So . . . What is Assessment?
 The informal and formal gathering of student data to
assess student learning.
 “Classroom Assessment helps individual college
teachers obtain useful feedback on what, how much, and
how well their students are learning” (Angelo & Cross,
1998)
Partner Prediction: Predict the relationship
between assessment and student
learning in the classroom.
 “The research reported here shows conclusively that . . .
assessment does improve learning.”
 “The gains in achievement appear to be quite
considerable . . . among the largest ever reported for
educational interventions.” (Black, P., William, D.,1998)
Why Assessment?
Marzano, R.M. (2006)
Assessment in Action
CATS
Workshop
Formative
Feedback
Summative
Assessment, Continued
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:
Used before or while instruction is occurring
Information gathered by teacher to inform instruction
SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT:
Information gathered at the end of “an instructional
episode”(Marzano, 2010) for purpose of judging outcome
Formative Assessments
Brainstorm in Small Groups and Share out
Formative vs. Summative
(in the classroom)
Formative Assessments
 Questions (no hands, teacher
randomly calls on students)
 Item Analysis (after homework
grading, quizzes, etc.)
 Clickers (periodically after key points
in presentations)
 Homework (if teacher uses to assess
whether students learned the
objective)
 Quizzes
 Mini-whiteboards
 Pretests
 Scanning the class to assess
comprehension (Radar!)
 Discussion board responses
 Note sheets incorporating periodic
comprehension checks
Summative Assessments
 End of unit tests
 Mid-Term and final exams
 State and national tests
 Accreditation tests
Which is More Powerful –
Formative or Summative?
 In Black and Williams (1998) meta-analysis of some 250
studies . . .
The most powerful feedback/assessment strategy is
FORMATIVE
And it is at it’s strongest when it informs the teacher and
the student.
Formative Assessment – A Brain
Tickler!
 Do you know the difference between obtrusive and
unobtrusive formative assessment?
Obtrusive vs. Unobtrusive
Formative
Assessment
Obtrusive
Unobtrusive
(Marzano, et. al.,
Formative Assessment –
Obtrusive vs. Unobtrusive?
Formative Assessments
 Questions (no hands, teacher
randomly calls on students)
 Item Analysis (after homework
grading, quizzes, etc.)
 Clickers (periodically after key points
in presentations)
 Homework (if teacher uses to assess
whether students learned the
objective)
 Quizzes
 Mini-whiteboards
 Pretests
 Scanning the class to assess
comprehension (Radar!)
 Discussion board responses
 Note sheets incorporating periodic
comprehension checks
Obtrusive Assessment
Purposeful interruption of flow of instruction
 Paper-and-pencil test or quiz
 Demonstration (teacher or student)
 Oral report (student)
 Constructed conversation
 Presentation (teacher or student)
 Use of mini-whiteboards
 Note-taking interruption with task (e.g. Cornell Notes)
 In-class item analysis
 Use of clickers in Ppt presentations
Unobtrusive Assessment
Does not interrupt flow of instruction
 Teacher observation
 Use of proximity
 Guided questions during group work
 Observation of individual student or student interactions in
groups, with feedback
 Importance of teacher circulation
Teaching Assessment Tip – Circulate!
 Break the plane
 Full access required
 Engage while circulating
 Move systematically but unpredictably
 Position for power
Lemov, D. (2009)
Bottom line about circulation
 Necessary component of unobtrusive assessment
 Effective classroom management tool
Answer this
(from an ASCD survey of over 1200 teachers)
:
To encourage a growth mindset in students, what should
be done by educators?
A.Use less summative testing; use formative testing instead.
B.Develop deeper rather than surface questions.
C.Reduce the time of teacher talking.
D.Provide meaningful student feedback.
E.Create flexible, not rigid student groupings.
And the answer is . . .
Source: ASCD Mini-Brief “ED Pulse” Aug. 13, 2015
Feedback Conversation!
About Feedback:
 Purpose: to provide learners about current state of
knowledge/performance
 Guide them to learning goal
 Give them info on what they do/do not understand
 Is their performance going well or not
 How should they direct future performance
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K. (2010) How
learning
works: 7 research-based principles for smart teaching. San Franciso:
Jossey-Bass
Feedback Analogies
 Maze – No feedback, lost!
 Diet – No feedback, weight loss uncertain!
 “F” vs. “Not Yet”
Ineffective Feedback Strategies
 Grade or numerical score with out additional feedback
 Too much feedback – overwhelms students, fails to
communicate which aspects of performance deviates most
from goal
 Not targeted – Feedback does not relate back to learning
outcome of assignment
Effective Feedback Strategies
In your groups:
 Designate a note taker, presenter
 What are various feedback strategies you use?
 Or: How do you provide your students with
• More Feedback?
• More Timely Feedback?
• More Useful Feedback?
 When called on, presenter shares top strategies
 SAAC will record, organize, and send out to all
participants
The First Component of
FeedbackCHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING!
53 WAYS TO CHECK FOR UNDERSTANDING TIPS
If You Lecture  Suggest Cornell Notes or similar format
 Stop every 4 – 7 minutes (after significant learning, key
points, etc.)
 Students summarize significant learning using one of 53
ways (Teacher directed, chooses methodologies)
The EMCC Assessment Cycle
Comprehensive Assessment
Tracking System (CATS)
Five UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
1. Faculty are more likely to change their teaching practices
and strategies through the influence of their peers than through
administrative dictum or externally imposed professional
development (Huber, 2012; Reeves, 2008; Turner, 2013).
Five UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
2. Faculty (and leaders) who care about student learning have
a persistent discomfort with the status quo (DuFour & DuFour, 2006;
O’Banion, 2007; Wilson, 2010).
Five UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
3. Frequent formative assessment with feedback is one of the
most viable, research-backed techniques to optimize student
learning (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Black & William, 2008; Marzano, 2006)
Five UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
4. The Action Research Cycle, employed both formally and
informally, is the most effective vehicle for implementing,
assessing, and reforming instructional techniques to maximize
student learning (Mertler, 2009; Mills, 2007; Reeves, 2008; Stringer, 2007;
Turner, 2003)
Plan
Reflect
Act
Observe/
Assess
CATS
Scan
Underlyin
g
Principles
Navigatio
n
What
CATS is
Features
Five UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES
5. Innovation
 5. Innovative faculty are a major vehicle for positive change
on a community college campus when the innovative
practice(s) can be shared (Shugart, 2011; Turner, 2013,
Wilson, 2002).
Now let’s get to CATS!
 http://cats.estrellamountain.edu
CATS Scavenger Hunt
 Locate CATS page
 Log on
 Search for CATS submissions in your division
 Search the most recent CATS of the month winners
 Search for CATS that focus on online courses
 Rate and comment on two different CATS
 Completing the Cycle check list
 Creation of CATS
References
Angelo, T.A. & Cross, K.P. (1998). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for
college teachers (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Black, P., and William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education, 5(1), 7-75.
DuFour, R. & DuFour, R. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning
communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Huber, M.T. (2008). The promise of faculty inquiry for teaching and learning basic skills. A Report
from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Strengthening Pre-Collegiate
Education in Community Colleges. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503130.pdf.
Lemov, D. (2009). Teach like a champion: 49 techniques that put students on the path to
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Marzano, R. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R.J. (2010). Formative assessment & standards-based grading. Bloomington,
IA: Marzano Research Laboratory
Marzano, R.J., Yanoski, D.C., Hoegh, J. K., Simms, J. A. (2013). Using Common Core Standards to enhance
instruction and assessment. Bloomington, IN: Marzano
Research Laboratories.
Mertler, C. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills, G.E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
O'Banion, T. (2007). Leadership for learning. Community College Journal, 78(2), 45-47. Retrieved from Research Library. (Document ID:
1383351301).
Ormiston, Meg (2011). Creating a digital-rich classroom: Teaching & learning in a Web 2.0
World. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Reeves, D. B. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Shugart, S. (2012). From an interview with Northcentral University Doctoral Candidate
Peter Turner on July 18.
Stringer, E.T. (2007). Action research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Turner, P. (2013). Informal faculty leadership that transforms: Evidences and practices for the Learning College. Dissertation, Northcentral University.
UMI # 3571494
Turner, R. (2003). A pragmatic approach to educating: Connecting problem-based learning to Service Learning. Dissertation, Capella University.
UMI # 3068397
Wilson, C. (August 23, 2010). From a telephone interview conducted by Peter Turner, Doctoral candidate, Northcentral University; and Learning College Project
Director at the League for Innovation in the Community College.