Understanding and Removing Barriers to Early Career Assessment by eld18221

VIEWS: 82 PAGES: 7

									Understanding and Removing Barriers to
 Early Career Assessment Training for
     Teachers and School Leaders




         ETS Assessment Training Institute
           317 SW Alder St., Suite 1200
               Portland, OR 97204
                 www.ets.org/ati

                  October, 2008
This is a record of the results of a meeting of national leaders in pre-service teacher and
administrator training convened by the ETS Assessment Training Institute in Portland on
October 23-24, 2008. Participants are listed below.


Christa Compton       Stanford Teacher Education Program

Lynn Kepp             New Teacher Center
                      University of California, Santa Cruz
Bruce Barnett         Educational Leadership Program
                      The University of Texas at San Antonio
Dan Duke              Educational Leadership Program
                      University of Virginia
Randy Hitz            Dean, Graduate School of Education
                      Portland State University
Sharon Robinson       Executive Director
                      American Association of Colleges for
                      Teacher Education (AACTE)
Ed Roeber             Teacher Education
                      Michigan State University
Rick Stiggins         Executive Director
                      ETS Assessment Training Institute
Stephen Uebbing       Educational Leadership Program
                      University of Rochester
Pat Wasley            Dean, College of Education
                      University of Washington
Suzanne Wilson        Director of Teacher Education
                      Michigan State University



Day one of the meeting was devoted to trying to understand the barriers that have so
effectively kept assessment training from becoming a routine part of pre-service
preparation of future educators. Our conversation opened quite spontaneously and
naturally with a discussion of a few overarching ideas that set the stage for the
deliberations about barriers and their removal that followed:




                                                                                          1
Guiding Principles

   o It is important for those institutions that underpin the development of effective
     schools (such as the organizations represented at this meeting) to create and
     advocate for visions of excellence in assessment practice for teachers and for
     school leaders, even though it may be very challenging to make these visions a
     reality.
   o “Pre-service” assessment training is not an appropriate frame of reference for
     teachers because practitioners are arriving in classrooms from so many different
     directions and with diverse backgrounds. As a result, many are beginning
     practice before being trained to do so; so better to refer to “early career” training
     in assessment.
   o A paradigm shift is at hand: Traditionally, we have seen assessment as the index
     of our effect on student learning; now we must help practitioners at all levels see
     it as part of the cause of our effect—that they can use assessment both to support
     and to verify learning.
   o It will be important to think about training in sound assessment practice in terms
     of a developmental continuum where the vision extends from novice to expert;
     early career preparation must begin at the novice level for teachers and school
     leaders.
   o We should continue to investigate special pedagogies for developing assessment
     literacy in ways tailored to the unique needs of the novices; that is, for example,
     traditional course work may need to be supplemented with experiences in which
     teacher education or educational leadership faculty members teach sound
     assessment practices by modeling them or candidates take responsibility for
     developing their own assessment literacy through guided practice and team work.
   o Two factors influence a new teacher’s ability to practice sound assessment:
     knowledge of sound practice (assessment literacy) and the presence of enabling
     conditions in schools that permit or allow good practice; that is, context may
     dictate where one starts in developing assessment literacy and in implementing
     sound practices.
   o Faculties cannot overlook how crucial it is for candidates to be masters of the
     content to be taught, learned, and assessed; that is, to understand the learning
     targets as an essential foundation for quality assessment.
   o Ultimately, school leaders need a framework to use in the process of auditing,
     supervising, and promoting the development of teachers’ classroom assessment
     practices for use by school leaders.

Barriers to Productive Early Career Preparation in Assessment

Next we turn to the matter of barriers—those realities that have so effectively kept early
career learning experiences from including productive, relevant, helpful assessment
training for teacher and school leaders. We discussed three categories of barriers:

Institutional Barriers—those that may arise from the realities of higher education
institutional culture

                                                                                             2
   o Colleges will evolve very slowly in this domain in part because of faculty
     territoriality—there are those in charge of the assessment wisdom and those who
     are not; so collaboration in the service of sound assessment practice has been and
     may continue to be challenging.
   o Quality assessment has never really been an institutional priority in any internal
     context; the institution has no accepted protocols for carrying out sound
     assessment practices or evaluating their appropriateness.
   o There are no institutional incentives for faculty to become assessment literate or
     practice sound assessment practices within their courses.
   o As a result, there has been no universally accepted set of criteria by which to
     judge the quality of an assessment or the appropriateness of its use.
   o As a result further, very often, teacher education or school leadership faculties
     lack someone with sufficient assessment literacy to teach it to candidates .
   o Often program requirements such as in educational administration and teacher
     education are dictated by state law and don’t include assessment.
   o Time with candidates is very brief and is filled with other required course work
     priorities.
   o Traditionally, higher education faculties have not had to be concerned about
     struggling learners—those who can’t hack it shouldn’t be in college and should be
     weeded out; but teachers and school leaders do need to help those who struggle
     and need to learn how…
   o Often, the measurement community in academia has been indifferent to, and
     sometimes cynical about, the possibility of sound classroom assessment for
     teachers; it has been rigid about the meaning of sound assessments and who can
     access that wisdom; therefore, it has been uninvolved in and sometimes opposed
     to better assessment training for teachers and school leaders.

Contextual Barriers—those that may arise from the educational context outside of higher
education in the governance of schools or from the reality of practitioners’ life in schools.

   o The learning and performance demands of teachers and school leaders early in
     their careers can be overwhelming; assessment is merely one part of that which is
     to be mastered.
   o Historically, teachers have not been trusted to assess either well or honestly; there
     is a pervasive fear that they will manipulate the evidence in their own best
     interest.
   o Licensing or certification standards refer to the need for assessment literacy but
     are vague on specifics and thus are subject to diverse local interpretations; this
     means those who set such standards may not have sufficient understanding of
     sound assessment practice.
   o Those practicing teachers who supervise field experiences often lack assessment
     literacy.
   o Some of those experienced teachers who supervise field experiences may get it
     (about sound assessment practices) and do it well but not be able to teach the
     meta-cognitive keys to doing it well.

                                                                                           3
   o The peer pressure in schools can demand compliance to existing norms of
     assessment behavior; so candidates or new hires who bring new ideas can be
     pressured into submission, thus preventing change in assessment practices.
   o The dominance of the testing culture in the USA (that is, dominance of the testing
     industry) commands such a high proportion of the available resources that little is
     left to support balanced assessment or quality classroom assessment.
   o The textbook industry has promulgated text-embedded tests as the solutions—
     thus trying to teacher-proof classroom assessment.
   o There is a pervasive sense that teachers cannot assess well and so we need to “fix
     the problem” for them by providing the assessments or assessment results they
     need rather than teaching them to generate and use their own—so assessment
     literacy is unnecessary for new teachers.
   o There has been a pervasive stereotypic view of assessment merely as an
     accountability tool that has inhibited the development of the capacity to use
     assessment to support learning.

Personal/Professional Barriers—those that may arise from within the psyche of faculty
members

   o When one lacks assessment literacy yet still presumes to teach (or is assigned
     responsibility for teaching) sound practices to candidates anyway, the result can
     be either confusion on the part of the candidate or the mastery of unsound
     practices. Either way, candidates will be frustrated by the experience and are
     likely to remain uneasy about the meaning of sound assessment practices; and
     obviously, the quality of their assessment practices will suffer.
   o Often, practitioners simply do not either believe or trust those who bring
     messages about the nature and importance of sound assessment practice; the
     measurement community often struggles to establish the relevance of its domain
     in the classroom—K-12 or in higher education; better, some might assert, to keep
     the entire topic at arm’s length.
   o Faculty can regard it as risky to expose oneself to the evaluation of their teaching
     effectiveness through the evaluation of the learning outcomes of their students; it
     can be similarly risky to subject one’s coursework assessment practices to
     scrutiny if one is not assessment literate; personal professional accountability in
     these senses can prevent higher education faculty from confronting their
     classroom assessment realities, let alone their ability to teach sound assessment
     practices to their teacher or school leaders candidates either didactically or
     through modeling. In other words, if one teaches sound assessment practices but
     fails to model them, the hypocrisy will be clear to students; better, some might
     assert, to avoid the entire question.
   o Often both teachers and administrators limit their focus on assessment simply
     because practical trade offs must be made—there is more to do now than time will
     permit and this has been a low priority. In other words, they have yet to learn that
     time invested in sound assessment can make their professional lives both more
     efficient and more productive.



                                                                                        4
Possible Strategies for Removing Barriers

Finally, we talked about ways to overcome the barriers and permit assessment training to
be successfully introduced into early career preparation:

Incentives

   o If faculty learn about the compelling evidence of positive impacts of sound
     classroom assessment practices on student confidence, motivation, and
     engagement resulting in profound achievement gains, the idea of mastering sound
     practices will become more attractive.
   o If faculties learn about the possibility that sound classroom assessment practices,
     when used in support of student learning (in assessment FOR learning ways), can
     promote hope in and gains for struggling learners, again, those practices will
     become more attractive to them.
   o If faculties learn how sound assessment practices can save everyone time and
     effort (that is, add efficiencies to the teaching and learning process), they are more
     likely to embrace those practices and adapt them for their own use.
   o If faculties begin to believe that sound classroom assessment practices can help
     them solve some of their chronic assessment and grading problems, not only will
     they be more likely to apply sound practices in their own teaching (thus modeling
     them), but this content will be more valued for the early teacher and school leader
     preparation curricula.
   o To the extent that state licensing and certification requirements, as well as the
     expectations of higher education accrediting agencies and professional
     associations (which typically now require attention to assessment in vague terms),
     are explicit in defining the keys to sound assessment practice in greater detail,
     then our institutional definitions of best practices will evolve to more appropriate
     levels.

Entry points

   o In K-12 contexts, we have found success in locating those who are dissatisfied
     with and so are ready to rethink their assessment practices; these practitioners
     exist in faculties of teacher education and school leadership too. They are most
     likely to be willing to take the risk of engaging in faculty development around
     improved classroom assessment practices.
   o Similarly, we can seek out those who are most needed—whose students struggle
     most mightily to find academic success; they too may represent fertile ground for
     the implementation of professional development in sound classroom assessment
     practices.
   o Field experiences and internships could be counted on to provide productive
     assessment literacy learning experiences if, and only if, supervising school leaders
     and teachers are qualified in the assessment arena and willing to support the
     development of assessment literate candidates; one attractive pedagogy in this



                                                                                         5
     context might be to engage in professional development in assessment with
     candidates and supervisors working together in collaborative learning teams.
   o Induction programs may represent another productive venue for early career
     development of assessment literacy. The key to success in this context is to rely
     on mentors and supervisors who bring appropriate levels of assessment literacy to
     the process.
   o Is there a pedagogy that would permit “professor-free” assessment literacy
     development? Where the learners (candidates, field experience supervisors,
     higher ed faculty) work through collaborative hands-on-practice experiences that
     yield the assessment literacy needed without relying on a faculty member to
     accomplish this?

Points of Leverage or Next Steps

   o Find and showcase teacher and leader preparation programs that are succeeding
     with early career assessment training.
   o Find and showcase for higher education/school district partnerships where
     ongoing collaboration and professional development have worked.
   o Collaborate with projects currently working on innovations in or redefinition of
     teacher or school leader competencies and preparation programs to weave in a
     strong assessment literacy development component: AACTE, NBPTS, Carnegie,
     Gates, College Board, STEM, Wallace.




                                                                                        6

								
To top