ing game. Formative assessments such as exit/entry cards, informal questioning, think/pair/ share, etc., if used correctly, help teachers get to know the strengths and weaknesses of their students, as well as the interests and readiness levels of each learner. It is imperative that teachers not wait until their benchmark tests to check for student understanding. Moreover, formative assessments should be tied to classroom instruction and daily learning goals, not simply progress towards high-stakes tests.
During several recent school visits, I was introduced to a computer program that tracks stu- dent progress on monthly benchmark tests. With a few clicks of the mouse, teachers can access individual student information, including graphs that break down specific topics assessed. With such importance placed on high stakes tests, a program like this can be an ex- tremely useful tool to help teachers gauge the effectiveness of their instruction in relation to end-of-year assessments. There is also, however, a great deal of valuable information about student learning that is missed by relying only on these tests. Formative assessments differ in that they can deliver information during the instructional process. They are also benefi- cial for students, and administered far more frequently than their summative counterparts. Benchmark tests can help identify areas of student need (and hopefully strength), but by that point, the students are already well into the learning process. It is essential to recognize and address misconceptions, perceptions, and background knowledge before and during the instructional process, not at some point every six to nine weeks. If used correctly, forma- tive assessments can actually encourage students to improve—not simply outline areas of failure. Formative, ongoing assessment is a prerequisite to responsive teaching and can help educators continually adjust the content, process, and/or product to ensure that stu- dents’ needs are being met. Tracking student progress in a more summative nature (whether through computer programs or not) has its benefits, but can never replace the valuable role of formative assessments for both the teacher and student.
Concern #4: “I don’t have time to plan differentiated lessons.”
As a former educator in the era of standards, accountability, and more paperwork, I am well aware of the time constraints faced by teachers. It isn’t easy to plan one differentiated lesson, not to mention whole week’s or month’s worth. The problem with this argument, however, is that any well thought-out lesson, differentiated or not, takes time. There is a learning curve of course, but through repeated effort and practice, planning and implementing a differen- tiated lesson becomes easier. No teacher would be expected to differentiate every single activity of each lesson, everyday. Even with the college classes I teach, I do not differentiate all aspects of my lessons. I do, however, adhere to the philosophy of differentiation each and every moment I am in the classroom. There is in fact a difference. There are strategies educa- tors can use to support differentiation in the classroom (i.e. tiered lesson to address students’
39
Virginia Educational Leadership
Vol. 7 No. 1
Spring 2010
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73