January, 2014 RSE-TASC 2014.pdfRSE-TASC reporter LONG ISLAND REGIONAL SPECIAL EDUCATION ... 2012, by Disability Intellectual Disabilities 3% figure 1learning outcomes and actual student

January, 2014

RSE-TASC reporter

LO N G I S LAN D REG I ON AL S PE C I AL E DUCATI O N—TEC HN I C AL AS S I S TAN C E S UPPORT C E N TE R

The Fundamentals of Formative Assessment: Using the Feedback Loop to Identify and Close Gaps in Learning By Monique Habersham ~ Special Education School Improvement Specialist

leading to vital feedback and an evolved plan to ensure students’ attainment of intended instructional outcomes. While there are differing definitions of formative assessment offered and accepted by experts in the field, including the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) and the Assessment Reform Group (ARG), there are common elements that run through all of them (see figure 2 on page 2). Of those, one element of vital importance is the Feedback Loop. The Feedback Loop is an essential element of formative assessment for teachers to utilize if they are to successfully identify and close gaps in student (cont. on pg. 2)

In this issue: The Fundamentals of Formative Assessment ~ Page 1 Common Elements of Formative Assessment ~ Page 2 RSE-TASC Workshop Information ~ Page 3 Contact Information & the Feedback Loop Diagram ~ Page 4

Please visit us on the web, at: http://www.esboces.org/Page/89

Learning Disability * 37%

Speech or Language Impairment *

25%

Other Health Impairment * 15%

Emotional Disturbance *

7%

Autism 7%

Multiple Disabilities 4%

Traumatic Brain Injury * > 1 Deafness * > 1% Deaf/Blindness * > 1%

Hearing Impairment * 1% Orthopedic Impairment * 1%

Visual Impairment * >1%

Percent of All Students With Disabilities in New York State as of October 3, 2012, by Disability

Intellectual Disabilities

3%

figure 1 * Approximately 86% of all of the students with disabilities identified above (all of those outside of the triangle) have similar cognitive capacities as their non-disabled peers, and should be expected to meet the same standards. Source: New York State Education Department

Students with disabilities who receive special education services as required by the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) currently make up approximately 13% of the public school enrollment in America, with percentages in states varying from 10% to 19%. Of all students with disabilities, the vast majority (80-85% nationally) have the cognitive capacity to meet the same achievement standards as their non-disabled peers (see figure 1 on this page for an example). Consequently, as educators of students with disabilities, our goal should be to utilize researched validated approaches and strategies to ensure that students receiving special education services advance through school successfully, with access to the same curricula content as their non-disabled peers. Proven approaches to ensure that students with disabilities are prepared for college or a career after high school include: Explicit, Direct Instruction (EDI), specially designed instruction that meets the individualized needs of students, appropriate access to the Common Core and Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) Learning Standards, and appropriate supports and or accommodations as required by IDEA (Meeting the Needs of Special Education Students:

Recommendations for the Race to the Top Consortia and States, 2010). An essential component of EDI, formative assessment is an instructional approach that is currently gaining a lot of momentum. Formative assessment requires teachers to continuously check for understanding to inform real time classroom decisions (see the December edition of the RSE-TASC Reporter), and is essential for distinguishing between what is being taught and what/how students are actually learning. This article will explore the use of a key formative assessment framework, the “Feedback Loop”, as an essential EDI approach used to identify, and then close gaps that exist between desired learning outcomes and actual student learning. The fundamentals of formative assessment involve collecting data (student information) before, during and after instruction that may be used by

teachers to make instructional decisions and adjustments. Students, in turn, also use this information to adjust their learning strategies. Formative assessment is a planned process that produces evidence of a student’s status,

“It is this continuously evolving engagement/dialogue between student and teacher that is the essence of the Feedback Loop.”

2

(cont. from pg. 1)

figure 2, Black and Wiliam, 1998; Clark, 2011; Heritage, 2010 learning. In the Feedback Loop process, feedback has two aspects. First, feedback (evidence) obtained from planned or spontaneous activities is an essential resource for teachers to shape new learning through adjustments in their instruction. A continual stream of evidence from feedback is necessary during lessons to ensure success. Second, feedback that the teacher provides to students is also an essential resource so the students can take active steps to advance their own learning (Heritage, 2011). As extensive literature on feedback suggests, in the Feedback Loop, teacher feedback is apt to be most beneficial when it helps students to understand their current learning status. Feedback should be clear, descriptive and criterion-based to indicate: where students are in the learning progression, how their responses differed from that reflected in the desired learning goal, and how they can move forward. The teacher’s role also involves helping students develop the skills to make meta-cognitive judgments about their learning in relation to the goal being aimed for, and to establish a repertoire of strategies to regulate their own learning. The students’ role in the Feedback Loop cycle begins when they have a clear conception of the learning target (Heritage, 2011), for example, when they internalize the learning objective of a lesson. It is this continuously evolving engagement/dialogue between student and teacher that is the essence of the Feedback Loop. Margaret Heritage (2007) of the National Center for Research on

Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) folded the

attributes of the Feedback Loop into a model of the formative

assessment process (see figure 3 on page 4). The process focuses

on the following five key elements: 1) learning progressions; 2)

eliciting evidence; 3) identifying the gap; 4) teacher assessment

and feedback, and 5) student involvement.

Learning progressions define the pathway along which

students are expected to progress in a domain. They identify the

enabling knowledge and skills students need to reach the learning

goal as well as provide a map of future learning opportunities.

Learning progressions are typically outlined in unit and lesson

plans.

Eliciting evidence. At its core, formative assessment must

produce quality evidence of learning in order to be effective.

According to Heritage (2009a, 2009b), no single way to collect

evidence is necessarily better than others, but decisions should be

made: appropriate to the purpose for collecting that evidence;

Common Elements of Formative Assessment

Systematic A continuous process used during instruction Evaluates learning while it is developing Is indivisible with instruction and integrated

with teaching and learning Actively involves both the teacher and the

student Involves self and peer assessment Informs and supports instruction while learn-

ing is taking place, and… Provides a Feedback Loop to adjust ongoing

instruction and close gaps in learning

that are aligned with the learning goals; that are considerate of the

concepts, skills and strategies that are the focus of the lesson; and,

that provide sufficiently detailed information for action.

Identifying the gap. Drawing from Sadler ‘s (1989) work, Wiliam

and Thompson (2007) noted three key processes in teaching and

learning: 1) establishing where the learners are in the learning

progression; 2) establishing where they are going; and (3) what

needs to be done to get them there. The model set up by Sadler

(1989) stresses the importance of identifying the gap between what

a learner currently knows and the desired goal for him/her to reach.

This gap is also know as the zone of proximal development. The

zone of proximal development is the area where Vygotsky (1978;

1986) hypothesizes that learning and development take place. It is

defined as the distance between what the student can accomplish

during independent problem solving and the level of the problem

solving that can be accomplished under the guidance of an adult or

in collaboration with a more expert peer. By engaging in the

Feedback Loop process, cognitive growth may occur as students

have an opportunity to internalize problem solving procedures.

Teacher assessment and feedback. If teachers are to build on

students’ prior knowledge and learning, they must be able to

identify what those previous understandings are. “Teachers’ skills in

drawing inferences from student responses (checking for

understanding) are crucial to the effectiveness of formative

assessment “ (Heritage, 2007, p. 144). The elaborate component of

feedback should be detailed and specific as to how the learner can

improve or advance the learning but not too complex (Shute, 2008).

In addition, feedback should be goal-directed, providing students

with information about their advancement toward specific goals.

Student Involvement. Research shows that when students take

an active role in monitoring and regulating their own learning, then

the rate of that learning is dramatically increased (Wiliam, 2007, p.

3) and perhaps doubled. The emphasis on student self-monitoring

and meta-cognition during the Feedback Loop process enables them

to develop a repertoire of cognitive strategies to improve their own

learning. As Dweck (2000) notes, even when students are not

experiencing success through the process, they can learn to see

ability as something that they can grow themselves as evidenced by

their responses to challenges.

In the current climate of educational accountability, it is understood

that the vast majority of students with disabilities are to be held to

the same high standards as their non-disabled peers. In utilizing EDI

strategies such as the Feedback Loop, educators are cultivating

invaluable opportunities to promote student meta-cognition and

autonomy, identify and close gaps in student learning, and as a

result, prepare students for the fast paced and rapidly changing

world that awaits them in their post-secondary futures.

3

behavior workshops • bilingual workshops • non-district workshops • regulations • transition workshops

L ON G I S L A ND RS E - TA SC RE GI ON AL W OR KS H OP S

To Register for our Regional Workshops, you may visit our new and improved website by clicking on this link: http://www.esboces.org/Page/89, or...

Please go to http://webreg.esboces.org to register online. Under “Search Options”, pull-down and check RSE-TASC and then click “Search”.

Then, simply scroll down to register for the workshop you are interested in. Clicking on the hyperlinked

workshop dates below will bring you directly to the respective MyLearningPlan® registration page.

• LONG ISLAND RSE-TASC REGIONAL CATALOGUE SAMPLE • FOR A COMPLETE LISTING OF WORKSHOPS, GO TO WEBREG

January Self Determination (Nassau) — 1/16/14

facilitated by Ms. Cathy Pantelides

IEPs from A to Z (Nassau) — 1/29/14 facilitated by Ms. Arlene Crandall

New York State Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) Commencement Credential — Module I, II & III Module III — Connecting the CDOS Standards to work-based learning (Suffolk) — 1/30/14 facilitated by Mr. Matthew Jurgens

Helping Families of English Language Learners Understand the Special Education Process (Nassau) — 1/30/14 facilitated by Ms. Elizabeth DeFazio-Rodriguez

New York State Career Development and Occupational Studies (CDOS) Commencement Credential — Module I, II & III Module’s I and II—Overview & The Three CDOS Learning Standards (East Islip) — 1/31/14 facilitated by Mr. Matthew Jurgens

February Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 2013-2014 Regional Forum:

Strengthening Classroom Systems: (Western Suffolk) — 2/25/14 facilitated by Ms. Michelle Levy

Adapting Instruction to Address Behavior (Suffolk) — 2/27/14 facilitated by Ms. Michelle Levy

March Educational Benefit: Strategies for Improving IEPs & Decision Making at the CSE (Nassau) — 3/19/14

facilitated by Ms. Arlene Crandall

4

IN SUFFOLK CALL • 631.218.4197 IN NASSAU CALL • 516.396.2989

CENTRAL OFFICE (Suffolk office): Vincent Leone, Coordinator

Sharon Van Winckel, Senior Account Clerk Lynn Hayes, Senior Clerk Typist

NASSAU SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS (SESIS):

Naomi Gershman Monique Habersham

Matthew Zegers Roxane Diamond, Senior Typist Clerk

SUFFOLK SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS (SESIS):

Marjorie Guzewicz Elizabeth Silva

REGIONAL TRAINERS (Suffolk office):

Arlene B. Crandall, Regional Special Education Training Specialist Elizabeth DeFazio-Rodriguez, Bilingual Special Education Specialist

Michelle Levy, Behavior Specialist Gary Coppolino, Jr., Behavior Specialist

Cathy Pantelides, Nassau Transition Specialist Matthew Jurgens, Suffolk Transition Specialist

Laurance Anderson, Non-District Specialist

• RSE-TASC STAFF •

figure 3—Heritage, 2007, Vygotsky, 1978

The Formative Assessment Process, Illustrated as the

“Feedback Loop”

Learning Progression

Determine learning

goals & Define criteria

For success

Elicit Evidence

of Learning

- Formative

Assessment!

Interpret

the

evidence

Identify the gap

(Zone of

Proximal

Development)

Feedback!

Student-

to-teacher

Teacher-

to-student

Plan

learning/instructional

modifications

Scaffold

new

learning

Close the

gap!

Resources:

In Sight—A Newsletter for Curriculum, Instruction and

Assessment: http://www5.esc13.net/thescoop/insight/

Entry and Exit Tickets! Extremely practical Formative

Assessment Strategies: www.nbss.ie

Formative Assessment Rubric Guide: www.mcgill.ca/files/

ost/RUBRICS_GUIDE.pdf

References:

Cho, V. & Wayman, J.C. (2012). Districts’ efforts for data use

and computer data. Retrieved January 16, 2013: http://edadmin.edb.utexas.edu/datause/

Black, P., Wiliam. D. (1998). Inside the black box raising

standards through classroom assessment, Department of Education Professional Studies, Kings College London.

Daddyoethan. (2011). Iowa CORE Literature Review

Assessment for Learning (Formative Assessment).

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation,

personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Gallagher, C., Worth, P. (2008). Formative assessment policies,

programs, and practices in the Southwest Region.

Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: what do teachers

need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.

Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: making it happen in

the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., and Lazarus, S. (2010).

Meeting the needs of special education students: recommendations for the race to the top consortia and states.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of

instructional strategies. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Wiliam, D., Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with

instruction: what will it take to make it work? In the future of assessment: shaping teaching and learning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, N.J.