Focusing on Assessment: Accessible Assessment for Older Grades

Earlier this week I wrote about how much I love the new resource, Accessible Assessment. I mentioned that it is recommended for grades 2-6, but that I would share ideas for using it in 6th-12th grade, as the resource still has a lot to offer for older grades.

Here are a few reasons why the resource is still relevant for older readers:

• The level of reflection that it supports is valuable for teachers at all levels to consider how they can closely examine how mindfully and intentionally they are using (or not using) assessments
• The concept that reading assessments should consider affective, global, and local assessments, rather than a more narrow view is still applicable
• The resource has flexibility to select from their provided assessments or adapt
• The resource provides an excellent framework for planning assessment throughout the year and recording data in a way that is manageable. Even if some aspects with the actual assessments need to be adapted for older grades, the helpful framework is still relevant.

While reading I could tell that some aspects were more appropriate for younger readers; yet, I thought about how that is where adaptation and/or differentiation comes in. For example, many adolescent readers that I have worked with did not need support with phonics, so I would not administer their local assessment related to this area to all students. In fact, even the authors recommend optimal grade levels to administer the assessment, rather than for all grades. Instead, it would be an aspect that I would keep in mind that may impact some of my older readers. When I notice that potential need for further support, then I would have ideas for assessments that may be appropriate. 

Another potential adaptation that I thought of as reading is that the authors provide a Reading Attitude and Identity Survey. It seemed very familiar to another survey that I was familiar with and previously used with my students, Adolescent Motivation to Read Profile (Pitcher et al., 2007), which was adapted from Gambrell et. al (1996). Once I double checked the article that talked about the adolescent version, I realized that they were similar because the survey provided in Accessible Assessment was also adapted from Gambrell et. al (1996) as well. Thus, teachers of adolescents who want to use the concept of being more cognizant of affective aspects in their classrooms could use or adapt the AMRP, rather than using the survey provided in the book. However, they could still use the rationale and suggestions of how to organize the data and consider teaching implications from Accessible Assessment.

The grade level reading passages included in Accessible Assessment only provide two passages each for grades 2-5, so this is another area that would need to be adapted for older readers. For the last few years I used QRI in my classroom. It provides a lot of informative information but can also be time-consuming. I had already made decisions, as suggested in the QRI text, in order to decide how I wanted to use the tool since it would be way too time-consuming to use it to its full capabilities with every single student; nonetheless, conducting QRIs still used quite a bit of class time. However, when reading Accessible Assessments, I liked some of their ideas about grade-level passages that aligned with their over-all concept of manageable assessments. Since the passages included with the resource would not be appropriate for most older readers, I would suggest trying out some of their ideas with grade-level passages from other resources. 

Overall, the underlying philosophy and beliefs behind Accessible Assessment, as well as the level of deep conversations that it inspires, transcend a wide range of age groups. This post contains a few of my thoughts on how I would utilize the resource with adolescents. While I pointed out some aspects that would need to be adapted for older students, there were many other ideas that would still be appropriate for older readers without adapting. Many aspects would nicely weave into the conferring portion of reading workshop. I am sure that other secondary teachers would also notice the value and would be able to add valuable contributions to an on-going discussion about assessment at the secondary level.

Articles cited:

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518-533.

Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N. T., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S. ... Dunston, P.J. (2007). Assessing adolescents' motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378-396.

Focusing on Assessment: Accessible Assessment

I read Accessible Assessment: How 9 Sensible Techniques Can Power DATA-DRIVEN Reading Instruction in order to consider recommendation for inclusion as a required text for coursework at my university. When I first heard about the text, it captured my attention, seeming like it would be a good fit with the current context of education, including the move toward the Common Core State Standards. It also seemed to recognize the need for assessments that are meaningful and manageable. Furthermore, information I read about the book provided glimpses into the scope of the assessments, ranging from affective, global, and local, an aspect that stood out, knowing that they were not narrowly defining what counts for readers. I knew that I would want to take a close look at this resource because if it was as good as it sounded, it would have so much potential.

The back cover states, "Accessible Assessment isn't like many of today's complex, time-consuming assessment programs. It combines nine informal techniques into a manageable, calendarized framework that makes sense and drives highly targeted, differentiated instruction." Once I started reading, it was easy to see that the back cover provided a very accurate description.

Another asset of the text is the strong underlying layers of support for rich discussions. Not only did the authors outline their ideas and provide rationales for the inclusion, they provided a framework and encouraged discussions for deep reflection and dialogue. They made it clear that they were not simply "selling" their assessment ideas. For example, they stated, "Users of Accessible Assessment need to keep in mind that they can decide from among the nine assessments provided, from among those they currently use, or from research-based sources to design an assessment protocol that addresses affective, global, and local knowledge" (p. xv).

The introductory section frames the rest of the book by explaining their literacy beliefs and discussing four essential questions that they bring up while discussing each of the assessments throughout the text. They also provided a strong rationale for why they think the recommended assessments can have a positive impact on teachers and students, as well as an example of how one teacher could utilize the book, modeling the active participation involved in the assessment process, rather than approaching the resource with a receptive approach.

Following the introduction, the authors detail each of the assessments in a very user-friendly, organized fashion, divided by the three types of assessments (affective, global, and local). For each individual assessment within the three sections, the authors started with their four essential questions that not only scaffold reflective teaching but also provide a rationale for the assessment. Then they provide support materials (when applicable) and clear descriptions of the assessments, as well as suggestions for how to use the data. Each of the instructional implications sections highlighted whole-group instruction, small-group reading, independent reading, and cross-content suggestions. In addition, they provided specific examples of how to make the concepts present in the classroom. The end of each section was one of my favorites - teacher and student self-assessment, yet another layer to support continual development of capacity.

The end of the book includes further explanation of the assessment beliefs that drove their decision making process while creating this resource, drawing from research and experience. The following statement caught my attention, "The beliefs are an out-growth of our combined eighty years of experiences that span teaching and assessing reading in grade levels and content areas from kindergarten through college, and with both novice and veteran teachers," (p. 153).

The more I read, the more I loved it and recognized the value of the resource for a range of scenarios: higher education coursework, mentoring, teaching, summer literacy camps, etc. Though the text is marketed for grades 2-6, many of the assessments would still be relevant for older students. I will write a future post about what I would recommend for 6th-12th grade teachers. Their range of experiences (highlighted in the paragraph above) are very present in the text making it truly beneficial for educators in a variety of positions and at different stages in their careers. I will be recommending the text to the director at the school where I taught the last three years and to my department for inclusion in course(s).

Focusing on Assessment: The Hook Behind the Resources

I started this post intending to write about Accessible Assessment after talking a little bit about a common thread between it and So What Do They Really Know? Yet, I realized that my writing was going in another direction. I still had more to say about just why the types of assessments we use are so vital and as a result, why both of these texts hooked me because of their close alignment to my literacy beliefs.

The current context of education definitely has a sharp focus on data and assessment, yet I am at times worried with the type of assessments that are valued and the decisions that educators make about students based on limited data and/or without considering the full student. I know that at times teachers are not allowed to control some of the decision making process, and depending on the context, they may fall anywhere on a spectrum ranging from feeling like they are treated like a technician to feeling like a professional. Yet, I still have strong beliefs that regardless of where teachers encounter themselves, the more they understand about assessment and data the better, allowing them to carefully analyze expectations and practice in order to improve as a practitioner.

My dissertation in progress is a narrative inquiry, so I have been closely analyzing and considering my personal teaching experiences including both ends of the spectrum. My third year teaching, I was in a context where I mainly taught sixth graders with scripted reading instruction with strict expectations to follow the curriculum with fidelity, leaving little room for implementing other aspects that I highly valued.

At the time I was completing a practicum for my reading endorsement, and revisiting my practicum journal has reminded me just how conflicted I felt. The way that I taught that year clashed with my personal literacy philosophy, yet I did not necessarily feel confident that I "had all the answers". I knew what I would do if given the flexibility, but I also knew that along with that, I would need to have a supportive environment that would allow for space to build capacity over time.

During that year, placements were made primarily on measures of oral reading "fluency" (narrowly defined as speed) and in-program placement tests. I knew the needs of students in my classes were very different, and Marsha Riddle Buly influenced this thought process the summer prior when she taught a course that I attended while on exchange to Mexico. She shared articles* that she had written about findings from a study she and a colleague conducted about the varied needs of students who did not meet state assessments in Washington.

Experiences with one parent in particular stand out from that year - a parent who wanted answers, wanted to know what her child truly needed to grow as a reader. She checked in with me, as well as a couple of school leaders. I did not feel that she received the information she needed to know, a true diagnostic assessment. I was able to notice a lot about her in class, but the program and in-program assessments did not really get at the big picture, and I was told to focus on instruction. However, I knew that diagnostics and instruction were intertwined. This was an area where I would want to continually grow, and I knew that in order to truly understand my students' needs and have the flexibility to adapt instruction to tailor to those needs, I needed to look for a new position.

The few years after I had the opportunity to continually build on my base of knowledge and teach in a way that aligned with all those thoughts of how I would respond to student needs if I was not bound to a scripted program. I became familiar with a wider range of assessments and data, some more helpful than others and some easier than others to manage time-wise.

Based on my experiences, that is why as I read Accessible Assessment and So What Do They Really Know? the authors' assessment philosophies stood out so much. With those thoughts in mind, I think I will be ready to continue on with a look at each of these resources in my next posts.

*References for Riddle Buly articles.
Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.

Valencia, S. W., & Riddle Buly, M. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.

Focusing on Assessment: What Really Matters?

Last week I mentioned that I would be doing a series of posts Focusing on Assessment, including thoughts about two books I just read, Accessible Assessment and So What Do They Really Know? In the next couple of days I will talk about each of these resources separately, but first I wanted to highlight one aspect that stood out right away as I was reading each of the books. Throughout the resources the intentionality behind assessments and the recognition that not all assessments and data are equally helpful for teachers was ever-present. All of the authors advocated for helpful assessments, those assessments that can truly provide teachers with data to inform instruction. 

As an educator, when reading resources, it is essential to see that the authors have an understanding of the current context of teaching and of the demands on teachers' times. The authors of both books did so. The resources were distinct, yet they had that common thread of strong convictions about why assessment is necessary and the types of assessments that they value. Ideas did not represent a narrow definition of assessment, but rather a clear understanding of various factors that teachers must consider in order to really know their students and their needs.