RED 6540 Assessment in Literacy: Blog Post 2 (weeks 5-7)

"We need to have teachers that are expertly trained to do the best daily assessments as they can.  That informs their instruction which should lead to the best achievement among all students" (Afflerbach, 2012). 

"We want critical readers" (Afflerbach, 2012).  We want children to think about and apply higher level skills to what they are reading.  This skill must be explicitly taught and reinforced as children are taught how to read.  Interestingly, Afflerbach discussed how children make a switch from learning to reading to reading to learn around third grade, yet he pointed out how students do not or at least should not be no longer learning to read.  As they read higher level texts, they are learning new skills and strategies pertaining to the particular type of text they are reading.

"Schools should help students master basic reading skills, build sight word vocabularies, independently determine the meaning of a vocabulary word, read as quickly and accurately as the current task demands" and learn to comprehend literally, infrentially, and critically (Afflerbach, 2012).

It is unethical  to use a single measure to determine achievement, teacher goodness, and school accountability (Afflerbach, 2012).  Does this happen?  Unfortunately, it is something that occurs in our schools.  Another point I would like to address is how it is unethical when teacher goodness is determined for one (the current) teacher based on an assessment that covers more than one year's worth of material. 

According to Black and Wiliam (1998), formative assessment is at the heart of effective teaching.  It is imperative teachers are aware of their students progress and difficulties when it comes to learning so they can adjust their teaching to meet their students needs. 

The six characteristics of high-quality classroom-based formative assessments include:

1. involves frequent, short-cycle assessment
2. can take a variety of forms
3. have clear, well-defined targets
4. provide sufficient detail about student understanding, knowledge, and skill to propse next instructional steps
5. followed by appropriate types of feedback and instructional adjustments
6. involve students in self- and peer-assessment (Torgesen & Miller, 2009).

Allington (2002) explains three things that exemplary teacher do to overcome the hurtle of textbooks that are too difficult for students.  First, they "created a multi-sourced and multi-leveled curriculum that did not rely on traditional content-area textbooks" (Allington, 2002).  They used the textbooks still but only as one component of the materials they used.  Secondly, they allowed students to have a choice as they learn and demonstrate what they have learned.  Finally, these teachers provided individualized instruction depending on students' needs.

Applegate, Quinn, & Applegate (2006) list the "eight profiles of thinking that surface when students are given higher order questions" as literalists, fuzzy thinkers, left fielders, quiz contestants, politicians, dodgers, authors, minimalists.  Interventions are listed for each of the specific profiles.  Working through these obstacles and interventions can help move the students towards effective, rewarding, and engaged reading.

Dennis (2009-2010) discusses a struggle many teachers face--a tension between what we are supposed to teach and what we know our students need.  It is imperative that students are looked at individually and instruction is based on their needs and abilities.  Too often, students are taught based on a preset program created for all struggling readers.  Not individualizing student learning is detrimental and can prevent students from growing and learning to their potential.  Dennis (2009-2010) provided a recommendation for a five step process to "match adolescents' unique literacy needs and involve the entire school community." 


References

Afflerbach, P. (2012). Assessments. IRA Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://www.reading.org
     /downloads/podcasts/II-Afflerbach.mp3
Allington, R. (2002). You can't learn from much from books you can't read. Educational Leadership,
     15-19.
Applegate, M. D., Quinn, K. B., & Applegate, A. J.  (2006). Profiles in comprehension. International 
     Reading Association, 48-57.
Black,  P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
     assessment. The Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139-144.
Dennis, D. (2009-2010). "I'm not stupid": How assessment drives (in)appropriate reading instruction.
     Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(4), 283-290.
Torgesen, J. K. & Miller, D. H. (2009). Assessments to guide adolescent literacy instruction. Florida 
     Center for Reading Research Center on Instruction.