Theme: Adjustment Component #45: Teacher adjusts instruction by demonstrating alternative representations of concepts Strength: Strong Feasibility: Strong One of the main reasons why teachers use formative assessment is so that they can know where students are struggling in order to make the right instructional adjustments, such as reteaching and trying alternative instructional approaches (Boston, 2002). Formative assessment is important in capturing learning difficulties as they occur rather than after the conclusion of the unit. Otero (2006) puts formative assessment into a “inquiry-based teaching” point of view “where a teacher engages in the process of inquiry by collecting data on student prior knowledge with respect to a goal, adjusting instruction as a result, and performing a teaching experiment intended to bridge students’ prior knowledge with academic or intermediate objectives” (p. 255). Leahy, Lyon, Thompson, and Wiliam (2005) distinguish the concept of “assessment for learning” which shifts the focus of instruction as quality control to quality assurance, “adjusting teaching as needed while the learning is still taking place” (p. 18). Leahy et al. draw attention away from what teachers put into the classroom, but rather what students get out of the classroom. Accurately assessing students’ understanding in a critical step before adjusting teaching following formative assessments. Putnam (1987) found in his study examining six elementary grade tutoring sessions with experienced teachers that “experienced teachers did not attempt to form highly detailed models on their students’ knowledge before attempting remedial instruction” (p. 42). Instead, when students made errors, Putnam observed that tutors would guide students in solving the problem at the time and later teach the missing concept or forget and move on. Like Putnam, another tutoring study found among high school students that tutors did not allow students to explore their own errors (McArthur, Staszm, & Zmuidzinas, 1990). The researchers speculate that tutors, like teachers, are also pressured to help students meet benchmark or that they believe exploration may lead to unprofitable confusion. Another possible explanation may be that tutors have difficulty interpreting student cues and relating them to instruction (Kagan & Tippins, 1991). Classrooms, especially heterogeneous ones, can be a more challenging situation than the one-on-one tutoring situations described. When re-teaching, instructors must balance a pace that will not bore advanced students with a pace that will not leave behind other students. Assessing and finding students at different levels, nevertheless, does not mean that the teacher must adjust for all students, but rather the teacher should be weary of general trends that do exist among students (Moon, 2005). Moon adds that the teacher should also be willing to adjust instruction midprocess if evidence suggests a need. However, good intents to adjust can be difficult with as pressures to meet benchmarks influence formative assessment and the decision to reteach. Frohbieter, Greenwald, Stecher, & Schwartz (2011) found that teachers would often move on with lessons to keep pace with school demands even when they are aware of students’ misunderstanding. One way that can help teachers in adjusting teaching or finding different ways of teaching the same problem is to incorporate alternative problem solving methods into textbooks. In a

study comparing math instruction in Beijing, Hong Kong, and London classrooms, Leung (1995) found that Beijing classrooms went over alternative methods of solving the same problem more often than Hong Kong and London classrooms, speculating that this phenomenon occurred because Beijing lessons were taught at a slower pace. Yet despite what seemed to be hurried lessons of Hong Kong and London classrooms, alternative methods that were included in textbooks were still introduced to students. In such a case, the textbooks (which all three places followed closely) can be a powerful tool in helping teachers teach alternative methods of solving the same problem. Overall, this component also has a strong connection to formative assessment. I gave this component a “strong” feasibility rating as there exists studies that examine teachers adjusting instruction based on student performance.

References Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 8(9). Frohbieter, G., Greenwald, E., Stecher, B., & Schwartz, H. (2011). Knowing and Doing: What Teachers Learn from Formative Assessment and How They Use the Information. CRESST Report 802. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute-byminute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 18–24 Leung, F. K. (1995). The mathematics classroom in Beijing, Hong Kong and London. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 297-325. Kagan, D. M., & Tippins, D. J. (1991). Helping student teachers attend to student cues. The Elementary School Journal, 343-356. McArthur, D., Stasz, C., & Zmuidzinas, M. (1990). Tutoring techniques in algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 7(3), 197-244. Otero, V. K. (2006). Moving beyond the “get it or don’t” conception of formative assessment. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 247-255. Putnam, R. T. (1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students: A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1), 13-48.

Good Literature Review (Adequate Research) Number of sources q

≤2

3

Different types of sources (i.e. journal, publication, peer-reviewed) q

≤2

3 Word Count

q ≤ 499 words

500+ words

Adequate level of evidence indicating effectiveness of component (Relevancy) Feasibility of Implementation q No evidence

q Minimal evidence

Strong evidence

q Overwhelming evidence

Applied to a Variety of Subject Areas q No specific subject areas q No evidence

1 subject area

q 2 subject areas

Increases student achievement Minimal q Strong evidence evidence

q 3+ subject areas

q Overwhelming evidence

Helps teacher to understand students’ needs q No evidence

q Minimal evidence Search focused on math

Strong evidence

q Overwhelming evidence