1. A LEARNING PROGRESSIONS APPROACH Measuring teachers' use of formative assessment: BRENT DUCKOR (SJSU) DIANA WILMOT (PAUSD) BILL CONRAD & JIMMY SCHERRER (SCCOE) AMY DRAY (UCB)

2. WHY FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT?  Black and Wiliam (1998) report that studies of formative assessment (FA) show an effect size on standardized tests between 0.4 and 0.7, far larger than most educational interventions and equivalent to approximately 8 months of additional instruction;  Further, FA is particularly effective for low achieving students, narrowing the gap between them and high achievers, while raising overall achievement;  Enhancing FA would be an extremely cost-effective way to improve teaching practice;  Unfortunately, they also find that FA is relatively rare in the classroom, and that most teachers lack effective FA skills.

3. MEASURING EFFECTIVE FA PRACTICE: TOWARD A CYCLE OF PSYCHOMETRIC INQUIRY  Define constructs in multi-dimensional space  Design items and observations protocol  Iterate scoring strategy in alignment construct maps  Apply measurement model to validate teacher and item-level claims and to warrant inferences about effective practice

4. FA

5. TEACHERS WHO PRACTICE ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING KNOW AND CAN  understand and articulate in advance of teaching the achievement targets that their students are to hit;  inform their students about those learning goals, in terms that students understand;  translate classroom assessment results into frequent descriptive feedback  for students, providing them with specific insights as to how to improve;  continuously adjusting instruction based on the results of classroom assessments. Ask an expert

6. RESEARCH SUGGESTS Novice Poses closed ended questionsCalls on first hand in the airLooks to usual suspects Ignores and/or fails to uncover student thinking Expert Frames open ended, probative questions Allows sufficient wait time Systematically uses response routines to increase participation Anticipates student thinking patterns and greets them FA 1.0

7. GOOD FORMATIVE FEEDBACK  Types of feedback (Butler, 1998; Butler & Neuman, 1995; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996);  Level of specificity and task relatedness (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996; Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986);  The “next steps” required of students (Butler & Neuman, 1995) can influence the effectiveness of formative assessment on classroom learning. FA 2.0

8. THE ZONE OF STUDY

9. Items Design Outcome SpaceMeasurement Model Reliability Validity Construct Map

10. PHASE 1: CONSTRUCT MAPPING Science Content Student thinking Formative Assessment

11. KNOWLEDGE OF FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

12. Mapping a Route … Setting the stage Soliciting responses Uncovering student thinking Aligning questions and responses with content Assessing content related to student thinking around a big idea in science FA 3.0 Novice teaching Expert teaching

13. Skills Allocation at “Soliciting responses” level Posing Mostly lower order questions Pausing Uses “wait time” tactically Pouncing Calls on Ss with raised hands Looks for “correct” answer’

14. Construct Map Item Design Measurement Model Reliability Validity Outcome Space

15. PHASE 2: ITEMS DESIGN  Align items (tasks, prompts, scenarios) with the levels on the construct map.  Building items to map onto a refined set of formative assessment practices.  Consider various item types and delivery platforms.  Review an example of a simulated scenario with focus on turns of talk.  Consider content and construct validity, as well as inter-rater reliability in construction and use of items.

16. CONSIDER THE CONTEXT: THE LESSON CYCLE  Initial framing of a question within a HIGH LEVEL Task.  Study the enactment of formative assessment implementation within a science classroom engaged in HL tasks in ecology.

17. THE EVOLUTION OF A TASK The Enacted Task Stein, Remillard, & Smith (2007)

18. DELIVERY PLATFORMS FOR DATA COLLECTION Traditional “paper and pencil” questions Classroom based “authentic” tasks  Lesson planning/enactment/reflections  Lesson study of best formative assessment practices Innovative adaptive virtual scenarios (AVS)  Video episodes  Web-based virtual platforms

19. ADAPTIVE VIRTUAL SCENARIOS  Ability to share a range of novice through expert formative assessment practice in video format.  Pause videos throughout teacher enactment to measure teachers level of sophistication.

20. POTENTIAL ITEMS WITHIN SIMULATED SCENARIOS  Pause video and ask the teacher:  How would you characterize this initial move?  What do you notice about the teachers’ questioning strategy?  How might you compare one questioning strategy with another?  What would you do next?  Replay video and show teachers’ follow up moves.  Pause and ask the teacher what they think:  How would you negotiate this student response?  What kind of question would you pose next?

21. SAMPLE OF TEACHER RESPONSES  Initial move was “literal”, ”more open ended”.  Teacher’s response to students was:  “too directed towards the right answer”,  “thoughtfully provoking misconceptions”,  “open enough to provoke deeper conceptual knowledge across the classroom”  I would have asked a question like,”…[a question that uses student thinking as a basis]”

22. ADMINISTRATION OF TOOLS  Administer tools with widest range of teachers possible  pre-service  Induction years  Veteran 5-9 years  Veteran 10+ years  Use adaptive technology to capture teacher’s zone of proximal development in their expertise of formative assessment practices  Examine relationship (if any) between scores on multiple tools

23. Construct Map Items Design Measurement Model Reliability Validity Outcome Space

24. PHASE 3: DEFINING THE OUTCOME SPACE  Link each item response back to the levels on the construct map.  Using scoring guides to capture granularity of formative assessment practices.  Consider various types e.g. rubrics, observation protocols, coding  Provide exemplars of practice to assist in scoring protocols.  Consider content and construct validity, as well as inter-rater reliability in construction and use of scoring guides.

25. PROBLEM OF PRACTICE: FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT  Teachers have difficulty scaffolding student thinking and reasoning through discourse  As a result, the cognitive demand of a task often declines during implementation (e.g., TIMSS, QUASAR)

26. A Tool for Measuring Teachers’ use of most- formative assessment 1.Initiate participation in classroom discussions 2.Respond to students contributions during a discussion Scherrer & Stein (In Press)

27. AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO APPLY THE CODES IN CONTEXT 1.Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? 2.Juan: It has 4 right angles. 3.Teacher: What else can you tell me? 4.Kayla: It is a rectangle. 5.Teacher: Okay, a rectangle. Why do you think it is a rectangle? 6.Kayla: It has 4 sides. 7.Teacher: Are all shapes that have 4 sides rectangles? 8.Yasmin: It could also be a quadrilateral. 9.Teacher: Wait. I am asking if all shapes with 4 sides are rectangles.  Launch  Collect  Repeat, Uptake  Uptake-Literal  Terminal, Reinitiate

28. SCORING THE CODES 1.Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? 2.Juan: It is a quadrilateral. 3.Teacher: What else can you tell me? 4.Kayla: It is a rectangle. 5.Teacher: Okay, what else? 6.Yasmin: It has four right angles. 7.Teacher: Okay, what about this shape over here? What can you tell me about this one?  Launch  Collect  Launch In this example, the teacher did not “do” anything with the student responses. +1 +0 +1

29. SCORING THE CODES 1.Teacher: What can you tell me about this shape? 2.Juan: It is a quadrilateral. 3.Teacher: What else can you tell me? 4.Kayla: It is a rectangle. 5.Teacher: Okay, Juan said this shape is a quadrilateral, and Kayla said it is a rectangle. What is similar about quadrilaterals and rectangles?  Launch  Collect  Connect In this example, the teacher asked an open-ended question, gathered an additional response to that question, and then connected the two responses. +1 +2

30. CONNECTING CODES TO RESPONSE LEVELS ON THE CONSTRUCT MAP Response Levels  Launch, Collect, Connect, Uptake  Launch, Collect, Uptake  Launch, Collect, Literal  Launch, Literal, Literal  Literal, Literal, Literal Scoring designations L4 L3 L2 L1 L0

31. Construct Map Items Design Outcome Space Reliability Validity Measurement Model

32. PHASE 4: APPLYING MEASUREMENT MODELS  Cross reference qualitative construct maps with technically calibrated Wright Maps using IRT.  Employ person and item statistics to check on model fit  Consider various types of measurement models including facets.  Provide individual and group level data on progress.  Consider “internal structure” validity evidence for construct maps, in addition to checks on reliability of tools.

33. BERKELEY EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT RESEARCH CENTER Item response theory can model a “learning progression” within a particular domain. For example:  KSC: Knowledge of science content  KST: Knowledge of student thinking  KFA: Knowledge of formative assessment

34. BERKELEY EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT RESEARCH CENTER Knowledge of Science Content Knowledge of Student Cognition Knowledge of Formative Assessment

38. CASE STUDY: DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (DIAS) FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Pamela Moss, University of Michigan Mark Wilson, University of California, Berkeley Goal is to develop an assessment system that:  focuses on teaching practice grounded in professional and disciplinary knowledge as it develops over time;  addresses multiple purposes of a broad array of stakeholders working in different contexts; and  creates the foundation for programmatic coherence and professional development across time and institutional contexts.

39. CASE STUDY: DIAS The research team identified the ways in which student teachers can learn to use formative and summative assessment to guide their students’ learning.  Developed a construct map that outlined a progression of learning in “Assessment.”  Described the different aspects of “Assessment,” such as:  Identifying the mathematical target to be assessed;  Understanding the purposes of the assessment;  Designing appropriate and feasible tasks (such as end of class checks);  Developing accurate inferences about individual student and whole class learning.

40. CASE STUDY: DIAS  The research team collected data from student teachers enrolled in the elementary mathematics teacher education program at the University of Michigan.  Designed scoring guides based on our construct map.  Coded videotapes from over 100 student teachers as they conducted lessons in the classroom.  Coded associated collected data, such as lesson plans and reflections, since these documents contain information about what the student teachers hope to learn from the assessment(s), and what they infer about the students in their classroom.  Using item response methods to determine which aspects of assessment practice are easier or more difficult for the student teachers and to thereby inform the teacher education program.

41. SYNOPSIS  Incredible partnership  Filling an important educational research space  Identified the assessment space  Focus on the content  Emphasis on student thinking  Contributions to instrumentation and methodology  Marry qualitative and quantitative data using IRT framework  Next steps: pilot study

42. CONTACT INFORMATION Bill ConradJimmy Scherrrer Santa Clara County Office of Educationjimmy_scherrer@sccoe.org 408-453-4332 (Office) 510-761-2007 (Cell) Bill_Conrad@sccoe.org Brent Duckor, Ph.D.Diana Wilmot, Ph.D. Assistant ProfessorCoordinator, Research & Evaluation College of EducationPalo Alto Unified School District San Jose State Universitydwilmot@pausd.org brent.duckor@sjsu.edu Amy Dray, Ph.D. UC Berkeley Graduate School of Education adray@berkeley.edu

43. A LEARNING PROGRESSIONS APPROACH Measuring teachers' use of formative assessment: BRENT DUCKOR (SJSU) DIANA WILMOT (PAUSD) BILL CONRAD & JIMMY SCHERRER (SCCOE) AMY DRAY (UCB)