Seattle Pacific University’s Curriculum & Instruction assessment standard states the teacher will assess student’s mastery of curriculum and modify instruction to maximize learning. Previous to this course, my strengths in areas of assessment lay in the areas of clear purpose, clear targets, and effective communication based upon the initial course inventory. However strength is a relative term. In the inventory these areas scored predominantly 3’s and 4’s – partially and completely done in the classroom. The inventory indicated a greater need for growth in the areas of sound design and student involvement. All facets of these two categories scored 2’s – beginning. Due to this rating, I wanted to work on these specific areas, improving my ability to select or design and implement assessments and improve my students involvement in knowing on what targets they will be assessed and how to self assess. See Assessment Practices Inventory.
In the past I have been clear in communicating learning targets to my students and have attempted quick formative assessments at the end of a lesson or work session. These formative assessments have consisted of thumbs up/down/sideways of verbal response exit tickets. However, my students have not always been able to describe what the learning target means nor do they know how they will be assessed. I have learned that planning the assessment first, based upon clear learning targets that are state or district derived (O’Connor, 2009, p. 46) helps teachers become more focused on a path for student learning. This focus allows us to create rubrics that describe to students criteria at standard, exceeds, approaching, or not at standard levels of achievement. Rubrics help educators foresee necessary extensions or support for students. Preparation for differentiated teaching further delineates targets, lessons, rubrics, and assessments until we have one content strand that receives standards based assessment for one learning target (O’Connor, p. 53). Clarity in rubrics and assessments has led to my growth in working with students as they preview content, set their own goals, take ownership of their goals, and work towards these defined accomplishments (Diamond & Hopson, 2008, p. 87). Clear rubrics and assessments allow for effective communication about learning with families (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012, p. 246). When learning targets, rubrics, and assessment are clear to students and families, earned scores or grades are an effective form of communication for learning (Chappuis, et al., p. 337). These three points, targets, rubrics, and assessments, when utilized in tandem create sound design and involve students in their learning. Previous to this course, I have utilized the three facets separately. With the learning of this course I see learning targets, rubrics, and assessments as the three legs on a stool upon which sits student learning.
My grading practices have changed since this course began. In the past I have included formative assessments toward the summative grade. Understanding the formative assessments are for learning, a student who did not perform well on a formative assessment was provided with support but his increased learning did not result in a change in the grade book; this created a downward pull on the summative grade and misrepresented the most current learning (Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2012, pp. 337). Tracking formative assessments and allowing these assessments to influence the summative grade was not done as a “gotch ‘ya” toward the student; my inaction was due to lack of understanding that it is OK to change a grade in order to reflect the most current learning and formative assessments should be kept separately from summative assessment in the grade book (Chappuis et al., p. 299). I have learned to indicate the formative assessments are “No Counts” toward the summative grade when entered in the electronic grade book.
When students do not perform well on a formative or summative assessment, they are offered feedback to increase their learning (O’Connor, 2009, p. 116). If a formative assessment indicated this action was needed, the student is offered the opportunity to revisit this assessment and demonstrate an increased in learning. The score within the grade book will reflect the most current learning, even if the event is not counted toward the summative grade. This allows me to review trends in learning for each student. If a summative assessment indicates the student is not at standard after the student has received feedback and re-teaching as indicated by formative assessments, the student receives more re-teaching. After re-teaching, a parallel assessment is provided to check for increased learning. If the parallel assessment does not indicate an increase in understanding, root causes (Chappuis et al., p. 337) for student lack of understanding are sought by me and other school staff (Chappuis et al., p. 398).
With the above mentioned revisions in practice along with the learning that took place as I created assessment artifacts, I improved my inventory scores in the areas of sound design, effective communication, and student involvement to predominantly 5’s – completely. I do this regularly , or this happens on an ongoing/as needed basis in my classroom. Please see my Portfolio for assessment practices.
Kay Garbarino-Flowers - bPortfolio 
Leave a comment