Assessing Student Learning in the Classroom
Instructor Name: Dr. Karen Lea
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
Technical Support: firstname.lastname@example.org
Welcome to Educational Assessment: Assessing Student Learning in the Classroom! Curriculum, instruction, and assessment work together to support student learning. Students are provided with opportunities to learn the skills, concepts, and work-study practices necessary to be successful in classrooms. Assessments measure student progress toward the standards, help teachers identify each student's instructional needs, and inform parents about what and how their child is learning. The assessments also help to gauge how well schools are supporting the achievement of all students.
However, no matter how many assessments there are, without educators able to use assessments, those assessments are worthless. As educators, we must know how to conduct the assessment, interpret the data, and develop priorities for action. We also must take into account data from other sources, notably the parents and psychologists. We then have to put all this information into some organized format and make the information clear to colleagues and parents.
In order to do this, we have to bring our skills and knowledge about the subject matter into play while answering these questions:
• What is the prerequisite knowledge for this area of the curriculum?
• How important is the particular area?
• Would having a "less than very high" level of competence in one area predispose the child to failure in other areas?
• How much time should be spent on a particular topic?
• Should we consider an alternative area?
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Instructor: Dr. Karen Lea
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2005, Revised 2010, Revised 2013, Revised 2016
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately attributed, in part or in whole, to its correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit for the course.
Assessment of learning is a complex process and it is important to be clear about the purpose of the assessment. At the conclusion of this course students will be able to:
· Articulate the purpose and types of educational assessments
· Create high quality assessments for the classroom
This course will cover many areas and topics on educational assessment. The following is an outline of the topics that will be discussed in each chapter of the course.
Chapter 1: Overview
History of education assessment
What is educational assessment
Common Core and assessments
ELL and Special Needs Students
Chapter 2: Formative vs. Summative
Chapter 3: Types of Formative Assessments
Chapter 4: Feedback & Writing Questions
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all four information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall score of 70% or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete a review of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
· Retake any examination, after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete all course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
· Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
At the end of each section, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam section before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
All assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your original course link. You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
Journal Article Summations
You are required to write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or scholarly journal articles (one article per JAS), written by an author with a Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the “Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per JAS) and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information to allow the facilitator to access and review each article.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
You may contact the instructor by emailing email@example.com or by calling (509) 891-7219, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. PST. Phone messages will be answered within 24 hours. Phone conferences will be limited to ten minutes per student, per day, given that this is a self-paced instructional program. Please do not contact the instructor about technical problems, course glitches or other issues that involve the operation of the course.
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you need personal assistance then email firstname.lastname@example.org or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Bibliography (suggested reading)
Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Alexander, H. (2015). Developing effective assessment: Strategies for success. Griffith University Good Practice Guide.
Alper, S., Ryndak, D. L., & Schloss, C. N. (2001). Alternative assessment of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Ashlock, R. B. (2010). Error patterns in computation (10th ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Babchik, B. (2012). Teaching students test strategies. United Federation of Teachers. [Retrieved from http://www.uft.org/teacher-teacher/teaching-students-test-strategies].
Beach, R. & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2): 139–148.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bracey, G. W. (2000). Thinking about tests and testing: A short primer in assessment literacy. Washington, D.C.: American Youth Policy Forum.
Brady, L. & Kennedy, K. (2012). Assessment and reporting (4th ed.). French Forrest (Sydney), Australia: Pearson.
Brady, L. Kennedy, K., & Marsh, C. (2003). Curriculum and assessment. Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
Brame, C. J. (2015). Writing good multiple choice test questions. [Retrieved from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/writing-good-multiple-choice-test-questions/].
Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (2008). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms. Boston, MA: Merrill.
Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center (2015). Whys & hows of assessment. [Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/formative-summative.html].
Cohen, L. G., & Spencimer, L. J. (2011). Assessment of children and youth with special needs (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Common Core Initiatives. (2015) [Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/].
Computing Technology for Math Excellence. (2015). [Retrieved from http://www.ct4me.net/standardized_test_preparation.htm].
Concordia University. (2015). Summative assessment: What teachers need to know. [Retrieved from http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/teaching-strategies/summative-assessment-what-teachers-need-to-know/].
Conley, D.T. 2014. A New Era for Educational Assessment. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Wiggins, G. (2012). Seven keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10-16.
Damiani, V. B. (2015). Portfolio assessment in the classroom. National Association of School Psychologists. [Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/6801980/The_Students_Portfolio_as_An_Alternative_Assessment_Tool.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Wentworth, L. (2010). Benchmarking learning systems: Student performance assessment in international context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Drexel University Center for Academic Excellence. (2015). Designing fair and effective assessment plans.
D’Youville College (2015). What is educational & programmatic assessment? [Retrieved from http://www.dyc.edu/academics/pharmacy/assessment/about.aspx].
eLearning Coach. (2015). [Retrieved from http://theelearningcoach.com/elearning_design/writing-matching-test-items/].
ENDAPT. (2015). Understanding professional ethics. [Retrieved from http://endapt.wm.edu/modules/det_info/info.php?menu=&template=ethics.html].
Erban, T., Ban, R., & Casteneda, M. (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Gewertz, C. (2014). Big Year Looms for Common-Core Testing. Education Week. [Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/09/03/03assessment.h34.html
Grief, S., Meyer, B., & Burgess, A. (2007). Effective teaching and learning: Writing. London: NRDC. Available at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22303/2/doc_3346.pdf.
Hattie, J., & Temperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hoover, I. (2013). Linking assessment to instruction in multi-tiered models: A teacher's guide to selecting, reading, writing, and mathematics interventions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Innovation in Teaching and Learning (2015). [Retrieved from http://citl.illinois.edu/teaching-resources/evaluating-student-performance/writing-classroom-exams].
Kansas State University. (2015). Is this a trick question? [Retrieved from http://www.k-state.edu/ksde/alp/resources/Handout-Module6.pdf].
Lane, S. (2010). Performance assessment: The state of the art. (SCOPE Student Performance Assessment Series). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
LeGrange, L., & Reddy, C. (2000). Continuous assessment. Kenwyn, Australia: Juta.
McLoughlin, J. A., & Lewis, R. B. (2008). Assessing students with special needs (7th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2013). Formative assessment that truly informs instruction.
National Foundation for Educational Research. (2012). Assessment. [Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/].
Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of students (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Olson, J. L., Platt, J. C., & Dieker, L. A. (2008). Teaching students and adolescents with special needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Overton, T. (2012). Assessing learners with special needs: An applied approach (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pathey-Chavez, G. G., Matsumura, L. C., & Valdes, R. (2004). Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(6), 462–477.
Parvis, S. (2012). Effective assessment of students determining responsiveness to instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Pierangelo, R. A., & Giulianu, G. A. (2013). Assessment in special education: A practical approach (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Richek, M. A., Caldwell, J. S., Jennings, J. J., & Lerner, J. (2002). Reading problems. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Royal, K. D., and Guskey, T. R. (2015). On the appropriateness of norm- and criterion-referenced assessments in medical education. Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, 94(7), 252-254.
Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2): 119–144.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment in special and inclusive education (12th ed.) .Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Shavelson, R. J. (2006). On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning with implications for teacher education. Paper prepared for the Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory and the University of Hawaii Curriculum Research and Development Group. Available at: www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL
Sieborger, R., & Macintosh, H. (2002). Transforming assessment. Lansdowne, Australia: Juta.
Special Connections. (2015). Choosing and using accommodations: IEP team considerations. Lawrence, KS: Special Connections, University of Kansas. Retrieved from http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=instruction/instructional_accommodations/teacher_tools/choosing_and_using_accommodations_iep_team_considerations
Spinelli, C. G. (2010). Linking assessment to instructional strategies: A guide for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Spinelli, C. G (2012). Classroom assessment for students in special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Smith, T. E .C, Polloway, E. A. & Patton,J. R. (2011). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
Swigard, A. (2014). Preparing English learners for the Common Core. Southeast Education Network.
Teachers Where Teachers Come First. (2015). [Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/common-core-assessments
TEAL Center. (2010). Metacognitive processes. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Available at http://teal.ed.gov.
The IRIS Center for Training Enhancements. (2004). Classroom assessment (part 1): An introduction to monitoring academic achievement in the classroom. Retrieved on [August 8, 2015] from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/gpm/
The Learning Management Corporation. (2015). Writing effective questions. [Retrieved from http://www.thelearningmanager.com].
Thome, C. (2013). Bringing the common core state standards to life in the classroom. [Retrieved from https://www.learninga-z.com/commoncore].
United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Aviation Instructor’s Handbook (2015). Fort Rucker, AL: U.S. Army.
University of North Carolina. (2015). Designing test questions. [Retrieved from http://teaching.uncc.edu/learning-resources/articles-books/best-practice/assessment-grading/designing-test-questions].
University of Texas. (2015). Ethical considerations. [Retrieved from http://learningsciences.utexas.edu/teaching/assess-learning/ethical-considerations].
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2011). Teaching students who are exceptional diverse and at-risk students in the general education classroom (5th ed) Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Venn, J. J. (2007). Assessing students with special needs (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
West Virginia Department of Education. (2015). Formative assessment. [Retrieved from http://wvde.state.wv.us/teach21/Observations.html].
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding organization's web home page.