Designing Assessment for Learning

Guiding student learning used to be accomplished by developing lessons, organizing resources, presenting content and using the resources (usually a worksheet) to allow students independent practice on the concept presented. After a number of repetitions of this cycle, a quiz or test was given, graded, and returned to the student. This teacher-driven model works well if the goal is to tell homogeneous students what they need to know to meet a specific narrowly defined objective. While successful in preparing certain students for an assessment, this model rarely results in retention of content beyond the test, learning beyond a surface level, creating meaningful connections to learning, or an increase in student motivation. And often fails to prepare students outside the norm for anything meaningful except frustration. When students are engaged and involved in setting specific goals and objectives for learning, the goals and objectives are connected to prior and future learning, and these goals are communicated to stakeholders, students are more likely to be motivated to learn content beyond a surface level (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, 2012, p. 18). Including students in the process not only of learning, but also of the way content is taught, addresses diversity found in nearly all classrooms. This student-centered pedagogical design philosophy “allow[s] teachers to re-think critical elements in education, like goals, and materials and methods and assessments” (Jackson, nd). Integrating students into the process of creating learning opportunities in an environment created around their needs engages all students. This Universal Design for Learning model accounts for the diversity of student’s physical, social and emotional needs as well as considers the uniqueness of how each individual’s brain processes information (Rose, nd).

I actually thought I knew about designing learning experiences that were non-traditional until I started viewing the videos on UDL included in this week’s assignment. I had never made the connection between physical design and theoretical design and probably would not have without being exposed to the UDL philosophy. I have to admit that it just makes sense and does create a more holistic approach to meeting the needs of all students by engaging not only their recognition network, the what of learning, but also their strategic network, the how of learning, and their affective network, the why of learning (Rose nd). I had committed to incorporate one-on-one time with students this year to collaborate with them on setting objectives and goals and the reading this week validated and further informed my thinking. This year I have decided to meet with each student formally every other Friday to set goals and objectives, offer feedback on evidence they present, and have a conversation about their performance. I am also taking them through the rubrics used for grading and the reports generated by Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) assessments. Rubrics are sent home for parents to reference. Students collect evidence of learning digitally on their iPads and through submissions to our class Kidblog in preparation for these more formal bi-weekly meetings. Evidence can take the form of organizers created in Popplet, posts to TodaysMeet, short presentations created with Educreations, notes posted to Corkulous, audio journals and recordings in Speech Journal or on Tiny Vox, and even hand-written post-it notes. I have created a notebook for each student in Evernote, and place links, photos, video and audio clips into these electronic notebooks for later reference and to use during conferences. I believe that these performance reviews align with the recommendations listed by Pitler, Hubbell, and Kuhn. They:

Provide feedback that addresses what is correct and elaborates on what students need to do next.  Provide feedback appropriately in time to meet students’ needs. Provide feedback that is criterion referenced. Engage students in the feedback process (Pitler, Hubbell & Kuhn, 2012 p. 38).

By coupling these bi-weekly reviews with daily monitoring, I receive information needed to make instructional decisions, assess learning and address misconceptions. Students have a sense of ownership over their learning through their inclusion in the process. This allows them to engage not only their recognition network, but their strategic and affective networks as well leading to more lasting, meaningful connections to learning and greater retention of knowledge, additions to schema, and application of learning to new situations. 

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., & Kuhn, M. (2012) Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Jackson, R., Lessonbuilder.cast.org. (nd). Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning. [video] Retrieved from http://lessonbuilder.cast.org/window.php?src=videos

Rose, D., Lessonbuilder.cast.org (nd). The Brain Research. [video] Retrieved from http://lessonbuilder.cast.org/window.php?src=videos