DerrickCameronVitae

Position: Sessional Lecturer

Derrick Cameron1010 Vaughan Street - Moose Jaw, SK - Canada - S6H 5P2 - 306/691-0438 - [email protected]

Research interests and areas of expertise include: Common Formative Assessments Assessment FOR Learning DATA Teams Professional Learning Communities Identifying Power Standards Qualitative Research School Reform K – 12 Leadership

Education

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Anticipated Completion November 2015Graduate Division of Educational Research, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Specialization: Assessment and Evaluation Practices; Professional Learning Communities; Curriculum Design; Educational Leadership; Standards Based Grading

Master of Education (M.Ed.) November 2007Graduate Division of Educational Research, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Specialization: Assessment and Evaluation Practices; Professional Learning Communities; Curriculum Design; Educational Leadership; Standards Based Grading

Bachelor of Education (After Degree) May 1998Faculty of Education, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada

Specialization: High School Social Studies and Physics

Bachelor of General Studies (B.G.S.) May 1996Faculty of Arts and Science, Brandon University, Brandon, Canada

Specialization: Major – Canadian History; Minor – Science

Professional Experience

The Leadership and Learning Center July 2011 – November 2014

Professional Development AssociateCertifications

Common Formative Assessments Decision Making For Results/Data Teams Rigorous Curriculum Design (in the process) Engaging Classroom Assessments (in the process)

mailto:[email protected]


Power Strategies for Effective Teaching (in the process)

Accomplishments Asked to Peer Review Engaging in Formative Assessment Process created by

Tracey Shiel and Connie Kamm. Chapter published in Kristin Anderson’s Real Time Decisions: Educators Using

Formative Assessment To Change Lives NOW!

Asked to Peer Review Putting It All Together - A Systems Approach to

Implementing 21st Century Practices to be Successful in the Common Core

State Standards Era created by Dave Horton. Keynote presentation for Oklahoma Council of Teachers of English (OCTE)

o Title of Keynote: Common Core State Standards: Leveling the playing field for ALL students

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Prairie South School Division Sept. 2013 – Present

Curriculum CoordinatorAccomplishments

Involved in facilitating the creation of a new Critical Learning Progress Report for the K – 2 French Immersion Teachers

Involved in facilitating the creation of a new Outcomes Based Progress Report for the K – 8 Teacher of Prairie South School Division

Involved in the creation of a number of Locally Developed Courseso Currently working on an EAL course for high school new comers that

examines critical elements of Saskatchewan and being a Canadian citizen Spear headed bringing Visible Learning Plus, Foundation Day to Moose Jaw, SK

Mountain View School Division Sept. 2010 – April 2013

Principal Goose Lake High School

Accomplishments Spear headed an early dismissal initiative to occur in Roblin, Manitoba. This will

see the two schools in Roblin early dismiss once a month at lunchtime to implement identifying Priority Standards, creating Common Formative Assessments and begin the Data Teams process. Roblin is the only community in Mountain View School Division that will have early dismissal and is operating under a three-year pilot project window.

School Matters Grant – Goose Lake High School was given a two year $36000 grant from Manitoba Education to continue to improve their instructional practices. The work that GLH is doing centers largely on the finding of the 90/90/90 research. Goose Lake High School was only one of twelve schools in the province of Manitoba to receive this grant.


Living Sky School Division No. 202 Sept. 2002 – June 2010(Formerly) LandsWest School Division No. 123 – North Battleford, SK

Principal Macklin School

After three years in the profession, I applied to LandsWest School Division in hopes of landing my first administrative position. At the time I was hired, it was made clear to the individuals involved in the hiring process that my ultimate goal was to end up in Central Office. I came into the position with limited experience and found my first year to be an extreme learning curve. I always welcome new challenges and anxiously await a principal position or even a senior administration position.

I was the principal of Macklin school and dealt with a large portion of the discipline issues. I take the approach implemented in our school division, which encourages Positive Reinforcement. However, when discipline problems do arise I am of the firm belief that consequences must be enforced. The underlying goal though is to educate the students so that the likelihood of the problem arising again is reduced. I worked very closely with the Assistant Director and Superintendents of Instruction and Curriculum and have had an instrumental role in making changes to long outdated school policies.

My teaching assignment in Macklin consisted solely of the Grade 12 Canadian Studies course. I chose to deliver the History 30 curriculum because I feel very passionately about everyone having a basic understanding about our Countries great history. This can be illustrated through the numerous creative assignments and risks I encourage my students to take.

Conference Presentations

Professional Learning Communities: Improving Student Learning through Best Practices.National Congress on Rural Education Canada March 2015Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Professional Learning Communities have come under scrutiny because they have failed to produce large scale results like educators have observed and witnessed from the work of the DuFours. However, what is often lacking is a connection of the four PLC questions to best practice and as a result educators often see practices as separate entities. Learn how the four PLC questions are directly answered by best practices and how the Data Teams process brings a rigid and formal structure to the PLC culture. Educators will walk away understanding how to address the four PLC questions with best practices and how Data Teams provides educators a framework to work within.

Assessment for Learning: Overcoming the Challenges


National Congress on Rural Education in Canada March 2014Saskatoon, SK, Canada

A number of researchers (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1984; Crooks, 1988; Hattie, 2009; Wiliam, et.al., 2004) provide a clear and incontrovertible message: that initiatives designed to enhance the effectiveness of the way assessment is used in the classroom (formative assessment) to promote learning can enhance student learning and raise achievement. While the weight of research evidence continues to accumulate indicating the significant role of assessment for learning plays in improving student learning and improvement it remains remarkably absent from many teachers’ practice. Assessment for learning is rooted in a particular view of teaching and learning. This presentation will examine three challenges, Lack of Knowledge, “Initiative” Fatigue and Shift in Thinking, and how rural schools can overcome these to implement formative assessment to its fullest potential.

Common Core State Standards: Leveling the Playing Field for ALL StudentsOklahoma Council of Teachers of English October 2012Oklahoma City, OK

Educators across the globe are at a crossroads in their profession as they try to juggle the demands of public accountability with implementing “best practices” to best meet the needs of ALL their students. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is an attempt by the Federal Government to mesh public accountability with “best practices”. As students across the U.S. are now privy to identical standards, the challenge educators face is making this common core come to life for the young people in their classrooms. The research is abundantly clear, students need to be active participants in their own learning and the assessments they are involved in must be authentic and real world applicable. American educators will be required to implement the common core knowing the first high stakes test will come in 2014. To prepare students for these high stakes tests and more importantly the “real” world, it is imperative that we begin to adjust our classroom assessment practices to ensure they are authentic while providing students with learning opportunities that are relevant to them.

Failure is NOT an Option: Effective Assessment for Effective LearningSpecial Area Groups of Educators (S.A.G.E.) 2011 – 2012 School YearManitoba Teachers Society

This session is for any staff wishing to improve their assessment practices, and it will focus on three kinds of assessment:

Diagnostic Assessment, which take place at the beginning of a teaching unit and provide information to the teacher that can guide lesson planning, including differentiated instruction.


Formative Assessments, which take, place throughout a teaching unit and provide continuous feedback to students about their progress and to teachers about the efficacy of their lesson plans and instruction.

Summative Assessments, which occur at the conclusion of a teaching unit. It provides a formal graded appraisal of a student’s success in mastering skills and content.

Common Formative Assessments 2010 – 2011 School YearMountain View School Division

Educators from across Mountain View School Division attended a two – day workshop on Common Formative Assessments. I have been certified by the Leadership and Learning Center, Englewood, CO, to deliver this workshop. This two-day seminar is

based on the book Common Formative Assessments: How to Connect Standards-based Instruction and Assessment by Larry Ainsworth and Donald Viegut (Corwin Press, 2006).

Participants learn about:

Regular and timely feedback regarding student attainment of the most critical standards in order to better meet diverse learning needs of all students

Multiple-measure assessments that allow students to demonstrate their understanding in a variety of formats

Ongoing collaboration opportunities for grade-level, course, and department teachers

Consistent expectations within a grade level, course, and department regarding standards, instruction, and assessment priorities

Agreed-upon criteria for proficiency to be met within each individual classroom, grade level, school, and district

Deliberate alignment of classroom, school, district, and state assessments to better prepare students for success on state assessments

As a result of attending this seminar, participants will be able to:

Connect best practices in education Use formative and summative assessments in the classroom

Align common formative assessment to standards Connect “unwrapped” standards to common formative assessments

Apply understandings of assessment literacy Develop and refine common formative assessments Implement a school-wide or

district-wide common formative assessments implementation action plan (www.leadandlearn.com)

Assessment FOR Learning October 21, 2009Community of Macklin

http://www.leadandlearn.com/


Community members attended an evening where the school outlined their journey to implementing Assessment For Learning. This presentation was intended to clarify what Assessment FOR Learning is and what it would look like. Community members and parents have been actively involved in our schools journey to “Raise the Bar and Close the Achievement Gap”.

Building a Community of Learners March 29 – 31, 2009National Congress on Rural Education TCU Place, Saskatoon SK

Recently educators have been faced with an increasing demand to shift their pedagogy from teaching to ensuring student learning. While these appear as only terms, they do require teachers to examine traditional methodologies and practices. The biggest challenge educators are faced with in implementing a culture of high levels of learning for all students, or a Professional Learning Community, is the fact that it is imperative they work in collaborative teams. Macklin School, a K – 12 School in Macklin, Saskatchewan, has recently begun this journey to implementing a Professional Learning Culture. This presentation will examine the challenges that the staff of Macklin School faced as they worked towards becoming a Community of Learners and how many of those challenges have been used to move along the journey of becoming a Professional Learning Community.

Community of Macklin Update January 2009Macklin, SK

Community members attended an evening where we outlined what was happening in Macklin School on our PLC early dismissal days. Macklin School is the only school in the entire division that dismisses every Wednesday at 2:00 for collaboration. During this time we utilize the work of Larry Ainsworth to “unwrap” standards to determine the essential skills our students need to be successful.

Proposal to Change School Day April 2008Macklin, SK

The purpose of this presentation was to get feedback from the community with regards to the possibility of changing the school day. The presentation centered on Professional Learning Communities and the expectation that the staff would move away from teaching towards student learning.

Additional Training/Experience

Certification Training: Decision Making for Results/Data TeamsThe Leadership and Learning Center June 5 – 7, 2012St. Louis, MO


Seminar Training: Power Strategies for Effective TeachingThe Leadership and Learning Center May 8 – 9, 2012New York, NY

Certification Training: Rigorous Curriculum DesignThe Leadership and Learning Center March 27 – 29, 2012Denver, CO

Certification Training: Common Formative AssessmentsThe Leadership and Learning Center April 7 – 9, 2010Chicago, IL

Building Blocks for Change Conference December 10-11, 2009The Leadership and Learning CenterToronto, ON

Change Wars: Leadership Summit November 15-18, 2009Solution Tree Vancouver, British Columbia

Learning by Doing October 15-18, 2008Bringing Professional Learning Communities to Life in Our Schools and DistrictsSolution TreeVictoria, British Columbia

Ahead of the Curve: Improving Learning Results September 17-19, 2008Solution Tree Regina, Saskatchewan

Pyramid of Interventions November 5-6, 2007Solution TreeSeattle, Washington

Lee Jenkins Workshop October 2007North Battleford, Saskatchewan

Safe Schools Conference March 14–16, 2007Regina, Saskatchewan

Assessment for Learning Institute featuring October 11-13, 2006Richard StigginsSaskatoon, Saskatchewan

Strategies for the Most Effective and Collaborative School LeadersBanff National Leadership ConferenceBanff, Alberta Feb. 22-24, 2006


Developing an Effective School Team March 2005Saskatchewan Professional Development Unit

Creating a Supportive School Climate December 2003Saskatchewan Professional Development Unit

Understanding Your Identity as a New Principal October 2003Saskatchewan Professional Development Unit

Effective Behavior Supports April 2003Alberta Teachers Society

The School Based Administrator: Working with PeopleModule 1Saskatchewan School Based Administrators February – March 2001

Is the Principalship for You? November 2000Saskatchewan Teachers Federation

Creating a Friendly Work Environment May 1999Andy Hargreaves Inservice

Prevention and handling violence in schools November 1997Minnedosa School In-service

Additional Accomplishments

Summer 2009 and 2010 – Belize ProjectI spent two weeks in Belize for two years to work with teachers and administrators. Our primary goal was rewriting curriculums and introducing the educators to the Professional Learning Community culture.

2007/2008 –Anti-Bullying Youth WorkshopI was responsible for organizing a youth workshop that addressed the issue of bullying in schools and the impact that it can have on individuals. We brought in speakers from all over Western Canada to fill the students in. This workshop would only be a success with the newly formed Students Standing Strong group. This is a group that I started in our school to educate and stand up for the victims in our school.

2006 – Youth Links Historica ConferenceMacklin school was chosen to represent the province of Saskatchewan at the Youth Links Conference in Kingston, Ontario. We were chosen based on the


work we were doing in class as well as postings students were making on Youth Links itself.

2004 – Historica Summer InstituteI was chosen to attend the Historica Summer Institute in Montreal Quebec. This conference is held annually and only thirty teachers are chosen from the entire country.

2004 – Present Macklin World Bunnock CommitteeI was a member of the Macklin Bunnock Committee. I worked at bringing the band Trooper to our community as a fundraiser for the Bunnock Tournament.

References

Douglas B. Reeves, [email protected] Leadership SolutionsBoston, MassachusettsUSA1.781.710.9633

Sharon Friesen, [email protected] Dean, Professor, President, Galileo Educational NetworkWerklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, AB1.403.220.6794

Mr. Tom [email protected] ConsultantSolution Tree, Corwin, The Leadership and Learning Center1.604.886.7866

Running head: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A LEARNING COMMUNITY


The effectiveness of a learning community in bringing about changesto instructional practices in the area of assessment for learning

Derrick J. CameronIDN: 262244

University of Calgary

Table of Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 15

Conceptual Framework............................................................................................................................18

Professional Learning Communities and School Reform.......................................................26


Key Components of the PLC Reform............................................................................................32

Professional Learning Communities and Assessment FOR Learning................................33

Methodology................................................................................................................................................ 40

Research Questions.............................................................................................................................. 42

Participants.............................................................................................................................................. 42

Selection Procedures............................................................................................................................43

Methods.................................................................................................................................................... 44

Participant Observation..................................................................................................................45

In – depth Interview.........................................................................................................................45

Physical Artifacts............................................................................................................................. 48

Analyses................................................................................................................................................... 49

Relying on theoretical propositions...........................................................................................49

Explanation building....................................................................................................................... 50

Limitations and delimitations............................................................................................................50

The limitations of this study include:........................................................................................51

Delimitations of this study include:...........................................................................................51

Significance of the Study.........................................................................................................................52

Ethical Considerations..............................................................................................................................53

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................... 56

References.................................................................................................................................................... 57


Introduction

It is fashionable to be fairly critical of the current public education system. Much

of this criticism is leveled at our current twentieth – century factory model of schooling

whose structures, policies and practices no longer seem to equip students to live and learn

well in a twenty first century world. Mike Mattos (2009), speaking about the U.S., stated

“never in our nation’s history have the demands on our educational system been greater

or the consequences of failure as severe. Beyond the high-stakes school accountability

requirements by state and federal laws, the difference between the success and failure in

school is quite literally, life and death of our students”. The days of graduating only

those that are able to jump through the hoops of public education are gone and now the

public system and its educators need to adjust the current system to provide all young

people with a high quality education and this means that “one size does not fit all”.

Sarason (1996) stated “our decade – long effort to reform U.S. education has failed. It

has failed because it has not let go of an educational vision that is neither workable nor

appropriate to today’s needs” (p. 358).

As educators within schools are called upon to respond to the diverse needs of the

students in their classrooms, the public education system is called upon to create a

different, more flexible structure that is better able to respond to the increasing diversity.

Teachers are being asked to work together to find ways to improve their practices and to

create new practices to better serve the diverse needs of their students. One of the new

structures being used to support and sustain teacher’s working together is Professional

Learning Communities (PLCs).


The literature outlines the impact that PLCs, implemented properly, can have on

student learning. Hargreaves (2007) argued “professional learning communities created

structures, cultures and leadership that promoted rich conversations and stimulating,

challenging, rewarding professional relationships among teachers, throughout the work

and life of the school, about how best to improve the learning, lives and achievement of

students” (p. 182). Professional Learning Communities were meant to provide a structure

for educators to reflect on their practices to better meet the needs of ALL students. Some

school and school division staff have attempted to implement PLC’s but struggle to

replicate the results of some infamous schools like Adlai E. Stevenson High School and

Boones Mill Elementary School. As a result, many school staffs, meet in collaborative

groups and feel that they have began the journey of embracing the PLC culture; but upon

closer examination many of these PLCs have adopted the structures but have not come

together in genuine, collaborative inquiry around a topic of learning and achievement on

behalf of their students.

PLC’s are being scrutinized by school and school division leaders because

merely conducting meetings in grade alike groups are not producing the anticipated

results. As Hargreaves (2007) argued “in recent years, as the idea and implementation of

PLCs has spread, the result (as is common in many cases where innovations are scaled –

up) is that their original meaning is becoming diminished and their richness is being lost”

(p. 183). Because PLCs have lost their meaning and are not providing the results

educators are looking for, schools and school divisions have to seriously re – examine

how they implement this relatively new reform initiative while tying in new initiatives.


Guskey (2007) has argued “large – scale assessment programs provide the

foundation for nearly every modern education reform initiative…Students take these

assessments at the end of the school year, when most instructional activities are near

completion. Teachers do not receive the results until many months later, and by that time

their students have usually moved on to other classrooms with different teachers” (p. 15).

The purpose of a PLC is to provide educators with a framework to improve student

learning. However, this is often made difficult as many teachers are faced with the large

- scale assessments that Guskey has referred too. In The 7 Habits of Highly Effective

People, Stephen Covey (1989) explained the benefits of putting first things first: to allow

us to focus on the important outcome and then devise the steps necessary to get there.

Assessment for learning, an aspect of formative assessment, distinct from large-

scale summative assessment programs, provides teachers with a mechanism to address

the large – scale assessments. Assessment for learning allows teachers to maintain a

focus and make the necessary incremental changes to day-to-day teaching and learning

rather than waiting for end-of-year results. Rick Stiggins (2007) argued “while

classroom assessment certainly can and should serve accountability purposes by

providing evidence for report – card grading, we can and should take advantage of the

process to help us accomplish far more than that: It can serve to promote student success”

(p. 69). The study I will undertake seeks this re – examination through a specific focus on

the ways in which PLCs serve to support and sustain teachers as they implement

assessment for learning.


Conceptual Framework

Educational reform has been a common concept facing educators as they attempt

to modify or change their classroom practices to meet the ever increasing demands of

accountability measures introduced by state or provincial education departments.

Veteran staff members can often be overheard claiming that this is simply another swing

in the pendulum and all new initiatives will soon pass like all other failed attempts at

educational reform. However, there is increasing support around PLCs arguing that this

is one of the most promising reform movements in education (Stoll & Louis, 2008).

Peter Senge (1990), well known for his work with learning organizations in the business

world, argued “the most successful corporation of the future will be a learning

organization” (p. 4). Although Senge (1990) works largely with the corporate world, his

work The Fifth Discipline clearly speaks to the complex nature of all organizations and

reinforces the central idea that schools must embrace the PLC culture as they move

forward in the 21st Century.

Education, like the organizations that Senge works with, is a complex

organization and the reform that the PLC culture can ultimately bring to education

acknowledges that complexity. Mitchell and Sackney (2007) stated

Nineteenth – century teachers dropped into a twenty – first – century classroom

would probably recognize the room as a classroom and the building as a school.

English teachers dropped into a Canadian classroom would probably experience

the same sense of familiarity. In other words, schools tend to be similar across

time and place, as do the experiences of students and teachers who work with

them. The persistence is not necessarily a problem, but it raises the question of


the extent to which institutions established in a nineteenth – century context

continue to deal appropriately with the mysteries, challenges, and interests of

twenty – first – century learners. (p. 30)

The needs of students in classrooms across Canada, and the world for that matter have

changed significantly since the mid 1900’s. Yet, it is not uncommon to visit a classroom

where you would witness educators working in isolation and utilizing practices that

would have been common for a period in the mid 1900’s. The PLC culture, while it has

evolved significantly since the term was first introduced, provides schools and educators

with a structure that enables groups of teachers to work together to plan, to share, to build

knowledge and to critically interrogate their practice in an ongoing, reflective,

collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting ways (Mitchell & Sackney,

2000; Toole & Louis, 2002). Working and learning within a PLC structure teachers can

develop contemporary research-informed practices that are more likely to educate

students for the twenty – first – century.

Sawyer (2006) argued that education and teaching practices for a knowledge

society must move away from simple regurgitation of facts and giving grades and credits

based on “the prescribed number of seat hours” and move to a deeper learning or

understanding. Andy Hargreaves (2003) argued teachers who are catalysts of the

knowledge society must build a new professionalism where they:

Promote deep cognitive learning;

Learn to teach in ways they were not taught;

Commit to continuous professional learning;

Work and learn in collegial teams;


Treat parents as partners in learning;

Develop and draw on collective intelligence;

Build a capacity for change and risk; and

Foster trust in processes. (p. 24)

Whether educators embrace a professional learning community, community of learners or

a learning organization, one thing is for certain; the school system needs reform to

prepare students for a very competitive work force.

This attempt at making significant changes to the current education system is

often made more difficult because there is no generally agreed upon definition for PLC’s

(Stoll et al., 2006; Williams, Brien, Sprague, & Sullivan, 2008) as a result many

educators feel they have become a PLC because they “collaborate” from time to time.

The following definitions offer insight to how PLC’s have been viewed over the years:

An ongoing process through which teachers and administrators work collaboratively

to seek and share learning and to act on their learning, their goal being to enhance

their effectiveness as professionals for students’ benefit (Hord, 1997)

A school culture that recognizes and capitalizes on the collective strengths and talents

of the staff (Protheroe, 2008).

A strategy to increase student achievement by creating a collaborative school culture

focused on learning (Feger & Arruda, 2008).


A group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing,

reflective, collaborative, inclusive learning-oriented and growth-promoting way

(McREL, 2003).

Educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective

inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve

(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).

An inclusive group of people, motivated by a shared learning vision, who support and

work with each other to inquire on their practice and together learn new and better

approaches to enhance student learning (Stoll et al., 2003).

The various definitions provided illustrate some key commonalities. Professional

Learning Communities typically involve a group of educators working collaboratively to

improve student learning. Another commonality, although not directly stated, is a

commitment by educators to grow as professionals in a similar fashion as students grow

as students.

What makes a PLC difficult to define is that it is not a prescription, a new program, a

model, or an innovation to be implemented. Rather, a PLC is an infrastructure or a way of

working together that results in continuous school improvement (Hord, 1997).

Reichstetter (2006), after completing an exhaustive examination of the literature related

to PLC’s, concluded a professional learning community is made up of team members

who regularly collaborate toward continued improvement in meeting learner needs

through a shared curricular-focused vision. Facilitating this effort are:

supportive leadership and structural conditions,


collective challenging, questioning, and reflecting on team-designed lessons and

instructional practices/experiences, and

team decisions on essential learning outcomes and intervention/enrichment

activities based on results of common formative student assessments. (¶ 1)

Although Reichstetter (2006) captured a more accurate depiction of the complexity of

PLCs the one element that is overlooked or downplayed is the importance that

assessment for learning plays in providing educators with “real time” data or feedback to

adjust instructional practices to ensure continuous school improvement. Hord (1997)

drew the following conclusion, “PLCs are an infrastructure or a way of working together

that results in continuous school improvement”.

The trouble with the implementation of PLCs, to date, appears to involve the lack

of school and school division leadership to utilize the PLC culture for continuous school

improvement. Because of recent accountability mechanisms of the 1990’s, PLCs have

moved from a structure that holds the possibility to provide the deep restructuring and

sustained innovation to more of what Hargreaves (2003) terms a “performance training

sect”. Hargreaves (2003) further states performance – training sects possess the

“essential totalitarianism” of all sects, which

consists in the reorganization and reorientation of the ideals, values and

sentiments of its members: the dictation of just what are accepted as “facts”, and

the insistence on an ethic divergent from the wider society [or, in this case,

profession]….The sect seeks the total organization of the lives of its members, at

least in the intellectual sphere. (p. 183)


Performance - training sects allow little to no flexibility for educators to interpret new

initiatives. Hargreaves (2003) claimed that an educator’s role in a performance – training

sect “is to follow, not question” (p.183). The differences between professional learning

communities and performance – training sects can be summarized as follows:

Professional learning communities transform knowledge and learning among

community members. Performance – training sects transfer unquestionable

canons of research knowledge and instructional beliefs that are defined by

administrative and research authorities.

Professional learning communities promote shared inquiry. Performance –

training sects pursue imposed requirements.

Professional learning communities use evidence and data to inform the

improvement of practice. Performance – training sects employ achievement

results as the sole arbiter of approved practice.

Professional learning communities encourage teachers to devise local

improvement in a context of unpredictability and uncertainty. Performance –

training sects require teachers to implement standardized scripts of change in an

authoritarian system of false certainty.

Professional learning communities get groups to engage in continuous learning

about their teaching. Performance – training sects promote groupthink and

loyalty to external prescriptions through intensive training. (Hargreaves, 2003, pp.

184 – 85).

Hargreaves (2003) identified key concepts of a PLC. He also identified why, to date,

there has not been wide spread acceptance of this reform movement. Arguing that


accountability measures imposed on school and district educators has led many educators

to embrace and argue for the acceptance of performance – training sect as a way to have

the greatest impact of student achievement in the least amount of time. Seeking quick,

prescriptive solutions to complex matters, what many educators frequently overlook is

the complexity of educational changes leading to less than successful attempts at reform.

Using the conceptual underpinnings of the PLC culture, articulated by Hargreaves

(2003) and Reichstetter (2006), a school staff should be successful in enacting a

significant reform such as assessment for learning. Drawing upon key features of the

purpose of PLCs, improving student learning, the PLC culture would need to address four

essential questions:

1. What do we want each student to learn?

2. How will we know when each student has learned it?

3. How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

4. What do we do when a student already knows the content? (DuFour, 2004)

The expectation that all students can learn at high levels, appears to be straightforward.

However, creating practices to clearly identify what students need to learn, engaging

students in the assessment process and providing timely and systematic interventions for

those students that struggle and those that need enrichment appears to be a significant

hurdle. A number of factors complicate the matter. One of these is the number of new

initiatives that administrators in schools and school districts undertake in any given year.

While the talks of best practices continue to monopolize education discussions, they do

so on a fragmented front, each initiative disconnected from the next. A key missing

element is the ability to connect of all these seemingly disparate “pieces”. Within such a


milieu of disconnected initiatives, PLC’s frequently become just another one of the many

initiatives. What is often over looked is that the PLC culture is a structure that requires

educators come together in dialogue around evidence making research informed

decisions that ultimately impact classroom practices.

DuFour and Eaker (1989) state “best – selling books, guides and training

programs not only raise awareness of the importance and impact of PLC’s, but provide

practitioners with concrete advice about how to create and sustain them”. This statement

is quite misleading for educators as embracing the PLC culture is anything but

prescriptive where schools and school divisions simply buy a “how to” manual and

proceed step by step to becoming a PLC. The statement by DuFour and Eaker downplays

the complexity of organizations and can leave educators less than inspired or stimulated

for trying to develop schools as learning communities (Hargreaves, p.183). Louis and

Kruse (1995) had these reflections on creating PLCs

the focus was not just raising test scores, but on increasing teacher’s ability to

think about how their collective work affected student learning. Because of the

deep uncertainties involved in ‘trusting the spiral’ and waiting for results over a

period of years, it was important for all involved to believe they were making real

changes for real students. (pp. 115 – 116)

Educators hear on a regular basis that there is not “one size fits all” for education. Our

students come with varying degrees of knowledge and skills and as a result require

numerous ways of instruction to make sense of what is being presented to them.

Educators acknowledge that students are complex beings and they never really have a full

grasp of what they are all about. As schools and school divisions move forward with the


most recent reform initiatives, it must be made clear to those involved that this journey is

one that is extremely complex and one that may involve more setbacks than gains in the

initial stages.

Professional Learning Communities can be a powerful mechanism that has a

tremendous impact on student learning. This research will then, be a study of the PLC

structure and how that structure supports improving instructional practice through the use

of Assessment FOR Learning. Assessment FOR Learning addresses a key question

related to the PLC structure. The PLC framework provides the structure for educators to

have difficult discussions around how assessment can be utilized to improve instructional

practices.

Review of the Literature

Professional Learning Communities and School Reform

“Effective school wide change and enhanced student learning require a structure

or process for greater collaboration among teachers . . . Faculties must be given a change

and process framework that is flexible enough to give them the latitude necessary to

transform the research into practice” (Murphy & Lick, 1998). Education has succumbed

to numerous attempts at improving the organization that many argue has very deep flaws.

It can be helpful for educators to look to their business counterparts to learn how to get to

the center of the real issues. Burke (2008) referred to the process that British Airways

went through in the 1980’s as they were faced with major organizational change (pp.71-

77). British Airways acknowledged that there were flaws in their organization and set

out to make changes to their deep structure by clearly defining their purpose or what they


were all about1. What complicates the reform attempts in education centers largely on

defining or determining what the real problem is within the deep structure. Is it a single

problem that plagues education or is the problem multi-faceted requiring a multi-pronged

solution? More importantly what are we really all about?

Darling-Hammond (1993) stated “the shift in our approach to school reform

began during what has come to be known as the second wave of reform in the 1980’s,

which emphasized the need to improve education by decentralizing and professionalizing

teaching, by investing in the knowledge and skills of educators rather than in

prescriptions for uniform practice” (p. 754). Brandt (1995) argued that education needed

to be restructured so it allowed “teachers to have the opportunity to pursue change

through reflective dialogue rather than simply following mandated change” (p. 70). This

message is consistent with what educational experts are arguing in the 21st century.

Education needs to be restructured in a fashion where students become active participants

in their own education and are given the skills necessary to contribute to the larger global

economy. Because today’s students need skills that are much different than the students

of the 1980’s or 1990’s, criticisms of current education reformers, schools and teachers

must ensure that all students learn to think critically, to invent, to produce, and to solve

problems (Darling-Hammond, 1993, p. 754). Given the amount of information that

students have at their finger tips, teachers need to focus less on lower level thinking

skills, including memorization and recall, and more on guiding students in actively

constructing their knowledge.

1 To learn more about the deep structural changes in British Airways, see Burke,W. (2008). Organization Change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.


School reform has not been as successful as many would like because of two

competing views. Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) argued the lessons of almost four

decades of educational change show us what we should abandon as much as what we

should retain (p.86). Hargreaves and Shirley (2009) further stated “as long as schools

have existed, exceptional instances under charismatic leaders have always stood out from

the crowd. But the achievements of these schools typically fade over time” (pp. 87 – 88).

These distractions make education short-sighted and superficial, preventing deeper

transformations in the quality of teaching and learning that can produce higher-order

thinking skills and develop deeper virtues and values.

The first view evolved from the accountability movement in the 1990’s, where

political members began to dictate very prescriptive curricula, schedules and policies in

an attempt to improve student achievement. This very prescriptive approach, that many

governments and school divisions have embraced, aligns with what Hargreaves (2003)

defines as performance – training sects (p.176). The fact that political institutions are so

rigid with education, illustrates a lack of trust in those that are educating the young

people of our nations. Given the accountability movement and increased pressure to

increase student scores, one can see why performance – training sects could be argued as

being very beneficial.

According to Hargreaves (2003), “this strongly supported, closely aligned, and

intensively applied strategy has already yielded important benefits for students and their

teachers” (p. 177). However, this model has succumbed to pitfalls that many other failed

reforms have witnessed. Hord (1997) stated “a quick – fix mentality, especially prevalent

in U.S. culture, resulted in many schools being poorly prepared for their plans for change


and therefore implementing changes in a superficial and less – than – high – quality way”

(p. iv).

Hargreaves (2005) stated, in a paper presented at The Second International

Online Conference, “the evidence that my colleagues and I have collected in New York

State and Ontario, Canada, affirms what has already been widely established in England

(Whitty Power & Halpin, 1998; Pollard, et al, 1994; Gerwitz, et al, 1995; Helsby, 1999;

Webb & Vulliamy, 1999; Jeffrey & Woods, 1996; Menter, et al, 1997); Australia

(Dinham & Scott, 1997); New Zealand (Wylie, 1994); Texas (McNeil, 2000) and Alberta

(Harrison & Kachur, 1999) in showing that many large-scale reform efforts in the last 15

years have neither prepared people for the knowledge economy nor for public life beyond

it” (pp. 5-6). DuFour and Eaker (1998) argued “the factory model is woefully inadequate

for meeting the national education goals of today – goals that call for all students to

master rigorous content, learn how to learn, pursue productive employment, and compete

in a global economy” (p. 23). Schools, which typically incorporate solutions that yield

quick results, ultimately find their results plateauing and seldom challenge their students

to higher levels of thinking (Oakes, Quartz, Ryan & Lipton, 2000). Hargreaves (2003)

concluded by stating “if more and more districts and governments insist on quick

achievement – gain fixes, strong professional learning communities that produce deep

and sustainable interpretations of teaching and learning will be replaced by rigid

performance training sects that secure only fleeting and superficial compliance” (pp. 179

– 80).

Expanding on Hargreaves performance – training sects, Dufour (1998) refers to

the failed attempts at educational reform in the U.S., which were highlighted in 1983 with


the release of the report “A Nation at Risk” by the National Commission on Excellence in

Education. This attempt at “fixing” education “was intended toward standardization,

increased reliance on rules and regulations, and detailed specifications of school practices

at the expense of local autonomy” (Dufour & Eaker, 1998, p. 6). However, our U.S.

counterparts attempted a restructuring initiative in the early 1990’s with the introduction

of the Restructuring Movement. Dufour and Eaker (1998) argued, “because neither top

down nor bottom – up reform have proven to be successful, there is a growing tendency

to conclude that American schools are simply incapable of transformation” (p. 9). This

influence from the U.S, and around the globe, impact Canadian schools at almost every

level and in order for Canadian schools to move forward, “they must break from the

industrial model upon which they were created and embrace a new model that enables

them to function as learning organizations” (Dufour & Eaker, 1998, p. 15).

A second view differs from strict guidelines and top – down initiatives, and

argued that education needs to attend more to the capacities of teachers and to the

development of schools as inquiring, collaborative organizations than to changes in

mandated curricula or management systems (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 755). This

idea of having school reform occur more at the school level, allowing for more school

autonomy to move along a path towards increased student learning has become known in

the field of education as Professional Learning Communities. The research supporting

the culture associated with PLC’s is overwhelming. However there are also skeptics.

McLaughlin (1993) cautioned educators “professional communities, in and of

themselves, are not necessarily a good thing”. Hargreaves (2003) also provides a

counterpoint to PLCs referring to them as training sects.


What has the potential to separate PLC’s from previous reform initiatives is the

idea that reform or restructuring has to come from the school level and embrace the

various stakeholders in a collaborative nature. Darling-Hammond (1993) stated

The foundation of genuine accountability… is the capacity of individual schools:

1) to organize themselves to prevent students from falling through the cracks, 2)

to create means for continual inquiry (in which hard questions are posed regarding

what need to change in order for individuals and groups of students to succeed),

and 3) to use authority responsibly to make the changes necessary. (p. 760)

Schools in the 21st century need the flexibility and the autonomy to make the necessary

changes to ensure that students are learning at every single level. PLC’s stress the

importance of student learning and focus less on the raising of test scores.

DuFour (2003) argued, “the strategy proven most effective, however, is one that

is loose and tight, a strategy that establishes a clear priority and discernible parameters

and then provides each school and department with the autonomy to chart its own course

for achieving the objectives” (¶ 9). Fullan (1993) expanded on this argument by stating

“people in organizations will change only if the sought – after reform is meaningful for

them and has application for their work”. The arguments presented by both DuFour and

Fullan are consistent with numerous researchers that have found that in successful school

reform initiatives the reform stemmed from the ground or had significant staff

involvement. Schools like Adali Stevenson High School, the Annenberg Institute’s

(2003) work with PLC’s, or the work that Richard DeLorenzo (2009) did in a rural

Alaskan school district, are examples of approaches that emphasize system wide reform

initiatives and large – scale change.


However,

the professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture,

one well known to those who have witnessed the fate of other well – intentioned

school reform efforts. In this all – too – familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives

way to confusion about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed

by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed

to bring about the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a

new search for the next promising initiative. Another reform movement has come

and gone, reinforcing the conventional education wisdom that promises, “This too

shall pass.” (DuFour, 2004, p.6).

Key Components of the PLC Reform

DuFour, Eaker and DuFour (1998) indicated a PLC needed to address four key

areas or questions in education:

What do we want each student to learn?

How will we know when each student has learned it?

How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

What do we do when a student already knows the content? (DuFour, 2004)

The PLC approach (a collaborative focus on learning with the yardstick for success being

the results obtained) resonated with so many educators. Sometimes, however, making it

happen in a particular school could seem overwhelming (Young, 2010). The questions,

which were meant to guide a school’s journey to embracing a PLC culture, seemed

somewhat straightforward and should allow schools to move forward in this journey.

However, up until recently these questions have been difficult to address.


Too frequently the myriad of school and district initiatives are presented to

teachers as separate entities and not linked back to how they support the implementation

of the PLC culture. Ainsworth (2003) makes the following observation, “the

implementation of new practices and programs to meet the increasing demands placed on

educators and administrators alike is contributing to what Reeves (2006) refers to as

“initiative fatigue” (p. 57). Stoll (2006) argued

to go deeper, we will also need more sophisticated processes and tools that can be

used by professional learning communities or those supporting them; not well

intentioned but mechanical tools, but more sophisticated processes and tools

based on research that both helps promote understanding of and engagement with

the idea and practice of professional learning communities with particular

reference to people’s own contexts, as well as stimulating professional learning

communities by promoting evaluation, reflective enquiry, dialogue, collaborative

learning and problem solving.

What appears to be lacking in the PLC literature is a clear process to address the key PLC

questions. As many educators attempt to embrace what are sometimes referred to as

‘best practices’, they are often presented as prescriptive and fragmented lacking the

interconnectedness of the pieces.

Professional Learning Communities and Assessment FOR Learning

One of the key purposes of PLCs is to improve student learning. Hattie (2009)

indicated that one of the primary ways to improve student learning is through assessment

for learning. Assessment for learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998) is significantly different

from assessment of learning and yet assessment of learning remains a dominant feature of


the U.S. education system. It is difficult for schools and school divisions to overlook the

importance that society has put of summative assessment when they are constantly

reminded how they are doing in comparison to other schools, school divisions, provinces

and even other countries. Popham (2003) stated

the chief reason for what seems to be an explosion of educational testing is that

U.S. educational policymakers, bent on making the nation’s educators more

accountable, want hard evidence regarding how well public schools are

performing. These policymakers and most of our citizens as well, believe that

student test performance should be the ultimate yardstick by which we measure a

school’s effectiveness. Naturally, then, teachers are under pressure to raise their

students’ test scores. You know the logic: High test scores signify good schooling

and low test scores signify bad schooling. (p. v)

The introduction of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in 2001 was an attempt

by the United States federal government to improve the public education system by

introducing high stakes tests. Ken O’Connor (2007) argued “grading, in the traditional

sense, promotes a culture of point accumulation, not learning” (p. 127). Wiliam (2007)

stated

raising student achievement is important, but not for the reasons many educators

think. Forget No Child Left Behind and adequate yearly progress. Forget district

and state reports that rank schools by proportion of proficient students. Raising

achievement is important because it matters for individuals and society. (p. 183)

The assessment push that resulted from the NCLB legislation was more about making

educators accountable and less about student learning. Amrein-Beardsley, Berliner, and


Rideau (2010) stated “we know that many educators are discouraged by high-stakes

testing and fearful of their results – results that are used to make consequential decisions,

largely determined by state and federal policies, specifically the stronger accountability

policies written into the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001” (p. 3).

For example, in 2002, Amrein and Berliner (2002) found no evidence that high‐

stakes testing led to improved test scores. More recently, Nichols, Glass and Berliner

(2006) studied 25 American state‐wide accountability systems and discovered no

relationship between early accountability pressure and later non‐ethnic cohort

achievement in math and reading at the fourth and eighth grade levels. In the words of

Clarke, Harris, and Reynolds (2004), “despite the dramatic increase in education reform

efforts in most countries, their impact upon overall levels of student achievement” has not

been “as successful as anticipated” (pp. 2‐3). These findings are consistent with what

classroom teachers are arguing about high stakes test and what the assessment experts are

arguing is the most promising way to have a significant impact on student learning.

Assessment has become a critical component in the reform movement educators

are currently witnessing in education. What separates the assessment that was a direct

result of the NCLB legislation and what the experts are arguing is a key component to

improving student learning centers around the second PLC question of “How will we

know when each student has learned it?” Assessment FOR Learning has become a

powerful tool to aide educators in improving their instruction and being able to respond

to students diverse needs in a timely manner. The results of the assessments facilitate

learning by providing essential feedback on students’ learning progress and by helping to

identify problems (Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, 1981; Stiggins, 2002).


The question “How will we know when each student has learned it?” can be

addressed with Assessment OF Learning as well as Assessment FOR Learning. Stiggins

(2005) stated “Perhaps the most unique feature of the assessment FOR learning process is

that it acknowledges the critical importance of the instructional decisions made by

students and their teachers working as a team…. Another unique feature is its reliance on

standards based curriculum maps cast both in student and teacher friendly versions so

that what has been learned and what comes next is clear to all throughout the learning”

(p. 1). The difference between these two forms of assessment relates to how the results

of the findings are utilized. In this age of accountability, where numerous provincial and

state governments put exuberant emphasis on test scores, schools are called upon to react

to student’s misconceptions and misunderstandings in a much timelier manner. This

belief does not align with a core belief statement, rarely inscribed in documents but

frequently carried out in practice, that states, “Some kids get it and some kids don’t, and

we’re here to validate the social hierarchy that existed long before these kids came to our

school” (Reeves, 2002, p. 29). When educators are clear about what they want their

students to learn and how they will determine if the students have learned it, they reduce

the likelihood of sending the message that Reeves has stated above.

Although it is generally agreed that Assessment FOR Learning is one of the most

powerful tools that educators have to significantly improve student learning in their

classrooms, there is variation about what makes up a solid foundation of student

engagement through the use of assessment. As Black and Wiliam (1998) note,

“Formative assessment does not have a tightly defined and widely accepted meaning” (p.


7). Marzano (2007) presents four key findings, which are generally agreed upon by

assessment experts, with regards to formative assessment:

Finding 1: Classroom assessment feedback should provide students with a clear

picture of their progress on learning goals and how they might improve.

Finding 2: Feedback on classroom assessments should encourage students to

improve.

Finding 3: Classroom assessment should be formative.

Finding 4: Formative classroom assessments should be frequent. (pp. 103 – 106)

Hattie (1992) found, after reviewing over 8000 studies, that “the most powerful single

modification that enhances achievement is feedback. The simplest prescription for

improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’” (p. 9). If educators are to utilize the

PLC framework as a tool to have a significant impact on school reform, then educators

need to ensure they are not only utilizing best practices but ensuring they are

collaborating with one another to clearly identify how they are monitoring the second

PLC question. A meta – analysis by Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan (1991)

that reviewed findings from 40 studies on classroom assessment found that simply telling

students they were correct or incorrect in their answers had a negative effect on their

learning, whereas explaining the correct answer and/or asking students to continue to

refine their answers was associated with a gain in achievement of 20 percentile points.

What is important to note is the fact that Assessment FOR Learning is not a

practice educators are encouraged to utilize to improve test scores. This practice is meant

to clearly identify what students know and can do (understand) and provide them with

timely, descriptive feedback to help them improve with guidance. While Assessment


FOR Learning is not meant to directly improve student achievement, Black and Wiliam

(1998) concluded that formative assessment done well results in student achievement

gains of about 26 percentile points. There is an abundance of literature outlining the

importance of Assessment FOR Learning in helping students reach new levels of learning

and success. What complicates the examination of the importance of Assessment FOR

Learning in relation to the PLC culture is the limited literature connecting these very

powerful practices. Stephen White (2007) has stated that “effective assessment practices

can inform instruction, provide guidance about quality and format to students,

curriculum, standards, and instruction” (p. 207). While White argued that assessment

practices is the glue that hold educators practices together, what he overlooked is the

power of the PLC culture to actually bring together the different pieces of a puzzle to

complete the picture of school reform for the practicing educator.

Having educators make use of Assessment FOR Learning to address the second

PLC question challenges them to bring more consistency to their classrooms. Douglas

Reeves (2007) often makes a comparison of consistency to the dimensions of a football

field. The argument has been made that athletes and fans alike would protest changes in

the field dimensions and rules. However, Reeves (2007) argued “the certainty of these

protests ensures that every football field in the nation remains uniform, while those

domains about which feelings are less intense – the classroom – remain a sea of

ambiguity and inconsistency” (p. 230). The assessment “rules” have not been consistent

in the past and as a result it has been difficult for educators to determine whether or not

their students have learned the key content or skills until it could be argued as too late.

By specifically focusing on the assessment piece, educators are able to identify problems


early on and make the necessary adjustments in their own practices. A key point to

stress, centers on the idea that this new assessment initiative is a joint venture between

student and teacher. Davies (2008) argued

research shows that when students are involved in the assessment process – by co

– constructing the criteria by which they are assessed, self – assessing in relation

to the criteria, giving themselves information to guide (or “feed – forward” their

learning), collecting and presenting evidence of their learning, and reflecting on

their strengths and needs – they learn more, achieve at higher levels, and are more

motivated. They are also better able to set informed, appropriate learning goals to

further improve their learning (see Crooks, 1998; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Davies,

2004; Stiggins, 1996).

This notion of students and educators being equally accountable for student learning is

reinforced by the findings of Black and Wiliam (1998) where they found it to be

“amongst the largest ever reported for educational interventions” (p. 61).

Summary

Over the past decade, PLCs have come to mean many different things to

educators. Some researchers argued that PLC’s are a strategy for substantive school

improvement (McLaughlin, 1993; DuFour, DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1993;

Eastwood and Lewis, 1992). Hargreaves (year) argued that school improvement meant

improvement in student learning. School improvement cannot happen without

improvement in student learning and this requires assessment for learning (Black &

Wiliam, 1998; Hattie, 2009). What appears to remain central to the research literature is


that PLCs are about creating a professional culture committed to supporting

improvements in student learning.

There is a significant body of research literature indicating assessment for

learning is a key to improve student learning (Reeves, 2002; Stiggins, 2002; Davies,

2004; Cooper, 2006; Popham, 2003; Hattie, 1992; Black and Wiliam, 1998; Guskey,

2007).

However, after examining the literature with regards to PLCs and assessment for

learning, I found that they are frequently viewed as two independent initiatives. An

apparent gap in the research literature exists in the ways in which a PLC culture might be

used to initiate and implement assessment for learning. This gap will form the focus of

my research.

Methodology

This research will be a qualitative study utilizing a multiple - case study to

explore how a learning community supports teachers to enact assessment FOR learning

practices. As Herriott and Rirestone (1983) stated “the evidence from multiple cases is

often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being

more robust” (p. 18). Light (1979) argued “the purpose of studying several cases is

generally to provide a rich description of the context in which the events occur and to

reveal the underlying structure of social behavior” (p. #). Qualitative research was chosen

based on the following three criteria outlined by Denzin and Lincoln (2003):

1. Capturing the individual’s point of view. Both quantitative and qualitative

researchers are concerned with the individual’s point of view. However,


qualitative investigators think they can get closer to the actor’s perspective

through detailed interviewing and observation.

2. Examining the constraints of everyday life. Qualitative researchers are likely to

confront and come up against the constraints of the everyday social world. They

see the world in action and embed their findings in it.

3. Securing rich descriptions. Qualitative researchers believe that rich descriptions

of the social world are valuable. (p. 16)

Gagnon (2010) stated “human and social systems are complex. Understanding

phenomena related to such systems demands a holistic approach, which can produce not

only detailed descriptions of situations and events but also in – depth understanding of

the actions involved, their feelings and the interactions among them” (p. #). Given the

nature of this study, qualitative research provides the best comprehensive approach to

gaining an appreciation of the complex nature of the education system (Benbasat,

Goldenstein and Mead, 1983; Patton, 1982; Worthman and Roberts, 1982). In order to

truly appreciate the complexity of the initiatives facing educators today, it is imperative

that researchers examine these initiatives with as broad of a lens as possible. The case

study method allows researchers to do just this. As Mitchell and Sackney (2007) stated

“… responses and observations have convinced us that the notion of a professional

learning community is deeply inclusive and broadly connected. It extends well beyond

the professional cadre, and it is concerned with far more than what happens within the

school walls” (p. 30).

A researcher who is considering conducting a case study should subscribe to the

constructivist approach, which holds that society is not a given, as it is for positivists, but


rather constructed through the relationships individuals forge with each other (Hagedorn,

1983). Gagnon claims that a constructivist approach views organizations as complex

social systems. He goes on to further argue to truly understand these complex social

systems researchers must provide detailed descriptions of situation, events, peoples,

interactions and behaviors. Studying or examining the complexity of a social system like

that of education requires a method which allows the researcher to examine the multiple

variables at play.

Research Questions

A learning community is a place where the professionals in a building are

responsible not only for student learning but also their own learning and that of their

colleagues. The goal of a learning community is to build social and intellectual

connections among professionals in order to build strong practice in order to improve

student learning (Friesen, 2011). This primary research question is: In what ways does a

learning community support and enable teachers to implement assessment for learning

within their daily practice?

Participants

Rural school divisions face unique challenges as they implement initiatives that

experts argue are “best” practices. Small grade configurations, multiple grade levels and

only one grade or subject area teacher are some of these challenges. Educators, from four

rural Manitoba school divisions, will be asked to partake in this research. In an attempt

to gain a better understanding of what school divisions are doing to aide their teachers in


implementing new initiatives, teachers from K – 12, K – 8, and 9 – 12 schools will be

invited to take part in the study.

Selection Procedures

Yin (2009) stated

Sometimes, the selection is straightforward because you have chosen to study a

unique case whose identity has been known from the outset of your inquiry. Or,

you already may know the case you will study because of a special arrangement

or access that you have. However, at other times, there may be many unqualified

case study candidates, and you must choose your final single case or array of

multiple cases from among them. The goal of the screening procedure is to be

sure that you identify the final cases properly prior to formal data collection. (p.

91)

The purpose of this research is to gain as much insight into how PLCs guide Assessment

FOR Learning practices and as a result requires educators of all levels to contribute to the

study. It is therefore preferable to use theoretical sampling: the cases are not selected for

statistical reasons but rather on the basis of representativeness balance, potential for

revealing new information, the research objectiveness, homogeneousness, or on the

contrary maximum variety (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Gersick,

1988; Glasser and Strauss, 1967; Harris and Sutton, 1986; Hlady Rispal, 2002a). A wide

range of teaching experience and knowledge around “best” practices will be sought to

gain multiple perspectives on how PLCs support teachers as they enact Assessment FOR

Learning practices.


A second variable that needs to be examined under selection procedures and that

is the physical school itself. In an attempt to expand the findings of this research to other

cases, twelve schools from four rural Manitoba school divisions will be invited to take

part in the study. Yin (2009) stated “each case must be carefully selected so that it either

(a) predicts similar results (a literal replication) or (b) predicts contrasting results but for

anticipatable reasons (a theoretical replication)” (p. 54). Schools for this study will be

chosen based on the premise that the research is aiming for literal replication. Of the

twelve schools invited to be a part of this research, the following criteria will be taken

into consideration:

Student population

Full – time equivalents (FTEs) of professional staff members

Grade configurations

The K – 8, 9 – 12 and K – 12 schools that are invited to take part in the study will have

similar student populations, full time equivalents and grade configurations.

MethodsMarshall and Rossman (2006) argued “qualitative researchers typically rely on

four methods of gathering information: (a) participating in the setting, (b) observing

directly, (c) interviewing in depth, and (d) analyzing documents and material culture” (p.

97). To gain an appreciation of what educators are being introduced to and how that

impacts their classroom practices, I will utilize three primary methods which include

participant observation, physical artifacts and in – depth interviews. The principle of

triangulation will also be utilized to determine where the three methods intersect. In

research, the principle pertains to the goal of seeking at least three ways of verifying or


corroborating a particular event, description, or fact being reported by a study (Yin, 2009,

p. 81).

Participant Observation

The classroom and school staff meetings are one of the best settings to observe

teachers and how Assessment FOR Learning may be impacting their day to day practices.

As Marshall and Rossman (2006) stated “participant observation allows for immersion in

the setting which allows the researcher to hear, see and begin to experience reality as the

participants do” (p. 100). Adler and Adler, in Denzin and Lincoln (2003), also argued

“observation has been characterized as ‘the fundamental base of all research methods’ in

the social and behavioral sciences” (p. 107). Gagnon (2010) stated

In participant observation, the investigator plays a role in the observed situation

and participates directly in the events…This can give us access to events that

would otherwise be beyond the reach of scientific examination and enable us to

see reality from the standpoint of someone within the situation. (p. 5.3)

Participant observation provides the researcher the opportunity to observe those involved

in their natural environment. This is important because participant’s actions and

responses may be different as they interact with their students as opposed to what they

may say and do in a formal interview setting.

In – depth Interview

Denzin and Lincoln (2003) stated “human beings are complex, and their lives are

ever changing; the more methods we use to study them, the better our chances to gain

some understanding how they construct their lives and the stories they tell us about them”

(p. 99). In – depth interviews or unstructured interviews as Denzin and Lincoln refer to


them, “apparently offers the opportunity for an authentic gaze into the soul of another…”

(p. 343). The in – depth interview method allows the researcher to connect with the

respondents on a much more personal nature. Spradley (1979) acknowledged “…the

very essences of unstructured interviewing – the establishment of a human – to – human

relation with the respondent and the desire to understand rather than to explain”.

Marshall and Rossman (2006) reiterated this statement by stating “the participant’s

perspective on the phenomenon of interest should unfold as the participant views it (the

emic perspective), not as the researcher views it (the etic perspective)” (p. 101).

The in – depth interview process will be carried out by meeting with individual

teachers on a one on one basis. This will be done for two fundamental reasons. First, as

Spradley stated, in Denzin and Lincoln (2003), the interviewer learns many things from

the natives, their culture, their language, their ways of life, by meeting with respondents

individually. The culture of schools has been researched and written on extensively and

it is important to acknowledge the non verbal cues as being equally important as to what

the teachers say in the interview. However, as Gagnon (2010) argued “an interview

should be considered a verbal report subject to problems of bias” (p. 5.3). The non verbal

cues or “reading” into the unspoken language of the school culture can indeed contribute

to this bias Gagnon refers to.

A second reason in – depth interviews will be carried out results from the work of

Denzin and Lincoln (2003). These researchers acknowledge how interviews can play

integral roles in aiding the interviewer in gaining trust and establishing rapport with the

respondents. Because the goal of unstructured interviewing is understanding, it is

paramount that the researcher establish rapport with respondents; that is, the researcher


must be able to take the role of the respondents and attempt to see the situation for their

viewpoint, rather than superimpose his or her world of academia and preconceptions

upon them (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 78). Cicourel (1974) stressed the importance of

the interviewer establish some trust with the respondents. Respondents need to know that

the interviewer is sincerely interested in their responses and this can best be displayed by

allowing respondents to respond in a more unstructured interview. Marshall and

Rossman (2006) support this point by stating “the most important aspect of the

interviewer’s approach is conveying the attitude that the participant’s views are valuable

and useful” (p. 101).

The research question “In what ways does a learning community support and

enable teachers to implement assessment for learning within their daily practice?” has a

number of underlying questions which I will ask each of the participants:

1. How often does your staff meet, formally, to collaboratively discuss ways to

together improve student learning?

2. How has your school/school division introduced the PLC culture to you?

3. What has your school/school division done to help address the four PLC

questions?

a. What do we want each student to learn?

b. How will we know when each student has learned it?

c. How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

d. What do we do when a student already knows the content? (DuFour,

2004)

Educators are faced with the following initiatives:


Professional Learning Communities

Assessment FOR Learning

4. How are these initiatives introduced in your school/school division?

5. Discuss what your school/school division could do better to assist educators in

implementing these initiatives in your school. Classroom.

6. Discuss what your school/school division has done to assist educators in your

school to see the interconnectedness of these initiatives.

Physical Artifacts

A major focus of education centers on the issue of accountability. “What people

say” is often very different from “what people do” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 158).

Yin (2009) argued “physical artifacts have less potential relevance in the most typical

kind of case study. However, when relevant, the artifacts can be an important component

in the overall case” (p. 113). As we look to how educators utilize Assessment FOR

Learning to improve student learning and instructional practices, it is imperative that

educators can provide evidence that these practices are indeed occurring in their

classrooms. Artifacts like co – constructed criteria, exemplars and clearly defined rubrics

are all examples that Assessment FOR Learning is occurring in a classroom. Denzin and

Lincoln (2003) stated

it is the exchange of artifacts themselves that constructs social relationships; it is

the style of spear that creates a feeling of common identity; it is the badge of

authority that itself confers authority. Material culture is thus necessary for most

social constructs. An adequate study of social interaction thus depends on the

incorporation of mute material evidence. (p. 159)


Analyses

The process of bringing order, structure, and interpretation to a mass of collected

data is messy, ambiguous, time – consuming, creative and fascinating. It does not

proceed in a linear fashion, it is not neat. Yin made a case for four general strategies for

analyzing data in case studies; relying on theoretical propositions, developing a case

description, using both qualitative and quantitative data, and examining rival

explanations. Yin (2009) further argued “the best preparation for conducting case study

analysis is to have a general analytic strategy” (p. 135). This research, which is an

exploratory case study, will start with a general analytic approach, relying on theoretical

propositions, and move to a more specific approach, explanation building. These two

approaches will give me the tools to make sense of the abundance of data that will be

collected throughout the course of this study.

Relying on theoretical propositions

Yin (2009) stated

The first and most preferred strategy is to follow the theoretical propositions that

led to your case study. The original objectives and design of the case study

presumably were based on such propositions, which in turn reflected a set of

research questions, reviews of the literature, and new hypotheses or propositions.

(p. 130)

Marshall and Rossman (2006) argued “the researcher is guided by initial concepts and

developing understandings that she shifts or modifies as she collects and analyzes the

data” (p. 155). It is important that the researcher has the flexibility to make changes in

data analysis as new concepts are uncovered or previous understandings are confirmed.


Yin (2009) claimed “the proposition helps to focus attention on certain data and to ignore

other data. (A good test is to decide what data you might cite if you had only 5 minutes to

defend a proposition in your case study)” (p. 130).

Explanation building

To “explain” a phenomenon is to stipulate a presumed set of casual links about it,

or “how” or “why” something happened (Yin, 2009, p. 141). This is the case for this

study as I begin to build explanations on “how” or “why” PLCs have provided educators

with the framework to utilize Assessment FOR Learning to improve student learning and

improve their own practices. Yin (2009) claimed “in most exciting case studies,

explanation building has occurred in narrative form. Because such narratives cannot be

precise, better case studies are the ones in which the explanations have reflected some

theoretically significant propositions” (p. 141).

Limitations and delimitations

As Patton (2002) notes, “There are no perfect research designs. There are always

trade – offs” (p. 223). Marshall and Rossman (2006) claim “limitations derive from the

conceptual framework and the study’s design” (p.42). Yin (2009) identified the

following weaknesses associated with case studies:

Bias due to poorly articulated questions

Inaccuracies due to poor recall

Reflexivity – interviewee gives what the interviewer wants to hear

Time consuming

Selectivity – broad coverage difficult without a team of observers


Availability

Bias due to participant observer’s manipulation of events (p. 102)

Yin (2009) also identified the following strengths associated with case study research:

Targeted – focuses directly on case study topics

Insightful – provides perceived casual inferences and explanations

Reality – covers events in real time

Insightful into cultural features (p. 102)

Insightful into interpersonal behavior and motives

The limitations of this study include:

I have a vested interest, being an educator in a 9 – 12 setting, which may bring a

certain degree of bias to the research.

Participant observation and in – depth interviews may be influenced by my very

presence. Participants may be reluctant to share their true understandings of

PLCs and Assessment FOR Learning.

Delimitations of this study include:

It will examine schools in four rural school divisions in Manitoba. The schools,

which will consist of K – 12, K – 8 and 9 – 12, only provide an insight into what

is happening in rural schools. The populations are chosen for this purpose.

One province. All four districts are within Manitoba.

The study of assessment for learning through the conceptual framework of a

learning community.


Significance of the Study

Professional Learning Communities is a reform initiative that has become

common language in schools and school divisions across North America. Educators and

politicians have sat back and watched, through a critical lens, to determine what affect

this movement will have on public education. While this is an exciting time for

educators, what makes the reform more attainable is being able to observe how numerous

different initiatives work to make PLCs one of the most promising reform movements in

education today.

Educators need to acknowledge the influence that PLCs and Assessment FOR

Learning can have in reforming the current education system. OECD (2005) found

Formative assessment - the frequent assessments of student progress to identify

learning needs and shape teaching - has become a prominent issue in education

reform. The achievement gains associated with formative assessment have been

described as "among the largest ever reported for educational interventions".

While many teachers incorporate aspects of formative assessment into their

teaching, it is much less common to find formative assessment practiced

systematically.

For the first time in education, experts in the field of assessment are encouraging

educators to invite students to be a part of their own education. Sadler (1993), as it was

cited in Brookhart (2001), stated “self-assessment is essential for progress as a learner:

for understanding of selves as learners, for an increasingly complex understanding of

tasks and learning goals, and for strategic knowledge of how to go about improving”.


Lisa Carter (2007) stated “learning is an incremental process, and it takes all of us

working together to construct a strong, well – connected learning ladder for students to

climb” (p. 26). Assessment FOR Learning, the idea of providing students with

descriptive feedback as they embark on their own learning journey, is a key element of

educators working together. When you think of PLCs the term that most often comes out

of the mouths of educators is collaboration. Assessment FOR Learning gives educators a

very specific focus to begin that collaboration. As Carter (2007) stated

When time is held as a constant learning becomes a variable. If we are truly

going to ensure that all students meet or exceed learning expectations, our school

systems will have to be redesigned to make learning the constant, which means

that time to learn will have to vary with the needs of each student. (p. 8)

This study is important because it may aide other educators in establishing a PLC that is

more than collaboration. By sharing personal experiences, which includes both

challenges and accomplishments, the study will help other educators understand the

importance that Assessment FOR Learning plays not only in the classroom but how it is

an integral part to any PLC culture.

Ethical Considerations

Research should cause no harm or distress and it is important that any proposal

should be reviewed by an unbiased individual or group. Research that does not have the

potential to advance our knowledge should not take place. Ethical considerations include

confidentiality and anonymity (Cormack, 1991, p.34). The National Research Council

(2003) builds on the importance of protecting human subjects:


progress in understanding people and society and in bettering human condition

depends on people’s willingness to participate in research. In turn, involving

people as research participants carries an ethical obligation to respect their

autonomy, minimize their risks of harm, maximize their benefits, and treat them

fairly. (p. 9)

Most people learn ethical norms at home, at school, in church, or in other social

settings. Although most people acquire their sense of right and wrong during childhood,

moral development occurs throughout life and human beings pass through different

stages of growth as they mature. Ethical norms are so ubiquitous that one might be

tempted to regard them as simple commonsense. On the other hand, if morality were

nothing more than commonsense, then why are there so many ethical disputes and issues

in our society (Resnick, 2010, ¶2)? Based on Resnick’s argument about ethical norms,

there are four areas that should be taken into account when considering ethical issues:

protection of participants from harm (physical and psychological), prevention of

deception, protection of privacy, and informed consent.

The National Statement (NHSdVlRC, 2007) specifies “Researchers exercise

beneficence in several ways: in assessing and taking account of the risks of harm and the

potential benefits of research to participants and to the wider community; in being

sensitive to the welfare and interests of people involved in their research; and in

reflecting on the social and cultural implications of their work” (p. 11). “Where there are

no likely benefits to participants, the risk to participants should be lower than would be

ethically acceptable where there are such likely benefits” (p. 13).


The Academy of Management's Code of Ethical Conduct (2002) stated “It is the

duty of Academy members to preserve and protect the privacy, dignity, well-being and

freedom of research participants. This duty requires ... informed consent from all

participants... Informed consent means explaining to potential participants the purposes

and nature of the research so they can freely choose whether or not to become involved.

Such explanations include warning of possible harm and providing explicit opportunities

to refuse or participate and to terminate participation at any time. Because students and

employees are particularly subject to possible coercion, even when unintended, special

care must be taken in obtaining their informed consent...” (p. 292). School divisions will

be contacted directly, by the researcher, to request permission to contact schools within

that division. I am hoping to contact schools myself in an attempt to gain schools and

educators that are interested in taking part in the study based on what the finding may

bring to the field of education as opposed to feeling they are being pressured by someone

from central office. The informed consent letter will be gone over in detail with all

participants to ensure they are clear what is being required of them, paying very close

attention to the fact that they can withdraw from the study at any time.

To protect participants they will be made aware of the following conditions before

they agree to be a part of the study:

1. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Participants can

choose to withdraw from the study at any time.

2. Participants will have the opportunity to read their own interview

transcriptions, to address any misconceptions or misquotes, before any

material is published.


3. All identities, including participants, schools and school divisions, will

protected with the use of pseudonyms.

4. All artifacts will be protected in a similar fashion, having student names

removed and identified by the pseudonym that was assigned to that

particular school.

5. Participants, schools and school divisions will have the opportunity to

examine the findings of the interviews before they are published.

Conclusion

This research proposal has outlined the importance of Assessment FOR Learning

and the need to utilize the PLC framework to utilize this practice to improve student

learning and teacher’s classroom practices. Assessment FOR Learning brings an element

of consistency to the classroom that has been lacking for many years. The PLC culture

provides educators with the framework to have some very difficult decisions around best

practices and bringing a degree of consistency which Reeves argues is missing from most

classrooms.

As a result of these new practices, educational leaders are required to change their

own thinking. Leaders now need to ask “Is it the right decision for students?” as opposed

to “Do I have buy – in from all the adults?” (Reeves, 2007, p. 231). It is imperative that

educators move forward in a collaborative sense to utilize a PLC framework for what it

was meant for. PLC’s are more than simply meeting in collaborative teams. As

educators embrace this culture, they need to have the tough discussions about what we

are doing well and how we can improve on those things that are questionable or even

outdated. As researchers, we must work with educators to aide them is seeing the


connections between the PLC culture and Assessment FOR Learning. With the use of

the case study methodology, educators will come to better understand how Assessment

FOR Learning is not only an integral part of the PLC culture but it also plays an integral

role in schools adopting this culture. Most importantly, educators need to realize that

current assessment practices serve multiple goals, most notably improving our

instructional practices. Guskey (2007) stated “assessments provide teachers with specific

guidance in their efforts to improve the quality of their teaching by helping identify what

they have taught well and what needs work” (p. 18).

References


Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR). (no date). Professional learning

communities: Professional development strategies that improve instruction.

Providence, RI: Author.

Amrein-Beardsley, A., Berliner, D., & Rideau, S. (2010). Cheating in the first, second,

and third degree: Educators’ response to high-stakes testing. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 18(14), 36 pp.

Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High – stakes testing and student learning. Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1 - 48.

Bangert-Drowns,R., Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect

of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213 – 238.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education, 5(1), 7 – 75.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139 – 44.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the

black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8 –

21.

Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). Evaluation to Improve

Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brandt, R. (1995). On restructuring schools: A conversation with Fred Newman.

Educational Leadership, 53(3), 70 – 73.


Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and

sustaining effective professional learning communities. Retrieved September 28,

2010, from http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB637.pdf

Brookhart, S. (2001). Successful students’ formative and summative uses of assessment

information. Assessment in Education, 8(2), 153 – 169.

Burke, W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Clarke, P., Harris, A., & Reynolds, D. (2004). Challenging the Challenged: Developing

an Improvement Programme for Schools Facing Extremely Challenging

Circumstances. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Diego, California, April 2004.

Cole, R., & Schlechty, P. (1993). Teachers as trailblazers in restructuring. Education

Digest, 58(6), 8–12.

Cooper, D. (2006). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning.

Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.

Cormack, D.S. (1991).The research process. Black Scientific: Oxford.

Crooks, T. (1998). The impact of classroom evaluation on students. Review of

Educational Research, 58(4), 438 – 481.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity

for school transformation. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752 – 761.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.

Davies, A. (2004). Finding proof of learning in a one – to – one computing classroom.

Courtenay, B.C.: Connections Publishing.

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB637.pdf


Davies, A. (2007). Involving students in the classroom assessment process. In D. Reeves

(Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and

learning (pp. 31 – 57). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Davies, A., Herbst, S., & Reynolds, B. (2008). Leading the way to making classroom

assessment work. Courtenay, B.C.: Connections Publishing.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative

materials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

DeLorenzo, R., Battino, W., Schreiber, R., & Carrio, B. (2009). Delivering on the

promise: The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R. (2004). Are you looking out the window or in a mirror? Journal of Staff

Development, 25(3), 63 – 64.

DuFour, R. (2004). The best staff development is in the workplace, not in the workshop.

Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), 63 – 64.

DuFour, R. (1998). Why look elsewhere? Improving schools from within. School

Administrator, 55(2), 24 – 26.

DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School Administrator,

60(5), 13 – 18.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best

practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National

Educational Service.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook

for professional learning communities that work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.


Eastwood, K., & Lewis, K. (1992). Restructuring that lasts: Managing the performance

dip. Journal of School Leadership, 2(2), 213 – 224.

Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532 – 550.

Feger, S., & Arruda, E. (2008). Professional learning communities: Key themes from the

literature. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance, Brown University.

Fullan, M. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership,

50(6), 12 – 17.

Gagnon, Y. (2010). The case study as research method: A practical handbook. Canada:

Presses de l’Universite du Quebec.

Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group

development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of

qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

Guskey, T. (2007). Using assessments to improve teaching and learning. In D. Reeves



Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of

insecurity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2005). Teaching in the knowledge society. Paper presented at the

Technology Colleges Trust Vision 2020 – Second International Online

Conference. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from


http://jotamac.typepad.com/jotamacs_weblog/files/teaching_in_a_knowledge_soc

.pdf

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K.S.

Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and

dilemmas (pp. 181 – 195). New York, NY: Open University Press.

Harris, S., & Sutton, R. (1986) Functions of parting ceremonies in dying organizations,

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 5-30.

Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education,

36(1), 5 – 13.

Herriott, R., & Firestone, W. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing

description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(2), 14 – 19.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry

and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.

Light, R. (1979). Capitalizing on variation: How conflicting research findings can be

helpful for policy. Educational Researcher, 8(9), 7 – 11.

Louis, K.S., & Kruse, S.D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on

reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for

effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.


McLaughlin, M. (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace context, in Judith

Warren Little & Milbrey McLaughlin (eds.), Teacher’s work: Individuals,

colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press.

Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L.

Stoll & K.S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth

and dilemmas (pp. 30 - 44). New York, NY: Open University Press.

Murphy, C., & Lick, D. (1998). Whole – faculty study groups. A powerful way to

change schools and enhance learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2006). High – stakes testing and student

achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education

Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), 1 – 172.

Oakes, J., Quartz, K. H., Ryan, S., & Lipton, M. (2000). Becoming good american

schools: The struggle for civic virtue in education reform. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

O’Connor, K. (2007). The last frontier: Tackling the grading dilemma. In D. Reeves



Patton, J. (1982). An introduction to the skills of historical inquiry. History and Social

Science Teacher, 17(2), 113 – 115.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, MD:

Sage.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.


Popham, J. (2003). Test better, teach better. The instructional role of assessment.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Protheroe, N. (2008). Developing your school as a professional learning community.

NAESP Research Roundup. Retrieved February 16, 2008, from

http://www.naesp.org/ContentLoad.do?content Id=1094

Reeves, D. (2002). The leader’s guide to standards: A blueprint for educational equity

and excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.

Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better

results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Reeves, D. (Ed.) (2007). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform

teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Reichstetter, R. (2006). Defining a professional learning community: A literature review.

E&R Research Alert, #06.05. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from

http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0605plc_lit_review.pdf

Rossman, G. B. and Rallis, S. F.(2010) 'Everyday ethics: reflections on practice',

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23: 4, 379 — 391.

Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.”

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.

New York, NY: Doubleday.

http://www.wcpss.net/evaluation-research/reports/2006/0605plc_lit_review.pdf


Scott, C. L., & Fonseca, L. (2010). 'Overstepping the mark: ethics procedures, risky

research and education researchers', International Journal of Research & Method

in Education, 33: 3, 287 — 300.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). "The ethnographic interview." New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Stiggins, R. (1996). Student centered classroom assessment. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta

Kappan, 83(10), 758 – 765.

Stiggins, R. (2005, September). Assessment for learning defined. A paper presented at

the ETS/Assessment Training institute’s International Conference: Promoting

Sound Assessment in Every Classroom. Retrieved May 1, 2011 from

http://www.assessmentinst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/afldefined.pdf

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., Thomas, S., Hawkey, K., & Smith, M.

(2003, January 5 - 8). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning

communites. Paper presented at the Sixteenth International Congress for School

Effectiveness and Improvement. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/education/eplc/pdf/ICSEI2003.pdf

Stoll, L., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.). (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence,

depth and dilemmas. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Stoll, L., McMahon, A., & Thomas, S. (2006). Identifying and leading effective

professional learning communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 611 –

623.


Toole, J., & Louis, K.S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in

international education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), The second

international handbook of educational leadership (pp. 245-279). Dordrecht,

Neth.: Kluwer.

White, S. (2007). Data on purpose: Due diligence to increase student achievement. In D.

Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching

and learning (pp. 207 – 225). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Williams, R., Brien, K., Sprague, C., & Sullivan, G. (2008). Professional learning

communities: Developing a school-level readiness instrument. Canadian Journal

of Educational Administration and Policy, 74, 1 – 17.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.


Running head: ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING

Candidacy Paper

Derrick J. CameronIDN: 262244

University of Calgary


Table of ContentsCandidacy Exam Question....................................................................................................................69

Introduction................................................................................................................................................70

What we know about Assessment FOR Learning......................................................................71

Where are we going?......................................................................................................................... 74

Improved Student Learning as a result of Feedback...........................................................78

Purpose of Curriculum......................................................................................................................80

Challenges Teachers Must Overcome..............................................................................................83

Lack of Knowledge..............................................................................................................................84

“Initiative” Fatigue..............................................................................................................................89

Shift in Thinking...................................................................................................................................93

Clear understanding of high stakes tests..................................................................................98

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................ 102

References................................................................................................................................................ 104


Candidacy Exam Question

A number of researchers (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Bloom, 1984; Crooks, 1988;

Hattie, 2009; Wiliam, et.al., 2004) provide a clear and incontrovertible message: that

initiatives designed to enhance the effectiveness of the way assessment is used in

the classroom (formative assessment) to promote learning can enhance student

learning and raise achievement. While the weight of research evidence continues to

accumulate indicating the significant role of assessment for learning plays in

improving student learning and improvement it remains remarkably absent from

many teachers’ practice. Assessment for learning is rooted in a particular view of

teaching and learning. Examine the view of teaching and learning in which

assessment for learning is rooted. Discuss some of the challenges that assessment

for learning poses for teachers.


Introduction

Imagine a school system where students and staff alike were encouraged to

take risks regardless of the outcome. An idea where the goal is to become better at

what we do, even if it takes multiple attempts. These are tough ideas to implement

in a system where teachers are supposed to be the bearers of knowledge and wisdom

and students are expected to demonstrate mastery on their very first attempt at a

new task. The challenges these teachers face and continue to face are the same of

those of educators across the globe. Teachers are no longer the experts because

students need to master essential skills, rather than merely regurgitating the facts

that a three second internet search will produce. It is a belief that teachers and

students, together, need to be accountable for a new type of education, an education

where students are actively engaged and become a part of the journey from the

beginning to the very end. This idea of going hand - in - hand in education with our

students is a challenge that teachers face as they begin to transform their practices

(Cameron, 2011, p. 60). Popham (2008) argued that teachers should try to

transform their instructional approach by incorporating formative assessment (p.

viii). Black and Wiliam (1998) found there was “firm evidence that formative

assessment is an essential component of classroom work and that its development

can raise standards of achievement” (p. 139). While the research is overwhelming

with regards to the impact that formative assessment can have on student learning,

a key component that is often overlooked are the challenges that teachers are faced

with as they begin to implement this practice in their classrooms.


Black and Wiliam (1998) stated “teachers have to manage complicated and

demanding situations, channeling the personal, emotional, and social pressures of a

group of 30 or more youngsters in order to help them learn immediately and

become better learners in the future” (p. 140). Black and Wiliam indicate that the

job of teachers has moved well beyond just teaching and this is probably one of the

greatest challenges that teachers face as they are introduced to new educational

initiatives before existing ones have a chance to illustrate their true benefits. Add to

this challenge, research that constantly reinforces that “teaching and learning must

be interactive” (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 140), formative assessment has a negative

connotation before teachers can appreciate the impact it can have on student

learning and improving their instructional practices. While this paper is an

examination of challenges that assessment for learning poses for teachers,

Schmoker (2011) makes a compelling case that a teachers job is “…simple: If we

want better schools, we have to monitor the implementation of our highest

priorities. School children will continue to wait until we monitor and ensure that

our priorities are being implemented” (p. 18).

What we know about Assessment FOR Learning

Assessment for learning, or formative assessment, has received a lot of

attention over the years. Although this initiative has received a lot of attention we

continue to observe inconsistencies in “best practices” (Reeves, 2007, p. 227). What

is most troubling about the inconsistencies that Reeves refers to, has to do with the

idea that individuals appear to place more emphasis on consistent practices in areas

that are “less important” than education. Reeves (2007) stated “…every football


field in the nation remains uniform, while those domains about which feelings are

less intense – the classroom – remain a sea of ambiguity and inconsistency” (p. 230).

There are two reasons educational leaders fail to emphasize consistency in the

classroom as much as they do on the athletic field: they have the wrong criteria for

decision – making, and they have the wrong information on which to make critical

decisions (Reeves, p. 231). When assessment becomes a guessing game for

students, Guskey (2007) argued they learn “two unfortunate lessons. First, they

discover that hard work and effort do not pay off in school because the time and

energy they spent in preparation for the assessment had little or no influence on the

results. And second, they learn that they cannot trust teachers” (p. 17). Although

education is quite diverse and each school division and province has their own

unique needs, it is imperative that there is consistency in education regardless

where you attend school.

Equally important as consistency, is the need for assessment to be used for

the “right” purpose. Assessment for learning is not meant to increase test scores or

“to teach to the test” (Popham, 2003, pp. 135 - 36), but the “true purpose of

assessment for learning must be, first and foremost, to inform instructional decision

making” (Ainsworth & Viegut, 2006, p. 21). This statement by Ainsworth and Viegut

is consistent with the argument that Popham makes. For formative assessment to

exist at all it must lead to instructional adjustment decisions by teachers or learning

tactic adjustment decisions by students, and these adjustments will affect activities

or efforts already in progress (Popham, 2008, p. 11). Popham (2008) further stated:


Instruction should not be a Ouija – board like game in which teachers guess

about what to do next….instructing students should be a carefully conceived

enterprise in which decisions about what to do next are predicted on the best

available information….Formative assessment supplies the evidence a

teacher needs in order to make any necessary instructional adjustments. (p.

14)

The arguments made indicate that assessment for learning is as much about teacher

improvement as it is student improvement. Teachers need to realize that they can

not continue to “do the same thing over and over again and expect different results”

(Einstein).

However, as much as assessment for learning is helping teachers improve

their own instructional strategies, it is also about inviting students to become active

participants in their own education. Stiggins (2005) stated “perhaps the most

unique feature of the assessment FOR learning process is that it acknowledges the

critical importance of the instructional decisions made by students and their

teachers working as a team….” (p. 1). Teachers can invite students along in the

journey by providing students with “effective classroom assessments” (Marzano,

2006, p. 3). Marzano (2006) identified four elements of effective classroom

assessment:

Feedback from classroom assessments should give students a clear picture of

their progress on learning goals and how they might improve.

Feedback on the classroom assessments should encourage students to

improve.


Classroom assessment should be formative in nature.

Formative classroom assessments should be frequent. (p. 3)

While the four elements identified by Marzano are only one researcher, similarities

can be found in the research to support what he argues as being important for

effective classroom assessment. Popham (2003) stated that formative assessments

aid teachers in four teaching decisions. The four types of teaching decisions that

Popham has referred to are:

Decisions about the nature and purpose of the curriculum.

Decisions about students’ prior knowledge.

Decisions about how long to teach something

Decisions about the effectiveness of instruction. (pp. 5 – 6)

At first glance these appear to be quite different from one another. However, upon

closer examination one can see the similarities between the work of Popham and

Marzano.

Where are we going?

“Formative assessment is a planned process in which teachers or students

use assessment – based evidence to adjust what they’re currently doing” (Popham,

2008, p. 6). Popham (2008) makes a strong case that formative assessment needs to

be a well planned process where teachers clearly have defined end points. If the

process of assessment for learning is one that is planned out, it would make sense

that the teacher would share these targets or goals with their students. Ideally,

teachers should be utilizing assessment for learning to help students take control of


their own learning. One way that students can be in control of their learning is by

self assessing their work before it is submitted to their teachers. As Black and

Wiliam (1998) stated “students can assess themselves only when they have a

sufficiently clear picture of the targets their learning is meant to attain” (p. 143).

Having a clear idea of where students are going and what success will look like

when they get there, helps teachers in knowing when students have reached that

target (Davies, 2007, p. 33). Hargreaves (2009) adds to this argument when he

stated:

Student involvement in…assessment for learning develops student

responsibility. This strategy allows them to plan their own learning, be more

reflective about how they learn best, show their teachers how to help them,

and enables them to negotiate next steps and set achievement targets with

their teachers. (p. 27)

What must remain consistent in effective classroom assessment is the

importance of students knowing where they are going, or the target and/or

purpose, and a teacher knowing the students prior knowledge. Hattie (2009)

stated:

…the value of student self – assessment, self – evaluation, self – monitoring,

and self – learning is that students have a reasonable understanding of where

they are, where they are going, what it will look like when they get there, and

where they will go next: that is, they have clear goals, learning intentions, and

success criteria.” (p. 165)


Greenstein (2010) asked “how can we measure growth in learning without knowing

the starting point?” (p. 39). Teachers are ultimately utilizing assessment practices

to help students remain optimistic about their potential learning successes. Sadler

(1989) argued teachers can do this in two fashions. One way is to help students

understand from the beginning of the learning what success will look like when they

get there, or the use of exemplars to demonstrate what quality work looks like. The

second way is to help students acknowledge where they are now in relation to that

vision of excellence.

Davies (2007) often uses the analogy of golfing to illustrate the importance of

having clear learning targets or goals. Most golfers rely on key information in order

for them to be successful on the golf course. They have access to a golf card, which

outlines yardage, the handicap and the par. That same golf card will illustrate for

the golfer where each tee off box is, any hazards along the way and where their final

destination is or the pin. Assessment for learning has all the elements that a golf

course and golf card have. However, teachers need to move away from this view

that their job is to “trick” students with their assessments and utilize assessment as

an extension of their instructional practices. Becker (2011), a grade 12 student, had

this to say about students being a part of the assessment process:

Our grade 12 English Literature class is taking a new approach to grading

schoolwork. At the beginning of the semester, Mr. Sinclair gave us the

opportunity to set a standard for ourselves that we refer to as a `benchmark.`

The benchmark guarantees that as long as we meet the guidelines of an

assignment, we will not be given a grade below 80%. If the guidelines are not


met, however, the assignment can be redone until it is acceptable. As long as

the work is put in to reach the standard, we won`t be disappointed with our

marks.

The class also has a say in how we will be graded by deciding what is

included in our rubric. Before completing an annotated bibliography, for

example, we discuss what should be expected to obtain our standard mark.

Writing language, content, grammar, and mechanics are all considered and

classified into `Minimal`, `Partial`, `Standard`, and `Superior` grades. If the

standard is not met, we are given our assignments back to make changes.

The class collectively agrees that it is nice to be trusted with some control in

the direction of this course. Although we don`t decide what is studied or the

work that we are given, the effort that we give towards our assignments is

reflected in the marks we are given.

Guskey (2007) argued “…assessments of student learning are simply extensions of

those same goals and standards. Instead of teaching to the test, teachers are more

accurately ‘testing or assessing what they teach’” (p. 18). Stiggins (2007) has stated

“students can hit any target that they know about and that holds still for them” (p.

1). Teachers need to be transparent with goals and targets so students have every

possibility of meeting those identified learning goals and targets. As Davies (2007)

has stated “students learn more when they understand the goals they are expected

to achieve – when the learning destination is clear and defined (p. 37). The goal is to

work with students to ensure that learning is occurring and teachers need only look


to the golf analogy to appreciate the importance of a clear starting and finishing

point.

Improved Student Learning as a result of Feedback

The importance of feedback, whether it is by the student or the teacher, can

not be overlooked. However, if teachers are committed to improving student

learning through the use of feedback, they need to be sure they are using feedback

that encourages student improvement. Stiggins (2007) stated “for communication

to be effective in the context of formative assessment, it needs to inform the learner

about how to do better the next time; that is, it must be descriptive rather than

judgemental” (p. 68). Davies (2007) identified two types of feedback: descriptive

and evaluative.

Descriptive feedback is feedback that students provide to one another or a

teacher provides to the students and identifies what the student is doing well but

more importantly what the student needs to do to improve (Davies, 2007;

Greenstein, 2010; Popham, 2008; Marzano, 2006; Black & Wiliam, 1998).

Descriptive feedback also addresses how students are progressing towards “priority

standards”, and this is one of the most powerful elements of assessment for learning

(Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 139). With this in mind, teachers must be cognizant of the

feedback they are providing students. Hattie (1992) found “the most powerful

single modification that enhances achievement is feedback. The simplest

prescription for improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’” (p. 9). While

the evidence overwhelmingly supports the use of feedback, Hattie cautions teachers


that “all forms of feedback are not equally effective. In fact, some forms of feedback

might work against learning.” Bangert – Drowns, Kulik, Kulik and Morgan (1991) in

an examination of forty different studies on classroom assessment, found that

simply assessing on the concept of right or wrong had a negative .08 effect size

which translated into students actually losing three percentage points.

The second type of feedback identified by Davies (2007), evaluative, needs to

come at the end of the learning (p. 33). Evaluative feedback is summative in nature

and is a comparison of students to students (norm referenced) or students to

outcomes (criterion referenced). Because this type of feedback comes at the end of

a unit of study or end of grade, it does not allow students a lot of opportunity to

improve on their weaknesses. Crooks (1998) reported that effect sizes for

summative assessments or evaluative feedback, are consistently lower than the

effect sizes for formative assessment. While evaluative feedback occurs at the end

of the learning process, if descriptive feedback has been utilized throughout the unit

of study or course, one would not expect to observe a lot of discrepancy between the

two in terms of a student demonstrating an understanding of the outcomes. Both

assessment of, evaluative feedback, and for, descriptive feedback, are important

(Stiggins, 2002), and “while they are not interchangeable, they must be compatible”

(NEA, 2003, p. 7).

Hattie (2009) discovered that feedback was most effective when students

were providing feedback to the teacher. He further stated:

When teachers seek, or at least are open to, feedback from students as what

students know, what they understand, where they make errors, when they


have misconceptions, when they are not engaged – then teaching and

learning can be synchronized and powerful. (p. 173)

The findings of Hattie reiterate the importance of students and teachers going hand

in hand through the learning journey. It is imperative that teachers listen to what

students are telling them and examine the feedback in a timely manner. As Guskey

(2007) stated “when as many as half the students in a class answer a clear question

incorrectly or fail to meet a particular criterion, it is not a student learning problem

– it is a teaching problem” (p. 20). By paying close attention to all aspects of

feedback, whether it is directly or indirectly, teachers will begin to radically alter

their assessment practices. Stiggins (2007) argued:

Rather than relying on assessment as the source of information used to

decide who gets rewarded and punished – that is, for sorting winners and

losers – we use assessment as a road map to ultimate success, with signposts

along the way for both students and teachers. (p. 72)

Students and teachers must realize that the feedback is an intervention to ensure

student success. Teachers need to utilize their descriptive feedback to encourage

students to take risks and improve where deficiencies are identified. As Reeves

(2002) has argued “the consequence for failing to achieve a standard is the

opportunity for detailed feedback, more work, and ultimate success” (p. 27).

Purpose of Curriculum


This paper has examined the purpose of assessment for learning with

regards to improved student learning through the use of feedback as well as where

we are going in terms of beginning points and end targets or goals. However, what

this paper has not done is examine how assessment for learning brings a clear

purpose to the curriculum. In order for teachers to share with their students the

learning journey, they must be clear where they are going and how they are going to

get there. This journey can be compared to a road map where an individual plans a

trip from point A to point B. The individual, like the teacher and students, know

where the starting and ending point is, but how they get there may look entirely

different than how they initially planned. While the journey may take on many

different looks, the start point and destination are not open for discussion. Reeves

(2002) stated:

Student success is not the result of luck, genetic determinism, or discovery of

a mystery known only to a select few. Success in school is the result of

achieving standards through honest evaluation, diligent work, and

exceptional effort. Our standards are never a secret; successful

accomplishment of those standards can be achieved by every single student

[italics added]. (p. 29)

The standards that Reeves refers to are the destinations for students, but they need

to be aware of those standards, in a language they can understand, so they know

where they are going.

Popham (2003) concluded “if the curricular aims that a teacher must address

are open to multiple interpretations, then off – the – mark instruction is likely to


occur, bringing with it lower test performances” (p. 7). While assessment for

learning is not meant to improve test scores, it does ensure that teachers are clear in

their mind what they want from their students. Ainsworth (2006) stated:

A clear purpose for curriculum allows teachers to plan specific lessons and

related learning activities to help their students (1) learn each of the targeted

concepts; (2) exercise each of the identified skills; (3) formulate their own

Big Ideas in response to the Essential Questions; and (4) demonstrate their

understanding of same through formative classroom assessments. These

classroom assessments will provide timely [italics added] feedback to both

teacher and students as to the degree of student understanding, so that the

teacher can then modify and differentiate instruction based on learning

needs….(p. 50)

As Greenstein (2010) has assured “formative assessment supports benchmarking,

the process of comparing learning outcomes goals to selected standards for the

purpose of overall improvement” (p. 68). As Greenstein has identified, a clear

purpose to the curriculum not only aids assessment for learning but it makes

student success more obtainable.

With regard to classroom assessment, one might infer that standards

represent what should be assessed in schools (Marzano, 2006, p. 12). If assessment

for learning is done properly in classrooms, that is providing descriptive feedback

and clearly articulating learning targets or goals, then teachers should be able to

execute classroom instruction that is beneficial and meets the needs of their

students. However, this is often not the case because a large number of teachers are


not utilizing assessment for learning properly and as a result are not able to identify

the clear purpose required from the curriculum documents. This is often difficult

for teachers to do as they are often required to decipher between “need to know”

and “nice to know” in a curriculum document. Numerous researchers argue that

there are too many standards or outcomes in North American curriculum

documents (Reeves, 2002, Ainsworth, 2003; Marzano, 2006). Marzano (2006)

expanded on this further when he stated “another way of looking at this is that

schooling, as currently configured, would have to be extended from kindergarten to

grade 21 or 22 to accommodate all the standards and benchmarks in the national

documents” (p. 13). Ainsworth (2006) concluded “knowing what to assess – in this

case, the “unwrapped” Power Standards – is the necessary first step” (p. 52). By

utilizing assessment for learning in classrooms, teachers and students become

clearer in what it is they are actually going to learn.

Challenges Teachers Must Overcome

There is reference made in the research of hurdles or obstacles that learning

organizations, and leaders, must face as they move forward in embracing the

assessment for learning movement. However, what is often overlooked is how or

what obstacles face the classroom teachers as they begin to invite students into

their learning journey. This section is an examination of some significant obstacles

teachers face, and as a result account for the reluctance of teachers to embrace yet

another new initiative, namely assessment for learning. Reeves (2006) concluded

“when the number of initiatives increases, while time, resources and emotional


energy are constant, then each new initiative…will receive fewer minutes, dollars

and ounces of emotional energy that its predecessors” (p. 90). Davies (2008) stated:

Transforming education isn’t about the ‘latest great idea’. It is about

imagining the best possible future for our students and putting our hearts

into our work, so we can take the next steps on the path. It is about building

on the research and finding ways to make ‘seemingly impossible’ both

possible and practical. Research has shown us that we need to accomplish –

deep student and organizational learning – isn’t possible unless assessment

for learning is the key focus of our work. (p. 1)

This transformation cannot happen if teachers, leaders, and provinces do not

address four key obstacles: (1) lack of knowledge, (2) a shift in thinking, (3)

“initiative” fatigue and (4) having a clear understanding of high stakes tests.

Lack of Knowledge

Teachers have witnessed numerous initiatives throughout their careers,

whether it is whole language, differentiated instruction, professional learning

communities or even assessment for learning. As a result of these initiatives, more

so the former as opposed to the latter, teachers are reluctant to “buy in” to

initiatives because they are often viewed as the latest fad and they too will soon

pass. Teachers, who are the individuals that are expected to implement and carry

out the latest research, can often be overheard making reference to the “pendulum

swing” and comparing the latest “fad” to something they may have witnessed fifteen

or twenty years earlier. However, the reason that assessment for learning has not


“caught on” to the extent that it should, is largely because teachers are left to

implement this new initiative with little to no knowledge about what is really

expected from them. Reeves (2002) has stated “…my travels of more than a million

miles in the past several years to schools, faculty meetings, parent gatherings,

administrator conferences, school board meetings, and academic seminars makes

one conclusion abundantly clear: standards are not implemented with legislation or

resolutions” (p. xv). Although Reeves refers to the lack of standards

implementation, the case has been made that a clear purpose must be present for

assessment for learning to have a significant impact on student learning. However,

numerous experts (Marzano, Reeves, Stiggins, Ainsworth, McTighe & Wiigins) make

the case that standards lay the groundwork for educators to identify “priority

standards” or “essential skills”. O’Connor (2007) made the statement “we must

adopt grading practices that are more compatible with an emphasis on learning” (p.

128). If one expert has identified that our practices do not emphasize student

learning, then teachers need the skills and tools to ensure that this does happen.

I clearly remember sitting down with a teacher, from the province of

Manitoba, who was asking for a transfer to our school. I spoke to him about how

assessment for learning could make teaching most enjoyable and exciting for

teachers and students. As I spoke he looked at me with a blank look on his face only

to share that he had absolutely no idea what I was speaking about. How could a

teacher in 2011 have no background knowledge around assessment for learning? I

then realized one of the biggest hurdles facing teachers, was the fact that


assessment for learning was being talked about in schools and school divisions, but

they were not being given the foundation.

Every educator must understand the principles of sound assessment and

must be able to apply those principles as a matter of routine in doing their

work. Accurate assessment is not possible unless and until educators are

given the opportunity to become assessment literate. (They) must

understand student achievement expectations and how to transform those

expectations into accurate assessment exercises and scoring procedures.

(NEA, 2003)

Teachers need to be aware of sound assessment practices so they can work with

students to provide an education that is challenging but also provides them with

essential skills. However, if teachers are lacking this knowledge then they are most

likely to revert to practices they are most comfortable with.

Assessment literacy is an area that teachers need to ensure they have a solid

foundation of as they begin to implement assessment for learning practices in their

classrooms. As teachers are introduced to the literature that surrounds assessment,

they will be expected to have a clear idea of the differences between assessment for

learning and assessment of learning. Assessment literacy, as defined by Ainsworth

(2006), is the ability to understand the different purposes and types of assessment

in order to select the most appropriate type of assessment to meet a specific

purpose (p. 53).

As I reflected on this, I began to notice a significant disconnect between what

we were asking teachers to do with their students, and what schools and school


divisions were asking teachers to do. Because teachers are professionals, with

college or university degrees, the expectation is for them to be able to take new

initiatives and implement them properly in their classrooms. What we often

overlook is the fact that they have had a lifetime of viewing assessment in an old and

outdated fashion. Stiggins (1999) argued “lacking specific training, teachers often

do what they recall their own teachers doing: They rely heavily on the assessments

offered by the publishers of their textbooks or instructional materials.” We

encourage teachers to be transparent with students about their learning journey but

expect our teachers to implement complex initiatives with little to no assistance at

all. Stiggins (1997) stated:

When the faculty in a particular district know and understand principles of

sound assessment, know how to translate those principles into sound

assessments and quality information about students, and because they

involve students in the assessment process as part of their effective

instruction, a range of benefits will accrue to all. (p. 7)

A survey by Stiggins (1999) showed, that less than half the states require

competence in assessment for licensure as a teacher. The finding by Stiggins

reinforces the premise that teachers need to be knowledgeable in current

assessment practices to improve student learning, and aide in self - reflection on

their own teaching practices.

One of the biggest challenges that teachers are faced with as they begin their

journey of embracing assessment for learning, centers around the idea of “total

instructional alignment.” Carter (2007) argued “no school reform effort we


undertake…can succeed without instructional alignment” (p. 7). Carter further

stated “…that all schools design an instructional program that not only aligns

instruction to standards, benchmarks, and assessments, but also presents

instruction that is aligned to the learning needs of each individual student” (p. 12).

As teachers begin to build on their knowledge base with regards to assessment

literacy, they must also begin to acknowledge that not every single outcome,

objective, or standard is assessed in the curriculum document. As Buckingham

(2005) wrote, “the old truisms tell us that ‘what gets measured gets managed’ and

‘you get what you inspect’ and they survive as truisms because they are manifestly

true” (p. 176). Collins (2001a) stated “hedgehogs see what is essential and ignore

the rest”. Ainsworth (2006) also stated “if a standard is worthy of being taught, it is

worthy of being assessed” (p. 31). Leaders, whether they are at the school level,

division level or provincial level, need to give teachers the tools so they can delve

into their curriculum documents to identify essential skills or outcomes.

Teachers need to realize that every single student can be successful if they

are given the knowledge and background information around the power of

assessment for learning. Given the proper knowledge, teachers would have the

tools to ensure they have “total instructional alignment” and they would have the

know how to utilize assessment to not only improve student learning but to

improve their instructional approaches as well. Reeves and Waters stated

“Research from fields as diverse as aviation and medicine understand that

monitoring, real-time feedback, and midcourse corrections are essential for

sustained high performance” (¶5).


Popham (2008) claimed “the distinctive feature of the adjustment decisions

made during formative assessment is that those decisions are determined chiefly by

assessment – elicited evidence of students’ current skills or knowledge” (p. 24).

There must be an expectation that teachers will make adjustments to their

instruction based on evidence they have collected as opposed to decisions that are

subjective in nature. While this needs to be the expectation, again the knowledge

that coincides with this expectation is often lacking. Davies (2008) has stated “one

of the barriers that leaders of learners face as they consider the impact of

assessment for learning on student achievement is that partners in this change do

not consciously and deliberately pause to engage in reflection” (p. 35). As teachers

become more knowledgeable in assessment for learning, one message needs to

remain consistent for them. Assessment for learning is meant to improve student

learning through the process of reflection and dialogue.

“Initiative” Fatigue

Too frequently, the myriad of school and district initiatives are presented to

teachers as separate entities and not linked back to how they support student

learning. Ainsworth (2003) made the following observation, “the implementation of

new practices and programs to meet the increasing demands placed on educators

and administrators alike is contributing to what Reeves (2006) refers to as

“initiative fatigue” (p. 57). Because most teachers have witnessed initiatives that

have both failed and succeeded, they are often reluctant to embrace new initiatives

based solely on research. Not only have teachers witnessed many failed and

successful initiatives, they have also been a part of a system that typically adds on


initiatives rather than selecting a few that would have the greatest impact on

student learning. As a result of all these initiatives being introduced into the school

system, teachers are reluctant to commit because of the time and energy that must

be given for a new initiative to have a sincere effort at making an impact on student

learning.

If leaders, at the school, divisional, or provincial level, want teachers to

embrace assessment for learning they must “pull the weeds before you plant the

flowers” (Reeves, 2009, p. 13). There is an activity that I often ask my staff to do

which gauges how many “weeds” and how many “flowers” we have. My staff is often

asked, at the beginning of a school year, what initiatives they have been exposed to

or asked to implement in the past five years. I then ask them how many of those

initiatives have been discontinued. What I have found, is initiatives are constantly

being added and very seldom are any removed. As a result, teachers find

themselves burning out because of all the demands that are put on them. Research

and common sense make it clear that initiative fatigue is rife in schools. We must

identify some things we can stop doing. To begin the weeding process, Reeves

(2009) encourages leaders to consider the following ideas:

1. Use intergrade dialogue to find the essentials,

2. Sweat the small stuff, and

3. Set the standard for a weed – free garden. (p. 16)

One of the most important things to remember when introducing new initiatives is

asking “what are we willing to give up”? Leaders and educational experts must

realize that we cannot keep asking teachers to implement new initiatives without


removing something from their already hectic work life. It relates to aligning our

actions and words. We cannot ask teachers to identify “priority standards”, which in

essence is asking teachers to prioritize their standards or identify those which are

most important, and not do the same at the district or provincial level. Erickson

(2002) argued “this dilemma has caused our nation’s educators to teach the

standards in what is often referred to as the ‘inch deep, mile wide’ coverage model

of instruction.” As this does not work in the classroom, leaders in education need to

move away from this philosophy of implementing initiatives, and move towards a

philosophy of doing a few things really well or a “mile deep and an inch wide”.

Rhoads (2011) stated “teachers felt overwhelmed by the amount of effort

needed to complete the work. They did not want to expend any more energy or time

to take risks or attempt a new activity” (p. 25). One of the most important things a

school leader, division personnel or government official can do to avoid “initiative”

fatigue is to help all teachers see the interconnectedness of all the initiatives.

Reeves (2006) argued “if schools and school leaders do not start weeding the

garden, the following conversations will remain the norm:

“We'll have professional learning communities—just as soon as we finish making

announcements in the faculty meeting.”

“We're happy to embrace ‘writing across the curriculum'—just as soon as we

finish covering a curriculum that has never yet been completed within the

school year.”


“We'll do common scoring of student work—just as soon as all members of

the teaching team finish their parent conferences and discipline reports.”

(pp. 89 – 90)

These are the comments that leaders are faced with as they attempt to implement

new initiatives. The problem that is often overlooked by leaders is that very seldom

do they make a connection between the initiatives that are being introduced to

those that have been around for some time. Carter (2007) stated:

Once, many years ago, I learned a lesson about the power of focus. I had a cat

that did not particularly like visits to the veterinarian. On one dreaded trip,

she needed a shot. I asked the veterinarian if I could leave the room because

I knew it would be disastrous. The veterinarian assured me that the cat

would be fine and would not even know she was getting the shot. I watched

in amazement as he began to slide her across the table. Nervous about the

possibility of falling off, the cat intently watched where she was going. The

cat did not make a sound or even blink when the veterinarian gave her the

shot. She was too focused on sliding off the table! (p. 107)

The focus that Carter shared about her cat is the same type of focus that schools,

their leaders, division personnel and departments of education need to have as they

introduce new initiatives.

As new research uncovers new and better ways to meet the needs of our

students, it will be necessary to introduce these initiatives is such a fashion that

teachers do not feel overwhelmed. Carter (2007) made reference to the focus her

cat had on a very specific outcome, Reeves (2004) makes reference to the


importance of having a “laser like focus”, regardless who you refer to, it is important

that schools and school divisions maintain a focus on where they are going. If

schools and school divisions are constantly changing their focus, they will lose

credibility as they cannot or choose not to keep their focus. Teachers need to see

how differentiated instruction, assessment for learning, professional learning

communities and pyramid of interventions are related or the reluctance to

implement these initiatives will remain. Reeves (2009) reminded leaders “each

initiative added to the pile creates a dramatic decline in organizational

effectiveness” (p. 14). We need to do the same thing in our organizations that we

are asking our teachers to do in their classrooms. To avoid “initiative” fatigue we

must identify those initiatives that will have the greatest impact on student learning

and begin “weeding” those initiatives that do not have a direct impact on student

learning. Senge (1990) refers to systems thinking, where individuals start to put

aside their own personal benefits and begin asking how the things they do best

benefits the organization. This is no different than “initiative” fatigue. Leaders need

to begin asking how the initiatives they want to implement are going to impact

student learning. This is a good starting point in beginning to “weed the garden”.

Shift in Thinking

Assessment for learning requires teachers to involve students in the learning

process. Black and Wiliam (2004) found “for teachers, courage is necessary. One of

the striking features of the project was that, in the early stages, many participants

described the new approach as “scary” because they felt they were going to lose

control of their classes” (p. 20). For teachers, a sense of control is one way to gauge


their own success in the classroom, and as they begin to embrace assessment for

learning it can be a “scary” adventure. Teachers are required to take risks and

implement practices that they may not be comfortable with. They need to invite

students to be a part of the learning process and acknowledge that it is very much a

process where they become more of a facilitator of student learning as opposed to

the teacher that knows all.

Reeves (2007) addressed a key point when he stated “perfection is not an

option” (p. 232). Teachers need to be willing to take risks, try new assessment

approaches, make the necessary instructional adjustments, and be ready to re -

teach content or skills if students do not get it the first time. Reeves (2007)

identified the following five choices that teachers need to reflect on in an attempt to

move away from the traditional approach to educating students:

Choice 1: Power Standard or Frantic Coverage?;

Choice 2: Practical Utility or Psychometric Perfection?;

Choice 3: The Primacy of Literacy or the Pursuit of Popularity?;

Choice 4: Collaboration or the Blob; and

Choice 5: Evidence or Tradition?2 (pp. 232 – 47)

While none of the five choices identified by Reeves are any more important than

another, what they encourage teachers to do is examine their current mental models

(Senge, 1990) of education. If you were to examine choice one for example, you

2 For a more detailed explanation of the five choices Reeves has identified see Reeves, D. (2007). Challenges and choices: The role of educational leaders in effective assessment. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 226 – 251). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.


would find that it is closely related to the section that discusses the importance of

building a strong foundation or knowledge base. Teachers need to shift their

thinking away from “covering” curriculum and working in isolation to working

collaboratively to discuss what are the essential skills or “priority standards” that

all students must master. Should teachers accept the challenge of embracing

assessment for learning, it can be utilized as a mechanism to address the five choices

identified by Reeves. Reeves (2002) concluded:

Through the use of power standards, we can give our students proficiency

with those standards that address 80 – 90 percent of the content of the state

test, and also give them the reading, writing, and reasoning skills to help

them on any state test question. On the other hand, we can reject power

standards and embrace coverage, in which case students will be exposed to

100 percent of the potential content of the state test, and they might master

50 percent of those skills. (p. 53)

The conclusion by Reeves challenges teachers to reflect on their current practices

and determine if what they are doing is really in the best interest of their students.

A key element of assessment for learning centers on choice 4, collaboration

or the blob. As teachers begin to refine and reflect on their current practices, they

need to have discussions with their colleagues around what quality work looks like.

This helps teachers in shifting their thinking because they begin to discuss with one

another what quality work looks like but also what is important for their students to

learn. Schmoker (2011) stated “the actual curriculum an average child learns, in the

same course and in the same school, varies tremendously from teacher to teacher;


what you learn depends on what teacher you have” (p. 13). The process of

professional dialogue and challenging one another on our beliefs is not a

conversation that most educators like to have. However, as Reeves (2002) argued,

teachers need to “remember, if we disagree, the enemy is not one another; the

enemy is ambiguity” (p. 39). We, as teachers, need to work collectively to bring

consistent, yet challenging expectations, to the classroom for all of our students.

The idea that all students can learn and learn at high levels is a concept that

teachers struggle with. A lot of schools still utilize the “factory model” that was

introduced during the industrial revolution to sort students (Robinson, 2006).

Reeves (2002) stated “there is a core belief statement, rarely inscribed in

documents but frequently carried out in practice, that states ‘Some kids get it and

some kids don’t, and we’re here to validate the social hierarchy that existed long

before these kids came to our school’” (p. 29). This is a challenging shift in thinking

for teachers as most are familiar with the “factory model” that Ken Robinson speaks

of. However, Black and Wiliam (1998) found “that improved formative assessment

helps low achievers more than other students and so reduces the range of

achievement while raising achievement overall” (p. 141). Teachers struggle with

the idea that all students can learn at high levels because of the lack of knowledge

that surrounds assessment for learning and as a result this leads to misconceptions

about what teachers need to do. When teachers view a system where all students

learn at high levels, there are concerns around what will be jeopardized to bring all

students to high marks. However, what teachers overlook is that this does not mean


all students will be in the 80’s or 90’s but what it does mean is that teachers will

challenge their students to do their very best. Edmonds (1982) stated:

We can, whenever we choose, successfully teach all [Italics added] children

whose schooling is of interest to us. We already know more than we need to

do that. Whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about

the fact that we haven’t so far.

Given that experts in the field of education are still exploring how we can make the

system better, it is clear that educators have not taken into consideration what

Edmonds had concluded. If we choose to believe that all students can learn, then we

as educators must begin challenging students in different ways and provide them

multiple opportunities to demonstrate that learning.

This shift in thinking starts with teachers becoming informed about what all

students can learn really means. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Karhanek (2004)

argued “a key shift in assumptions must occur, learning must [Italics added] become

the constant and time and support the variables” (p. 34). The learning argument

that DuFour et. al. make is consistent with Marzano, Kendall, and Cicchinelli’s

(1999) argument “that adequate coverage of many of the state’s standards would

require more than twice the number of classroom hours than are typically available,

many schools steadfastly refuse to discard anything – or at least to admit they do”.

However, as teachers are asked to shift their thinking, whether it be giving students

multiple opportunities to demonstrate their learning or whether learning becomes

the constant, they often are faced with some sort of accountability measurement to

ensure they are actually doing their job. As Cole and Schlechty (1993) concluded:


In the factory model of schooling, quality was the variable; time was the

constant. Students were given a set amount of work to do in a set period of

time, then graded on the quality of what was accomplished. We held time

constant, and allowed quality to vary. We must turn that on its head: Hold

the quality of the work constant, and allow time to vary. We must realize we

have the power to achieve common curriculum by uncommon means. (p. 10)

Assessment for learning is a powerful tool that helps teachers in making quality or

learning the constant and the time it takes to demonstrate that quality or learning

the variable. After examining numerous curriculum documents, I have yet to come

across one that states a student must demonstrate mastery of the curricular

outcome their very first time. However, when the province tells its teachers that all

students will meet all the curricular outcomes in 110 hours, they are giving teachers

a conflicting message. These accountability tools are what provinces and states

utilize to ensure teachers are “covering” what is outlined in the curriculum

documents.

Clear understanding of high stakes tests

Teachers are required to ensure that all students are learning at high levels,

but there seems to be a degree of uncertainty in what is happening in teacher’s

classrooms. As a result of this uncertainty, the United States of America and a

number of Canadian provinces have implemented high stakes tests. Assessment is

meant to make inferences about student learning and then make the necessary

adjustments to help students address any misconceptions or misunderstandings.


Popham (2003) stated “educational measurement is an inference – making

enterprise in which we formally collect overt, test – based evidence from students to

arrive at what we hope are accurate inferences about students’ status with respect

to covert, educationally important variables...” (p. 4). Asking teachers to shift their

thinking, have a clear purpose for their curriculum and invite students into the

learning journey, is a difficult task when there are external accountability measures

that compare schools to schools, divisions to divisions etcetera. This is another case

where there is a clear disconnect between what department of education officials

are saying and what they are doing. As it was stated in the previous section,

curriculum documents do not state that students must master the outcomes their

very first attempt, but at the same time government officials expect the curriculum

to be taught and learned in 110 hours. The message that department officials give

to schools and school divisions is contradictory to what the experts are saying about

assessment. Reeves (2002) concluded “the first principle of assessment is that the

purpose of testing is not to rate, rank, sort, and humiliate students or parents, but

rather to improve teaching and learning” (p. 26).

“In the United States today, most citizens regard students’ performances on

standardized achievement tests as the definitive indicator of school quality. These

test scores, published in newspapers, monitored by district administrators and state

departments of education, and reported to the federal government, marks school

staffs as either successful or unsuccessful” (Popham, 2003, p. 123). The publishing

of scores that Popham refers to, as well as teacher firings for not being able to meet

state requirements, have teachers questioning the value of assessment for learning.


On February 24, 2010 a Rhode Island school board voted unanimously to fire 93

people – including the principal, three assistant principals and 77 teachers. These

firings came as a result of the school not improving student test scores to a point

that the board felt was acceptable. These actions act as a major hurdle as schools

and school districts attempt to implement assessment for learning to ensure student

learning.

Popham (2008) found “formative assessment will not improve students’ scores

on most of today’s accountability tests, at least not enough to make any meaningful

difference” (p. 121). He further argued “almost all of today’s educational

accountability tests are instructionally insensitive, incapable of detecting the

difference between effective and ineffective instruction” (p. 123). We are asking

teachers to interpret their curriculum documents and make decisions about

essential outcomes knowing that at the end of the year they may face a high stakes

test to judge their teaching ability. Reeves (2002) stated “accountability, when

properly applied, is not merely about announcing an evaluation of schools, but

rather about deep analysis of cause – and – effect variables” (p. 99). The message

from the experts is consistent, there is more to student learning than grades and

numbers, but the reality of the situation is that teachers must balance the external

accountability mechanisms with the classroom formative assessments. As teachers

analyze the results of the external accountability assessments, they need to

acknowledge the following short comings of these tests:

Score spread: test writers choose items that are the best contributors to a

test’s overall score – spread, those that have – values between .40 and .60.ρ


Socioeconomic – linked items: because the creation of score – spread is such

a powerful goal of those who build standardized achievement tests, they link

many items to students’ socioeconomic status (SES). Test writers actually

design test items to penalize students based on their socioeconomic status.

Aptitude – linked items: lots of standardized achievement tests feature items

that obviously measure not curricular content but verbal, quantitative, and

spatial aptitude. The more such items there are on a traditional standardized

achievement test, the less instructionally sensitive the test will be.

Too many curricular targets: In many states, you’ll find that an elementary

teacher is supposed to teach students to master literally hundreds of state –

dictated curricular aims during a nine – month school year....Given those

enormous numbers of curricular aims, it is patently impossible to measure

students’ mastery of all such aims on a given year’s accountability test.

(Popham, 2008, pp. 122 – 130)

Popham has identified a number of reasons why standardized or high stakes tests

are not the best instrument to gauge what teachers are doing in their classrooms.

However, while standardized or high stakes tests are not the most accurate or valid

instrument that states and provinces may use, teachers must be cautioned to

completely dismiss them. As inaccurate as these instruments may be, they are still

one of the most used items to determine whether or not teachers are doing their job

in the classroom.

Although assessment for learning is not about improving test scores, if

teachers have a clear purpose of curriculum at the center of their classroom


instruction, which focuses specifically on “priority” standards, the belief is students

would gain the necessary skills to be successful on most standardized or high stakes

tests. Jacobs (2003 – 2004) commented “there’s a need for both timeless curriculum

content and timely content...We have to make decisions about what we shed and

what we keep – and some of what we’re holding on to is predicated on outdated

needs (of students)” (p. 13). Content will always be a part of education but

educators need to move more away from content and begin to ensure that their

students have mastered key skills. Cooper (2006) stated “it is ludicrous to expect

students to memorize facts or figures that they can find via the internet in three

seconds or less”. What teachers must work towards is ensuring that their students

have the skills to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information found

on the internet. This is difficult to do when there is such a discrepancy between

what should be happening in classrooms, finding a balance between content and

skills, and what external standardized or high stakes tests actually measure, which

is content.

ConclusionWe have witnessed many educational initiatives throughout the course of

education history. Students today are needing skills that students 10 – 15 years ago

didn’t. Schmoker (2011) found “about a 90 percent overlap between the needs of

workers and those who attend college, and recommends that ‘all high school students

should experience a common academic core that prepares them for both college and

workforce training, regardless of their future plans’” (p. 27). It does not matter what

young people do when they leave high school, as Schmoker has identified, our students


all need similar skills. The fact that all students need similar skills is a strong argument

for assessment for learning. If schools and school divisions implement this initiative

properly, then all students would be challenged to demonstrate higher levels of thinking

and encouraged to utilize multiple opportunities to submit high quality work.


The research overwhelmingly supports assessment for learning and with the

exception of effective classroom instruction, has one of the greatest impacts on student

learning. However, schools and school divisions need to look beyond what the research

is saying and start looking at why this powerful tool is not being utilized more than what

it is. It is important that we begin to look more closely at why assessment for learning is

not being implemented and focus less on trying to get staff members to “buy in” by

presenting what the research is claiming. Leaders at all levels need to examine, more

closely, why teachers are hesitant to implement this practice into their classrooms. It is

not overly clear as to what some of the hurdles are but leaders need to acknowledge that

we have not done a great job on educating our teachers. For a lot of teachers, the

research does not mean anything to them. Teachers need to see the practicality of

assessment for learning and this is one of the most important focuses a school or school

division should have.

Assessment for learning is about inviting students to become a part of their

learning journey. Educational leaders need to start aligning their actions with their

words. If we want teachers to include students in their own learning journey then

teachers need to be included in the learning journey of their schools and school divisions.

Reeves (2009) stated “when teachers recite the mantra that ‘all children can learn’ but

persist in lesson plans, grading policies, and assessments that embody the philosophy that

only a few will succeed, then children quickly learn that yet another adult in their lives

says one thing and does another” (p.12). Everyone involved in education needs to work

towards improving student learning and that all starts by doing what we say we are going

to do.


References

Ainsworth, L. (2003). “Unwrapping” the standards: A simple process to make

standards manageable. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect

standards – based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Banger-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, C.C., Kulik, J.A., & Morgan, M.T. (1991). The instructional

effect of feedback on test – like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2),

213 – 238.

Bennett, R. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in

Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5 – 25.

Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student

achievement in high – performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education, 5 (1), 7–74.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through

classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 139 – 148.

Black, P., McCormick, R., James, M., & Pedder, D. (2006). Learning how to learn and

assessment for learning: A theoretical inquiry. Research Papers in Education,

21(2), 119 – 132.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the

black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 9- 21.


Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher – order thinking skills in your classroom.


Carter, L. (2007). Total instructional alignment: From standards to student success.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Cole, R., & Schlechty, P. (1993). Teachers as trailblazers in restructuring. Education

Digest, 58(6), 8 – 12.

Cooper, D. (2006). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning.

Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.

Crooks, T. (1998). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review

of Educational Research, 58(4), 438 – 481.

Davies, A. (2007). Making classroom assessment work (2nd ed.). Courtenay, BC:

Connections Publishing.

Davies, A., Herbst, S., & Reynolds, B. (2008). Leading the way to making classroom

assessment work. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.

Davies, A., Herbst, S., & Reynolds, B. (2008). Transforming barriers to assessment for

learning. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.

Delorenzo, R., Battino, W., Schreiber, R., & Carrio, B. (2009). Delivering on the

promise: The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best

practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution

Tree.


DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How

professional learning communities respond when kids don’t learn.

Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to

become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National

Educational Service.

Erickson, H. (2002). Concept based curriculum and instruction: Teaching beyond

the facts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Greenstein, L. (2010). What teachers really need to know about formative

assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Guskey, T. (2007). Using assessments to improve teaching and learning. In D. Reeves

(Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching


Hattie, J. (1992). Measuring the effects of schooling. Australian Journal of Education,

36(1), 5 – 13.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta – analyses relating to

achievement. London and New York: Routledge.

Jacobs, H. H. (2003 – 2004). Creating a timely curriculum. Educational Leadership,

61(4), 13.

Marzano, R., Kendall, J., & Cicchinelli, L. (1998). What Americans believe students

should know: A survey of U.S. adults. Aurora, CO: Mid – continent Research

for Education and Learning.


Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

O’Connor, K. (2007). The last frontier: Tackling the grading dilemma. In D. Reeves

(Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching


Popham, J. (2003). Test better, teach better: The instructional role of assessment.


Popham, J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations.

Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Reeves, D. (2006). Leading to change/Pulling the weeds before you plant the

flowers. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 89 -90.

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build

commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. (2002). The leader’s guide to standards: A blueprint for educational

equity and excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey – Bass.

Rhoads, K. (2011). Despite rough seas, teachers in rural maine swim together.

Journal for Staff Development, 32(2), 22 – 26.

Robinson, K. (Presenter). (February 2006). Schools kill creativity. TED Ideas Worth

Spreading. Retrieved from

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html


Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.

Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.

Schmoker, M. (2011). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student

learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Senge, P. (2000). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization.

New York: Currency Doubleday.

Stiggins, R. (2005, September). Assessment for learning defined. A paper presented

at the ETS/Assessment Training institute’s International Conference:

Promoting Sound Assessment in Every Classroom. Retrieved May 1, 2011

from

http://www.assessmentinst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/afldefined.

pdf

Stiggins, R. (1994). Student centered classroom assessment. New York: Merrill.

Stiggins, R. (1997). Student – centered classroom assessment (2nd ed.). Columbus,

OH: Merrill

Stiggins, R.J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18 (1), 23-27.

Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi

Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758 – 765.

Stiggins, R. (2007). Student - involved assessment for learning.


Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment

for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1),

49 – 65.

DerrickCameronVitae

Documents

canada specialization

formative assessment

learning center

brandon university

university of calgary

sk canada

high school new comers

priority standards