Student work: This focus for staff development leads to genuine collaboration

By Anne C. Lewis

Journal of Staff Development, Fall 1998 (Vol. 19, No. 4)

When teachers in Pennsylvania’s Monaca school district first saw new content standards, "they did what every good teacher would do — put them in a drawer," says principal Kathy Dabrowski.

But then Dabrowski added her own requirement: Teachers at the three elementary schools where she was principal had to turn in weekly lesson plans based on the new standards, along with examples of student work. She followed up by discussing these plans and student work with teachers, asking such questions as, "What are you doing here to get this work to a higher level?"

What’s more, Dabrowski guided the teachers through a process which most had never encountered before: using student work as a basis for collaborative discussions about teaching and learning. This process, which began in the 1995-96 school year, has evolved. Now, Monaca teachers from each grade level spend a half day each month looking at student work together. Staff development experts from the Institute for Learning at the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC) help teachers conduct and focus these discussions.

"What has happened here is tremendous," says Dabrowski. "If you go into any group of teachers and ask, ‘could you be doing your job better?’ you will lose most of them immediately. But if you ask them to look at student work and talk about how it could be better, then teachers become really student focused."

Just a few years ago, it would have been rare to see teachers discussing and comparing student work with colleagues. But, today, thousands of teachers use student work for a variety of purposes — including staff development — that go far beyond simply assembling portfolios.

Three recent events have made this possible:

Researchers say there is little hard evidence yet that collaborative assessment leads to higher student achievement. But there is encouraging anecdotal evidence that it makes a positive difference, especially in professional development. For example, researchers studying New York state’s efforts to develop performance assessments through the scoring of student work say teachers felt the exercise gave them a variety of learning experiences. "Looking closely at student work in collaboration with colleagues helped teachers learn about standards, their disciplines, their students, and teaching," reported Beverly Falk and Suzanna Ort of Teachers College at Columbia University.

Elsewhere, Lauren Resnick, the director of Pittsburgh’s LRDC, has said that when professional development centers on discussions of standards and student work, teachers of low-performing students in districts using new standards are able to "move these kids off the bottom."

Beyond the portfolio

Teachers have always examined student work, of course. But they’ve almost always done it alone, for the purpose of grading an individual’s work. The practice of teachers sharing and discussing student work with fellow teachers, however, has become more common with the growing use of portfolios as an alternative or supplemental assessment tool. A decade ago, a small number of academics began advocating the practice as a way of getting teachers in touch with how students learn. Primary influences include the archival project of student work collected by the Prospect School in Vermont, and Harvard Project Zero, a research group co-directed by Howard Gardner and David Perkins at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

In 1994, the federal Title I program began requiring that disadvantaged students receiving Title I services be held to the same standards as all other students. Since then, every state has developed new standards setting forth what students should accomplish. In addition, many school districts are developing standards and assessment systems on their own. No matter what sort of standards are adopted, however, student work has become a gauge of whether those expectations are being met in the classroom.

Since few teachers are actually involved in developing standards, the rest "are not going to learn this stuff by reading books of standards," says Katherine Nolan, a consultant who helped write the New Standards, a comprehensive set of performance standards for five subject areas. These standards have so far been adopted by 25 states and 50 districts, including Monaca. Only when teachers come together to discuss standards and what high-quality work looks like can that knowledge get out of teachers’ heads and into discussions with colleagues, Nolan says.

Examination of student work is used for a variety of purposes: to hold schools responsible for student performance; to help create standards and help teachers understand them; or simply to help teachers think about their teaching and learn more about their students. For example, student work was used as a tool by the LRDC and the National Center on Education and the Economy in Washington, D.C., to formulate proficiency exams for the New Standards. In Kentucky, professional development activities centered on student work are helping teachers understand the differences among levels on the state’s assessment tests (novice, apprentice, proficient, and advanced).

Other reform organizations – including the Coalition of Essential Schools and the Education Trust’s K-16 Compact – are using student work in schools they consult with to upgrade teaching. At monthly meetings during the academic year, Project Zero holds discussions of student work using the "Collaborative Assessment Conference" developed by Project Zero research associate Steve Seidel. The meetings regularly draw 30 to 40 teachers, administrators, and other interested educators from New England who come to engage in thoughtful conversations about teaching and learning through looking at student work.

How to do it

Though the phenomenon of analyzing student work to promote change in classroom practice is spreading quickly, it’s still an elusive idea. No commercial entity has boxed the process into an easy, over-the-counter set of directions. No one proponent or strategy yet dominates, although two approaches have emerged as the most common.

The first approach is illustrated by "Standards-Based Professional Development: Getting Standards into the Classroom" developed by the Education Trust. (See "A Tool by the Education Trust" on page 25). This approach assumes standards are in place, and that the task is to make sure student work reflects them.

The other approach is exemplified by the Collaborative Assessment Conference developed by Project Zero (See "A Tool by Harvard Project Zero" above). This approach seeks to emphasize what teachers can learn by examining student work before it’s judged. According to Seidel, such discussions can lead teachers to look beyond their assignments, and to recognize students’ creativity whether or not it is directly related to an assignment.

Despite the philosophical difference between these two approaches, they share some common traits when it comes to the actual process of looking at student work. Often, a trained facilitator leads a group of teachers through a step-by-step format, usually called a "protocol." Discussions may involve scoring work according to a specifically defined set of rubrics (descriptions that define different levels of quality from worst to best). But discussions also can focus on the quality of the assignments themselves. Much of the professional development now directed by the Education Trust, for example, is focused on designing good assignments; teachers often begin by doing their assignments themselves. Essentially, contends Ruth Mitchell, an assessment expert who works with the Education Trust, examining student work "is a strategy to look at teachers’ work." Students can do no better than the assignments they are given, she contends. And if a teacher’s assignment is divorced from standards, it becomes a "pointless exercise for students."

Crucial ingredients

For many educators and schools, the hardest part of collaborative assessment may be getting started. Most experts say the process takes a high level of trust among staff. In the "Tuning Protocol" developed by the Coalition of Essential Schools, for example, discussions are carefully designed to keep conversations focused on student work and away from personal criticisms. Its structure gives equal attention to feedback that is "warm" (supportive) and "cool" (more distanced).

To break the ice, Katherine Nolan brings her own personal collection of student work to discussions. "If you use work too close to teachers at first, they will shut down. You have to be neutral," she says. Once teachers begin to share ideas, they can move toward bringing work from their own classrooms. Then she can push them to ask, "Can our kids do any better than this?" and can help them build exemplars of student work from across their district.

As Nolan’s example shows, another crucial ingredient is the presence of an objective third party. Most schools trying to focus on student work rely on outside experts and/or outside funding to help them develop teachers’ capacity to analyze student work and make changes in their teaching based on that analysis. Steve Seidel at Project Zero says his effort to develop conversations based on student work in Massachusetts began with university consultants who spent 15 to 20 days a year in a school — a model he says is too expensive to sustain. The project is now working with "district coaches," staff members from the district who serve as resources for the teachers, he says.

Even if the expertise, time, and trust needed to stimulate group conversations around student work are present, there’s still the problem of whether teachers can understand what the process can teach them. Researchers who studied the process in which teachers wrote new standards for the North Philadelphia effort of the Education Trust found that the process "was frustrating to those without a strong background of content knowledge and a wealth of teaching techniques." Similarly, when the Philadelphia school district sought to help teachers develop units of study based on standards, school officials learned that many teachers lacked theoretical knowledge about teaching and learning. For 1997-98, teachers were given curriculum frameworks based on the district’s standards, and summer and school-year workshops were scheduled to help teachers integrate standards in their disciplines, one by one, using student work as the guide. It will take four years to cover all the standards, according to Nolan, who is working with the district.

Such barriers will have to be overcome if standards-based reform is to take hold, according to the LRDC’s Lauren Resnick. Raising standards will become the personal goal of teachers and students, she says, "only if a concerted effort is made to engage teachers and students in a massive and continuing conversation about what students should learn, what kinds of work they should do, and how well they should be expected to do it."

References

Allen, D. (1995). Tuning protocol: A process for reflection. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Blythe, T., (in press) A guide to looking collaboratively at student work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cushman, K. (1996). Looking collaboratively at student work: An essential tool kit. Horace 13,(2). Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.

Falk, B., & Ort, S. (1997). Sitting down to score: Teacher learning through assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Teaching. Available from the National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching at Teachers College, Box 110, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; 212-678-3432.

Lopez, R. et al. (1998). Get rolling! Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Mitchell, R. (1996). Front end alignment. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Seidel, S., Walters, J., Kirby, E., Olff, N., Powell, K., Scripp, L., & Veenema, S. (1997). Portfolio practices: Thinking through the assessment of children’s work. Washington, DC: National Education Association (NEA Restructuring Series).

About the Author

Anne C. Lewis is an education policy writer in the Washington, D.C., area. She has been a national columnist for Phi Delta Kappan for 15 years. She can be reached at 30 Wellesley Circle, Glen Echo, MD 20812, (301) 229-2521, fax (301) 229-2914, e-mail: aclewis@crosslink.net.

(A version of this article first appeared in the March/April 1998 edition of the Harvard Education Letter. Used by permission.)

 

A tool by the Education Trust

This tool was developed by the Education Trust, with funding from the U.S. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

These guidelines stress the importance of keeping standards in mind when choosing or adapting an assignment. This process should take about 90 to 120 minutes.

The following model is for teachers who are in a process of aligning classroom work with standards. Although it includes designing a scoring guide, the model is not primarily concerned with assigning scores to student work. It uses scoring as a tool to focus attention on the quality of classroom assignments and their direct connection with standards. If carefully followed, the model will result in rigorous assignments and scoring guides that will enable students to recognize and reach for high standards.

1. We all complete the assignment.

2. We identify the standards that apply to this assignment.

3. We generate a rough scoring guide from the standards and the assignment.

4. We score the student work, using the guide.

5. We ask: Will this work meet the standards? If not, what are we going to do about it?

6. What action can we plan at the classroom, school, district, and state levels so that all students meet the standards on assignments like this?

The Education Trust is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting high-quality academic achievement for students at all levels, with special emphasis on schools and colleges serving low-income and minority students. For more information, contact Ruth Mitchell, Education Trust, 1725 K Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 293-1217, fax (202) 293-2605, e-mail: rmitchell@edtrust.org, web site: www.edtrust.org.

 

A tool by Harvard Project Zero

This protocol was developed by Steve Seidel and his colleagues at Harvard Project Zero.

This Collaborative Assessment Conference brings teachers together to talk about student work. The protocol is based on the notion that students are often working on problems or exploring interests beyond the parameters of a given assignment. This process should take about 45 to 60 minutes.

The purpose of this practice is to provide opportunities for teachers to examine and discuss pieces of student work in a nonjudgmental, structured conversation. It is designed to facilitate discussion in small groups. Through these conversations, participants can learn from the various perspectives and expertise of their colleagues, raise questions about the student and his/her work, see that student work is a reflection of the child and the learning environment, and use this opportunity to reflect on ways to improve learning environments for groups of children as well as the individual child.

1. Getting started. The group chooses a facilitator to guide participants through each phase of the conference. The presenting teacher shares copies of the selected work, without making comments about the work or the assignment.

2. Describing the work. The group describes any aspect of the work they notice. They do not make judgments about the quality of the work or their personal preferences.

3. Raising questions. The group asks questions about the child, the assignment, the curriculum, or any other area. The presenting teacher takes notes but does not respond.

4. Speculating about what the student is working on. The group "guesses" about what the child was working on when he/she created the piece. This could include ways the student was trying to fulfill the assignment, skills the child was trying to master, questions the child was trying to answer, or ideas he/she was trying to express.

5. The "presenting teacher" speaks. The presenting teacher now adds her perspective on each of the previous phases of the conference. She provides her own perspective on the students’ work and responds to questions or issues raised by the group.

6. Implications for teaching and learning. Everyone is invited to share any thoughts that have been stimulated by the examination of the student work. These could include thoughts about their own teaching, student learning, or ways to support a particular child in reaching his/her goals.

7. Final reflection. At this time, participants have an opportunity to reflect on the process of their own thinking during the conference.

Harvard Project Zero, a 30-year-old research group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, works with individuals, schools, and other institutions to help create communities of reflective, independent learners; to enhance deep understanding within disciplines; and to promote critical and creative thinking. For more information, contact Sara Hendren, Harvard Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 321 Longfellow Hall, 13 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138, (617) 495-4342, fax (617) 495-9709, e-mail: info@pz.harvard.edu, web site: http://pzweb.harvard.edu

Click for NSDC Home Page