an interview with Scherer (2001), Marzano said there are two conditions that must be met for standards to positively impact student learning. The first step is to dramatically reduce the number of standards and content within standards, perhaps by as much as two-thirds in many states, and concentrate on what is absolutely essential. Second, local testing systems must go beyond the state systems to produce waves of timely information about student progress on the essential standards at least once per grading period. The Effects of Formative Assessment Formative assessment can be informal "checking for understanding" (e.g., students signaling answers with hand gestures) or formal (e.g., quiz). Formative assessment is done during teaching and learning to adapt teaching to meet student needs. Bloom (1984) reported on several experiments where all conditions in real classrooms were held constant except for the way in which formative assessments were used in the classrooms. The difference studies compared a "Conventional Learning" (control) group taught planned lessons with formative tests used for grading only to a "Mastery Learning" (treatment) group where formative tests were used for student feedback and to adjust lessons to fit students' learning needs. The same teachers (for the most part) taught the same subject content in regular classrooms of 30 students in both control and treatment conditions. Students were randomly assigned to control and treatment groups. The average student in the Mastery Learning group outperformed 84% of the students in the Conventional Learning group - an Effect Size of 1.0 (.25 is considered educationally meaningful). The Conventional Learning group had the traditional bell-shaped distribution of achievement (test scores), whereas the Mastery Learning group had a narrower distribution. Seventy percent of the Mastery Learning group outperformed the top 20 percent of the Conventional Learning group. The most widely known study of the effects of formative assessment on student learning is Black and Wiliam's (1998) meta-analysis of 580 articles (experiments, surveys, case studies, expert knowledge) and book chapters. They concluded that formative assessment can have a meaningful impact on student achievement when teachers use the results modify lessons to meet different students' learning needs - Effect Sizes ranged from .4 to .7. Using formative assessments for student feedback and tailoring lesson delivery helps low achievers more than other students and so can decrease achievement gaps while moving the whole group's mean higher. The meta-analysis indicated that to be effective, three conditions must be met. First, teachers must use the results frequently to differentiate instruction to meet students' diverse needs in the classroom. Second, students, in turn, must use the feedback themselves to determine their learning needs and have the opportunity to try again. Third, the assessments must go beyond measurement of rote and superficial learning to deep understanding of complex ideas. Shepard (2000) summarized research studies and experts' knowledge and stated that formative assessment must be frequent and embedded in the instructional process as a diagnostic tool for teachers to pinpoint what certain students need to learn. Also, formative assessments must help students to know the criteria for expected performance and their progress toward that expectation. Boston (2002) cited several experimental and other research studies to conclude that students need specific feedback about errors and suggestions for improvement as part of the learning process. This feedback and the chance for retesting encourage students to focus on the learning task, not just right answers, and build confidence that, with enough effort and opportunity, all students can succeed. (Boston's article also lists resources about formative assessment for teachers.) References Black, P., Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-149. Bloom, B. Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. (1984). Educational Leadership, 41(8), 7-14 Marzano, R.J., & Kendall, J.S. (1996). A Comprehensive Guide to Designing Standards-Based Districts, Schools, and Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Shepard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4-14. Scherer, M. (2001). How and why standards can improve student achievement. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 14-19. Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33. |
|
|
| Services | Clients | Successes | Research Base | Pricing | About Us | Contact |  |
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | This site and its contents copyright WestEd 1995-2012. |