Linking Assessment and Instruction
February 18-22 Online Discussion Summary
Dr. John Hosp, University of Iowa, offered his expertise in the area of linking assessment and instruction during the TQ Connection’s twelfth online discussion. Dr. Hosp’s paper, Linking Assessment and Instruction: Teacher Preparation and Professional Development outlines the key competencies that all teachers need in order to link assessment and instruction and presents an innovation configuration (IC) on the preparation of teachers to better prepare teachers to facilitate data-based decision making.
A summary of the dialogue is provided here and is categorized into five key topics that were the focus on the week’s discussion:
• Assessment Criteria
• Linkage to School Improvement
• The Role of Technology
• Preservice and Inservice Training
Assessment Criteria
In response to several inquiries regarding assessment selection, implementation, and interpretation, Dr. Hosp acknowledged the plethora of assessment instruments and practices within classrooms – ranging from formative to summative measurements to teacher directed and state mandated. Hosp emphasized the need to select reliable and valid measures and underscored the importance of measuring the skill directly while also considering the type of decision that needs to be made prior to (e.g. individual or group, proficiency level or identification of skill deficiency). Selecting premade or published measurements was recommended as a first step as such instruments have already been determined as reliable and valid and would save valuable time. Ensuring the tool is used for its proper purpose and whether or not the data will help to answer your question is critical. In cases in which the assessment is used to measure student performance in relation to state content standards, teachers need to be well-versed in the standards, know how to measure them appropriately, and be familiar with the standard levels of proficient performance.
When queried about the frequency of assessment, Hosp suggested that the frequency was dually dependent in the assessment purpose and student performance. For screening, Hosp recommended 2-3 times per year for all students. In cases of determining student progress, student performance is a factor. Those functioning below grade level would be assessed more frequently (e.g. every week to bi-weekly) requiring a higher level of coordination and time management. When responding to a participant concern about the overuse of testing, Hosp reiterated the need to be efficient in the data collection so that more time is left for instruction.
The following additional resources were highlighted within the discussion:
• ETS (2003). Linking Classroom Assessment to Student Learning
• Fuchs, L. (1995). Assessment to Instruction: A Comparison of Behavioral Assessment, Mastery Learning, Curriculum-Based Measurement, and Performance Assessment.
Linkage to School Improvement
The regular use of assessment has been documented to mitigate and prevent academic difficulties and improve student learning when used to inform instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Fuchs, 2004; Skiba et al., 1986; Clark & Shinn, 2005; Lembke & Foegen, 2005). Teachers that fully integrate and embed assessment into the instructional sequence will likely stimulate higher academic achievement for all students – leading toward improved school performance. Responding to an inquiry, Hosp accentuated the importance of administrative leadership. Those who lead by example by keeping “data” at the forefront of discussion and center of decision making – whether through explicit direction or modeling – are likely to create a school culture grounded in data. This emphasis, when paired with opportunities for teams to collaborate and analyze data, holds promise in establishing and accomplishing school-wide improvement goals.
The Role of Technology
When queried, Hosp acknowledged the critical role technology plays in supporting assessment and instruction in a more efficient and effective manner and highlighted the following resources:
• Partridge, H., Ivernizzi, M., Meier, J., & Sullivan, A. (2003). Linking Assessment and Instruction via Web-based Technology: A Case Study of a Statewide Early Literacy Initiative
• Progress Monitoring Tools: Response to Intervention and Teaching Learning Connection
• Hupert N., Heinze, J., Gunn, G., Stewart, J., & Honey, M. (2007). An Analysis of Technology-Assisted Progress Monitoring to Drive Improved Student Outcomes
• Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1993). Technological advances linking the assessment of students’ academic proficiency to instructional planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 49-62.
• Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (in press). Using technology to facilitate and enhance curriculum-based measurement. In K. Higgins, R. Boone, & D. Edyburn (Eds.), The Handbook of Special Education Technology Research and Practice. Knowledge by Design, Inc.: Whitefish Bay, WI.
Preservice and Inservice Training
Several participants inquired about effective teacher preparation approaches in preparing general and special education teachers in effective practices in linking assessment to instruction. Hosp indicated that he prefers to build a solid foundation in assessment practices (e.g. technical adequacy, scoring, administration) before moving toward using the data to make instructional decisions. Hosp suggested that these competencies could be adequately addressed within an assessment course, but further recommended infusing the link between assessment and instruction into methods courses, including different disciplines, and focusing on how to collect and use data and work together to ensure common methods and purposes. Good programs are providing systematic instruction coupled with ample opportunities for guided practice and useful feedback. For example, Florida has a great model wherein institutions of higher education, districts, and the state office meet regularly to discuss common issues and needs. This could help eradicate the traditional academic silos so all disciplines have the opportunity to learn and work together. Hosp referred participants to the Innovation Configuration (IC) in the paper that can be used to evaluate a preservice and inservice training program to determine if the components are included in course syllabi and professional development activities. Use of the IC could serve as a catalyst to examine current practice and identify gaps and redundancies in the essential competencies within coursework and activities.
Thank you for taking the time to visit the TQ Connection. For a complete account of the discussion, visit http://www.tqsource.org/forum/index.php/topic,222.0.html. If you have any topics you would like to see the TQ Center address, please feel free to contact Lynn Holdheide at lynn.holdheide@vanderbilt.edu or Amy Potemski at Amy.Potemski@learningpt.org.
