Teams

By Richard J. Stiggins
Journal of Staff Development, Summer 1999 (Vol. 20, No. 3)

Teachers will be expected to be far more assessment literate in the future than they are today.

Virtually every set of standards of teacher competence – including those developed by the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards – expects teachers to be competent in assessment.

Half the states require teachers to attain specific competence standards in assessment or complete assessment course work during their certification preparation. This is up sharply from previous surveys.

And, lest we think teachers can turn to their building principals to lead this effort, only three of the 50 states require assessment competence for principal certification (Trevesian, 1999).

Teachers can spend a third of their professional time involved in assessment related activities (Herman & Dorr-Bremme, 1982; Crooks, 1988; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992). To be successful, they must be assessment literate. Yet few were taught to meet standards of good practice during their undergraduate or graduate-level training (Schafer & Lissitz, 1987, Stiggins & Conklin, 1992).

This dimension of professional growth can be handled efficiently, flexibly, and effectively by using learning teams, in which teachers and administrators take joint responsibility for developing their collective assessment literacy. Thus it represents both a critically important professional development context and an example of the power of teamwork.

Teachers and administrators who are assessment literate understand the difference between sound and unsound practices in assessment, evaluation, and communication. Those who are assessment literate:

• Understand what assessment methods to use, and when to use them in order to gather dependable information about student achievement;
• Communicate assessment results effectively to all intended users – including principals, other teachers, parents and students – whether using report card grades, test scores, portfolios, or conferences; and
• Understand how to use assessment to maximize student motivation and learning by involving students as full partners in assessment, record-keeping, and communication.
• Evaluating the professional development options

What kinds of adult learning environments and experiences are most likely to help teachers and administrators learn to design, develop, and implement quality classroom assessments? Whatever approaches we employ must meet professional development standards of excellence. That means they must provide:

• An infusion of new classroom assessment ideas, specific things competent assessors need to know and do to maximize the quality and impact of classroom assessments;
• Opportunities to practice applying the principles of sound assessment, providing teachers with the chance to make newly-acquired assessment ideas and strategies come alive in their own classrooms;
• Assessment tactics that deliver concrete benefits almost immediately to teachers and their students to provide positive motivation to continue learning;
• Ways for educators to take responsibility for their own training, honoring their professionalism in the pursuit of excellence in assessment;
• Flexibility to adjust to individual learning styles, training schedules, and paces of professional development;
• Opportunities for collaborative learning and collegial support groups, because adults learn most effectively when sharing the lessons they have learned; and
• Efficiency of learning, minimizing the time and energy practitioners must invest to derive maximum benefit.

There are three ways to conduct local professional development: workshops, learning teams, and individual study. Given the above standards, an assessment literacy development strategy should rely on a combination of these elements in these proportions:

• 10 percent in workshops. It’s hard to convey depth of understanding in workshops, but they can be used to convey information about what options are available, and to generate excitement about the potential of assessment literacy;
• 65 percent in individual study, classroom experimentation, and reflection on "what works in my classroom;" and
• 25 percent in learning team meetings, sharing lessons learned in the classroom and learning from each other.

Workshops introduce educators to the importance of being assessment literate. They can reveal the potential benefits of adopting new classroom assessment strategies. Further, workshops can encourage the formation of learning teams.

But taken alone, workshops fall short of meeting the professional development standards listed previously, because they cannot help teachers attain the depth of understanding they need to meet emerging assessment responsibilities. Assessment literacy requires practice in the classroom. Experimentation is critical to fitting new ideas into daily reality.

Experts and consultants can offer motivational workshops to energize a faculty into wanting to become assessment literate. But each individual educator must take responsibility for getting there.

An assessment literacy development plan needs to rely heavily on teacher (and administrator) learning teams as the basis of interaction and growth. Each team is a group of three to seven teachers and administrators which agrees to meet regularly to manage and promote professional development.

Teams begin by carefully evaluating each member’s current level of assessment literacy. Then, the team schedules subsequent meetings to study together and fill the gaps in assessment literacy uncovered by the evaluations. The team’s goal is to help all members become as assessment literate as possible through individual study between team meetings.

Between team meetings, each team member completes assignments designed to advance the team’s collective knowledge and skills in classroom assessment. These assignments might be the same for all team members. For example, they might read and reflect on the same pieces of professional literature or try the same assessment strategy, bringing the lessons learned from that experience to share in the group meeting. Or team members might complete different assignments, learning different lessons, so meeting time can be used to "jigsaw" or share a variety of insights for the benefit of all.

This is where most of the personal professional growth takes place. It involves:

• Thinking about the classroom assessment challenge;
• Taking time to read about and reflect upon new assessment ideas;
• Shaping new ideas into applications that make sense in classrooms;
• Experimenting with those applications, trying strategies, observing effects, interacting with students, and drawing inferences about what works and what doesn’t; and
• Collecting thoughts, reactions and conclusions into some summary form to share with the learning team at the next meeting.

To begin with, the value of being assessment literate must be fixed in the minds of all educators. Then, interested teachers and administrators must be given the resources and opportunity for teachers and administrators to independently, and as a group, become assessment literate.

To stimulate interest within a faculty and staff, a leadership group might offer a one-hour overview workshop on the importance of high-quality classroom assessment. This kind of introductory session might culminate with the announcement that classroom assessment learning teams or study groups will be formed for all interested teachers and administrators.

Learning teams can be configured in a variety of ways. Groups might be formed among faculty members and administrators within one building, or on the basis of grade level (within or across levels) or discipline (math, science, arts, etc.). Principals and vice-principals from various buildings might assemble to create a team to provide building-level leadership.

Some school districts have found it prudent to also set up a "leadership study team" of a few key teachers and administrators from across the organization. This team’s mission might include:

• Experiencing the learning team process in order to share it with others;
• Developing high levels of assessment literacy in order to lead others in their learning;
• Devising a plan for forming and supporting multiple learning teams within the district; and
• Conducting an ongoing evaluation of the professional development effort to discern its impact.

Other districts encourage teams to form and start at their convenience, pacing their work in a manner consistent with team members’ schedules. Educators are encouraged, but never coerced, to join teams. The flexibility of this professional development process is clear.

Regardless of the form that team-building takes, members who complete an initial learning team experience can spark the creation of new teams, by fanning out and leading teams that involve others. Then, those participants might do the same, and so on, building a professional development pyramid. As time passes, those not involved at the outset will begin to see others around them managing assessment with renewed confidence, and interest in teams will grow.

To advance their assessment literacy, team members might select from among relevant materials on assessment literacy, plan a series of assignments, and meet regularly to share lessons and insights. One excellent way to start is to make a basic assessment text the initial focus of learning team study. With this foundation, specific discipline-based applications then become high priorities.

Whatever the topic or reference the team decides to center on, team members must understand that these are not merely books to be read and discussed. A learning team is not a book club. Rather, these are books to be read, reflected upon, worked through, experimented with, discussed, and culled for ideas that work in each teacher’s individual classroom learning environment. They contain no prescriptions, only possibilities from which teachers choose pieces of clay to be molded to fit each individual teacher’s needs.

This is why individual study, classroom experimentation, and reflection between learning team meetings are so time-intensive.

Team meetings are for sharing lessons learned in the classroom assessment process, not lessons learned from reading the book. It is a time to share successes, to discuss strategies that worked and why. It’s also time to share difficulties members may have experienced, to figure out why problems arose, and to find solutions.

The learning team method of professional development takes advantage of four factors that can encourage participation. It offers individual study for participants who have an interest in experimenting on their own (with minimum risk of embarrassment if things go wrong!), as well as collaborative study for those who like to work together to share experiences and lessons learned. Learning teams also provide training when members feel it is an appropriate part of their overall professional development plan. Finally, learning teams offer time to concentrate on one important topic long enough to internalize some new and useful ideas.

For many educators, this will be enough incentive to encourage participation. But in addition, the learning team experience can be connected very easily to release time, contract extensions, or university credit.

Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.

Gullickson, A. (1984). Matching teacher training with teacher needs in testing. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Herman, J. & Dorr-Bremme, D. (1982). Assessing students: Teachers routine practices and reasoning. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Noll, V. H. (1955). Requirements in educational measurement for prospective teachers. School and Society, 80, 88-91.

O’Sullivan, R. & Chalnick, M. (1991). Measurement-related course work requirements for teacher certification and re-certification. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(2), 17-19, 23.

Roeder, H. H. (1972). Are today’s teachers prepared to use tests? Peabody Journal of Education, 59, 239-240.

Schafer, W.D. & Lissitz, R. W. (1987). Measurement training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 57-63.

Stiggins, R. (1997). Student-centered classroom assessment. (2nd ed.) Columbus OH: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.

Stiggins, R. & Conklin, N. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practice of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Trevisan, M. (1999). Administrator certification requirement for student assessment competence. Applied Measurement in Education,12(1): 1-11.

Wise, A.E. (Ed.). (1996). Quality teaching for the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 190-224.

Wolmut, P. (1988). On the matter of testing misinformation. A paper presented at the SRA, Inc., Invitational Conference, Phoenix, AZ.

Student-Centered Classroom Assessment (2nd Ed) by R.J. Stiggins. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1997. Distributed by the Assessment Training Institute.

Assessment, motivation

Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform by M. Covington. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. (914) 937-9600.

Punished by Rewards by A. Kohn. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.

(800) 225-3362.

Changing the View: Student-Led Conferences by T. Austin. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1994. (800) 541-2086.

Together Is Better: Collaborative Assessment, Evaluation & Reporting by A. Davies, C. Cameron, C. Politano, and K Gregory. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Peguis, 1992. Distributed by Classroom Connections International. (800) 603-9888.

Mathematics Assessment: Myths, Models, Good Questions and Practical Suggestions by J. K. Stenmark. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1991. (800) 235-7566.

Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, edited by S. Valencia, E.H. Hiebert, and P. Afflerbach. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1994. (800) 336-READ.

Science assessment

Assessing Hands-On Science by J. Brown and R. Shavelson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin, 1996. (805) 499-9774.

Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction (2nd Ed.) by V. Spandel and R. Stiggins. New York: Addison-Wesley/Longman, 1997. (800) 822-6339.

Richard Stiggins is founder of the Assessment Training Institute. He can be reached at 50 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 300, Portland OR 97204, (503) 228-3060, fax (503) 228-3014, e-mail: ati@assessmentinst.com.

Kris Teller (not her real name) is a new teacher-just graduated from a "master of arts in teaching" program in secondary education. She was an environmental science major as an undergraduate and is just starting to teach middle school science.