Creating Literacy Instruction for All Students, Enhanced 9th Edition

Creating Literacy Instruction for All Students, Ninth Edition Chapter 3 Assessing for Learning Developed by: Thomas G. Gunning, Professor Emeritus Southern Connecticut State University Nature of Evaluation Value judgment Should result in action Starting point: Setting goals Standards movement The Common Core State Standards Key standard: Ability to read complex text Stating Objectives Students will understand _________. ( describe, explain, summarize, identify, list, label, recognize, state) Students will be able to ____________. (Add to frames a statement that tells how you will know students have attained the objective or are on track for attaining it.) Formative, Summative, and Interim Assessments Summative Assessment Summarizes students’ progress at the end of a unit or a semester or at some other point in time Formative Assessment Ongoing and is used to inform instruction Interim tests Combine features of formative & summative tests Using Summative and Interim Assessments Schools collect and analyze the summative & interim test data so that instructional decisions can be based on that data A high-stakes test is a summative assessment used to make important decisions Students who do poorly on interim tests are generally provided with added instruction Norm-Referenced Tests Compares students Not as useful to teachers Screening device Might show patterns of strengths & weaknesses Might not test reading strategies in ways that students use them Criterion-Referenced Tests Compares performance to standard Useful to teachers Criterion may be arbitrary Might not test reading strategies in ways that students use them Reporting Performance Norm-Referenced Raw score Percentile rank Grade equivalent score Normal curve equivalents Stanine Scaled scores Criterion-Referenced Benchmark, standard, criterion, rubric Judging Assessment Measures Reliability Validity Content Concurrent Predictive Construct Uses to which results will be put Measuring Growth vs. Threshhold Measuring Growth Comparing same students Measure gain rather than proportion reaching a benchmark Threshold Measures Percentage that reach a standard May not show improvement of students below threshold Functional Level Assessment Assess on ability rather than grade level Out-of-level tests Adaptive tests Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Scholastic Reading Inventory- Computer Version Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments i-Ready Adaptive Diagnostic Assessment Role of Assessing for Learning Clear explanation of standards or objectives and learning targets Curriculum map or learning progression Clear feedback Self-assessment Methods of Assessing for Learning Checking for understanding Rubrics Observation Anecdotal records Ratings, checklists, questionnaires, interviews Conferences Retelling Think-aloud protocols Mystery passages Self-evaluation Portfolios Performance assessment Placement Information Informal reading inventory (IRI) Running records Group inventories Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Scholastic Reading Inventory Word-list tests Inventory Levels {5C22544A-7EE6-4342-B048-85BDC9FD1C3A}Level Word Recognition in Context (%) Average Comprehension (%) Independent 99–100 90–100 Instructional 95–98 75–89 Frustration 90 or below 50 or below Listening capacity 75 Running Records Accuracy rate— number of words read correctly divided by number of words in selection Ratio of errors— number of errors divided by number of words in selection Self-correction rate— number of errors and self-corrections divided by self-corrections Screening, Benchmarks, and Progress-Monitoring Assessments Screening Measures Identify students at risk Assess key skills May be used to monitor progress Kinds of screening & monitoring measures Curriculum-based measures IRIs & running records Beginning reading, decoding and comprehension assessments Assessing English Language Learners Assess English proficiency each year Assess language Measure proficiency in English & native language literacy Create a literacy profile Assessing Materials Quantitative Measures of Text Difficulty, Qualitative Measures of Text Difficulty, and Professional Judgment Measures of Text Difficulty ATOS Lexile Scale Degrees of Reading Power Other readability formulas Leveling systems Easability Assessing Materials Quantitative Measures of Text Difficulty Qualitative Measures of Text Difficulty Reader-Task Factors Quantitative Measures of Text Difficulty Computerized ATOS Lexile Scale Degrees of Reading Power Reading Maturity Metric (RMM) TextEvaluator (Source Rater) Flesch-Kincaid Coh-Metrix Text Easability Assessor- measures coherence (contains Flesch-Kincaid) Hand-Calculated Formulas Fry Dale-Chall Leveling Systems Basic Used with beginning materials up through end of first grade Can be administered by teacher Fountas-Pinnell Used with materials up through grade 8 Difficult for teacher to administer Qualitative Factors Content Density of concepts Background knowledge required Interest Style Organization Text features Reader Factors Reader’s background knowledge Reader’s vocabulary Overall reading ability Reader’s interest Reader’s motivation Task Difficulty Purpose for reading Following directions Learning a new procedure Reading for pleasure Evaluating a text Learning a new concept Complexity of questions Locate & recall Integrate & interpret