Proposition 3: Teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning
- _ NBCTs deliver effective instruction. They move fluently through a range of instructional techniques, keeping students motivated, engaged and focused. They know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals.
- NBCTs know how to assess the progress of individual students as well as the class as a whole.
- They use multiple methods for measuring student growth and understanding, and they can clearly explain student performance to parents.
classroom_literacy_assessment_plan.doc | |
File Size: | 49 kb |
File Type: | doc |
clinic_report.doc | |
File Size: | 75 kb |
File Type: | doc |
Rationale
__
Proposition 3 of the NBPTS’s Core
Propositions states that effective teachers “deliver effective instruction. They move fluently through a
range of instructional techniques, keeping students motivated, engaged and
focused. They know how to engage students to ensure a disciplined learning
environment, and how to organize instruction to meet instructional goals” In
addition, They know how to assess the progress of individual students as well
as the class as a whole.” Finally, “They use multiple methods for measuring
student growth and understanding, and they can clearly explain student
performance to parents”
I’ve chosen two artifacts as evidence of this Proposition. The first is a classroom literacy assessment plan, which is discusses two types of assessments that I use within a year, my rationale for using these, and the information I learn about my students from these assessments. The second artifact is a clinic report on Peter, a student in my eighth grade Language Arts class. I chose two artifacts because literacy assessment needs to look at our students as a whole (like in the classroom literacy assessment plan) and also individually (like in the clinic report), a differentiation that this NBPTS Proposition recognizes.
In the literacy assessment plan, I review two assessments that I use most often to inform instruction and differentiation: the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMT) and STAR Reading. Since the CMT is a summative assessment and the STAR is a formative assessment, I felt that this showed how I would use both types in my classroom. In addition to discussing in detail the assessment and how data is collected, reported, and used, I also explain how I use these assessments to set instructional goals for my classes.
The second artifact, the clinic report, closely examines one student’s literacy development. It allows us to zero in on what a student does well and what are some areas of growth that a student needs to work on. Though this was created for EDU741: Literacy Assessments for University of New England’s MSEd program, I wrote the document with the intent of giving it to his parents at his PPT. Having seen my parents overwhelmed by cryptic test reports from my sister’s providers, I was careful the document was “civilian friendly,” and included clear, simple explanations of the tests and data.
I’ve chosen two artifacts as evidence of this Proposition. The first is a classroom literacy assessment plan, which is discusses two types of assessments that I use within a year, my rationale for using these, and the information I learn about my students from these assessments. The second artifact is a clinic report on Peter, a student in my eighth grade Language Arts class. I chose two artifacts because literacy assessment needs to look at our students as a whole (like in the classroom literacy assessment plan) and also individually (like in the clinic report), a differentiation that this NBPTS Proposition recognizes.
In the literacy assessment plan, I review two assessments that I use most often to inform instruction and differentiation: the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMT) and STAR Reading. Since the CMT is a summative assessment and the STAR is a formative assessment, I felt that this showed how I would use both types in my classroom. In addition to discussing in detail the assessment and how data is collected, reported, and used, I also explain how I use these assessments to set instructional goals for my classes.
The second artifact, the clinic report, closely examines one student’s literacy development. It allows us to zero in on what a student does well and what are some areas of growth that a student needs to work on. Though this was created for EDU741: Literacy Assessments for University of New England’s MSEd program, I wrote the document with the intent of giving it to his parents at his PPT. Having seen my parents overwhelmed by cryptic test reports from my sister’s providers, I was careful the document was “civilian friendly,” and included clear, simple explanations of the tests and data.
Reflection
__
Writing the classroom
literacy assessment plan afforded me the opportunity to step back from data analysis
and preparing for these assessments and analyze what role these assessments
play in our school and in my classroom. I initially had difficulty with this
assignment, especially concerning the STAR Reading Assessment, which I
previously did not hold in high regard. I enlisted the help of my colleges,
including a fellow teacher, the curriculum coordinator, and a special education
teacher—and learned how I could use STAR to better inform my teaching and how
the data is used to drive district curriculum decisions.
I can honestly say that the clinic report was simultaneously the most challenging and interesting assignment of my academic career. I found it particularly challenging because, prior to the class, I had no experience reading or using reading assessments. Prior to the implementation of SRBI, literacy assessments were only given by the remedial reading teacher, who does not work with students in grades 7 & 8. Even after SRBI, literacy assessments and relevant training was not made available to upper level teachers. It was expected that STAR Reading would provide enough data. I am fortunate that my mentor is the special education teacher for grades 7 & 8, and I was able to borrow from her extensive selection of tests.
One of the things that I’ve learned about literacy assessments is that you cannot rely on one “magic bullet” test to diagnose your student or determine their strengths and weaknesses, which is what Woodstock Middle has hoped STAR Reading would be. However, each literacy assessment contributes a piece to the whole. For example, in this study, the GSRT and TOSCRF indicated the need for a more comprehensive reading comprehension battery. Since other testing indicated that Peter had high indicators for ADHD, inattentive type, I rationalized that I should test Peter’s reading comprehension on both a teacher-directed and independent test in order to get the most accurate representation of Peter’s abilities.
One of the biggest challenges with this assignment was that articulating an analysis of the miscues requires an extensive technical vocabulary that I do not have. For example, I recognized that Peter was using only the first and last portion of a word to decode unfamiliar word, but I wasn’t sure of the technical term to describe this. I did my best to utilize available resources, and when that wasn’t possible, I tried to be as descriptive as I could.
I did present this clinic report at Peter’s PPT, and Mrs. Orlowski grateful for the data and made sure the document was included with his cumulative folder to be sent to his high school teachers.Thus, this clinic report continues to inform decisions made to best support Peter's learning.
I can honestly say that the clinic report was simultaneously the most challenging and interesting assignment of my academic career. I found it particularly challenging because, prior to the class, I had no experience reading or using reading assessments. Prior to the implementation of SRBI, literacy assessments were only given by the remedial reading teacher, who does not work with students in grades 7 & 8. Even after SRBI, literacy assessments and relevant training was not made available to upper level teachers. It was expected that STAR Reading would provide enough data. I am fortunate that my mentor is the special education teacher for grades 7 & 8, and I was able to borrow from her extensive selection of tests.
One of the things that I’ve learned about literacy assessments is that you cannot rely on one “magic bullet” test to diagnose your student or determine their strengths and weaknesses, which is what Woodstock Middle has hoped STAR Reading would be. However, each literacy assessment contributes a piece to the whole. For example, in this study, the GSRT and TOSCRF indicated the need for a more comprehensive reading comprehension battery. Since other testing indicated that Peter had high indicators for ADHD, inattentive type, I rationalized that I should test Peter’s reading comprehension on both a teacher-directed and independent test in order to get the most accurate representation of Peter’s abilities.
One of the biggest challenges with this assignment was that articulating an analysis of the miscues requires an extensive technical vocabulary that I do not have. For example, I recognized that Peter was using only the first and last portion of a word to decode unfamiliar word, but I wasn’t sure of the technical term to describe this. I did my best to utilize available resources, and when that wasn’t possible, I tried to be as descriptive as I could.
I did present this clinic report at Peter’s PPT, and Mrs. Orlowski grateful for the data and made sure the document was included with his cumulative folder to be sent to his high school teachers.Thus, this clinic report continues to inform decisions made to best support Peter's learning.