Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
Bryan R. Drost
May 2012
© Copyright, 2012 by Bryan R. Drost
All Rights Reserved.
ii
A dissertation written by
Bryan R. Drost
Approved by
Accepted by
iii
DROST, BRYAN R., Ph.D., May 2012 CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
Effective teaching in the United States over the last decade has been based on
standardized formative assessment procedures that dictate intervention for students not
students are making progress. I believe that there are two specific problems associated
(Ryan, 2011) and may not allow teachers flexibility of method to solve classroom-based
problems in a practical way (Schwab, 1970). The purpose of this action research study
my classroom. This study also explored how an authentic process can be a viable
Three major findings are present from the study: multiple strategies could be used
to determine curricular needs for students; authentic formative assessments could honor
and cultivate teacher-student relationships; classroom life was improved for me and my
students when rigorous investigation into the assessment practices of the classroom were
explored.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this degree would not have been possible without support from
I am grateful to the young adolescents who participated in this study and who
have shaped me as both teacher and researcher. For those students who I have had in
class for more than three years, know that you forever have touched me and that the
world is expecting great things from you. What you all have taught me about
Dr. Teresa Rishel nurtured me as a person and a scholar throughout the entire
dissertation process. If it was not for her guidance, I would still be at the exam stage.
Her jokes, sanity checks, immediate e-mail responses, and encouragement helped make
this a worthwhile process. I am indebted. Dr. James Henderson was always available
with feedback that guided and challenged me as I progressed. As he wrote in the inside
cover of my now-worn, 3rd edition of TCL, “the passion and leadership” that he attributed
to me, started with him on that fateful starting date in August of 2007 when he showed
Dr. McClelland, forever Averil to the first e-cohort at KSU, has pushed me to
“keep thinking” even when she did not know me as an undergraduate student. Her
guidance over the years has been exceptional. “Rubrics” cannot describe the support she
has given.
Over the years, I have had the pleasure to work with and learn from amazing
colleagues and friends. Diane Kumley has forever kept me on the right path; Laura Ross
iv
has always pushed me to be a better teacher during our late-afternoon venting sessions;
Drs. Cheryl Ward and Ann Spurrier, since those first conversations back in your offices,
you have inspired me to do “what’s best for kids.” Paula Hardy, Stephanie Bettinger,
Aaron Jeter, Andrew Pinney, Mary Ann Miller, and Davara Potel are all inspirations. If
all teachers and students had your support and guidance, studies like mine wouldn’t be
necessary.
nurtured from Day 1 when I was a first-year on campus and I still have a “soapbox
moment” every time that I set foot in the classroom, as do the other graduates to whom
To my Hiram fans, Eileen Vance, Dr. Nikki Cvetkovic, Dr. Debra Rodriguez, and
Dr. Jen Miller, your friendship and collaboration has been invaluable since I was an
undergrad.
and Maria Boyarko, your advice, writing tips, humor, and support always saved the day.
As we’ve often said, the “best dissertation is a done dissertation.” Mine is now done and
To my family, your understanding over the last few years has been great. I can
now go take a break. To BLJ, your support over the years has been incalculable. Bailey
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
CHAPTER
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
7. Example activities (left) with total counts of student usage and games
(right) from the class website...............................................................................102
12. Number of students testing at various achievement levels per assessment .........144
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
x
CHAPTER I
As schools are being constantly pressured to meet higher and higher achievement
goals as set forth by No Child Left Behind (2001), school districts have been
Darling-Hammond, 2010; Janesick, 2003; Noddings, 2007; Ravitch, 2010; Sleeter, 2007;
Spring, 2010). Assessment programs are tools within the classroom that are designed to
describe student progress toward meeting a learning target (National Middle School
improve student achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Wiliam, 2010). Standardized
formative assessments are tests given at the end of a defined period of instruction to
determine how much a student has learned or retained in relationship to a particular group
of skills; the results of the test are then used to sort students with the goal of improving
instruction for the students before high stakes tests (see Appendix A).
not without criticism. As this curriculum procedure requires each student to be handled
in the exact same manner, teachers are unable to utilize their knowledge and skills to plan
consider the “arts of the practical,” where curriculum decision-makers, such as teachers,
have the opportunity to consider what action, if any, is best for a particular situation all
1
2
At the same time, theoretical research has indicated that authentic formative
providing feedback to the learner—may be one way in which we can create an effective
model of assessment within the classroom (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 2008).
regarding pedagogical strategies that can be used with authentic formative assessment
describe the various pedagogical strategies that teachers can use within authentic
formative assessment.
Background
ongoing instructional sequence and then using the test results to improve instruction”
formal, paper-and-pencil quiz or test tied to 40% of the report card grade. The purpose
was to sort students into two groups: students who understood and could demonstrate the
learning goal and students who did not understand. For the students who did not
understand, the teacher was expected to work with them, often outside of class, until they
did understand, and then retest the students until they showed 80% mastery.
problematic for me as an educator for two reasons: first, prescriptive educational policies
address all “commonplaces” (pp. 1-2). In the context of assessment, these commonplaces
are students with specific prior knowledge, abilities, needs, and interests and teachers
with specific beliefs, knowledge, skills, and experiences. In his argument for the “arts of
the practical,” curriculum decision-makers such as teachers have to consider what action,
if any, is best for a particular situation all things considered. Under the standardized
formative assessment approach in my school, the 80% mastery score dictated the
high test score trumps the knowledge of those working directly with the student
(Chambers, 2010, p. 63). Hierarchical relationships are “oppressive” because they define
“ways of doing, ways of being, and ways of saying; they determine who counts and they
decide that some do not count at all” (Chambers, 2010, p. 63). Two problems emerge
when teaching is viewed through such a lens. First, there is an assumption that only a
few “wise” individuals, those that determine mastery scores, have knowledge about what
students know. Second, hierarchies deskill teachers and silence students, as teachers lose
the ability to determine the goals and purposes of their instruction and adapt instruction to
classroom was that our standardized formative assessment process did not support the
development of the relationship between teacher and student, a relationship that is built
to determine what curriculum experiences students need (Black & Wiliam, 1998;
Popham, 2008). By acting in such a manner, Dewey articulated that educators create
schools that are useless as the education that is produced renders the student unable to
utilize their knowledge later in life. To solve this, as he argued in Democracy and
Education (Dewey, 1980) and Experience and Education (Dewey, 1988), teachers must
concerns. By doing so, teachers can create learning experiences that allow students to
connect to who they are, who they have been, and who they are striving to become, as
Similar concerns with standardized formative assessment are also echoed in the
position statement of the Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE; NMSA, 2010)
as well as by assessment scholars. The AMLE identifies that successful schools use
“varied and ongoing assessments” (pp. 24-25), “emphasize individual progress rather
than comparison” (p. 26), and do not use assessments for sorting purposes. Black and
Wiliam (1998) and Popham (2008) indicated that there will only be small gains in
to sort students.
formative assessment process that addressed my two concerns: honoring and cultivating
the student-teacher relationship that develops when a teacher observes and interacts with
students to determine instructional needs, and the freedom to consider what instructional
action, if any, is best for my students. One type of assessment that can address these two
defined as a planned process in which a teacher interprets any classroom activity to gain
Dell’Olio & Donk, 2007; Ormrod, 2003; Popham, 2008). It consists of teachers
interactions with students to plan instruction, provide the learner with specific feedback,
help the student learn content, and improve learning strategies (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
allows teachers to use their professional knowledge, skills, and a variety of different
6
strategy has been theorized to foster meaningful learning for students (Black & Wiliam,
1998; Popham, 2008). Meaningful learning is founded on the premise that by reflecting
(Ormrod, 2006; Solomon, 2009). This means that students actively take in many separate
pieces of information, adapt this information from prior learning and experience, and use
or interpretation of the world around them (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Fosnot, 1996;
Piaget, 1928).
as a form of trial and error, to work in conjunction with students within the classroom. It
allows for multiple interpretations and approaches to solve classroom problems. These
epistemological stance where what we know is inseparable from how we come to know
it. It is a dynamic stance where individuals have the ability to behave in ways that
modify an environment through a circuitous process that begins with a doubt about our
(Ryan, 2011, p. 41). From a classroom-assessment standpoint, this means that teachers
proceed with their teaching and unconsciously assume that their students understand
instructional process, a teacher may begin to doubt that all students understand the
7
learning target; this may occur, for example, when a student incorrectly responds to a
teacher’s question during a discussion. Following the incorrect response, as the teacher’s
worldview has now changed, the teacher redirects his attention to find alternative ways to
ensure student success. In determining a plan of attack to solve the problem of a learner
student. Once the student has been redirected, the process repeats. This cycle, as
contrived by Ryan, creates a transactional relationship where the teacher cannot exist
without the student and the student’s environment and the student and the students’
with authentic formative assessment within the classroom. There is also no research to
assessment. The lack of research on authentic formative assessment points to the need to
document and describe the various pedagogical strategies that teachers can use within
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this action research study was to describe the pedagogical
strategies of an authentic formative assessment process within one classroom. The study
also explored how an authentic process can be a viable alternative to a standardized one
within one classroom. This study provided an in-depth description of my ninth grade
described by Holly, Arhar, and Kasten (2009), supports these research purposes as the
8
various data collection tools that the methodology uses, such as focus groups and
classroom procedures. Its primary goal is to bring one’s practice in line with one’s values
and aspirations on a particular classroom situation with an end goal of changing those
procedures to agree with the data obtained so that they are more effective for all involved
(Elliott, 1991).
Under Holly, Arhar, and Kasten’s (2005, 2009) interpretation, action research was
structure professional growth and development for lifelong learning while maintaining an
and to examine how authentic formative assessment can be a viable alternative, in terms
Research Questions
formative assessment process help improve the way assessment is planned and
Definitions
that helps teachers collect data on various classroom procedures with an end goal of
changing those procedures to make them more effective for all involved (Elliott, 1991;
observation, discussion, and interactions with students to plan instruction, provide the
learner with specific feedback, help the student learn content, and improve learning
learning and the teacher as a facilitator of learning (Ormrod, 2003). Constructivism holds
that humans are continually building mental representations that they use to make sense
student has learned or retained in relationship to a particular group of skills where the
results of the test are used to improve instruction before high stakes tests (Popham, 2008).
Assumptions
expectation that data analysis will yield clear-cut and interpretable results (Reason &
Bradbury, 2008). In this study, three assumptions exist. First, action research throughout
this study is viewed as useful methodology to collect student and teacher data on
change (Holly et al., 2009; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). By working through Holly et
environment can be created that fosters authentic formative assessment while negotiating
students are adequately able to provide data related to school and classroom policies and
procedures (Anfara & Stacki, 2002; Beane, 1997; Black & Wiliam, 1998). By describing
what students think by listening to what they say and observing what they do, say, and
11
create, researchers are able to approximate students’ true opinion that may at times be
stifled due to the students’ lack of knowledge or vocabulary (Anfara & Stacki, 2002;
Holly et al., 2009). Lastly, it is believed that a teacher-researcher can improve classroom
assessment experiences for middle school students through triangulated data collecting
tools (Eisner, 1998; Hatch, 2002; Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Holly et al., 2009;
Morgan, 1998).
This study reflected the experiences of one group of students, in one particular
district, in one particular school. However, the purpose of any action research study is to
provide description of a particular situation and not necessarily one generalizable truth
(Holly et al., 2009). Future studies in different contexts with different methodologies
would of course add to the transferability of the data (Creswell, 2007). Despite this
limitation, this study still provides valuable data that helps identify emerging pedagogical
strategies of the authentic formative assessment within one particular classroom and
shows how the authentic formative assessment process can be a viable alternative to
standardized assessment processes within this classroom. Together the data from these
research questions identify ways in which an authentic formative assessment process can
be used to improve the planned assessment practices for middle childhood classrooms.
The study will help to fill the literature gap on individual and teacher experiences of the
formative assessments within the classroom. This may in turn further the conversation on
As with any qualitative study, no matter how carefully planned, some elements of
bias remain. In this study, some of the data were comprised of student self-reporting
through focus group interviews in the form of class discussions and questionnaires. As
such, the data reflect students’ own biases and their ability to express their true beliefs
(Morgan, 1998). In addition to student bias, there was an inherent bias on my part as the
classroom teacher within the contexts of this school, a deep, layered knowledge (e.g.,
likes, dislikes, familial situations, interests) about these students and community will
always be present in the findings (Holly et al., 2009). Although this may be seen as a
negative, it can also be seen as a positive, as it is only the classroom teacher who is in a
position to describe and adjust instruction based on student response (Black & Wiliam,
The purpose of this action research study was to identify pedagogical strategies
that can be used within authentic formative assessment processes within one classroom.
The study also explored how an authentic process can be a viable alternative to a
standardized one in the same classroom. Chapter 2 offers a critical review of the
assessment, as well as how these issues are viewed in the fields of middle childhood and
curriculum studies. Chapter 3 examines the use of action research as the methodology
and design utilized for exploring and analyzing the data. Data from the study is analyzed
13
The purpose of this action research study was to identify pedagogical strategies
that can be used within authentic formative assessment processes within one classroom.
The study also explored how an authentic process can be a viable alternative to a
standardized one in the same classroom. In this chapter, literature related to this purpose
statement is explored. The chapter is organized in the following manner. First, I explore
the historical reasons for why the interpretation of standardized assessment results has
become the prevalent method for making instructional decisions. Second, I examine the
curriculum studies and middle childhood is explored to identify how these two relevant
fields can inform authentic formative assessment. The conclusion describes a summary
Excellence and Education, 1983), the American educational system was decried a “rising
tide of mediocrity” (p. 1). Garnishing support from the general public through alarmist
language and references to societal problems such as lower SAT scores, falling numbers
of students enrolled in advanced math and science classes, and a high loss of jobs due to a
failing economy, ANAR has been cited as the key document that began the current era of
2010; Sleeter, 2007). As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2002), reform refers
14
15
their goals in order to help solve societal problems. Schools were now being asked to
provide an effective education that produced a sufficient workforce for a growing global
this goal could be achieved by having schools increase graduation standards, utilize better
quality textbooks produced by experts in the field, raise student behavioral standards,
provide more training for teachers, add more days of classroom instruction, and mandate
international rankings, these rankings still remained low as ANAR was only a federal
interventions, such as a pledge by President George H. W. Bush in Goals 2000 that the
nation would use a standardized testing system related to student performance, still did
not produce the economic gains sought by politicians (Ravitch, 2010; Sleeter, 2007).
superiority, George W. Bush signed into law the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).
This federal law has been described as the farthest-reaching educational reform ever to
impact local schools as it ties federal money in all states to specific levels of assessment
performance, with an overall goal of 100% proficiency by all students in the areas of
math and reading by 2014 (NCLB, 2002; Spring, 2010). To improve rankings and
16
maintain economic control, states were responsible for setting academic standards at all
levels of K-12 education and creating an accountability system that regularly assesses
student achievement towards meeting those standards. For schools failing to comply or
meet these newly prescribed levels of achievement, a series of progressively more intense
sanctions were created, such as school restructuring, state takeover of failing schools, an
entire staff replacement, and lastly, the eventual closing of low-performing schools
interpretation of the Tyler Rationale (Tyler, 1949, p. 1), a theory organized around four
curriculum questions:
In relationship to the Tyler Rationale, the purpose of schooling under our current version
of school reform is related to U.S. economic conditions (Question 1). By having students
master basic skills, schools would be able to transform a nation suffering from a shortage
of jobs, lagging achievement, and a growing racial gap (Darling-Hammond, 2010). This
federal law (Question 4). In order to organize this information for students, state
curriculum documents need to outline basic skills in all content areas (Question 3). This
and students, lists every learning goal (Question 2) that a student must acquire per subject
and grade level and is aligned to achievement tests (Sleeter, 2007; Spring, 2010).
Schools have further organized these standards (Question 3) into day-by-day instructional
have been mandated to make decisions about curriculum on the basis of student test
scores, politicians believe that schools will demonstrate quality education and in turn
political referent, a specific approach to high performing schools and quality education
has evolved. High performance has come to mean that teachers and administrators make
data-based decisions. This means that they are able to demonstrate through improved
student performance on a high-stakes test that all students are meeting predetermined
achievement levels.
further mirrored in the classroom. To ensure that teachers are making appropriate gains
with their students, administrators have mandated that teachers utilize formative
assessments and intervene with students who are not making adequate gains in their
standardized tests (Black & Wiliam, 1998; DuFour et al., 2005; Ohio Department of
procedures—as described in Chapter 1—have become rigid assessments with cut scores
set at 80% mastery that do not allow for flexibility of use in the classroom (DuFour et al.,
2004; Ohio Department of Education, 2004). The following section explores the
This section begins by identifying the criteria used to determine the formative
assessment literature that was included within this review. Next, key terms found in the
research are presented to help guide the reader because researchers who have historically
at times disagreed in their understandings of the terms evaluation and assessment have
created overlaps in research and terminology (Eisner, 2002). For purposes of this section,
K-12 research literature that is consistent with the formative assessment definition
theoretical, as each area adds a different insight into the problem statement of this
research study. Lastly, the research is synthesized to describe what is commonly known
education, I traced the term formative and its synonym, assessment for learning,
throughout key publications and research journals. I began with The Journal of
following areas: (a) The Handbook on Formative Assessment (Andrade & Cizek, 2010);
(b) the ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation, the major index of
researchers Black and Wiliam in 1998 that indexes significant research over a 30-year
period; and (d) Educational Leadership, the leading instructional reference for current
trends in schools, which makes specific reference to the four previous areas. This British
study is included as the Association for Middle Level Education (NMSA, 2010) and
formative assessment experts (Andrade & Cizek, 2010; Popham, 2008) cite the study as
the key referent for formative assessment processes in the United States. One
British seminal study by Black and Wiliam (1998). It is important to recognize that there
is a gap in empirical research study (1989-2004) as the U.S. research agenda was more
terminology and research (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Brookhart, 2008; Eisner, 2002;
Popham, 2008; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Formative as defined for this study and
literature review is any classroom activity that allows a teacher to adjust instruction with
reference to the target goal and gives feedback to students about their own learning. It is
a process between the teacher and student with the end result being growth in both the
20
teacher and student. It contrasts with summative which is an activity given at the end of a
defined period of instruction with hopes of determining how much a student has learned
or retained. These two areas can further be subdivided into evaluation and assessment.
Assessment is a process whose end result is growth; its purpose is to continue learning
for both the teacher and student and focuses on both the teacher and the student.
Although Scriven (1967) was the first to use the term formative, educators have
always used formative assessment processes in their classrooms (Eisner, 2002; Guskey,
1985). Scriven, in his attempt to put language to an observable phenomenon, coined the
term to describe curriculum decisions that were made by educators that resulted in
Scriven stated that a formative describes a change made by a school district or curriculum
writer when it is clear that a curricular process is not working as intended (a mid-
person made a programmatic change after the evaluation process was completed. This
various curriculum materials were working or not. The contents of these studies are not
important to the discussion at hand as they relate to the physical materials of curriculum,
The first study to show that formative assessment was a process that teachers can
use to drive instructional decision making, in other words, the first application of
Scriven’s (1967) definition to classroom teaching, was completed in 1971 by Bloom et al.
Functioning out of their research on mastery learning, Bloom et al. believed that teachers
could mark each step of the learning process as effective or not in relationship to the
learning goal. Although the teachers did not specifically make the changes the
researchers were looking for, this theory became the theoretical basis for later research as
viii). Working from this vantage point, a large number of quantitative studies were
devised.
Quantitative Studies
that teachers who use formative assessment in their classroom will improve their
Fiel and Okey (1974), Block and Burns (1976), and Black and Wiliam (1998). Basing
their premise on Bloom et al.’s (1971) work, Fiel and Okey asserted that formative
students in the formative assessment group were more likely to have a greater
understanding of what needed to be learned, resulting from the teacher’s feedback and
periods following instruction were the key to improving scores. Block and Burns (1976),
in an attempt to summarize the 17 studies that tested Fiel and Okey’s concept of an
their counterparts. In addition, they ascertained that students who experienced formative
assessment processes also have higher retention after a few weeks due to the formative
assessment process. These conclusions were also tested in special education populations
by Mirkin and Deno (1979, 1980). They too agreed that formative assessment improved
assessment, Black and Wiliam (1998) showed that by using formative assessment,
teachers can improve their students’ achievement with a standard deviation gain from .5
to 1. This gain is seen when teachers change instruction based on the results of the
assessment and provide feedback to the students. In cases where an increase was not
indicates that teachers must provide feedback for students after a formative assessment.
The first study to test this idea was constructed by Natrielo (1987). Although this study
literature pieces described in the next section make reference to it, as did Black and
23
Wiliam’s (1998) seminal study mentioned previously. Natrielo indicated that although
higher achievement. Testing this concept in the K-12 spectrum, Crooks (1988) also
concluded that formative assessments are in-class processes that must be coupled with
systematic feedback for students. In a follow-up study, Sadler (1989) identified that
feedback for students needed to tell them what they are doing well, where they should be,
and some tips for improvement. Sadler’s study also revealed that when teachers utilize
these types of feedback, they improve achievement because students are motivated and
A third implication from quantitative study indicates that teachers may keep the
formative process informal, meaning it does not have to be a formal quiz, as long as the
gives the teacher insight into understanding students’ thinking. Aschbacher and Alonso
(2006), in their attempt to determine how teachers use the formative assessment process
to improve achievement, indicated that when teachers are able to use the assessment as a
means to understand student thinking, they are able to produce greater gains in student
learning; this may be an informal process as teachers may gain insight about student
thinking simply from observing a student’s science notebook. Supporting this idea,
Ruiz-Primo and Furtak’s (2006) mixed method study shows that informal formative
assessment processes are effective when teachers understand that formative assessment is
a process and use the process to plan accordingly. Informal activities, such as
24
questioning or a game, can help teachers adjust their instruction while at the same time
The final argument derived from quantitative study shows that sometimes
Wininger and Norman (2005) identified, the lack of consistent improvement for student
achievement may be related to the fact that there is no consensus on what the term
formative assessment means or what it looks like within the classroom. This stems from
historical battles on the difference between assessment and evaluation, on key textbooks
with differing definitions that are used within teacher preparation programs across the
country, and from the fact that many teachers have simply had to follow mandates on
formative assessment without training. Two of the studies mentioned earlier, Ruiz-Primo
and Furtak (2006) and Aschbacher and Alonso (2006) concluded that achievement results
would have been higher if teachers had an understanding of the term; in addition,
participants (teachers) in both studies, stated that the formative process was extremely
confusing. Ruiz-Primo and Furtak and Aschbacher and Alonso also indicated that
From quantitative study, four conclusions have been drawn to form formative
assessment theory: (a) formative assessment can raise student achievement; (b) it must be
accompanied by feedback; (c) it can be an informal process; and (d) the process can be
presented.
25
Theoretical Research
assessment. The first conclusion identifies that formative assessment raises achievement
their instruction and students with knowledge about their misconceptions. With
formative assessment results, teachers know which students are doing well, which are
having problems, and exactly what problems those students are having. When teachers
have this information, they are able to give students clear ideas about how well they are
learning important concepts and what additional work is needed to learn them. This
categorized the process as one in which both teachers and students gain an understanding
of student progress toward learning goals. When teachers view formative assessment as a
achievement consistently increases. This is because teachers have developed the ability
students, formative assessments are likely to be ineffective. From both Popham and
feedback are more effective for formative assessments than other types. As Brookhart
(2008, 2010), Gipps, (1994), Topping (2010), and Popham (2008, 2011) indicated, when
the formative assessment process does not work, there is a strong probability that the
feedback has not been effective for the students involved. This position is also supported
Leadership where the editor indicates that in order for teachers to harness the power of
formative assessment, the principles of good feedback must be utilized. In other words, a
ineffective feedback will produce teachers who are unhappy with results. Heeding these
words, Brookhart (2010) identified that effective feedback consists of the following
elements: that the teacher and student focus on the learning objective; there is comparison
towards the standard; it is clear; it is appropriately timed; it is specific; and does not
overwhelm the student. In addition, Topping (2010) suggested that teachers can also
incorporate peer feedback into their formative assessment processes as peer assessment
and when teachers utilize feedback. In the next section, the theoretical and quantitative
produce a picture of the theories of formative assessment and then ends by addressing
formative assessment helps teachers improve achievement with a standard deviation gain
from .5 to 1. In addition, teachers who use formatives and accompany them with an
intervention period and feedback produce higher levels of achievement (Black & Wiliam,
2008; Fiel & Okey, 1974; Popham, 2008). Second, teachers may use informal formative
assessment processes as long as it is accompanied with feedback and gives the teacher
insight into understanding the students’ thinking (Aschbacher & Alonso, 2006;
Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2006). I have also learned that the process can be extremely
confusing to teachers (Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2006; Wininger & Norman, 2005), that
there are certain components of effective feedback (Brookhart, 2008, 2010; Toppings,
2010), what makes a good formative assessment for teachers (Aschbacher & Alonso,
administer are likely to be ineffective (Bloom et al., 1971; Brookhart, 2008, 2010; Gipps,
1994; Guskey, 1985, 1995; Popham, 2008) and formative assessment rationales that do
not provide feedback to students or allow teachers to base decisions with students will
also most likely be ineffective (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 2011).
28
Table 1
Fiel & Okey To show that FA Quant. Students in a FA group are more likely to have a
(1974) coupled with greater understanding of what needs to be learned,
intervention resulting from the teacher’s feedback and intervention
periods helps period in comparison to a control group; intervention
measure learning periods following instruction are key to improving
scores.
Mirkin & To determine effect Quant A more-is-better approach is most likely appropriate,
Deno (1979, of FA on special but requires further testing.
1980) education
population
Guskey To articulate the Theoret. With formative assessment results, teachers know
(1985, 1995) reasons why FA is which students are doing well, which are having
an important tool problems and exactly what problems those students
for teacher use are having; FA provides teachers with information
about the effectiveness of their instruction; FA gives
students clear ideas about how well they are learning
the unit’s important concepts and what additional
work is needed (pp. 98-100).
Natrielo To determine the Quant. A higher education study; indicates that little is
(1987) effect of FA in Meta- known about the multi-faceted process of assessment
post-secondary analysis and that we need more research; determines that
schooling feedback is necessary to ensuring higher achievement
in FA processes.
(table continues)
29
Table 1 (continued)
Crooks To test the concept Quant. Determines that FA must be an in-class process that
(1988) of feedback during must be coupled with systematic feedback for
FA and when FA is students; more study is necessary related to types of
most appropriately feedback and such study will help students learn to
used monitor their own work.
Sadler (1989) To determine what Quant. Identifies that the best feedback for students needs to
kinds of feedback be one that tells them what they are doing well, where
are effective for FA they should be at, and some tips for improvement.
Gipps (1994) To explore why FA Theoret. Explains that when the process isn’t working, not
does not always enough feedback is given or students appear to be
raise student unmotivated; indicates that not all teachers understand
achievement what the process is set to accomplish.
Black & To summarize Quant. British study indexing seventy-five studies; indicates
Wiliam research on the Meta- that FA can help improve achievement with a
(1998) effectiveness of FA analysis standard deviation gain from .5 to 1. In cases where a
gain is not seen, teachers avoided giving descriptive
feedback, adjusting instruction, assessing quality
towards a criterion standard rather than quantity, and
negotiating the process between the teacher and
student. Effective formative processes are joint-
processes.
Wininger & To determine why Quant. Identifies that there needs to be more of a consensus
Norman the FA process is on what the term FA means if we want teachers to use
(2005) having difficulty the process more effectively given its mandated use;
being implemented this stems from a lack of consensus on key textbooks
in schools used in teacher preparation programs on the term FA.
Aschbacher To determine how Mixed Indicates that when teachers are able to use the
& Alonso teachers use the FA assessment as a means to understand student thinking,
(2006) process to improve they are able to produce greater gains in student
achievement learning; this may be an informal process.
(table continues)
30
Table 1 (continued)
ASCD To help teachers Theoret. A series of articles about judging quality assessments
(Scherer, understand the (informal, non-graded, motivational), helping teachers
2005, 2007) process of FA understand that teaching is assessing, identifying ways
of giving proper feedback to students, and showing
how students can become a part of the process (hands-
on, differentiated instruction).
Ruiz-Primo To examine how Mixed Recognizes that teachers who understand that FA is a
& Furtak informal FA are process are able to plan accordingly and make higher
(2006) used in the achievement; more professional development is
classroom needed.
Brookhart To identify ways in Theoret. Identifies that effective feedback consists of the
(2008, 2010) which teachers elements of focus, comparison, function, valence,
should design FA clarity, specify, tone, timing, amount, mode, and
and how to give audience and that effective FAs are varied, in both
good feedback formal (quiz) and informal ways (game).
Popham To clarify the Theoret. Categorizes FAs as any activity in the classroom,
(2008) definition of FA accompanied with feedback, which gives both
teachers and students an understanding of student
progress toward learning goals and teachers
information on how to teach further lessons.
Topping To show that peers Thoret. Indicates that teachers should incorporate peer
(2010) can be an effective feedback into their FA processes as peer assessment
source of feedback tends to be “high in terms of reliability and validity”
during the FA (p. 72).
process
In summary, formative assessment has only been studied from the perspective of
the teacher in empirical studies and generalizes the positive effects of formative
assessments to students by arguing that there is a benefit to students as teachers are able
that when teachers develop a relationship with their students during formative
31
that allows the teacher to rely on observation, discussion, and interactions with students
to plan instruction and provide the learner with specific feedback. There has been no
research on what pedagogical strategies can be used with authentic formative assessment,
and no research to show how authentic formative assessment can be a viable alternative
relationships should be valued and that teachers should be able to make decisions about
learning based on the unfolding of classroom learning activities (Black & Wiliam, 1998;
understandings of how such a relationship can exist in classroom settings, ideas of how to
cultivate and honor this relationship have been a focus in curriculum study. In the next
section, curriculum study theories related to teacher-student relationship and the “arts of
Although none of the theorists that are discussed in the following paragraphs
study theories can guide teachers in the usage of formative assessments because effective
formative assessment processes value the relationship that develops between a teacher
32
and student and rely on teachers to be professionals who understand the needs of their
students (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 2008). For purposes of this literature review,
interactions and discussions that teachers have with their students and students have with
their teacher about learning content with the end result of a teacher being able to make
can exist in classroom settings, ideas of how to cultivate and honor this relationship have
been a focus in curriculum study since the early 1900s. These theories have been gaining
(Schwab, 1970).
As John Dewey articulates in The School and Society (1976) in the early 1900s,
the American school system had resulted in a segmentation of the curriculum where
stakeholders were often concerned with sorting and stratification rather than
understanding. This is true even today, given the push for data-driven standardized
instruction under the 2001 No Child Left Behind (2002) Act that was discussed earlier in
this chapter. In terms of standardized formative assessment, teachers are being asked to
sort students into those who have learned a concept at 80% mastery and those who have
not (DuFour et al., 2002; Ohio Department of Education, 2004). By acting in such a
manner, Dewey articulated that educators create schools that are useless as the education
that is produced renders the student unable to utilize their knowledge later in life. To
solve this, as he argued in Democracy and Education (Dewey, 1980) and Experience and
33
Education (Dewey, 1988), teachers must be allowed to capitalize on student interests and
concerns and integrate them into the students’ already existing knowledge bank. By
doing so, teachers can create learning experiences that allow students to connect to who
they are, who they have been, and who they are striving to become, as well as learn
To encourage students in this manner, Eisner (2002, 2005) argued in his theory of
connoisseurship that teachers must illuminate, interpret, and appraise the qualities
contained within a learning experience. This means that teachers reflect upon learning
learning goals with students. By basing decisions on student response within the
classroom, a teacher is able to adjust his or her instructional practice and improve
in the learning process is honored and further cultivated since each member in the
teachers, Henderson and Kesson (2004) indicated that teaching can be a process guided
problem solving is one that acknowledges the various diverse perspectives that exist in a
given context; by working with others to discuss matters of curriculum, the “democratic
everyone to have a voice (p. 13). Through the collaborative process, in the context of
authentic formative assessment, teachers can create curriculum processes that form a
bridge between where the student currently is and where the student might become
assume ownership of their learning and do their own thinking in the subject such that the
learning experience of the child and knowledge is in turn valued for its own sake. Such
an authentic process in formative assessment also increases the teacher’s ability to make
sound, critical decisions, as the teacher through the assessment process will be in a
position to determine what needs to be the next step for the students in front of that
teacher.
practical.” The “arts of the practical” refers to the ability of curriculum decision-makers,
such as teachers, to have the ability to consider what action, if any, is best for a particular
situation all things considered. The “arts of the practical” avoids prescriptive theories,
theories that are not a “defensible decision” since no one theory can address all
commonplaces are students with specific prior knowledge, abilities, needs, and interests
and teachers with specific beliefs, knowledge, skills, and experiences. Schwab identified
35
that wise curriculum practices are the result of careful reflection that take into account a
variety of eclectic sources, such that a teacher is able to operate in a flexible, reflective,
and imaginative manner. This means that it is up to each individual teacher to determine
the best course of action for each student and that each teacher is given freedom to rely
on those pieces of evidence that are important to the individual when making decisions.
sources, such as students, other teachers, resource materials, and personal knowledge, is
processes, multiple data sources can encourage a teacher and a student to become more
As teachers may rely on other people as sources of their knowledge at times, the
Constructivism states that meaningful learning occurs when we reflect on our learning
Solomon, 2009). This means that students actively take in many separate pieces of
information, adapt this information from prior learning and experience, and use the total
interpretation of the world around them (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Fosnot, 1996; Piaget,
encouraging dialogue with themselves and other students, and listening carefully to
36
students’ ideas and explanations, such that the teacher is able to address any
misconceptions.
(Vygotsky, 1978). In social constructivism, students, with help from adults or children
who are more advanced on a particular learning task, master concepts and ideas that they
would not ordinarily be able to understand on their own through the natural dialoguing
and modeling that exists during the interaction. Through this interaction in authentic
terms of both personal development and school content knowledge (Sergiovanni, 1996).
As has been shown in this section, curriculum studies literature supports the
make decisions about learning based on the unfolding of classroom learning activities
students is one way in which teachers can encourage the personal growth in their students
while at the same time meeting identified curriculum goals that formative assessments are
designed to measure. In the next section, I explore how authentic formative assessment is
supported by middle childhood curriculum practices, the classroom area of the research
context.
37
This section shows how authentic formative assessments can support the best
curriculum practices advocated for by the professional agency for middle childhood
The Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE; NMSA, 1980, 1995, 2003,
2010) indicates that teachers can improve the educational experiences of young
discussed in this section, are one way in which teachers can help meet those needs.
Curriculums that are relevant, those that are student-centered in which central
themes are derived from a young adolescent’s personal concerns and issues with society,
are important for middle school students to experience. The middle childhood report
Turning Points (Jackson & Davis, 2000) and the AMLE (NMSA, 2003, 2010) indicated
teacher (Anfara, 2001; Beane & Brodhagen, 2001; Brown & Knowles, 2007; Jackson &
Davis, 2000; Powell & Van Zandt Allen, 2001; Wiles, Bondi, & Tillier Wiles, 2005).
and concerns related to themselves, the curriculum, and the world around them (Pate,
Homestead, & McGinnis, 1994, 1996). Such experiences move children beyond isolated
facts to analyze big, life-long ideas in depth helping students explain why “they need to
know this” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Haberman, 1991). Authentic formative
38
assessments support the measuring of relevant curriculums since they enable teachers to
reflect with students on learning goals and experiences, guiding the student toward a
necessary for middle school students (Beane, 1997). An integrated curriculum provides
(Stevenson & Carr, 1993); it often exists in practice by developing a theme, such as
involve students’ interests and personal choices such that they treat students with dignity,
as real people who live in the real world and care about its condition and fate. This is
synthesis that exist when teachers and students interact together. Further articulating this
idea, Nesin (2000) argued that in integrated curriculums, teachers make their primary
and students must communicate on the progress of their learning goals. Authentic
formative assessment is one way in which the teacher and student can communicate on
the learning goals as the process opens up space for multiple viewpoints to be considered
curriculum is one that allows students to discover their abilities, acquaints them with
enriching life-pursuits, and helps them to begin to discuss their contribution to society; it
is an “attitude and approach” (p. 20) that allows students to experience a wide variety of
academic disciplines that can develop the student into a well-rounded, engaged adult
(NMSA, 2010). As Rogers and Freiberg (1994) indicated, exploratory curriculums use
self-discovery approaches that appeal to the natural curiosity of the middle child student.
guidance that exists through feedback to help learners make connections about learning
content.
are based on models adopted from secondary education research and that limited research
has been performed at the middle school level (Anfara & Stacki, 2002). No research has
been performed to date that addresses the goals of this study as described at the opening
of this chapter. The limited research that is available on middle childhood assessment is
researchers argue that assessments can be motivating for students and at other times can
produce low self-esteem. In Mitchell (1992), the researcher concludes that assessment at
the middle grades level cannot be used to sort students as such sorting practices lower
achievement since they produce students who are unable to explore areas of potential
interest. On the other hand, Darling-Hammond, Ancess, and Falk (1995) argued that
assessments can be used to motivate students to succeed as students can often see their
40
conferences (Stowell & McDaniel, 1997), self-analysis of work through rubrics and
instruction (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wormeli, 2007) can
As the AMLE (NMSA, 2003, 2010) indicates in their position statement, research
data are needed to analyze the assessment best practices that are needed for middle grades
teachers. Authentic formative assessment is one area that can further the assessment
adolescents.
Summary
The purpose of this action research study was to describe the pedagogical
strategies of an authentic formative assessment process within one classroom. The study
also explored how an authentic process can be a viable alternative to a standardized one
within one classroom. There is little known about the pedagogical strategies that can be
used in authentic formative assessment since research has only focused on showing that
value teachers and students who collaboratively make “practical” decisions about
formative assessment processes (Schwab, 1970). In terms of this study, this means that
41
educators use their knowledge of adolescent students and their relationship with students
(NMSA, 2010). In this document, the curriculum needs of adolescents are identified as
needing to be collaborative and exploratory in nature. These needs can be met through
Chapter 3 argues that action research was one productive methodology to gather
The chapter also shows that such a methodology enabled discussion on how an authentic
The purpose of this action research study was to describe the pedagogical
strategies of an authentic formative assessment process within one classroom. The study
also explored how an authentic process can be a viable alternative to a standardized one
within one classroom. Action research supports these goals as rigorous methodology that
educational values (Holly et al., 2005, 2009). Data in this study was gathered through an
teacher-researcher journal analysis, and student artifact analysis. This chapter provides a
justification for the methodology used to conduct the study, data collection procedures,
data analysis procedures used, and a critique of the design, and concludes with a
problems I had with the formative assessment processes occurring in my school. After
exploring the related literature presented in Chapter 2, the following questions were
42
43
formative assessment process help improve the way assessment is planned and
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006) and Creswell (2007) indicated, many researchers choose
methodologies to fit the questions being asked and the problem being studied. Such an
orientation is based on a pragmatic stance of the world (Hatch, 2002; Patton, 1990). This
means that the researcher is concerned more with where the research needs to go, rather
The research questions presented are best examined using one interpretation of a
reflective form of teaching that helps teachers collect data on various classroom
procedures and issues (Holly et al., 2005, 2009). It has an end goal of changing those
procedures to agree with the data obtained so that they are more effective for all involved
the primary researchers in their classroom while at the same time maintaining their
practitioner status (Creswell, 2007; Elliott, 1991). Through systematic investigation into
the data, the teacher-researcher is able to act on the problem and to do something
44
differently, thus realizing the teacher’s educational values and philosophies (Burns,
1999). The research process concludes when the results are reported to the public
In this section, a rationale for why action research was chosen for this study’s
methodology is provided.
Holly et al. (2009) indicate that one of the strengths of action research is that it
enables teachers to think “outside of the box” when a “system of thinking no longer
works and there is an anomaly that cannot be explained by current theory” (p. 31). This
study’s research problem began with a personal context, where I viewed the formative
assessment process as something that had gotten out of hand as our current
making within the classroom (Henderson & Gornik, 2007). Upon studying the literature,
little could be found about authentic formative assessments. By studying this problem
the authentic and found a way to utilize “wiggle room” to institute change within my
classroom (Cuban, 2003). As Holly et al. (2009) articulate, action research is one
methodology that enables people to have a say in making their own lives better.
and Lytle (2009) indicate that action research, unlike other methodologies, allows a
critique of teachers’ work and workplaces. This study serves as a critique of the current
been instructed to make decisions for students based on the results of standardized tests
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). I believe that I should have the power as a teacher to
make decisions for my students based on observations and interactions with my students
as well as on all available evidence that I deem relevant as long as my students achieve.
who and what gets to make decisions about curriculum and instruction. Cochran-Smith
and Lytle (2009) indicate that when a researcher’s purpose is based in a refocusing of
ends questions and a reformulating of who gets to make decisions about curriculum and
At the same time that the classroom’s purpose is being refocused, this study’s
problem statement requires insight into a teaching technique that is presently unexamined
within the literature. Anderson, Herr, and Nihlen (2007), Reason and Bradbury (2008),
and Hubbard and Power (2003) indicate that action research is an appropriate
methodology to utilize when teaching techniques are unexamined within the literature
because action research methodology provides insight into how these practices are
implemented within the classroom and in turn in how the teaching practice can be
improved. Because teachers are the ones performing the research and are the ones
methodologists believe that teachers can improve their circumstances and will produce
data that can be helpful to practitioners everywhere (Reason & Bradbury, 2008).
46
Based on the argument that action research produces data that can be helpful to
practitioners, Black and Wiliam (1998) indicated that action research should be used to
consistently produces the same result: achievement improves when teachers use
greater gains than others. By using an action-research lens, Black and Wiliam indicate
that we can document how teachers make changes to the curriculum, instruction, and
assessment triangle and determine why some teachers have greater gains in achievement
than others. This study sought to identify emerging pedagogical strategies of an authentic
effective as a standardized approach. This is a process that can only be understood by the
teacher as it is only the teacher who is able to understand the totality of the experience in
their classrooms—to identify data, adjust instruction based on that data, and guide
students in future learning. Accordingly, a methodology that merges both teacher and
process that could not be arbitrarily separated from the classroom context (Black &
the classroom context or from students, it was important to find a methodology that
allowed the studying of multiple perspectives and viewed those multiple perspectives as
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) indicate that action research is the only methodology
47
that allows all individuals in a research context to have a perspective reflected in the data.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle indicate that classroom problems often need to take into
case study, can minimize such complexity. Action research, on the other hand, is
premised on the belief that all individuals operating in a school context such as teachers,
teaching and learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). This means that through varied
data collection methods, action research allows teachers to collect rich data that enable
the teacher-researcher to comment on the classroom process at hand. In this study, the
research questions related to authentic formative assessment required data from both the
between teacher and student that cannot be separated (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham,
2011). In this study, data were obtained from both my students and me to find out how
the assessment process worked; these data were then used to adjust the assessment
While action research allowed for the collection of data from multiple
perspectives within one classroom, it also allowed collection of data from the self, the
part of the context, studying my own students would traditionally be viewed as biased
students, the formative assessment process, and my classroom, makes the study possible
because my observations of the process are specific and context-rich. As Gruhler (2004),
48
Black and Wiliam (1998), and Good and Brophy (2003) concluded, it is only the teacher
who can observe closely, reflect, and comment on students and instruction in order to
interacting with my students that comes from action research—the research questions
would be unanswerable. Holly et al. (2005, 2009), Anderson et al. (2007), and Reason
and Bradbury (2008) indicate that action research enables teachers to take their
contextualized knowledge and use it to their advantage to comment on problems that are
often illustrative of larger issues. In this study, by using my own classroom and
reflective of the larger political situation of who is in control of making decisions in the
classroom.
Throughout this project, I was both the teacher and researcher. This dual role
carries bias within it as I have significant knowledge of these students and their larger
social context: the school. This bias however is to be viewed as strength in this study as
it is only the teacher who understands the full cycle of curriculum, assessment, and
instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Herr and Anderson (2005) and Holly et al. (2009)
articulated, although bias is “natural and acceptable” (p. 52) in action research, teachers
can take steps to further reduce these biases. Although no study is free from bias as each
study is situated within a distinct cultural and historical context (Creswell, 2007;
Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Patton, 1990), in this study,
49
methods such as critical colleague usage, multiple data sources as a form of triangulation,
and member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) were used to further limit the amount that
As this section showed, there were significant reasons for choosing action
research as the methodological framework of this study. In the next section, a rationale
The Handbook of Action Research (Reason & Bradbury, 2008) states that there
are five major approaches to action research: (a) insider study of own/self practice, (b)
insider study in collaboration with other insiders; (c) insiders in collaboration with
(insider-outsider teams). The approach chosen in any action research study must be
based in the context of the problem and philosophical viewpoint of the researcher.
In this study, an insider in collaboration with other insiders (b, above) was most
students and their teacher. A self-study orientation (a, above) did not support the
problem statement as formative assessment is defined by both the student and the teacher,
and would not have provided the rich data needed to answer any of the research questions
as such an orientation limits perspective. The other approaches (c, d, e, above) were not
appropriate for this study as students have traditionally felt uncomfortable discussing
school assessment procedures with outsiders who are not a part of the curriculum,
instruction, and assessment triangle (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Stiggins, 2004).
50
Holly et al.’s (2005, 2009) interpretation of action research is one that is premised
on insiders working with other insiders. It was utilized for the following reasons:
The Holly et al. methodology allowed for varied data collection. Varied data
sources were necessary to answer the research questions but some action research
methodologies limit the types of data that can be collected and from whom they can be
collected thus rendering an incomplete answer to the research questions (Reason &
Bradbury, 2008). Using the Holly et al. methodology, I was able to collect varying types
of data from all participants, all of which added a valuable perspective to answering the
research questions.
Other popular action research methods, such as Herr and Anderson (2005), have been
designed for broad use in the humanities and have not been specifically designed for
research that hinges on their experience as elementary and middle childhood teachers.
The Holly et al. methodology has been used previously in our district. Students
and teachers throughout the district have used Holly et al.’s methodology in previous
studies. It was also familiar to other individuals, such as administrators who grant
approval for any study. By using a process with which all parties are familiar, I was able
foreground and background, research and teaching, where necessary. One of the
51
difficulties with classroom research is the tendency of research to interrupt the flow of
instruction and vice versa (Good & Brophy, 2003). As a teacher who values consistent
instruction, I needed a methodology that would not interrupt the instructional processes
with which I am charged to carry out. Holly et al. (2005, 2009) provided a methodology
that allowed the teacher-researcher to collect data at the same time that instruction was
occurring and did not require a separate transition between the two. Such an unobtrusive
orientation allowed students to collaborate in the outcome, thus making them feel a part
of the process without detracting from their learning and also allowed me to collect data
while instructing.
In the next section, a detailed explanation of how the Holly et al. (2005, 2009)
Research Plan
The following action research plan was adopted to help guide the study. This
section begins with a description of the research site taken from my knowledge of the
school district and the school district’s public website as it is necessary to understand the
classroom context in action research (Holly et al., 2005, 2009). It follows with a class
profile and a description of myself as the teacher, all information that is needed to
understand the key perspectives contained within the research questions. Following the
discussion of these contextual factors is an explanation of the procedures used for data
collection.
52
Research Site
The setting for this study was my ninth grade, Spanish class, a class designated as
middle childhood by the AMLE/NMSA (2010) and the Ohio Department of Education
(2004) as the adolescents are between the ages of 11 and 15. The school contains about
1,800 students and is located in a suburb of Cleveland. There are three veteran
administrators and one non-veteran administrator: The principal and two of his assistants
have been administrators in the building for more than 10 years; the other has been in
administration for five years, but has only been with the district for two. There are six
achievement that has been nationally recognized both by the federal government as well
as independent agencies such as Newsweek and Money Magazine. For example, 97% of
our students attend college, 30% of the total number of courses offered is distinguished as
Advanced Placement (AP), 90% of students pass the AP exam, and the school district
evidenced by the football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, and softball teams that
consistently make the state playoffs and maintain league championships. Artistically and
musically, students excel as evidenced by the large number of superior ratings received at
affluent and maintains a religiously and racially diverse population. Forty percent of the
53
lunch program. The city maintains a large industrial base with numerous stores and
of the students are extremely supportive of teachers assuming that teachers make an
effort to communicate with both students and parents. Daily use of student and teacher
use of technology in the classroom through laptop computers, LCD projectors, personal
response systems, and integrated web pages are part of a district mandate.
student learning based on standards-based grading. In so doing, a system was created for
grading student work: 20% of the grade is practical application (homework and class
determine student mastery and group learning trends after a predetermined period of
time; and 40% is formative assessment with the expectation that students who have not
obtained a mastery level score would be given additional opportunities for learning the
to be the one true path to success on common assessments and larger high-stakes,
standardized tests. In some cases, as in the case of foreign language classes, these grades
have further been subdivided into categories to ensure skill mastery as well: following the
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Language Proficiency Guidelines (1999),
grades are broken down so that 80% (20% each) is devoted to speaking, writing,
listening, and reading proficiency applications while the remaining 20% is devoted to
The building’s assistant principal for curriculum and instruction, as well as other
district administrators, were receptive to and supportive of this research. To ensure that
research was in accordance with district policy, letters soliciting participation in the study
were approved by the administration. In addition, these stakeholders were kept informed
Class Profile
The particular class that was chosen for study was selected for two reasons: (a) all
members of the class met the AMLE/NMSA (2010) definition of a middle childhood
student; and (b) the class was more heterogeneously balanced in terms of gender,
academic aptitude, socio-economic status, race, and special-needs status than my other
classes. Holly et al. (2005, 2009) articulated that choosing a heterogeneous group is
describe the multiple perspectives that exist in the teacher’s classes. Table 2 provides a
class profile of the participants. Of the 21 students within the class, 20 agreed to
participate in the study and consent was obtained from each student’s parents (see
Table 2
Participant Profile
* A “third-level pyramid” is a status used in the district for struggling students before a recommendation
for a 504/IEP is made. IEPs or Individualized Educational Plans and 504s are federal documents that list
instructional accommodations and curricular modifications that must be followed for students. The
designation “Advanced” is used to refer to students who have exceptional cognitive abilities—this is not
limited to IQ, but may refer to music, artistic, or athletic talent as well.
56
Teacher-Researcher Profile
the research questions as well as a significant part of how the research questions were
I have been a teacher for eight years and am tenured. I have taught in the district
that was the focus of this study for six years, and before that, at a nearby district. I have
taught Spanish in grades 1–2 and 6–12; each school year, I have always had at least two
activities and have been a PLC team leader (DuFour et al., 2005). I am an active member
of the Ohio Foreign Language Association and I also teach foreign language methods and
assessment courses to undergraduates and graduate students at two local area colleges.
differentiated (Wormeli, 2007), and constructive (Fosnot, 1996). I believe such a design
allows each student to grow primarily first as a learner, in the specific areas of
self-knowing and self-reflection as a form of critical thinking and analysis, and then
2009). This means that it is essential that students read, write, speak, and listen daily in
the language they are studying. This should come in the form of comprehensible input,
authentic resources that are within the zone of proximal development, that allow students
to grow through their interaction with prior knowledge and move to the next linguistic
57
level (Vygotsky, 1978). I adhere to the principles contained within the middle childhood
providing a safe, yet challenging environment. In addition, I believe that the greatest tool
guidance counselors, parents, and other teachers when making educational decisions.
This action research study was conducted during two consecutive units of
instruction. The duration of these units were determined by the common pacing guide for
all teachers of this particular course in my school district (DuFour et al., 2004; Jacobs,
1997). This time frame, although relatively short, still provided adequate understanding
compared with a more standardized approach. It also provided adequate time to begin to
cycle of the classroom. This assertion is evidenced by the extensive data analysis
provided in Chapter 4.
Four types of data were collected in this study to answer the research questions:
(a) questionnaires; (b) focus groups in the form of class discussions; (c) teacher-student
artifacts (lesson plans, assessment logs, and grade book); and (d) teacher-researcher data
(analytic memos and field notes to document daily observations in the form of a teacher
journal). Table 3 shows a timeline indicating when the various data types were collected,
followed by the rationale for using these methods. Each discussion is supported with
additional information from the literature on the various types of data collection.
58
Table 3
Data Sources
questions for the purpose of collecting facts, perspectives, attitudes, or values from
participants. They were appropriate to use in this action research study as they provided
significant insight into student perspectives of the research questions and helped shape
Two types of questionnaires were used in this study, and questionnaires were
administered six times over the course of the study. The first type, referred to as
59
“E-survey,” was in an electronic format that is used by the school and familiar to
department from determining which student wrote which response and releasing this
information to teachers upon request as each student must log-in to the system. The
e-system may be accessed from anywhere in the world and it is common for students to
provide lengthier results to these questions as they have unlimited time to answer them
within a set time period, often three to four days. Return rate for these questionnaires
was greater than 95% as students have been conditioned to complete the surveys as the
school prides itself on including student input for decisions through these surveys, and
students have seen changes happen based on survey results. The second type of
classroom. This second questionnaire type was used to ensure that students themselves
were providing the responses. One hundred percent of participants completed this
survey. During data analysis, I noted that these responses were much shorter than the
electronic responses and at times appeared to “tell me what I wanted to hear” so that we
could continue on with our lesson or so students could leave the classroom.
much of the student voice as possible. Questions were created to allow “students to
respond in their own words” about the formative assessment process (Holly et al., 2009,
understandings of the emerging data trends, as was expected (Holly et al., 2005, 2009).
60
With such an orientation, I was able to gain specific and meaningful data towards the
research questions. Upon conclusion of each questionnaire, the results were analyzed to
make sure that I was interpreting the data correctly. Charts and diagrams were also
Some of the questions that appeared on the questionnaires, where the words I and
friend?
• Do I know of ways that the formative assessment process could work better?
Explain.
assessment?
or why not?
• How has the improved formative assessment process worked for you?
Focus groups as class discussions. Holly et al. (2005, 2009) conceived that
focus groups, in the form of class discussions, are an important method to gain data that
can be used to shape the answers to research questions. Focus groups were utilized in
this study for three reasons: (a) As these methodologists argue, using a class discussion as
a primary method in an action research study and supplementing these groups with
additional techniques allows the teacher-researcher to gain breadth and depth about the
research problem because they are spontaneous, require little preparation, and can be
used on the spot when the teacher-researcher is on-the-go within the classroom; (b)
Classroom discussions are an excellent strategy to use when working with children as
they provide a relaxed environment where participants are comfortable as the spotlight is
not constantly on them, a typical dilemma often faced by middle childhood students
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Ormrod, 2003); (c) Class discussions give the
By using a focus group, I had an effective method to collect data to answer the
research questions. Holly et al. (2005, 2009) and Morgan (1998) all indicated that focus
groups in classrooms create lines of communication that allow for give-and-take in the
Utilizing a focus group gave me a chance to understand the range of perspectives and
approach.
The focus group discussions occurred four times throughout the study and lasted
anywhere from 10 minutes (due to an interruption with a fire drill) to 40 minutes; this
practice is not uncommon within my classroom nor within the school. Two ground rules
were discussed to ensure that all perspectives could be heard in the process: (a) all
opinions are important and (b) we agree to disagree. Student questions were open-ended
to elicit as much of the student perspective as possible. Prepared questions were based on
for a form of member-checking. The questions were also used to gain more details about
the authentic and standardized processes to answer the research questions (Morgan,
1998). In the first unit of instruction, the prepared questions were: (a) how would you
describe the formative assessment process; (b) how can the process be more effective;
and (c) what does the process look like in other classrooms. Towards the start of second
unit of instruction, the prepared questions changed to address (a) what does the teacher
need to do differently to help support me in this formative assessment process; and (b)
now that the process has changed to incorporate your suggestions, what is working, what
63
could work better, and what is not working in regards to this process? The rest of my
participants questions about the authentic formative assessment process. Due to logistical
constraints in my classroom, and as recommended by Holly et al. (2005, 2009), the class
be difficult to capture all participants who are responding to the discussion questions, and
the administrators granting approval for this study were not accepting of audio-taping
conversations about school procedures. During the discussion, I took notes via a second
laptop computer. Following the focus groups, analytic memos were written to allow for a
recursive analysis of data. Upon conclusion of the focus group, the results were analyzed
to identify trends and discussed with a critical colleague to make sure that I was
consisted of field notes as well as analytic notes. Field notes included a reconstruction of
dialogue with students, observations, accounts of events and depictions of activities, and
the researcher’s behaviors and interactions with students (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
clarification (Holly et al., 2005, 2009). This research log was updated daily, three times.
The first update, before class, focused on knowledge of the research process and how the
64
research information being collected was affecting lesson planning and development; the
second written immediately after (or at times during) the class period, reconstructed
dialogue with students or identified key “ah-hah” moments; the third, at the end of the
work day, identified areas of probing and follow-up for the next day as well as memos
regarding reflection upon the data and its subsequent analysis. Such updates allowed for
materials that can be used as supplemental information when the action research study’s
main data source is one that contains significant interaction with the participants. The
documents in this study were the lesson plans that I used to teach the lessons, my
pieces were used to document student educational growth during the authentic formative
differs from a more standardized process. Full lesson plans are housed on the district
web-server and are accessible to students and parents that have access to the website; the
students who have a unique identifier to view a certain set of results. Charts and
diagrams, found in Chapter 4, were also created to summarize this information. This data
set was discussed with the team of teachers in my district who all teach the same course
during our PLC time. A PLC, or a professional learning community, under the
65
the work day for teachers to determine whether all students enrolled in a particular course
are meeting specific course goals and content standards (DuFour et al., 2005).
Data Management
A good storage and retrieval system was necessary for keeping track of data, for
permitting easy, flexible, reliable use of data, and for documenting analyses made (Holly
et al., 2005, 2009). For these reasons, the following process was employed: raw material
such as questionnaire results were kept in original form, dated, and stored in a
password-protected electronic file; these were backed up nightly to ensure no loss of data,
and a second copy was kept at school. Processed data as well as coded data including
headers were stored electronically by topic and date, which allowed for easy access; these
were also backed up daily. Artifacts, such as lesson plans, were stored electronically via
the district’s web system and assessment results were stored electronically in a
password-protected site provided for teacher and student use by the district. Finally, an
index of all materials was kept so that any particular piece of data and its subsequent
Data Analysis
Interpretation is not a separate part of the action research cycle; thus the
procedures in this study were iterative, emergent, and ongoing (Holly et al., 2005, 2009).
During the classroom units of instruction, I read all of the data first to establish key
and a standardized system. During a second reading, I made sure that the data justified
the themes and that the themes were appropriate (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). On my third
time through, I coded the data in terms with the themes. During the last reading, I
adjusted coding to ensure consistency and accuracy of coding. Data was reread three
months after data collection and again approximately one year later to allow for
additional analysis and to ensure consistency of coding. The process was repeated for
During the coding and reading process, I wrote analytic memos to identify key
points related to the research question (Holly et al., 2005). These were shared with
knowledge of middle school teaching and is an experienced teacher. The final results
were written up in Chapter 4 and made extensive use of thick description (Holly et al.,
2005, 2009).
it is reliable and valid. In traditional research, those criteria are met through triangulation
of data, peer review, clarifying research bias, member checking, thick description, and
taking detailed field notes (Creswell, 2007). Since action research is an independent
methodology of qualitative study, validity and reliability are not used as the criteria for
determining the rigor of a research study. Action research experts have determined that
the following five criteria should be apparent in the design of study to ensure validity and
• The extent with which research is done with all parties concerned (democratic
validity);
Based on these five areas, this study meets the criteria for the validity of an action
First, as the authentic formative assessment had never been researched, new
knowledge was generated from this study (dialogic and process validity). Second, as
both student and teacher perspectives drove the research process, democratic validity was
met as all parties represented in the process had a voice in the study. Additionally, my
critical colleagues who discussed the data with me provided another perspective in the
research process and supported democratic validity. Process validity, as Holly et al.
(2005, 2009) articulated, is met when there is a logical argument for using action research
as a methodology. This criteria was met as I discussed in this chapter why action
research is appropriate for these questions, why certain methods are being used to collect
data, and why a collaborative, insider approach is being used to study this problem.
Lastly, to meet outcome and catalytic validity criteria, Herr and Anderson (2005) indicate
that action research reports should indicate how classroom life has improved. This
Although the criteria for validity have been met in an action research study, there
are certain areas of the study that could have planned differently. In terms of the focus
groups, it may have been more effective to tape-record these as discussions were often
very rich and at times difficult to type-out. Additional follow-up interviews, which were
not considered as part of the original design, could have further added to understanding
these conversations.
Secondly, the length of time that data collection occurred may have affected the
depth of data collected. Perhaps if these units had been of a different length or had
occurred at a different point in the school year, different themes would have been
represented in the data; perhaps by extending the study over additional units of
instruction, additional data would have been gathered to further understand how an
authentic process compares to a standardized process. At the same time, two units of
instruction were sufficient to gain understanding and answer the research questions. This
units of instruction and not over an extended period of time as teachers and students are
dependent on formative assessments for here and now results (Popham, 2011).
Lastly, everyday classroom events could have affected data collection at times
(Burns, 1999). For example, on two separate occasions, surveys were interrupted due to
public address announcements and a fire drill. In addition, a few students did rush to
complete surveys due to tardiness or early releases. In terms of teacher data, although the
journal has three daily entries at different stages of the instructional cycle, at times I
69
found my thoughts not as detailed as they should have been as I was in a hurry to get to a
As with any study that is constructivist in nature (Fosnot, 1996), I was seeking to
make meaning from what my students and I said and did. For the students and the
the research questions as the data improved the authentic assessment-instruction process.
With 20 students in one classroom out of a possible 21, I believe it was possible to find
many common themes in the data responses and to assure the reader of the validity of this
Summary
This chapter has described the research paradigm in terms of the research
questions, the methodology and data collection methods, the type of analysis used, and
the indicators of validity that ensure quality action research. The following chapter
presents the results of this investigation using the research questions as an organizing
framework.
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS
processes can be implemented within a middle school classroom. The purpose of this
action research study was to describe the pedagogical strategies of an authentic formative
assessment process within one classroom. The study also explored how an authentic
process can be a viable alternative to a standardized one within one classroom. Authentic
classroom activity to gain information about student learning and adjust instruction
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dell’Olio & Donk, 2007; Ormrod, 2003; Popham, 2008). It
observation and interactions with students to plan instruction, provide the learner with
specific feedback, help the student learn content, and improve learning strategies (Black
1970) that allows teachers to use their professional knowledge, skills, and a variety of
lens and data analysis proceeded through recursive stages of data gathering, open coding,
memo writing, and analysis, described in Chapter 3 (Holly et al., 2009). Twenty middle
groups, and produced documents over a period of two instructional units. A teacher-
70
71
This chapter provides an analysis of the data collected and is organized around the
formative assessment process help improve the way assessment is planned and
strategies of the authentic formative assessment process that resulted from data analysis.
process in which a teacher interprets any classroom activity to gain information about
student learning and adjust instruction (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Dell’Olio & Donk,
needs for their students by relying on observation and interactions with students to plan
instruction, provide the learner with specific feedback, help the student learn content, and
improve learning strategies (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Authentic formative assessment is
a “practical” process (Schwab, 1970) that allows teachers to use their professional
72
knowledge, skills, and a variety of different types of evidence from a variety of sources to
make decisions.
The eight pedagogical strategies identified through data analysis of the authentic
interactive activities, transparency, pacing, and student ownership. Each label, although
not comprehensive in expressing all nuances, portrays the core features of the data set.
These labels were determined by identifying repetitive key statements by the participants
(both the teacher-researcher and student) and concepts expressed in the data sources (i.e.,
coding the data), member checking these labels in later questionnaires and focus groups,
as well as discussing the labels with a critical colleague knowledgeable about middle
school practice. See Table 4 later in this chapter for examples of data coding.
strategies. After defining them, data tables and diagrams are presented to provide a
holistic picture of the data. Although this study is not defined as quantitative study, it is
customary in action research to provide such figures as they can visually and cogently
display participants’ responses as well as allow for ease of discussion (Holly et al., 2005).
Following the display of the figures, data are discussed in terms of each of the strategies.
Quotes that clearly demonstrate each strategy from the teacher-research journal, focus
In this subsection, the definitions of the pedagogical strategies that emerged from
data analysis, as identified by the participants, are presented along with the phrases that
were used in coding of the data. This section has been provided to orientate the reader
and follows with the presentation of the data used to create these labels.
means that through varied learning activities, such as a game, learning situation, or
different ways about the content. Some key words and phrases that participants used to
describe variety were “different activities,” “different ways,” “multiple attempts,” “many
given by the teacher or a fellow student that indicates how close the learner was to
meeting learning goals; it can occur in both written and oral forms and with or without a
grade. Students identified that feedback helps them learn what to focus on as they are
learning new material. Words and phrases that were used to develop this label were
conferences may also occur between two or more students. Conferencing allows students
74
to articulate what they were thinking in relationship to the learning goals and to try
something different with or without guidance from the teacher or peer; such a
partnership, as described by the students, helps students adjust their learning towards the
target goal. The words “conferences,” “conversations about learning,” and “meetings”
are terms found within the data sources that were used to derive this label.
class website, teacher-created podcasts, blogs, and interactive PowerPoints® that are used
by students to learn key concepts within the curriculum. To develop this theme, coding
relied on participants’ naming of the actual district resource or by more generic terms
activities, such as games, reflection sheets, and practice tests that require justification of
student thinking. Interactive activities help students process content by allowing them to
“hands-on,” “constructive,” and “high interest” were key words that signified this
strategy.
that students were cognizant of the pedagogy involved in the teacher’s instruction of the
class. This means that I, as the teacher, shared with students the reasons why we were
doing things the way that we were. Phrases such as “shared what you learned,” “saying
what you learned,” and “giving thoughts” were coded together to formulate this label.
75
Pedagogical strategy #7: Pacing is characterized as the timing and ordering of the
authentic formative assessment process within a lesson, such as the number of minutes
allotted for student processing of learning activities. Words such as “timing,” “pacing,”
and “pace” were key qualifiers used to identify this emergent pedagogical strategy.
oversight over their learning. Words such as “active,” “being in charge,” “in control,”
Table 4 shows example statements and quotations that justify the labeling of the
pedagogical strategies through the coding process. As was described in Chapter 3, these
strategies were compiled from the analysis of completed questionnaires, focus group
transcripts, and a teacher-researcher journal. The graphical data from the sources used to
In this subsection, holistic figures in the forms of graphs, which were used to
process, are presented; an explanation as to how they were created is also included.
Questionnaire data are described first and are followed by data from the teacher-research
journal. In the following section, these data charts are referenced and merged with
specific coded statements and quotes from the questionnaires, the journal, and the focus
Table 4
2: Feedback teacher comments; “Immediate within the period comments by Focus Group
feedback; you give me the opportunity to think about #3
description of the content and improve my performance.”
progress; advice
4: Out-of-Class casts, website, “The website is great because it helps me pick Student
Supports PowerPoints; up little details because you have to process it Questionnaire
Pinnacle; by yourself. You don’t have other people #3
GradeViewer around to really see if you know what you’re
doing.”
5: Interactive interaction; “The practice tests are interactive. They Focus Group
Activities interactive; hands- require you to justify your thinking – you just #1
on; constructive; can’t get by with a guess; and if you can’t
high interest; justify you know you’re going to be ticked
[mess up] on the real thing.”
6: Transparency shared what you “It makes me feel valued when you share Focus Group
learned; saying your thoughts on how our learning is going, #4
what you learned; like it reaffirms what I’m doing and what
giving thoughts; you’re doing, because it isn’t one-sided, like
you don’t get to just know what we’re
thinking and we know nothing about your
thinking…it keeps it real.”
(table continues)
77
Table 4 (continued)
7: Pacing timing; pace; “It appears that this whole pacing process was Teacher
pacing off, due to testing constraints and pacing Research
guides. It almost becomes a tangible object Journal – Day
or commodity and not a mindset. Although 10B
this had not been my intent it was occurring.”
8: Student active, being in “When you are allowed to take an active role Student
Ownership charge; in control; in the learning process like we’re doing now, Questionnaire
driver’s seat; and you get a chance to actually learn and can do #6
take control better.”
Over the course of the study, two types of questionnaires were administered to
each study participant for a total of six times as described in Chapter 3. The return rate
for electronic questionnaires was greater than 95% and the return rate for paper-pencil
questionnaires was 100%. On either type of questionnaire, open ended questions were
designed to elicit as much of the student voice as possible. Questions were created to
allow “students to respond in their own words” in relationship to the research question
(Holly et al., 2009, p. 153). In terms of Research Question #1, the following questions
and their variants served as key insights into the strategies of the process:
friend?
In Figure 1, the results of the student questionnaires have been quantified. After
coding the data, each coded statement was counted in terms of the labeling and graphed
in terms of the number of total participants. To create this bar graph, all electronic
surveys for Student #1 were grouped together; these were then charted in terms of the
emerging labels. This visual representation shows the number of students who cited each
particular strategy and shows that more than 80% of the respondents identified the areas
transparency, out-of-class supports, and pacing, although not as prevalent amongst all
participants, it does not show the prevalence of each coding in relationship to the total
research study is typically concerned with group trends, it is important to see how many
times a pedagogical strategy is mentioned in relationship to the total data set (Hesse-
Biber & Leavy, 2006; Holly et al., 2009). Without such an analysis, there would be no
way to determine which authentic formative assessment strategies were most prevalent
for the entire class. Thus, Figure 2 provides an overview of the total number of codings
79
25
20 20
20
17 17
Number of Students
16
15
12
10 8
7
questionnaires (696).
From the pie chart (Figure 2), it is noted that 100% of questionnaires mentioned
the pedagogical strategies of variety and interactive activities. This indicates that variety
and interactive activities were key components of the authentic formative assessment
process for these students. Feedback, student ownership, and conferencing were also
aligned with these labels. The remaining three areas, out-of-class supports, pacing, and
transparency, appeared between a third and a half of total questionnaire responses; this
80
indicated that these were important strategies to some students in terms of an authentic
formative assessment process but were of perhaps less importance than others as they
analyzed in this action research study as the research questions in any such study cannot
by limited to just the student perspective (Holly et al., 1991). The source used to
document the teacher perspective in this study was a teacher-research journal. This
journal, updated three times daily, consisted of two parts: field notes that included a
of activities, and the researcher’s behaviors and interactions with students as well as
important to note that this data chart was created in terms of days, as opposed to each of
the three entries per day. This was done because some areas would only be mentioned
after the lesson and not before and the focus on the authentic formative assessment
process is the entire lesson and not an arbitrary distinction created for tracking data
within the journal. As an illustrative example, the pedagogical strategy of feedback was
coded 11 times throughout the journal. It was only counted seven times on the chart, as
four of the additional codes were within the same days’ entries.
interactive activities, and student ownership were discussed most frequently throughout
the journal in terms of the authentic formative assessment process with conferencing
transparency, and pacing were identified in the journal between seven and nine times and
out-of-class supports were only discussed five times throughout the entire journal. Figure
coded in the journal were calculated in terms of the total number of codings (93). This
25
Number of Lesson Cycles (Days) Coded within Teacher
20
20
18
17
15 14
Journal
10 9
7 7
5
5
Variety, 19%
Ownership, 22%
Feedback, 8%
Pacing, 10%
Conferencing, 15%
Transparency, 8%
Interactive
Activities, 18%
Out-of-Class, 5%
perspective, data were also compared in terms of frequency of coding between sources.
Figure 5, which was created based on the number of codings between student
questionnaires and the teacher-research journal, shows the percent difference in codings
in relationship to each pedagogical strategy. This chart was created by calculating the
total number of journal days coded with a particular strategy and comparing this to the
total number of possible entries as well as calculating the number of questionnaires that
Although by no means are these two data sources identical, and therefore are not
possibility, discussion is feasible on the extent to which my students and I identified these
assessment process. However, in the teacher-journal, only seven entries discussed this
topic for a total of 32% for the total journal. This may mean that for students, feedback
was a more important strategy of the authentic process than it was for teachers (a
difference of almost 50%). Pacing on the other hand was mentioned approximately the
same number of times between data sources; these data suggest that my students and I
Although these figures do provide several valid displays of the data, it is not
This is because this numerical data does not describe the nuances of each pedagogical
strategy that can be found in student or teacher language in relationship to the data labels.
In the next sections, organized around each pedagogical strategy, these numerical
manners (Brooks & Brooks, 1999; Fosnot, 1996). It refers to the differentiated
throughout their lessons (Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Wormeli, 2007). As Figure 1
showed, all 20 students made statements in their questionnaires that were coded with the
label variety; this category was also the second most prevalent discussion found within
the teacher-research journal (See Figure 3). This indicates that a key pedagogical
that by participating in different activities, they had “multiple attempts to learn and check
what they needed to know.” Specifically as one student described, “Its [sic] not boring.
and I get a feel of the material I need to study and look over.” Such variety was
assessment process was fostered by varied activities that allowed students to reflect on
the learning goals of instruction. For example, TN described in his e-survey that by
doing many “different activities, you can get a feel for all of the little pieces and parts that
go into learning a foreign language. When you only do the same things, you don’t really
teachers do the same thing over and over again. In this class, we always know what is
expected of us, but there are some many diverse activities to get to the same point.”
JS’s last e-survey also showed how variety was important in an authentic
There isn’t a single day that goes by where we do the same thing—there’s always
These different types of activities just motivate you to get better at Spanish.
Another student (EE) supported this by stating, “A key part of our classroom formative
assessment is that there are many types of activities—you get multiple attempts to learn
results, variety was also discussed in the focus groups. As AZ described, “The variety of
activities really helps me as it shows me the nuances of what I know and don’t know. If
you did just one type you wouldn’t know.” ML also indicated that by working in
87
different manners, such as with a friend and independently, “by doing different things in
different ways, you really get a feel for what you need to learn.” In summarizing the
The best thing about our formative assessment process is that there are so many
diverse activities to learn the course goals with—if one way isn’t helping you to
get the concept, you know that there will be a different activity later on in the
These statements showed that different varied activities were essential in encouraging
students to think in different ways about the content and about their learning, key
Variety of activities was also noted in the lessons plans that occurred during the
instructional units as I was exploring the authentic formative assessment process with
students and was apparent as these plans were analyzed. Figure 6 shows one example of
the variety contained within a typical lesson. During this lesson, students worked
worked with manipulatives, and completed a reflective practice test, all aligned to the
learning goals. These activities gave information to students about their knowledge of
the learning goals for the unit as well as information with which to adjust instruction
before the common assessment. Table 5 also further organizes the data and shows the
wide-range of activities aligned to each of the learning goals that were compiled by
88
Figure 6. E-copy of a lesson plan identifying activities that students completed to help
check progress for the unit’s learning goal
analyzing the lessons within the first unit. As Table 5 describes, variety was embedded
within the unit design such that each learning goal was presented to students through a
various levels of knowledge acquisition (Brandl, 2009). Figure 6 shows how a typical
lesson was organized to ensure that variety was provided for students.
variety was mentioned 19% of the time and coded for a total of 18 days, 21 entries
throughout the journal. For example, in reference to the lesson plan described in Figure
6, I stated:
89
Table 5
Examples of Varied Activities Used During the Authentic Formative Assessment Process
3-2-1 Intro Vocab Movie; Ball Toss; Win-Lose-or Draw Game; Exit Slip; 4 FIS Links;
Conjuguemos.com; Take-Home Tutor; Gap Activities (Brandl, 2007); Crossword
Clues; Qwizdom; Snakes and Ladders; Pictionary; Practice Worksheets 1-2; Listening
Activities with Think-Pair Share; Conferencing; World Cup Song
3-2-2 Heart Attack Game; Speaking Gap (Brandl, 2009); Practice Worksheets 1-2; Take Me
Out to the Ball Game Song; Mi Sueño Political Reading; Exit Slip; WebQuest;
Battleship; Practice Test; Survey; Picasso Art-Writing Activity; M&M Speaking;
Interactive PowerPoint; Flash Card War; Listening Activities with Lettered Cards;
Make a Sports Trading Card—Glogster; LODVG Realia (Brandl, 2007)
student’s were learning even though they were all after the same goal. The self-
enabled me to see that students were having difficulty elongating their responses
in the target language, and the conference time allowed me to intervene with any
student who was severely lost as well as guide students who were already
successful. I don’t think if I would have done just one type, I would have had
This quotation identifies that from my perspective as the teacher, using a varied
towards learning goals, such that I could make instructional adjustments before the next
Additional statements found within the journal also showed that variety was an
important pedagogical strategy of the authentic formative assessment process for the
teacher. For example, on Day 4B, I described how the “mixture of activities” that I used
throughout the period really helped me gain an insight into how to continue teaching for
student understanding of the learning goals, but at the same time allowed students to
Today’s station activity with such diverse activities [six different activities—an
oral Gap activity [(Brandl, 2009)], a computer station, vocabulary word game,
same learning goal, but practiced in different ways with small teams and
achieving at high levels and where we need to do some more work. At the oral
station activity, I noted several students [who would stem-change] infinitives but
noticed that the same students could produce the statements accurately when they
wrote—this means that I need to build some more activities to get them exposed
to the pronunciation and formation of these infinitives until they are seamless. In
addition, their reflection sheets were eye-opening to them; one student wrote that
with the realia reading on the WorldCup he had a strong understanding of how to
use the comparisons and could now focus more on how the two verbs, saber y
1
Realia is defined as actual objects, such as a newspaper clipping or a podcast, that are brought into a classroom as examples or as
aids to instruction. They are items that have not been modified for pedagogical purposes but are instead created for native-speaker
usage (Brandl, 2009).
91
conocer, are used differently. With such a mixture of activities different insights
This quotation also shows why variety was a key component of the authentic formative
process as it identified how the teacher was able to make adjustments to future lessons
In this section, as data analysis described, variety was one important pedagogical
students individually process learning content, learn how to learn, and at the same time
helped me to ensure that all students were making appropriate learning gains. In the next
authentic formative assessment process during data analysis. Feedback for purposes of
the analysis was defined as any type of response given by the teacher or a student that
indicated how close a student was to meeting learning goals; it could occur in both
written and oral forms (Brookhart, 2008). As Figure 1 indicates, 16 out of 20 students
“advice.” These phrases as described in Table 5 were used to develop this emergent
pedagogical strategy.
92
Student questionnaire results were laden with terms that suggested that feedback
was one strategy in the authentic formative assessment process. One strong example of
You put a lot of time into writing us comments. You always tell us a few things
to work on and how we can get better. You give questions in your responses that
help me think about what to do. This shows me what I need to focus on.
Students AU and JT, respectively, also identified the value of feedback within an
know what to look for in my own work to learn what I need to do to become a better
student” and “this class is different than my others because you always know where you
stand in terms of what we’re supposed to be learning as you always get feedback on what
It’s really important how we do feedback within this class. It[’]s not separate
from learning and happens all the time. Some teachers only give you feedback
after you write a major essay or take a test and then it’s late because you don’t
“reading the description of our progress that you give us regularly really helps to know
what to focus on. In other classes you don’t really get feedback to know how to
improve.”
93
Statements, such as those cited above from the five students, demonstrated that
process for students. At the same time, the pedagogical strategy of feedback was also
By giving feedback, I find myself being able to accurately describe what I and
they [the students] need to work on. It helps me see patterns. I know that
teachers hate having to repeat themselves, and I do too, but I know that if I’m
having to repeat more than three times that something has broken down then it’s
A second journal entry a day later (Day 7A) further showed that feedback could also
serve as a point with which to adjust instruction, a key referent in the authentic formative
assessment definition:
point to plan effective lessons. When I don’t give what I feel as good feedback,
I’m not always 100% sure where to start the next lesson as the trends in student
the authentic formative assessment process for the teacher. Specifically, in terms of
numerical data, 8% of the teacher-research journal (see Figure 4) was related to feedback
journal on Day 1B after having reread some of the focus group data and questionnaires:
responses. I wonder if the reason that I don’t focus on it as much as the students
activity and they need to know what they did well and what they need to do from
there. To me it’s a part of any classroom and is not something that is strictly a
AP pointed out that the feedback is so important because it provides a focus for
learning: “advice both in class and on assignments really helps me focus on what I need
you [the teacher] give me the opportunity to think about the content and improve my
performance.”
discussion. In response to MC, AC indicated that it was good to get immediate, within
the class period, oral feedback so that she simply wasn’t repeating the same mistakes
over and over again. This gave her an “opportunity to think about the content” as she
Another student, AS, countered this by saying that she appreciated written
feedback more than what I told her in class as she was “too involved in the process of
learning to understand” what to do differently in terms of the learning goal. These two
assessment process for students in my classroom and that different types of feedback may
that feedback can be negated when it is coupled with a grade. As my journal describes,
pay more attention to the grade and forget about how to improve especially when they are
trying to gain an extra privilege at home: “I just care about the grade and not the learning
because that’s all my parents look for if I want to go out to a party for example.” For this
student, it appears that an extrinsic motivator, such as grades, can nullify an authentic
formative process because the focus becomes on the end result (i.e., a grade) and not the
learning process. Another student, AK, however, felt that the opposite was true: “grades
can also motivate you to slow down and actually think about how you need to look at the
From the data analysis presented in this section, feedback was acknowledged as
an integral piece of the authentic formative assessment process within this classroom. It
appeared that students have a preference for the format of their feedback and that an
evaluative statement such as a grade could help or hinder some students in their learning
process. Even though my teacher-research journal did not focus specifically on this
96
strategy as much as it did others, the statements provided did show that I believed that
feedback needed to exist no matter what type of curriculum relationship was set up with
students. In the next section, I explore another type of feedback, an activity known as
conferencing, which participants identified as a third pedagogical strategy used within the
Another strategy that described how the authentic formative assessment process
discuss their learning, examine work samples, talk about progress, remediate difficulties,
and extend student thinking; not all of these areas were addressed at every conference.
While meeting with students, other students worked on another assignment that was later
assessment process and 88% of the total number of questionnaires related to Research
Question #1 were coded with this label (see Figures 1 and 2). Although the numerical
data provides an understanding of how many students value this strategy, it is within the
students, stimulated student thinking, and provided a way to help students meet learning
97
goals, all components of the authentic formative assessment process. For example, LL
When you [the teacher] meet with us as it gives me a chance to tell you what I’m
thinking about and then you can either tell me to keep going or how to fix what
stated, “Conferencing helps me stay motivated to actually do the work well because you
know you are going to have to defend your progress as well as find ways to improve.”
reach learning goals were also found in responses from students in how the formative
put the pieces of the puzzle together. The conversations really help as you have an
opportunity to question your own thinking about what your [you’re] learning with
someone guiding you instead of just guessing.” Another response, JT’s answer, also
process in my classroom:
Meeting with the teacher on a regular basis is what makes learning so much better
than other classes because you know where you stand and what to do better or
where you can reach deeper. It makes me want to do better. In other classes you
only can do that if you arrange an appointment before or after school or at lunch.
98
As the language within these responses show, conferences were an important tool within
the authentic formative assessment process as they stimulated student thinking, motivated
students to continue learning, and also provided ways for students to improve.
authentic formative assessment process, students also mentioned that this strategy
provided students with guidance in relationship to the learning goals. KS wrote, “You
get help but not the answer. I become more independent as conferencing helps to clarify
why I think the way I do.” In an example from an anonymous questionnaire, a student
also identified that conferencing helped him or her meet the learning goals of the unit:
In another example, SK also indicated that conferencing helped him reach the
learning goals. He wrote, “Working one on one with the teacher is really helpful because
you have the opportunity to clarify what you were thinking on an assignment and
Student 104EE stated that conferencing made the most sense to her in the formative
assessment process because “you and the teacher can both have to interact with your [the
student’s] work at the same time and can improve it and you get ideas on how you are
It’s like a coach and a player. If you’re on the right track he tells you to keep
going; if you’re on the wrong path, he shows you how to do something differently
students also mentioned in the focus group that a conference did not necessarily always
need to happen with the teacher; student to student discussion was also part of the
conferencing process. LL mentioned that working with a peer during speaking prompts
or discussing an essay with an editing checklist gave her different ways to think about the
content as with a partner “different ideas emerge,” different than those that are
conferencing was effective, he needed to be paired with someone who was at a “slightly
higher academic level” so that his thinking could be “guided.” From these and other
similar statements found within the questionnaires and focus groups, it was determined
formative assessment process from data contained within the teacher-research journal.
journal) referenced conferencing and 15% of the total journal codings focused on
I learned through students several things about their skills that I do not believe I
would have learned simply by observing: students needed more support with
elongating their answers in the spoken language as well as in the correct usage of
transitions. They were able to tell me that they could give the basic answer in the
conference but weren’t sure how to improve it with additional details and
transitions.
Through the conferencing process, I knew that I needed to provide students with speaking
between teacher and student; this partnership helped to drive learning based on what
As we dialogue, I often tell them what I’ve observed [about their work] after they
tell me what they see. In most cases, what they can’t talk to me about is more
important than what they can as they haven’t come to think about that part of the
learning goal yet . . . it’s a partnership as together we have to negotiate those next
steps so that I know they’re making gains towards our goals but at the same time
RP was asked how the authentic process was functioning for her, I noted in my journal
that she felt that conferencing allowed her to have “a conversation like an adult.” She
101
indicated that she always got to think about what she was learning and that conferencing
allowed this to happen. This is evidenced by her simile about the process:
It’s not like second grade anymore where the teacher needs to pre-punch those
art-project cutouts and then we just push them out, so all students can get the
same snowman. We can design our learning and conferencing helps us design.
As was described by both students and teachers, it appeared that conferencing was
statements from these questionnaires and the teacher-research journal, conferencing was
provided a structure with which I could interact with my students, motivate them,
improve student thinking, and allow for adjustments in the learning process. In the next
Supports are defined as resources such as a class website, teacher-created podcasts, blogs,
and interactive PowerPoints® that are used by students to learn key concepts within the
curriculum. Our class website is a district-mandated tool that gives teachers the option to
create electronic quizzes, e-games, podcasts, vodcasts, and interactive PowerPoints® and
maintain lesson plans for student reference, self-teaching, and practice (See Figure 7). To
code for this strategy, analysis relied on participants’ naming of the actual district
Figure 7. Example activities (left) with total counts of student usage and games (right)
from the class website
specific district naming conventions, a more generic term was substituted in brackets.
a total of 35% of the total questionnaires were coded based on this emergent pedagogical
strategy (see Figures 1 and 2, respectively). Five percent of the teacher-research journal
was coded in relationship to this strategy (Figure 4) with a percent difference between
both data sources of 12% (Figure 5). Data from questionnaires are presented first; this
follows with the analysis that resulted from the focus groups and the teacher-research
journal.
assessment process would be described to a friend, several students stated that the
103
resources available on the class website helped them process learning goals. For
example, AU wrote that the “website helps me a lot because there are resources to help
me when I don’t understand what we’re working on with in class.” EE had a similar
response: “The website is great because it’s always accessible. You don’t have to wait
assessment process to that of another classroom, one student indicated that “there’s been
a lot of times that I thought I’ve gotten something in class but when I get home I forget.
The [website] helps me refocus.” Another student also indicated that the website helped
him learn because “there is something you can do to practice every detail in the
more teachers had a website as detailed as Señor’s because you can use the [Casts] on the
website to help clarify your thinking before you’ve engrained a mistake in your head.”
something that happens within the classroom. Although I never really considered
this a part of our classroom formative process, it makes sense that students can
refine their thinking with things that function like a teacher, such as the FIS.
To address this discovery, in the last focus group, I asked students about the usage of
other out-of-class resources to see how these might contribute to their learning.
104
BG indicated that he used the website “a lot in this class because there are a wide
variety of things to help someone learn online.” MC further elaborated on this idea:
In class you can only do so much; the website is great because it helps me pick up
little details because you have to process it by yourself. You don’t have other
Although the student indicated that it was important to work in groups, she indicated that
at test time, it was important that “you can use the material on your own. The website
EE mentioned that she utilized the website when working on homework because
It helps you think, it’s like a tutor—the stuff is there to guide you, but doesn’t
exactly give you the answer. It’s helpful because sometimes I just forget. It gives
content knowledge, JT indicated that the “website helps me figure out details that I’ve
missed and reviews stuff that I know. It’s really good for getting details as it’s picky
about whether you have every answer in perfect form.” During this conversation where
the student was asked to explain how the website helped him learn by another student, the
student indicated that processing the material in all the different ways that the website
interactive manner that the site was setup (interactive activities are discussed in the next
section) helped him make decisions about his learning because “you have control over
105
what you’re working on. If you get it after one game of battleship, you can go onto
To further address this idea of how students used outside supports as part of an
authentic formative assessment process, I also asked students in the focus group if they
had any other out-of-class resources that helped them process learning content. Students
TN and KS indicated that homework assignments were “a great way to know what you
are struggling with” (KS) as in if “you can’t do the assignment, you know you need to go
back and relearn the material, talk to a friend to figure out what you don’t get, check the
website, or talk with you [the teacher] to get more help” (TN). All students indicated that
although they disliked having homework, it was helpful to know what they did not know.
authentic formative assessment process as something that does not only happen within
the classroom—it is a process that can happen whenever they are working with content,
such as through a homework assignment or a web game. Teacher data suggests that this
was not considered a part of the authentic process for the teacher. In the next section, a
activities that require justification of student thinking. This means that as students are
completing the activity, they need to interact with stated learning goals in order to
identify strengths and weaknesses in their thinking. Hands-on activities, such as games,
reflection sheets, and practice tests that require justification of student thinking are some
106
examples of these types of activities since they can helped students process content while
allowing them to check on their thinking as aligned to the learning goals. Terms, such as
words that signified this pedagogical strategy. Questionnaire analysis is presented first
and is followed by supplemental quotes from this data source; after the questionnaires,
data from both the focus groups and the teacher-research journal are presented.
Figures 1 and 2 presented earlier in this chapter indicate that for students,
reference to this feature. Twenty out of 20 students also cited one of the key words
an authentic formative assessment process. For example, TB indicated that “when you
do as many hands-on activities as we do, there is no way not [to] get better. Actually
working in an interactive way with the goals helps you understand what is expected of
you.” Similarly, JK stated that when students “work with high interest activities that are
hands-on, you [the student] have a better chance of making the learning make sense for
to focus on their learning: “Activities that allow me to interact with the material help me
107
be a better student as I learn what to focus on.” This quotation was very similar to one
made by ML, where she stated, “When teachers plan activities that help you interact with
the material rather than a worksheet you just correct, you pay attention to your learning
better.”
assessment was further supported by responses from students RP and AU. In their
interested in the learning process but at the same time help students reflect upon their
progress. RP stated, “The interaction that happens during hands-on games really helps
me get better. They’re fun but you learn a lot about what you don’t know and what you
need to keep working on.” In similar response, AU identified such activities are
students to be a part of an authentic formative assessment process. The focus group data
likewise supported this contention. In Focus Group 1, students mentioned that working
on practice tests and their associated reflection sheets helped them make inferences about
their learning. In comparing the process to another class, MC indicated that the practice
tests in my class were more effective in helping her learn the material than the ones used
in her math class because they “require you to justify your thinking—you just can’t get
by with a guess; and if you can’t justify you know you’re going to be ticked [mess up] on
the real thing.” Another student, RP, also indicated that the practice tests helped her
108
because when they were corrected, she “got to compare my answers to the really good
ones in the class” as well as use the practices to “tell you [as marked on the sheets] where
you can go to get help on problems like that and more examples.”
she
Tend[s] to remember more from the games because you don’t have any resources
to use—you have your brain—maybe your friends’ too—and that’s it. You
quickly know what you know and what you don’t know because it’s so hands-on.
Games are the best because you can interact with one another in Spanish. If on a
team you don’t agree, you’ve got to figure out what makes some answer better
than the other. You usually can come up with an even better answer this way.
In agreeing with this, AU indicated that “games are awesome because they give a feel for
the material that I need to study since you know from both the teacher and your friends
Hands-on activities like Heart Attack [a game] are the best because they allow
you to experiment. You won’t be penalized if you’re wrong and you can learn
from simply talking it out. Nobody holds it against you if you get it wrong and
From these quotations and the quantitative analysis of student questionnaire results, it
required students to fine-tune their answers and find ways to improve their thinking, all
show, respectively, 18% of the teacher-research journal and 17 lesson cycles were coded
with this emergent label. The following quotation identified why this strategy was valued
As the journal for Day 2A describes, interactive activities are an integral part of
work cooperatively, and easily help me determine what students know since a
require them to justify their responses, I feel that they don’t always get an insight
By reading the students’ responses to the reflection sheets from the station
through the activities, they were clarifying their thinking towards the learning
goals. By interacting with the material and justifying their thinking students
know how to adjust their studying and practice before the common. For the
As these data pieces show, interactive activities enabled me, as the teacher of the
class, to adjust instruction for students since I received understanding of what students
could do with their content knowledge. They also provided insight into ways in which
students could adjust learning in relationship to our learning goals. This authentic
process for students was also illustrated in a final anecdote in the journal on Day 8B. As
I describe,
Student 105BG said to student 120AZ while they were working on an essay
revision, that student 120AZ had to move his adjective because of the game
Avalanche from a previous class period. He stated that their team had lost their
skier, due to avalanche, because they had put the adjective in the wrong spot.
As this anecdote illustrated, this interactive way solidified this students’ thinking of a
concept, such that they were able to manipulate the concept later on.
As this section shows, data from both student questionnaires, focus groups, and
Transparency, for purposes of analysis, means that students were cognizant of the
pedagogy involved in the teacher’s instruction of the class. This means that I, as the
teacher, shared with students the reasons why we were doing things the way that we were
doing. Phrases such as “shared what you learned,” “saying what you learned,” and
referents for this pedagogical strategy (see Figure 1 and Table 4). What is important to
note is that 55% of the total questionnaires were coded with this strategy, meaning that
for these 12 students, this strategy was a very important one as it was coded almost one
out of every two questionnaires that were completed (see Figure 2). It is important to
note that the majority of quotations and codings that support this strategy come from a
questionnaire question where students were asked how I, as the classroom teacher, could
improve the authentic formative assessment process (this is further discussed in the data
effective, several students wrote that the process could be more effective if I specifically
shared what I learned immediately after every activity through the formative assessment
process with the class. For example, in one response to the question, a student wrote:
I know that it is illegal for you to share grades or thoughts on other students, but I
think it is important that you share with us what you learn about how we as a
group are learning after we do an activity as that will help us become better
learners.
In another answer, JK stated, “Tell me what you’ve learned. I want to know what
the results of different assignments suggest to you to do next in class.” This reflected that
this particular student wanted insight into the authentic formative assessment process
from the teacher’s perspective as the instructional leader for this classroom. This same
idea is mentioned by AU: “Please give me your thoughts on how you’re going to change
112
what we do in class tomorrow based on how we’re performing today. It’s important to
students within the actual authentic formative assessment process and one way to do this
was to be transparent. To further address this idea that emerged during data analysis
process, Focus Group 2 was used to ask students to clarify the usage of this pedagogical
Sometimes you say things like—the majority of you need work with conjugating
a stem-changing verb and here’s what we’ll do to fix that—this is helpful because
it shows me that I’m not the only one struggling and that you’re probably going to
work on it in class.
It makes me feel valued when you share your thoughts on how our learning is
going, like it reaffirms what I’m doing and what you’re doing, because it isn’t
one-sided, like you don’t get to just know what we’re thinking and we know
In responding to this comment, ML stated that “by talking more about what you
[the teacher] learned, it will create the reason for why we’re doing what we’re doing.
Some activities then don’t seem pointless and it doesn’t feel like we’re Edward and
Bella” (Edward and Bella is a reference to the main characters of the popular Stephanie
113
Meyer [2005] vampire series. Edward, Bella’s lover, has a history of not telling Bella his
From the focus groups, it was clear that a teacher’s transparency about
pedagogical learning was an important part in forming the partnership that must be
created between teacher and student in the authentic formative assessment process. This
was the subject of 8% of the journal entries (Figure 4), for a total of 7 entries (Figure 3).
It is important to note, that these entries discussed the concept of transparency only after
students had already described this strategy. They were a focus on what the collected
I was surprised to hear students mention that it was important for me to give them
insight into what I was thinking as a teacher. It makes sense, but they often tell us
in teacher ed classes that it isn’t necessary to let them know why we’re doing
what we’re doing. I think I have heard that it can affect credibility with students
As this quotation shows, this strategy became important from the teacher-researcher
the process with a colleague and cited my thoughts in an entry on Day 3B:
I spoke to my critical colleague today about talking to kids about sharing the
instructional decisions I make with kids. She was shocked to hear that that had
114
come up, but thought that it was probably just typical middle school students
wanting to know all the ‘adult-stuff’. She also stated that if I started sharing that
with kids, it’s like giving ‘what little power we have left’ away. I’m sure there is
some type of balance that can be met here if it is something that they feel they
need.
Although this colleague did not appear to be entirely supportive of transparency, it did
cause me to further think about how such a process could be beneficial to students.
In the next entry, also on Day 3B, I further reflected on the potential usefulness of
I think sharing some knowledge of what I’ve learned from our day’s activities
could be reaffirming to students who have gotten certain things and also helpful to
them if they know that I’m going to work with them on the same skill the next
As this entry indicates, further data about how to utilize transparency were needed from
the teacher’s perspective; these data are presented in the data analysis provided with
that one strategy in an authentic formative assessment process is giving student’s insight
into pedagogical knowledge gained from activities students complete within the
classroom. By doing this, students were motivated to work as well as fostered the
115
relationship between teacher and student. In the next section, a seventh pedagogical
Pacing for the purposes of data analysis was defined as the timing that occurred
throughout the authentic formative assessment process (e.g., the number of minutes spent
on the process per class period). Words such as “timing,” “pacing,” and “pace” were
coded phrases used to identify this emergent pedagogical strategy. Although every
identified as a strategy as the data sources indicated that there was a specific pacing
needed is addressed in the section of this chapter devoted to Research Question #2.).
Data analysis of questionnaire responses identified that pacing was a piece of the
authentic formative assessment process for students. Eight out of 20 participants (40% of
students) for a total of 45% of the total questionnaire responses were coded in
students’ statements within the questionnaires, students identified that at times, the
process appeared rushed and did not allow students to fully process learning activities.
For example, EE indicated that “the pace goes to[o] fast sometimes for me to think it all
Responses from other students also indicated that the pacing for student
processing of learning needed an adjustment. TN wrote that “I wish we could slow the
timing down at times so that I can really process what I know and what I don’t know.”
116
SK also indicated that “if we slowed the pace, I think that I’d be able to learn more about
Focus group data also suggested that pacing was an important strategy in
authentic formative assessment. During a focus group where students were asked how
the formative process could be improved, several students discussed feeling rushed
throughout the process. As BG indicated, “There isn’t always a lot of time to think
through things fully. Sometimes it seems like we’re moving too fast.” Responding to
this student, AU mentioned that “when I’m learning about my learning and how to learn I
need time to think. Sometimes it goes too fast and I lose my ideas.” At the same time,
JK maintained that “the timing is just right.” As these students’ comments show, pacing
within the authentic formative assessment needed some improvement so that time for the
journal in various entries. As Figures 3 and 4 identify, timing was coded 9 times (10% of
the coded entries) in the teacher-researcher journal. On Day 11A, I identified that the
Due to testing constraints and pacing guides, this whole formative process has
become rushed so much so that the FA has almost become a once-a-day activity
consistently have been giving them enough time to really think about what they
are learning and how that connects to how they learn. I’ve almost standardized
In a similar entry, based upon reflection of the emerging themes contained within student
questionnaires, I also noted that “it appears that this whole pacing was off due to
commodity and not a mindset. Although this had not been my intent it was occurring.”
process. In fact, pacing is only one of two strategies (see the next section for the other)
where codings of the teacher data outweighed codings for the student (see Figure 5).
I think some my students just accept pacing for what it is as if it is something out
of my and their control, so they haven’t mentioned it. Sure kids tell us as teachers
when we are going to fast, but I’ve noticed that since we’ve instituted more rigid
pacing guides, that complaint has seem to have dwindled since every class is
moving at the same speed. Yet, if they view the FA process as fast, they probably
aren’t getting out of it what they need. Thus, there has to be a way to find some
As the student and teacher data sources described, the pacing within the authentic
formative assessment process appeared to be rushed and it did not always allow students
data about how pacing can be adjusted within the authentic formative assessment process
are presented in the data analysis provided for Research Question #2. In the next section,
identified in data analysis was student ownership. This strategy refers to student control
or student oversight over their learning during the authentic formative assessment
process. Words such as “control,” “active,” and “driver’s seat” were key words and
phrases that were coded together during data analysis to derive this data label.
coded with the label student ownership and a total of 85% of the total responses to the
questionnaires were coded as such (see Figure 2). Quotations from these questionnaires
are presented to explore how ownership within the authentic formative assessment
process allowed students to adjust their focus toward meeting learning goals.
process, they were able to improve their learning. AZ indicated in response to how the
formative process worked that “when you are allowed to be responsible for your learning,
you get a chance to actually learn and can do better.” In another response, JK wrote:
By the teacher helping me to think about the material and why I think the way I
do about it, I take control. School is always easy for me but through this process I
feel as if I care more about learning and am finding ways to be a more efficient
learner.
Both of these responses show how student ownership is an important strategy in the
formative assessment process, they were able to identify strengths and weaknesses of
their learning. AU indicated that “in some classes the teacher does all the work for me.
Here I am responsible for how I learn and what I know about what we’re learning. This
shows me what I can do about improving.” In another example, a student wrote that “by
being held accountable, I learn how to learn and also what my strengths are.” These
responses indicated that ownership was an important strategy of the authentic formative
assessment process.
Within the first focus group, data also emerged suggesting that student ownership
of their learning was an important strategy of the authentic formative assessment process.
JK indicated that what sets our classroom formative assessment processes apart from his
You’re [the student] in control and free to make mistakes. You have to be in the
driver’s seat if you want to succeed. If you choose not find a way to succeed after
you know what you don’t know, then it’s not the teacher’s fault—It’s yours. He’s
In further elaborating on this, DS indicated that in order to learn, “you really can’t be
passive. It’s not going to be handed to you. You have to think about what you know and
don’t know.”
Several other participants also confirmed that ownership was important in the
authentic formative assessment process. AP mentioned that it seemed like in some of her
classes, the teachers did all the work for the students:
120
When I take control of what I’m learning, I tend to learn better. Don’t get me
wrong, I still hate Spanish, but because I have to make decisions about the
As the focus group and questionnaire data suggests, student ownership was an
important part of the authentic formative assessment process for students. In terms of
teacher data, Figure 3 identifies that 20 entries were coded with the label student
ownership for a total of 22% of total entries coded (see Figure 4). Quotations are
provided next to show how I, as the classroom teacher, viewed ownership within the
As many journal entries show, student ownership was an essential strategy of the
authentic formative assessment process for the teacher as it helped students to process
When students own the process, they get more out of it—they’re able to actually
learn about learning through the process while at the same time improving the
quality of their work towards learning goals. Since this process has started I’ve
noticed that the students who truly are part of the process really show gains on the
They’re the ones who are making important decisions for how to adjust learning
and if given the chance, they can articulate their decision-making process. I think
Together these quotations showed that from the teacher’s perspective, student ownership
second strategy where the number of codings of the teacher data outweighed codings for
the student. This is most likely based on the fact that part of the underlying concern for
this research study was that authentic formative assessment processes needed to
encourage student ownership of learning, and as a result was at times at the center of my
they feel as if they get a vote, the process won’t work as smoothly. It isn’t until
they get this vote that together we are both able to make instructional adjustment
From data analysis presented in this section, student ownership was viewed as an
integral piece of the authentic formative assessment process within the classroom. It
appeared that both the students and the teacher valued student ownership within the
process as it allowed students to interact with the learning content. In the next section,
journal, focus groups, and some teacher artifact analysis. These strategies were variety,
ownership.
more than 50% of students identified transparency, feedback, conferencing, and student
ownership as key strategies of the process. Also identified by students, but less prevalent
among the data set, were the strategies of out-of-class supports and timing. From the
ownership were viewed as key strategies of the authentic formative assessment process.
strategies, pacing, transparency, and feedback, were identified as areas that could be
improved in the next instructional cycle. Knowledge that these strategies were not as
effective as they could be, as will be shown in the next section, allowed for investigation
into how middle grade assessment processes can be improved for the students.
Strategies of the Authentic Formative Assessment Process Help Improve the Way
Based on the emergent pedagogical strategies that were described in the previous
section, Research Question #1, this section answers the research question by presenting
three areas that were identified by the participants as ways in which the authentic
123
formative assessment process could be improved within the classroom and documents the
ways in which the authentic process was improved within the classroom during a second
unit of instruction. The three strategies that were identified are feedback, pacing, and
As Figure 8 shows between 50% and 85% of students identified that the strategies
of feedback, pacing, and transparency could be improved within the authentic formative
assessment process. Each of these strategies is presented next with the supporting data
from focus groups, student questionnaires, the teacher-research journal, and artifact
analysis in the form of lesson plans to show how knowledge of the strategies improved
the assessment process for the classroom. Quotes that clearly demonstrate each area from
the teacher-research journal, focus groups, and questionnaires are also included. The
section concludes with a final data chart showing how participants viewed the changes
Strategy
As was noted earlier in this chapter, feedback is any response, written or oral and
with or without a grade, given by a teacher or fellow student that indicates how close the
learner is to meeting the learning goals. Feedback also identifies specific ways in which
the learner can improve. The data, from focus groups as described in Pedagogical
Strategy #2 of Research Question #1, indicated that some students preferred written
feedback as opposed to oral feedback and vice versa. For example, AS indicated she
appreciated written feedback more than oral feedback as during class, she was “too
involved in the process of learning to understand” what I was telling her to adjust.
different forms, on Day 11A, I asked each student during a conference how they wished
125
to receive their primary form of feedback (written, oral, both, other). Student responses
were recorded in my grade book and on my seating chart so that I could easily make
reference to them when I was addressing students or examining their work. Their
preferences were utilized where appropriate, as there were a few times where I could only
provide feedback in one manner, such as the need to write comments during a speaking
activity, as it would have been impractical to give oral feedback after every spoken
sentence. Two students throughout the unit did request to change their responses to both
as they indicated that they missed the repetition of feedback that both methods provided
and one student asked to change his feedback style from written to oral.
Comments from the final focus group confirmed that utilizing students’ preferred
method of feedback was helpful and improved the authentic formative assessment
process for them. For example, BG stated that “having a choice in how to receive
information about learning is very helpful because it makes the process about you. It’s
just easier to grasp knowledge this way.” MG also added that “we all understand you
understand what you’re telling us better which makes the learning process more
efficient.”
formative assessment process were working also suggested that giving students a choice
of feedback helped to facilitate the authentic formative assessment process. For example,
as one student described, “I liked that I was asked how I am able to get information from
the teacher about my learning. Choosing helped me to focus more fully.” AP also
126
mentioned that “getting written feedback instead of [oral] comments was important for
me because I could then go back and refer to them as I was working on additional
preferred way was a useful adjustment to the authentic formative assessment process.
Providing feedback to students through their preferred feedback method also helped
improve the assessment process for me as a teacher because it allowed students to make
relatively fast adjustments to their learning and as a result, required that I could provide
less feedback and concentrate more fully on students who were struggling. For example,
in one particular students’ situation, it would often take three or four days for this student
to incorporate my feedback into his responses. With the preferred method feedback, it
may have only taken one or two days. This was shown in the teacher-research journal as
Differentiated feedback only seems to make sense; it’s one of those, why did I not
think about that before moments. I think it’s working as I’m having to provide
I’m also noticing particular students making quicker gains in their learning
processes than what they typically do. For example, TB is often slower to
working in his learning style and he’s not having to spend time reading the
comments.
students based on choice feedback has justified its use. Many of my students are
beginning to show growth over a two-day period. AU told me today that she feels
she’s learning the material better because she can actually spend time on the
learning instead of on processing the oral feedback as she’s a very visual learner.
I’ve noticed that she doesn’t make as many of the same mistakes as before.
As these two entries detail, from my perspective, it appeared that students who were
working with feedback that was aligned with their learning modality were able to quickly
understand what was expected of them to determine what good performance was.
improved the authentic formative assessment process because the purpose of feedback
was clarified for the teacher and also allowed personalized interaction with students
Working with their feedback means that I needed to plan a variety of ways to get
everyone their feedback. This meant that for some students, I collected
assignments and wrote on them, and for others I just talked to them during the
period. In the past feedback seemed to fit the forms that I needed as a
feel a change in the purpose of it—it’s about getting them information and then
responding to how they react to the information, truly one of the goals of a
As both this entry and the focus group and questionnaire analyses showed, utilizing
different forms of feedback with students enhanced the authentic formative assessment
process for this classroom because it allowed students to work within a manner that was
comfortable for them, sped up the learning process at times, and helped to foster
personalized instruction. In the next section, data analysis is presented for the next
A second strategy that was identified during data analysis as an area that could be
helpful in improving the authentic formative assessment process was related to pacing.
Pacing as defined earlier in this chapter refers to the timing devoted to the authentic
formative assessment process within the unit. As was noted earlier in this chapter, both
the teachers and the students identified that the pacing of the authentic formative
indicated that they strongly agreed with modifying the pacing of the process and several
indicated that I felt as if the pace of the process was off: “this whole formative process
has become rushed so much so that the FA has almost become a once-a-day activity and
With the goal of adjusting the pacing so that the authentic formative assessment
process could be spread out throughout the entire instructional cycle rather than the once-
a-day activity approach that had manifested itself, I adjusted my lesson structure for the
129
second unit. In the following figure, an example of what this looked like in the classroom
is presented.
As Figure 9 shows, concepts were chunked throughout this two day period and
this allowed me to provide additional activities for students to reflect upon the learning
Figure 9. An electronic copy of two consecutive lessons showing how the authentic
formative assessment process was modified with specific changes to pacing.
The assessment process is now spread out over the whole week, a little bit each
day. I’ve now been doing more limited presentation and then have started
allowing the students to play and interact with the material immediately, instead
course slowed presentation down, but I think it has encouraged more [language]
production and thinking about what the learning goals mean. By adjusting the
setup this way I’ve also been able to integrate more conferences so that I can
curriculum designer for this classroom to improve the authentic formative assessment
I really have no preference for how the lessons are organized as the students still
seem to be understanding the material. What I’m noticing most is that students
seem to have a stronger understanding of why they think in certain ways about the
content and are able to identify how to improve. At the same time, I still am
The pacing seems more relaxed; I find that because things are broken up
differently they’re able to take time to think through their understandings of the
material and as a result give me better responses that allow me to further change
instruction.
Students also identified in final questionnaire responses that the pacing was better
It’s better now that there’s time to think about what you’re thinking about. You
can actually learn what you need to practice and change as you’re not so
This was further supported by SK who mentioned that “before, it worked well for me.
Adjusting the pacing and its result in improving the authentic formative
assessment process was also supported through a questionnaire question where students
131
were asked how effective the timing was in this second unit. Sixteen out of 20 students
indicated that the new process was “perfect,” “better,” or some other positive variant, as
it provided “more time to process.” Four students indicated that they “had no opinion.”
As the comments from the focus group and teacher-research journal showed,
that students had time to truly process the material enhanced the authentic formative
assessment process for these students. As students described, by modifying the pacing,
students were able to retain content for longer periods of time and felt less rushed in their
ability to think about their learning. In the next section, data analysis for the third
Transparency, for purposes of coding, was defined as sharing with students the
pedagogy involved in the teacher’s instruction of the class. This means that I, as the
teacher, shared with students the reasons why we were doing things the way that we were
doing. When JK stated, as described in the discussion of focus group data from
Pedagogical Strategy #6 of Research Question #1, “Tell me what you’ve learned. I want
to know what the results of different assignments suggest to you to do next in the
classroom,” this suggested to me as the classroom teacher that students felt that I needed
to be more transparent about the authentic formative assessment process. This meant that
I needed to share what I learned about the students’ progress as we were working
throughout the period. Fifty percent (50%) of students in questionnaire response also
Becoming more transparent required that I provide time after each activity, about
one minute, to discuss with students what I learned from that activity in terms of the
learning goal. At first, such discussion was more sporadic as I was not accustomed to
clarifying my thinking so quickly in the instructional cycle; towards the end of the second
Students began to interact with me about what I thought and then either corrected,
modified, refuted, or agreed with me with their own evidence and examples to
adjust instruction as I had further refined my insights as I can’t always see every
In another entry on Day 9B, I also indicated how knowledge of transparency affected the
process] they’re helping me become a better teacher because they are giving me
about how to design future lessons. At the same time, knowledge of this strategy also
133
caused me think about how much of the process needed to be shared with students. Even
as this chapter is being written, I am still struggling with the idea of how much of my
instruction,
I feel naked as I share my thoughts about the FA process—I feel as if some things
should be shared as they really seem to grow with these pieces of information, but
at the same time, certain pieces need to be held back as they feel to me like
teacher’s-only information. With any new technique, I’m sure that I’ll develop an
strategy of transparency seems to have improved the authentic formative assessment for
the teacher. Questionnaire and focus group data on the second unit of instruction also
suggested that the process was enhanced for students. For example, in elaborating on a
question about how the second unit of instruction was more or less effective, AS wrote
Having him [Mr. Drost] talk about what he’s learning is awesome because it gives
you some point to put your own thoughts on. We’re not teachers and sometimes
what I think I should have gotten is different than we should have. When I have
By having knowledge of how I was going to adjust instruction, AS indicated that she
could adjust her learning. ML had a similar response: “I feel that by knowing what the
teacher is thinking, I can really think differently about what I should be doing more or
less of.”
134
show, knowing about the pedagogical strategy of transparency in the authentic formative
assessment and in turn displaying more transparency in the classroom improved the
assessment process for students within this classroom. In the next section, the data
analysis from the previous three sections is summarized in relationship to the research
question and is highlighted with a data chart on how students responded to the
adjustments that were made based on knowledge of the strategies of the authentic
formative assessment.
through the iterative data analysis process as three strategies that could be explored to
potentially improve the authentic formative assessment process for the students within
this classroom. Having knowledge of these three areas improved the authentic formative
process for both students as students were able to process feedback in a way that was
supportive of their learning style, could identify with why certain learning activities were
being implemented in certain ways, and experienced a pace of assessment that allowed
them to reflect upon their thinking. For myself, adjusting the pacing and altering
manners of feedback were not changes that severely altered the instructional cycle.
viewed the adjusted process as more effective. This is important data to include with
reference to this research question as this question explores the action research cycle.
Figure 10. Students’ response to the questionnaire question, “The changes made in our
FA process was helpful in supporting the learning process”
As Holly et al. (2009) described, no action research process can truly be complete until
knowledge of how the process affects students is shared. When asked if the changes
made to the authentic formative assessment process were effective and helped support
them in the learning process, 45% of students strongly agreed that they did, 25% agreed,
and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. These data support the notion that since I had
knowledge of the strategies of the authentic assessment processes, I could improve the
As data from this chart show and the provided citations above show, having
influence the way that assessment was planned. In this particular case, it seems to have
improved the assessment process for the students within my classroom. In the next
section, the results of data analysis for the third research question are presented.
Classroom?
This section answers this research question by presenting the results of data
analysis of student standardized test results in the form of common assessments (DuFour
et al., 2004) to show that an authentic formative assessment process is a viable alternative
common assessments are used to determine student mastery of learning objectives within
the research context as well as identifying why this data source is an important area for
the teacher-researcher to consider. Following this explanation, the assessment results are
displayed. Next, the results of data analysis are presented and it is through this analysis
discussed in Chapter 3, that the answer to this research question is only reflective of the
This subsection is provided to orientate the reader about how standardized tests,
in the form of common assessments (DuFour et al., 2004) are used within the research
context so that the reader is able to understand the data analysis presented in the next
section. This section also discusses why the data from this source were important
assessment is administered to all students of the same course to evaluate mastery of the
objectives contained within the unit and to measure student knowledge of the Academic
Content Standards (Ohio Department of Education, 2004). These tests are considered
high-stakes as they determine course grades for students, provide clues to administrators
about which teachers need help in making gains with their students, and also dictate
whether an intervention plan is created for a student who is not making appropriate gains
(DuFour et al., 2004). After the administration of each assessment, each individual
teacher grades their students’ responses according to agreed upon grading criteria
facilitated by the curriculum director and/or principal as well as the criteria agreed upon
by all teachers teaching a given subject or course. These results are entered into the
district’s data management system; based on the student’s overall percentage on the
assessment, a label is assigned to each student’s results so that data can be disaggregated
(73–79%), limited (72% and below). These labels were designed by the district to
138
correlate with percentages of mastery on the learning of the total objectives within a unit,
are identical to those terms used by the Ohio Department of Education (2004) on
high-stakes standardized assessments, and also parallel the rubric descriptors that indicate
the relative level of linguistic performance of a student on the American Council for the
The analysis of the data from common assessments was crucial to answering this
research question for two reasons. First, these common assessments are considered the
sole means of judging a teachers’ ability to effectively monitor student progress towards
described in Chapter 1. By utilizing them as the source of data, a basis for comparison
the research question, this means that if the results of the assessments when an authentic
formative assessment process was used in the classroom are equivalent or greater to the
results when the standardized formative assessment process was used, it can be
concluded that the authentic formative assessment process is a viable alternative to the
Second, common assessments are used as the data source to answer this question,
as other data collected, such as the teacher-research journal or student focus groups,
would not answer the research since neither teacher nor student opinion determine
whether or not measures of accountability are met in the current paradigm of curriculum
described, the only metric permitted to determine the effectiveness of judging a teachers’
139
assessment. In addition, data from students and the teacher-researcher used to justify the
teachers and students have traditionally viewed the administration of standardized tests
As this section has shown, common assessments were the only data source that
could be used to answer this research question. In the next section, the results of the
Table 6 shows three sets of assessment results. The first set, titled 3-1, is baseline
assessment data that determined student mastery of the unit immediately preceding the
two units of instruction that implemented the authentic approach to formative assessment,
the focus of this study as described in Chapter 3; it is shaded in gray for ease of
The second set, titled 3-2, shows the results of the first unit of instruction, and the third,
titled 3-3, displays the results of the final common assessment for the second unit of
instruction, both units which were the focus of this action research study. Figure 11
achievement level.
The data from Table 6 suggests that an authentic formative assessment process is
Table 6
From the baseline assessment (3-1) column to the first assessment (3-2), 16
students maintained their level of achievement (80%) and four students (20%) improved
their level of achievement. From the second assessment (3-2) to the third assessment
(3-3), 10 students (50%) continued performing at the same level while nine students
(45%) increased by one level. From the baseline assessment to the third assessment, 50%
of students stayed the same (a total of 10 students) and 50% of students increased a level
One student’s achievement level (JT) did decrease when comparing the second set
of data to the third set of data. Although this could be cause for concern, this same
student in terms of baseline to the third assessment did stay the same in terms of
achievement level and this student’s change in achievement level was attributed to the
fact that the student was straddling the two achievement levels relative to the percentage
Although a cursory look at these data could potentially produce support for the
idea that the authentic formative assessment process is a better process than the
levels, such an interpretation needs to be cautioned as the data in Table 7 shows that the
percent differences in terms of achievement level are only roughly 1%, a percentage not
strong enough to argue that the authentic process is better as many factors can influence a
Data from Figure 10 also supports the assertion that an authentic formative
pie graphs show, the percentage of students at various achievement levels in terms of the
class is almost identical from assessment to assessment. Where there was a percent
change, the class increased their achievement levels. For example, instead of having only
one student score (5%) at the advanced level on the 3-1 assessment, after implementing
the authentic formative assessment process, four students (20%) were testing at this level.
The reverse is also true in comparing the number of students at the basic level. On the
3-1 assessment, 25% of students were testing at the basic level compared to the 10% of
students testing at the 3-3 level. There are a multitude of factors that could explain these
improvements, all of which would require further research, but these data do show that
the authentic process is a viable alternative to the standardized process since the same
percentages of students within the class are achieving at the same level as before.
143
Table 7
The bar graph in Figure 12 also suggests that the authentic formative assessment
levels remain relatively flat in terms of the number of students at each achievement level.
For example, the number of proficient and accelerated students remains nearly identical
on all assessments, 5 and 4 and 9 and 10, respectively. At the same time, the number of
basic students decreased but the number of advanced students increased. This study did
not investigate the causes of these increases and as a result, as Table 7 showed, the data
does not necessarily affirm that the authentic process is better than the standardized
Figure 12. Number of students testing at various achievement levels per assessment
As the data tables and figure show, student achievement levels remained
relatively constant during the authentic formative assessment process within the
145
classroom and that when there was a change in achievement level, student achievement
levels increased. These data support the assertion that an authentic formative assessment
students in this classroom. As the data from common assessment results show, student
achievement levels stayed the same or increased in terms of student achievement levels
for the class as well as for individual students when an authentic formative assessment
process was used. In the next section, a summary of data from all three research
Conclusion
processes can be implemented within a middle school classroom. The purpose of this
action research study was to describe the pedagogical strategies of an authentic formative
assessment process within one classroom. The study also explored how an authentic
Through the various data collected, eight pedagogical strategies of the authentic
formative assessment process in my classroom were identified during data analysis: (a)
the use of a variety of teaching techniques and activities to practice content and adjust
learning and teaching; (b) oral and written feedback to guide students; (c) interactive
activities; (d) student conferencing to discuss progress; (e) out-of-class supports such as
146
homework and a class web site as reference tools; (f) student-control of the learning
process; (g) pacing; and (h) transparency of the teacher’s pedagogical knowledge of
students such that the process was a partnership between teacher and student.
and feedback, were identified through the iterative data analysis process as three areas
that could be explored to potentially improve the authentic formative assessment process
for the students within this classroom. Having knowledge of these three strategies
improved the authentic formative process for both students as students were able to
process feedback in a way that was supportive of their learning style, could identify with
why certain learning activities were being implemented in certain ways, and experienced
Lastly, as the analysis of common assessment data showed in this chapter, student
assessment process within the classroom and that when there was a change in
achievement level, student achievement levels increased. These data support the
standardized assessment process. In the next chapter, implications of the data are
discussed.
CHAPTER V
The findings of this action research study ultimately led me to understand that
there are specific authentic formative assessment strategies that a teacher can use to
determine curricular needs for students. There are initial indications that these strategies
have improved the classroom experience for my students and me as the strategies enabled
al., 2009). 2 Throughout this chapter, the findings are discussed in terms of the data,
which were organized around the three research questions that guided this study. These
questions are:
formative assessment process help improve the way assessment is planned and
enhance my ability as a classroom teacher to make curriculum and teaching decisions for
my students. A secondary goal was to ascertain how knowledge of the strategies might
2
A further examination of these indications will require further study that is beyond the scope of this study.
I briefly touch on this matter in the section entitled "Implications" found later in this Chapter.
147
148
improve the way assessment is planned and enacted for the classroom. Finally, I also
the study, suggestions for future research, and the study’s implications for teachers,
In my school district at the time of data collection, only one strategy was used to
determine which students understood a concept and which students needed remediation.
Findings pertaining to the emergent pedagogical strategies indicated that teachers can use
many different strategies to determine curricular needs for students and to show that
students are successful in learning. These strategies did not rely on the interpretation of a
standardized test.
In the study, I found that using informal, varied, and interactive activities, such as
think-pair-share activities, games, and student reflection sheets, gave both my students
and me information about their learning, such that I could make adjustments to the
instructional process and they could adjust their learning focus. This orientation to
Alonso (2006). They indicated that the formative assessment process may be an informal
process when the assessment helps the teacher and students understand progress towards
learning goals. These processes may exist in a variety of formats and are not limited to
149
games and student reflection sheets, “The variety of activities really helps me as it shows
me the nuances of what I know and don’t know. If you did just one type you wouldn’t
know.” AU also understood the usage of informal activities by saying that “games are
awesome because they give you a feel for the material that I need to study.” This
students’ were learning . . . I don’t think if I would have had done just one type, I
would have had enough information to design the next lessons. (Day 3A)
By using different activities, as each student processes learning content in different ways,
opportunity to interact with each one of them. With so many different activities, I had
our learning objectives. This allowed me to create different activities for a particular
student or a group of students during the next class period, so that all students grew in
terms of their content knowledge. At the same time that learning content was varied, it
was also informal. By relying more on informal processes, rather than graded ones, I
found that the pressure of making sure my students perform lessoned and I had the
opportunity to actually pay attention to what their responses were saying about what they
knew.
take advantage of both graded and nongraded (informal) strategies (Aschbacher &
150
Alonso, 2006; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Brookhart, 2008; Popham, 2008). This is
evidenced when KS cautions that when the process is graded, he “just care[s] about the
grade and not the learning,” thus indicating that grades can have a negative effect on
learning adjustment that occurs within formative assessment. This means that for some
students, when there is a grade attached to an activity, all they care about is the points in
the grade book, not how much they have learned from the activity. However, although
most students agreed that an ungraded process was important, some students viewed
grading as a necessity at times. AK indicated that “grades can also motivate you to slow
down and actually think about how you need to look at concepts differently, so you can
get the best grade possible.” This may mean that for some students, grades are an
effective motivator within the formative assessment process while for others it is
hampering, thus indicating that an authentic formative processes may need to take
Feedback to students was another finding that enhanced the authentic process in
part of the formative assessment process (Brookhart, 2008; Popham, 2008). Brookhart
(2008) indicated that students are often appreciative of feedback that tells them what they
are doing well, where they should be, and some tips for improvement, referred to as the
“tried-and-true” method of feedback. Data from Research Question #1, Strategy #2:
Feedback, supports this theory: TB explained that “You always tell us a few things to
work on and how we can get better. You give me questions in your responses that help
me think about what to do. This shows me what I need to focus on.” During the study, I
151
also found that the “tried-and-true” method of feedback helped me determine what
By giving feedback, I find myself being able to accurately describe what I and
they [the students] need to work on. It helps me see patterns. I know that
teachers hate having to repeat themselves, and I do too, but I know that if I’m
having to repeat more than three times that something has broken down then it’s
The data from Research Question #2, Strategy #1: Format of Feedback indicates
that the “tried-and-true” strategy might not be the only way to capitalize on feedback for
students. Students indicated in this study that I needed to give them preference in terms
of how they received their feedback—orally, in written format, or both. In the authentic
formative assessment process within my classroom, this meant that feedback was
assessment literature, it does stand to reason that students may have preferred ways of
receiving feedback as students usually have particular inclinations for the ways in which
The usage of differentiated feedback was further supported by the data from the
second research question. During the second unit of instruction (Research Question #2,
their learning; this created a cycle where I was able to think more deeply on where my
Differentiated feedback only seems to make sense; it’s one of those, why did I not
think about that before moments. I think it’s working as I’m having to provide
I’m also noticing particular students making quicker gains in their learning
processes than what they typically do. For example, TB is often slower to
working in his learning style and he’s not having to spend time reading the
comments.
In the previous journal entry, it is important to note that students at times were receiving
less direction from me as this teacher. This is significant for two reasons. First, it places
my students at an advantage as they are becoming independent learners, students who are
not dependent on the teacher for direction. Second, as I have students who are
independently gaining content knowledge, I can devote my energies to students who are
At the same time that feedback can be given by the teacher orally and/or in
written format, I found that Conferencing (Strategy #3) used within the classroom
provided students with feedback while at the same time helping students co-create the
When you [the teacher] meet with us as it gives me a chance to tell you what I’m
thinking about and then you can either tell me to keep going or how to fix what
curriculum experience by determining what students learned and didn’t learn. This was
As we dialogue, I often tell them what I’ve observed [about their work] after they
tell me what they see. In most cases, what they can’t talk to me about is more
important than what they can as they haven’t come to think about that part of the
Through the conferencing strategy, I gained focus for future lessons and activities to use
with my students. For example, when working with LL, I asked her what made for good
for writing. She was able to list all kinds of examples. But as we looked at her sample, I
learned that LL could not articulate why one of her sentences was a strong sentence and
why the others were weak. To me this meant that she knew the elements of good writing
but was having difficulty applying them. As a result, I planned an activity for her where
she could analyze other students’ writing to tell me what made these good papers or poor
papers. Based on this activity, she was then able to articulate what makes strong writing
and was then able to apply these principles to her own work. Had we not conferenced, I
would not have been able to plan this activity for her.
Contrary to the majority of the research literature presented in Chapter 2, the data
from the conferencing strategy also illustrated that feedback was not the sole
154
responsibility of the teacher during the authentic formative assessment process. Topping
(2010) argued that peers can serve as a reliable source of feedback within the classroom.
In this study, students indicated that feedback from peers was an effective part of the
learning curriculum content, especially when students were paired with someone who
was at their same level of achievement. LL described this concept when she indicated
that when discussing content with a partner, “different ideas emerge” than those that are
“self-created.” This allowed some students to refine their thinking about the curriculum
objectives at hand.
responsible for the entire formative assessment process within the classroom (Popham,
2008; Wiliam, 2010). Thirty-five percent of the student questionnaire results stated that
the course website, accessible by students outside the classroom, was an integral part of
the authentic formative assessment process as “it helps you think, it’s like a tutor—the
stuff is there to guide you, but doesn’t exactly give you the answer . . . It gives me a
second chance to figure out stuff on my own” (Student EE). In contrast to Crooks (1988)
who stated that formative assessment must be an in-class process under the teacher’s
constant direction, the data from this study suggest that an authentic process did not
solely exist in the classroom. This is supported by Black and Wiliam (1998) and
155
Wiliam’s (2010) theoretical argument that formative assessment processes do not occur
in vacuums as they are influenced by a variety of factors, both inside and outside the
formatively assessing students. This may be due to the fact that I was trained to consider
However, since data collection, I have learned that using technology may be one way to
they played, I determined which students understood a concept and which ones were
struggling with it. This allowed me to build in some time in a later class period where we
As has been mentioned, in my school district at the time of data collection the
80% cut score to determine which students understood a concept and which students
needed remediation. This setup created a hierarchical relationship between a test score
and a student and their teacher, a setup that did not value or cultivate teacher-student
relationships inherent in a classroom (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Popham, 2008; Ranciére,
assessment, I found that I was able to support and further cultivate this teacher-student
relationship. This relationship was created when I analyzed classroom events and
person in the teacher-student relationship to feel valued (Dewey, 1980). Wiliam (2010)
contended that teachers who make students feel as if they have a voice in the formative
assessment process are able improve achievement and knowledge of how to learn. Data
from Strategy #8: Student Ownership showed that when the students felt they had a role
in the formative assessment process and had choices in their learning, the students felt
that they were able to learn at higher levels. This was also evidenced by several student
responses. For example, AP indicated that when he takes “control of what I’m learning, I
tend to learn better. Don’t get me wrong, I still hate Spanish, but because I have to make
decisions about the learning, my grade is higher than in my favorite class.” DS also
stated that he, too, grew personally when “it [learning] is not going to be handed to you.
You have to think about what you know and don’t know.”
At the same time that students need such individual validation, so do teachers
(Dewey, 1980). I learned in this study that I could make decisions for my classroom
created valuable experiences for my students as I was invested in where we were headed.
This is supported by Dewey’s (1988) notion that when teachers are able to capitalize on
their own knowledge, they become more refined in their thinking about their curriculum
practice and are able to create curriculum experiences that are valuable to both the
teacher and the student. This is exemplified in an entry from my journal from Day 3A
when I noted that the self-reflection sheets gave me tangible information on common
mistakes that all students were making in terms of syntax. Their errors were in
157
relationship to word order and I fixed it by creating a word order flashcard activity.
Similarly, the think-pair-share activities enabled me to see that students needed help
word phrases with students. Having these various activities and the resulting feedback
allowed me to design the next lessons based on the information that I gleaned during that
class period. This is a key aspect of authentic formative assessment in that teachers can
make adjustments to their lessons on the spot or in preparation for the next class. This
Even though it is important to value the teacher and the student separately in the
learning process, I also discovered that it is important to value the relationship that occurs
between the teacher and student. Conferencing (Strategy #3) is one way in which the
teacher-student relationship was cultivated. As both myself and the students described in
students so that all parties are doing their best work. JK indicated that
It’s like a coach and a player. If you’re on the right track he tells you to keep
going; if you’re on the wrong path, he shows you how to do something differently
RP also confirmed the importance of the teacher-student relationship when she stated that
conferencing helped her process material with guidance from the teacher when necessary:
It’s not like second grade anymore where the teacher needs to pre-punch those
art-project cutouts and then we just push them out, so all students can get the
same snowman. We can design our learning and conferencing helps us design.
158
“partnership as together we have to negotiate those next steps so that I know that they’re
making gains towards our goals but at the same time developing their abilities to learn
and reflect on their thinking.” Based on my conversations with the students, I was able to
direct them to other resources; this helped me determine where everyone needed practice.
During the second stage of the study, the students appreciated having more time to have
discussions with the teacher in the form of conferencing. This further indicates that the
process. These findings support what Ruiz-Primo and Furtak (2006) and Black and
Wiliam (1998) contended: without the development of the relationship between the
teacher and student, there is often limited growth in student learning and in understanding
how to learn.
and to capitalize on the relationship between the teacher and the student, I learned that I
needed to specifically share with students what I learned from students about their
knowledge after learning activities were completed; this was referred to as transparency
(Research Question #1, Strategy #6, and Research Question #2, Modified Pedagogical
Strategy #3). As the students indicated, by sharing with them how I would use their
responses to different activities in future activities and lessons, I was reaffirming the
relationship that naturally exists between teacher and student. This idea supports Black
and Wiliam’s (1998) contention that student growth through formative assessment
159
processes only happens when teachers take time to build relationships through the
process. As AK explained, “it makes me feel valued when you share your thoughts on
how our learning is going, like it reaffirms what I’m doing and what you’re doing.”
(Research Question #2, Area #3). In one questionnaire a student wrote that
Having him [Mr. Drost] talk about what he’s learning is awesome because it gives
you some point to put your own thoughts on. We’re not teachers and sometimes
what I think I should have gotten is different than what we should have.
transparency.
I jumped a whole level [achievement level] this time and I’m really happy with
the work I put in. I feel that by knowing what the teacher is thinking, I can really
At the same time that the strategy of transparency was important for students, it
was also important for me as the classroom teacher. In Research Question #2, Modified
Pedagogical Strategy #2, I noted how being more transparent with students helped them
Students began to interact with me about what I thought and then either corrected,
modified, refuted, or agreed with me with their own evidence and examples to
adjust instruction as I had further refined my insights as I can’t always see every
The honoring of the teacher-student relationship was further illustrated in two later
entries where I explain how at times my plans would be scrapped, simply because of
student response:
they’re making gains towards our goals” while at the same time “they help me make
can be made better for students and a classroom teacher (Holly et al., 2009). As such, it
is a customary finding in action research to show whether or not the research has
Education has indicated, one of the ways to improve curriculum experiences for middle
and answer interesting questions to their teachers about what they are learning and how
they are learning to learn (Bransford et al., 1999; Haberman, 1991; Jackson & Davis,
161
2000; NMSA 2003, 2010; Stowell & McDaniel, 1997). Using this philosophical stance
and understandings of relevance, the findings of the study are explored by showing how
specifically in terms of how life was made better for students. Following this discussion,
an exploration of how life was made better for me, the classroom teacher, is described.
improvement over the 80% standardized cut score, 45% of students strongly agreed that
they did, 25% agreed, and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. As these data are positive
formative assessment strategies within the classroom. But at the same time that these
data supplied some insight into how life was made better, it is within the words of what
students stay in response to the strategies documented in Research Question #1 that show
how their classroom experiences have improved and how their curriculum became more
relevant.
Through my study, I learned that conferencing (Strategy #3) is one way that I
could use to help create a relevant curriculum for my middle childhood students. As RP
indicated, “conferencing is the best because I get to have a conversation like an adult . . .
we can design our learning and conferencing helps us.” During one conference, the
student further indicated that the questions that she asked and the give-and-take between
the teacher and student allowed her to think about what she was learning, built her
knowledge of the curriculum, and made the learning “real.” A questionnaire response
162
further supported the idea that relevancy was addressed through curriculum negotiation
between teacher and student: “[conferencing] help[s] me put the pieces of the puzzle
together. The conversations really help as you have the opportunity to question your own
providing for personal choice further created a relevant curriculum for my students as
they had the opportunity to direct their own learning. ML for example indicated that “by
working in a different manner [a way that is comfortable for you], you get a feel for what
you need to learn and it makes you want to learn.” Elaborating on this point, one student
indicated that variety provides a context to learn material: “Its [sic] not boring. By
having a lot of different activities that I can choose from, I understand everything that is
expected of me and I get a feel of the material I need to study and look over.” Allowing
choice is also evident in students’ comments on the usage of out-of-class materials, such
as the class website: “You have control over what you’re working on. If you get it after
one game of battleship, you can go onto something else that you might need practice
with” (Student 118JT). Student 104EE further confirmed this by indicating that
It [the website] helps you think, it’s like a tutor—the stuff is there to guide you,
but doesn’t exactly give you the answer. It’s helpful because sometimes I just
These data confirm what researchers have suggested to practitioners for many years about
middle school curriculum planning. Middle school curriculum planning needs to involve
discussion around student knowledge and personal choices for learning rather than the
163
results of test scores because through personal choice relevant curriculums are created for
students as students have the opportunity to direct their own learning (Apple & Beane,
1995; Beane, 1997; Jackson & Davis, 2000; NMSA/AMLE, 2010; Rogers & Freiberg,
1994; Tomlinson & Eidson, 2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; Wormeli, 2007).
childhood instruction, the data from this study show that students must be motivated to
learn. Student JK stated, “You have to be in the driver’s seat if you want to succeed. If
you choose not find a way to succeed after you know what you don’t know, then it’s not
the teacher’s fault. He’s just there to help,” and that the authentic formative assessment
process is “like a coach and a player. If you’re on the right track he tells you to keep
going; if you’re on the wrong path, he shows you how to do something differently . . . it
just makes you want to keep going.” Beane (1997), Jackson and Davis (2000), Nesin
(2000), and the AMLE/NMSA (2010) indicated that relevant middle childhood
curriculum experiences should be motivating and should treat students as real people by
can cause them to grow as democratic citizens while learning curriculum content. In this
study, I believe that my students learned to high levels since they were motivated to learn
through continued interaction with me on their progress towards meeting the learning
objectives.
The data from this study also suggested to me that if I treated students as partners
in the learning process, they could grow in their learning as they are motivated to keep
working (Strategy #6, Transparency). In the first unit of instruction, ML suggested that
164
transparency of the process needed to be improved: “by talking more about what you [the
teacher] learned, it will create the reason for why we’re doing what we’re doing. The
activities then don’t seem pointless and it doesn’t feel like we’re Edward and Bella”
(‘Edward and Bella’ is a reference to the main characters of the popular Stephanie Meyer
[2005] vampire series. Edward, Bella’s lover, has a history of not telling Bella his
thoughts on what is happening.). Students also indicated that by knowing what the
teacher was thinking, they were further able to adjust their learning (Research Question
when specifically discussing with students what they were learning, students began to
“interact with me about what they thought and then either corrected, modified, refuted, or
agreed with me with their own evidence and examples to support their viewpoints” (Day
8B). Such an orientation was not only meaningful, but also helped create a further
learning partnership between student and teacher. It was interesting to watch this unfold
showed that my students were learning how to judge their own learning: what they were
learning well and what they thought they have not learned yet.
curriculum needs of this particular group of students. Such discussion suggests that the
experiences for the students in the classroom were improved because the students
indicated that they were more motivated to learn, felt like they were true partners in the
Much like the students felt that they were more motivated to learn, felt like true
partners in the learning experience, and had vested interest in the learning process, I, too,
felt a change such that the action research process improved my life as a classroom
teacher. One of the largest concerns with a study of this nature was the fact that in
documenting strategies in how to work in authentic ways within the classroom, I still
issue with the general trend in education to use a standardized test for decision-making,
in my teaching context, this is a reality. As the data from the results of common
assessments show, Research Question #3, Tables 7 and 8 and Figures 9 and 10, student
achievement levels in this classroom stayed the same or increased when an authentic
formative assessment. These data suggested that authentic formative assessments are a
viable alternative to standardized assessments within this particular classroom such that I
assessments and still maintain high level scores within this classroom. Even if my
district still wants to use a standardized cut score at 80% for formative assessment,
additional formative assessment strategies have been identified that I can implement
Secondly, I believe that learning is a partnership between a teacher and his or her
students. Through this study I believe that my practice has come more in line with this
value. My goal has always been to get my students to learn about how they learn; the
primary goal has not been to determine how much Spanish they can spout. Through this
166
action research study, I have now found strategies that can be used to improve how
students learn about their own learning. I am also more cognizant about the manner in
which I teach and what the goal of my teaching is. Since data collection, there have been
numerous occasions where I have noticed that I am not so anxious about the results of the
common assessments anymore because I know that my students are learning content and
at the same time are learning life learning skills as well, skills on which I personally place
a greater value.
Lastly, if not most importantly, this action research process has taught me the
most about one of the most overlooked components of the educational process: my
students. I have been guilty at times of reducing students to a number on a data sheet.
However, I cannot exist without them and they cannot exist without me. It was
encouraging to discover that “classroom life” (Holly et al., 2009, p. 219) improved for me
were used to honor and support working relationships between teachers and students. I
(Ryan, 2011).
inseparable from how we come to know it. It is a dynamic stance where individuals have
the ability to behave in ways that modify an environment through a circuitous process
that begins with a doubt about our reality, which positions us in a place to do something
standpoint, this means that teachers proceed with their teaching and unconsciously
167
p. 27). At some point during the instructional process, a teacher may begin to doubt that
all students understand the learning target; this may occur, for example, when a student
response, as the teacher’s worldview has now changed, the teacher redirects his attention
solve the problem of a learner misconception, the teacher creates tentative ideas or
hypotheses to re-orientate the student. Once the student has been redirected, the process
repeats. This cycle, as contrived by Ryan, creates a transactional relationship where the
teacher cannot exist without the student and the student’s environment and the student
During data collection, and even to this day in my classroom, I assumed that my
students were learning. It was not until they produced a doubt that I entered a state of
reflective thought, a time period where I planned ways (hypothesize) to get them to
where I needed them. I then implemented my idea and if all went according to my plan, I
entered a new cycle of nonreflective thought; when it did not work I tried something else.
This cycle is representative of what this entire study was about: I needed to learn the
what I learned about those strategies was inseparable from how I came to know, working
with them in the classroom. This means that what the students taught me about the
assessment processes with emphasis honoring the relationship between the teacher and
assessments, outside of class supports, and providing for collaboration between the
student and teacher and student were ways that I used to monitor and improve student
knowledge of the curriculum and student understanding of their own learning while
there are many pedagogical strategies that I used to determine curricular needs for
strategies, instead of relying on one, such as the result of a standardized test, I gained the
ability to determine what curriculum action, if any, was necessary for the students in my
At the same time, I discovered that to cultivate and honor the student-teacher
relationship, I needed to be transparent with students, value each individual’s role in the
process, the student and the teacher, and value the relationship that emerges between the
two, referred to as the teacher-student relationship. The third finding indicates that the
primary methodological purpose of the action research cycle was met as classroom life
was documented in such a way that life was made better for students in terms of a
education for the classroom teacher (Holly et al., 2009). While these findings were
169
Limitations
Certain limitations are present that must be considered when interpreting and
discussing the data results. A frequently cited limitation of any action research study is
related to transferability (Holly et al., 2009). Because of the small student sample and the
limited context—my classroom—these data and the discussion will by no means apply to
Northeast Ohio or the state of Ohio at its broadest interpretation because the problem
of content standards and a testing program associated with No Child Left Behind (2002).
All states have the same accountability requirements under NCLB, but no two states’
However, the point of any action research study (Elliott, 1991; Holly et al., 2009)
is not to generalize data and procedures to other classrooms, but to engage in a reflective
process that improves a classroom process for a particular teacher and his or her students
and to begin discussion with other professionals on the results. As the data from
Research Question #2 indicate, when asked if the changes made to the authentic
formative assessment process were effective and helped support them in the learning
process, 45% of students strongly agreed that they did, 25% agreed, and 30% neither
agreed nor disagreed. These data support the notion I could improve the assessment
process for the students within this classroom. I believe that the authentic formative
170
assessment process was effective as I was able to work with my students in a way that
encouraged discussion between teacher and student and at the same time allowed them to
Question #3).
Time was also a limitation in this study; the classroom itself is a very busy place
and hundreds of interruptions can result during any class period. Accordingly, at various
times during data collection the recording of data via observation and informal student
focus groups was interrupted due to fire drills or public address announcements; this may
have resulted in missed opportunities for student and teacher comment on the various
themes explored in this study. In addition, a few students did rush to complete surveys
due to tardiness or early releases. Every effort however was made to follow up with
students during conference time to ensure that what they indicated through these data
Another limitation was related to the timing of these classroom units: the
instructional units that were the focus of study were limited by the scope and sequence
and pacing of the curriculum as approved by the local Board of Education. Perhaps if
these units had been of a different length or had occurred at a different point in the school
year, different themes would have been represented in the data. However, I believe that it
was still possible in the time given to obtain sufficient information to answer the research
students in one classroom out of a possible 21, I believe it was possible to find many
classroom event (Holly et al., 2009). This may mean that certain insights, due to limits in
however is still a valid data source as it describes the thoughts of the person in control of
the instructional cycles—the teacher. In addition, student survey results are also
subjective as it is possible that students do not take them seriously nor report their
feelings honestly. Nonetheless, as with any study that aligns itself with a constructivist
viewpoint (Fosnot, 1996), I did make meaning from what my students and I said and did.
Implications
The findings of this study highlight several implications for practicing teachers,
within this classroom. As the discussion from this study suggests, I believe that it is
possible for authentic formative assessments to be used in this classroom context when I
accomplishment of this goal, teachers need to learn about who their students are so that
they may guide them in the best manner possible while building the teacher-student
“arts of the practical.” This theory allows teachers to utilize whatever is available to
where students are headed in their study of the curriculum. In terms of formative
assessment, as the data on transparency notes (Research Question #1, Strategy #6), this
means that teachers openly create a commitment to working on the authentic formative
process with students as such a process does not develop in one classroom meeting; it
takes time for students and teachers to learn to trust each other such that they are able to
openly discuss weaknesses and strengths of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning.
Authentic formative processes, as the data from this study suggest, need to be developed
over a period of at least two cycles of instruction (two concurrent units of instruction)
such that the process is realized for both students and the teacher. Even after two cycles,
this process must continue to develop as we are all organic individuals with changing
needs; it is a joint-process that is constantly growing and not a process that is completely
To illustrate this point, one student teacher recently described what this authentic
process is not:
By far, the worst math teacher throughout all of my school days was my seventh
grade algebra teacher. The class was not horrible, but the way that the teacher
handled her class was just odd. It was unlike any other math class I ever had. All
we do [did] almost every day were little multiple-choice tests that we answered on
the Scantron answer sheets. The way she would assess us was when we scanned
the test answers, we would see our score and have to ask her about the problems
173
that we did not understand. This was not helpful to me because it felt like she did
not have a plan for us or the class in general, like she was just letting a bunch of
seventh graders try to teach ourselves about the things that we were waiting to be
taught.
cultivation of transactional relationship between teacher and students (Ryan, 2011), the
process can flounder. When beginning to use an authentic formative assessment process
in the classroom, teachers must learn to be flexible and learn about student learning
through a variety of data sources when making decisions. To do this, as the data from
activities in order to generate a variety of information about their students and about what
they are learning (Wormeli, 2007). Using such a technique allows both the teacher and
student to learn the nuances of curriculum content and improve the teaching-learning
needed to be flexible. The process did not occur at a specific time on a specific day nor is
it a specific, tangible product. It is a mindset between teacher and student that is flexible
in student and teacher response based on what information is gathered by both parties
during the course of classroom activities. To help students process information about
what they are learning, teachers can hold conferences with students (Strategy #3) to
discuss strengths and weaknesses in terms of student learning as well as provide them
174
with feedback. Any activity, as Popham (2008) described, should be coupled with some
type of feedback, oral or written or both, to help students and teachers further process
curriculum content (Strategy #2). As the data from Strategy #6 show, the teacher needs
to share his or her pedagogical thinking with students, although at times it may be
difficult for the instructor to do so. Supplemental activities, such as classroom websites
and podcasts (Strategy #4), can further engage students in their learning of the content.
Using all of these strategies together, as the students described, created a sense of student
ownership of the learning process (Strategy #8); for the teacher (Research Question #2),
these strategies allowed for greater understanding of the needs of students and in
determining how to best adjust instruction while at the same time meeting external
their control about teaching decisions. Teachers are often reluctant to give students
choices over curriculum for several reasons. First, Darling-Hammond (2010) described
that teachers often feel they must tie everything to standards and as a result, may limit
student choice; second, and perhaps more often, teachers have not developed the
assessments in the classrooms, teachers must accept the fact that they can learn from their
students about what they are learning. The data from Research Question #2 indicated
that in my teaching situation, it was important to learn with my students about the
collaboration with them, as without their guidance, I truly did not have an understanding
175
of what they had learned or were learning—I could only make guesses based on what an
Once self-examination has occurred and teachers believe that they can teach
content through discussion with their students, they can then relinquish control over some
as this study highlights, student growth in terms of content knowledge and personal
knowledge can come from a mindset that joint-decision making between teacher and
these external mandated exams, by engaging in a partnership with students, both teachers
This orientation to teaching and learning suggests that administrators may need to
rely more on teachers’ knowledge of their students rather than on what a piece of paper
states students can and cannot do. This means that teachers have to be given time and
evidence that exists from the authentic formative assessment process. This of course
does not mean that teachers have free rein to make any and all decisions for their
students, especially when teachers are first implementing the process. Through continued
can help teachers realize their own potential in making decisions for their students. In
than professional development for teachers needs to exist in such a manner that teachers
176
are allowed, through continued dialogue with their administrators, to design appropriate
grades teachers. Teachers working collaboratively could, during team planning time, use
differentiate feedback and instruction for students; (b) find ways to support students with
content when they are not in the classroom; (c) develop ways to encourage student
ownership of the learning process; and (d) develop classroom-based techniques that
teaching process.
teachers to capitalize the authentic formative assessment, the results of this study also
imply that the roles of curriculum directors, curriculum specialists, and resource persons
throughout the school be reconfigured. Currently, in most school districts in Ohio the
curriculum director and/or superintendent and principal are the sole leaders in making
decisions about curriculum for students, often from the results of publicized testing
results. These decisions often result in wide-range programming that can limit the ability
these leaders’ roles into facilitators for professional growth, curriculum directors could
become resource individuals for teachers who are learning to make decisions in
177
conjunction with their students and could help by modeling similar processes with their
teachers.
puzzle, but they do not give us the whole story on how students are learning (Apple &
Beane, 1995; Henderson & Gornik, 2007). As this study showed in this particular
classroom, what students were learning was determined through the interaction that exists
with students during the authentic formative assessment process. As the Strategies of
Research Question #1 indicate, the authentic formative assessment process does not
process. The data from this study indicated that when partnerships are created, students
had the ability to adjust their learning in other ways that are not related to direct teacher
using a class website or through peer negotiation and discussion of curriculum content.
(Conferencing), but the student has more control of his or her own learning (Strategy #7,
Ownership).
the formative assessment process is supposed to be a process that occurs within the
classroom at a specific time (Crooks, 1988). As Research Question #1, Strategy #4:
in the vacuum of the classroom (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Students who are working on
assignments at home can still learn about what they are learning and about curriculum
content through alternative means such as podcasts and websites. These two data pieces
formative assessments are processes that do not necessarily produce student artifacts,
may have merit as the authentic formative assessment process does not always create a
2007), informal formative assessment processes may still produce gains in achievement.
As the data analyzed for Research Question #3 show, the student test results from an
authentic formative assessment process versus a standardized process were similar, if not
higher during these units of instruction within this classroom. This suggests that when
using informal, authentic processes such as varied activities like games, songs, reflection
sheets, think-pair-share activities, mock trials, and informational gap activities, student
processes. As the research process showed, I, as the classroom teacher, had to learn from
my students what worked best to help them learn classroom content. All institutions of
higher education that license teachers for grades 4–9 are required to align their programs
with the standards for teacher preparation from the Association for Middle Level
179
Education (NMSA, 2010) and the Standards for Ohio Educators (2005); both documents
suggest that authentic formative assessments between teachers and students are essential
features of quality middle grade instruction. How this is being taught to pre-service
teachers has not been studied and would prove interesting to know as such authentic
processes may help teachers improve achievement and metacognition strategies for their
students.
Another area that is growing in what is termed educational best practice is the
the subject,” and “replicates key challenging situations in which adults use a repertoire of
knowledge and skill to negotiate a complex and multistage task” (p. 154). This means
that students are given the opportunity to learn how adults within the real world use the
knowledge the students are learning in their discrete lessons. A typical example is having
students design a science experiment that is effective, feasible, and cost-effective to show
how they would go about solving a personal problem or interest such as whether or not
playing a Wii® fitness game will help a student lose weight (p. 157).
Although these assessments are summative in nature, the strategies that are used
students to co-construct the curriculum with their teachers as well as help students
dialogue about what they do and do not understand. As performance tasks typically have
180
no right or wrong answer, they require that students explore a variety of different areas to
learn how to problem solve. A strategy such as out-of-class-supports, like a website, can
provide students with guidance as they investigate how similar problems have been
investigated. The conferencing strategy could also be used to help students converse with
other experts in the field, as well as the classroom teacher, to help identify variables,
solutions, or student misconceptions as they begin their design in the performance task.
study indicated, students mentioned that classroom websites, podcasts, and e-gaming
how technology can be used with authentic formative assessment practices, especially
with the recent growth in portable electronic devices such as the iPad®. As Russell
help teachers interact with their students in a timely and individualized manner, but at the
variety of contexts (e.g., grade levels, rural areas, inner city areas, other disciplines,
charter schools, parochial schools) would add to the findings in this study as all schools
are subject to some accountability requirement and examining different contexts may in
turn yield different results. Using other methodologies, such as a case study or a mixed
methods study, may further add to the nuances about how authentic formative
assessments function within the assessment cycle within the classroom and whether they
can be used in a classroom with authentic formative assessments. The data from this
study imply from the researcher standpoint that authentic formative assessment needs to
require that teachers and curriculum directors consider giving power back to those who
are most invested in the learning process: students. Teachers may need to commit to a
mindset that embodies flexibility, the building of relationships with students, and
collaboration with other teachers while administrators may need to give teachers more
leeway as they are learning about how to make curriculum decisions in conjunction with
their students. Some avenues for additional research studies may examine how other
stakeholders within schools view authentic formative assessments, how other classrooms
processes are taught to middle childhood pre-service students, and how technology might
impact authentic formative assessment practices. Studies using other methodologies and
other contexts may further add to the research base. Additional studies may also explore
such research questions as: (1) How can pre-service teachers be taught the pedagogical
improve the authentic formative assessment process? (3) How can the teacher-student
relationship be honored and cultivated in the classroom during assessment? (4) How can
the authentic formative assessment strategies be taught and modeled to other teachers so
182
that they may begin to use them within their classrooms? (5) How can schools value
Conclusion
test achievement scores. We know that administrators and other educators are relying
more and more on standardized test scores to make curriculum decisions for students.
We also know that these types of decisions do not honor and cultivate the teacher-student
(Schwab, 1970). This dilemma had suggested the need to describe the pedagogical
appears from the data in this study that students in one particular classroom can still
achieve on standardized tests, while the teacher uses an authentic formative process.
they are as learners as well as share ownership of decision-making between the teacher,
student, and a variety of curriculum resources. From this orientation to teaching and
learning and careful examination of what students and I said about the learning process,
interactivity, and creativity in the decision-making process for both the teacher and
student, provided differentiated feedback for students, and maintained relatively “high”
curriculum standards. Research is needed to show ways how these techniques can be
taught to both veteran teachers and pre-service teachers so that they too may improve
as they provide one measure of what students are learning and what teachers are teaching,
in order to ensure accountability with federal mandates. There is nothing wrong with a
set of academic content standards designed to align instruction and guide teachers so that
students are prepared with somewhat common information and the ability to display
proficiency with what they know. What becomes disconcerting is when we make all of
our decisions about teaching and learning based on a standardized test, one that does not
take the student nor teacher viewpoint about learning into account. Authentic formative
assessment processes, as this study demonstrates, do account for these stakeholders’ ideas
and do appear to propel students to higher understanding of content and their own
student who is able to learn about what he is learning is potentially able to go farther than
one who is simply able to correctly answer a multiple choice question. If we choose to
commit to an education that works for the benefit of all, then we need to reconsider how
regurgitate facts rather than on learning who they are and having teachers make decisions
on a one-shot attempt at student regurgitation of these facts, then we may be falling short
Standardized Formative
Authentic Formative Assessments Assessments
Definition Any activity in the classroom that A test given at the end of a defined
allows a teacher to adjust instruction period of instruction with hopes of
with reference to the target goal and determining how much a student
gives feedback to a student about has learned or retained with an
their own learning; it is a process of opportunity for intervention period;
growth. it is a process of measurement.
Constructs Specific sample of all related tasks or Specific sample of all related tasks
subtasks in a unit or subtasks in a unit
186
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
188
189
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Language. (1999). Standards for foreign
Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (2007). Studying your own school: An educator’s
guide to qualitative practitioner research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of formative assessment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
A. Anfara (Ed.), The handbook of research in middle level education (pp. vii-xx).
Anfara, V. A., & Stacki, S. L. (Eds.). (2002). Middle school curriculum, instruction, and
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (1995). The case for democratic schools. In M. W. Apple
& J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools (pp. 1-25). Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
Aschbacher, P., & Alonso, A. (2006). Examining the utility of elementary science
4), 179–203.
191
192
Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73. Retrieved from the Academic
Block, H., & Burns, R. (1976). A meta-analysis of mastery learning through formative
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and
introduction to theory and methods (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jossey-Bass.
193
VA: ASCD.
ASCD.
Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1999). In search of understanding: The case for
Brown, D. F., & Knowles, T. (2007). What every middle school teacher should know (2nd
Chambers, S. A. (2010). Police and oligarchy. In J-P Deranty (Ed.), Jaque Ranciere: Key
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for
Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
Cruickshank, D. R., Jenkins, D. B., & Metcalf, K. K. (2003). The act of teaching (3rd ed.).
Cuban, L. (2003). Why is it so hard to get good schools? New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action:
studies of schools and student at work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dell’Olio, M., & Donk, T. (2007). Models of teaching: Connecting student learning with
Dewey, J. (1976). The school and society. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The
Dewey, J. (1978). How We Think. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle
Dewey, J. (1980). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The
middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 9: 1916, 1-402). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
195
Dewey, J. (1988). Experience and Education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The
middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 13: 1938-1939, 1-62). Carbondale, IL: Southern
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to
Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of
Eisner, E. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school
Eisner, E. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. New
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Keynes, Philadelphia,
Fiel, R. L., & Okey, J. R. (1974). The effects of formative evaluation and remediation on
Falmer.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2003). Looking into classrooms (9th ed.). Boston, MA:
Gruhler, D. (2004). “I want to talk about that!”: Navigating the process and constructing
Wadsworth.
Wadsworth.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State
Henderson, J. G. (1996). Reflective teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
197
Henderson, J. G., & Gornik, R. (2007). Transformative curriculum leadership (3rd ed.).
Henderson, J. G., & Gornik, R. (2010). Curriculum Leadership Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ehhs.kent.edu/cli/
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation: A guide for
Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand
Holly, M. L., Arhar, J. M., & Kasten, W. C. (2005). Action research for teachers:
Traveling the Yellow Brick Road (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Holly, M. L., Arhar, J. M., & Kasten, W. C. (2009). Action research for teachers:
Traveling the Yellow Brick Road (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hubbard, R., & Power, B. M. (Eds.). (2003). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in
Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12.
ABC-CLIO.
Kleibard, H. M. (1970). Reappraisal: The Tyler Rationale. School Review, 78(2), 259–
272.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago, IL:
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).
Meyer, S. (2005). Twilight. New York, NY: Little, Brown, and Company.
Mirkin, P. K., & Deno, S. L. (1980). The effects of selected variations in the components
NJ.
Mitchell, R. (1992). Testing for learning: How new approaches to evaluation can
Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group handbook: Focus group kit 1. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
National Association for the Education of Young People. (1996). NAEYC Position
serving children from birth through age 8—Adopted July 1996. In S. Bredekamp
Office.
National Middle School Association. (1980). This we believe. Columbus, OH: Author.
National Middle School Association. (2003). This we believe: Successful schools for
National Middle School Association (Association for Middle Level Education). (2010).
Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Ohio Department of Education (2005). Standards for Ohio Educators. Columbus: Ohio
Department of Education.
treasure chest for principal-led building teams in improving results for learners
Pate, E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1994). Middle school students’ perceptions of
Pate, E., Homestead, E., & McGinnis, K. (1996). Making integrated curriculum work:
Teachers, students, and the quest for a coherent curriculum. New York, NY:
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and reasoning in the child. (M. Warden, Trans.). New York,
Powell, R., & Van Zandt Allen, L. (2001). Middle school curriculum. In V. A. Anfara
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing
and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The Sage handbook of action research:
Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reform. (2002). In Online Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from Oxford English
Dictionary Online.
Rogers, C., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2006). Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), 205–235.
202
Ryan, F. (2011). Seeing together: Mind, matter, and the experimental outlook of John
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
NY: Macmillan.
Schwab, J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National
Education Association.
(Westbury, I., & Willkof, N.D., Eds.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse. San Francisco, CA: Jossey
Bass.
203
Sleeter, C. (Ed.). (2007). Facing accountability: Democracy & equity at risk. New York,
Heinemann.
Stevenson, C., & Carr, J. F. (Eds.). (1993). Integrative studies in the middle grades:
Stiggins, R. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta
Stiggins, R. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Stowell, L., & McDaniel, J. (1997). The changing face of assessment. In J. L. Irvin (Ed.).
What current research says to the middle level practitioner (pp. 137–150).
Research Complete.
204
support integrated learning. In V.A. Anfara, Jr. & S.L. Stacki (Eds.), Middle
IAP.
J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 61–74). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative
Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Wiles, J., Bondi, J., & Tillier Wiles, M. (2005). The essential middle school. Upper
Wiliam, D. (2010). An integrative summary of the research literature and implications for
ME: Stenhouse.