Additional Infomation
Información adicional
Informative assessments for classroom instruction. There are two fundamental ways to assess students: formative and summative. The two options determine a student's strengths, abilities, and potential (Karnes & Stephens, 2008). As noted in the reading, the role of formative assessment appears to be a spur-of-the-moment decision, however, the questions are planned and well thought-out.
Generally, assessments are used so teachers can adjust the learning direction and or speed of instruction to better fit the student(s). The formative assessment is an ideal tool used either before, during and after a lesson. If an assessment is taken before teaching, they are exemplified in observation, performance-based task, anecdotal notes and or by a question-and-answer session. If the formative assessment is made after a lesson, at the end of instruction, it can be achieved by providing a written prompt such as an exit ticket.
For example, if the teacher was to use the Concept Development Model by Hilda Taba (1966), students could equally contribute what they know and understand throughout the lesson (Stiggins, 2002). Since the Taba model encourages students to exhibit critical thinking skills by allowing them to categorize, develop, extend and refine concepts, the formative assessment is a good way to ensure student understanding.
The second manner is the summative assessment which is generally done after a teacher has taught an entire lesson and now wants to revisit and highlight key points or concepts without having to teach the lesson for a second time. For example, the teacher completes a lesson of units one thru five and then test the entire lesson. The post learned assessment is taken at the end of a unit. Some examples are the benchmark test, end of grade tests or unit end projects (Burke, 2010; Karnes & Stephens, 2008).
Formative Assessment in Differentiation
Differentiation allows the teacher to enhance the quality of instruction by responding to student's varied interest, learning style and readiness to learn. It may mean the teacher delivers the same lesson at varying levels of difficulty or the same material with different types of instruction. The academic responsiveness to instruction encourages a functional mixed-ability classroom based on clear goals and activities where students on different levels are equally engaged. The role of a formative assessments used in a differentiated class is when the teacher intentionally creates a challenge or risk-taking situation to observe critical thinking skills in action.
Above-Level Testing Option
The value of above-level testing is to assess how far the student has mastered the material beyond their grade level. For example, imagine a student is at a buffet. How much food a student can/wants to eat versus how much food they ate on the one plate are two different measurements. The potential or capacity to consume as much food - in this case, knowledge is the test above level. Above level tests reveals how much "food," the student can consume given the exposure to the material. On standard test, students can appear the same but to determine what they already know and how far they have mastered the skill beyond their grade level can be challenging (https://tip.duke.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/files/jtf-above-level-testing.pdf).
Growth Models
The importance of growth models is to determine the student's yearly achievement by providing an accountability system. The interest of growth models lies in those students who display a mastery of grade-level and are above proficiency based on previous scores. The old scores are what is used to create predicted scores for a given year. The growth models were initially reauthorized in 1965 by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and again in 2001, as a byproduct of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Ryser, & Rambo-Hernandez, 2014).
Why different types of assessment.
Rational. AIG students vary in talents, strengths, and abilities; therefore, one method should not be used to measure the academic growth of a student. Assessments have a way of acting as a magnifying glass, providing a closer look at the student's situation (Stiggins, 2002).
The various assessments allow for a more accurate or holistic approach that can capture what the student understood and or perhaps suggest the student's academic potential. The creative process of producing multiple assessments helps to inform teachers about themselves of any strong or weak areas of AIG instruction thought of as deficient or complete. For example, as a teacher conjures a question, or creates a written-response question, in the process s/he can reflect on whether or not the material taught has been appropriately covered.
Response to Intervention
A rationale for using Response to Intervention (RtI) with gifted students is to help the student succeed in a skill or area, especially if they have the desire to learn and the teacher sees potential in the student. The interventions are a set of teaching procedures that resembles a pyramid that shows the risk of proficiency should a student decide to exhibit above grade level. The interventions (Tier1, 2 and 3) are compatible with gifted students because they strategically help the teacher decide based on how well the student responded to the before and after the test. The tests reveal strong and weak areas to improve upon so that the student can excel/reach the academic growth (Brown, 2012).
Reference
Above-Level Testing is an Important Tool for Assessing the Educational Needs of Academically
Talented Students. (2019). Retrieved from
https://tip.duke.edu/sites/default/files/atoms/files/jtf-above- level-testing.pdf
Brown, E. (2012, February). Is response to intervention and gifted assessment compatible?
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 103-116. Retrieved from https://sakai.duke.edu
Burke, K. (2010). The balanced assessment model: When formative meets summative. In
balanced assessment: Formative to summative, (pp. 19 - 26). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Retrieved from https://sakai.duke.edu
Karnes, F. A. & Stephens, K.R. (2008). Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and
talented. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
North Carolina Academically and Intellectually Gifted Program Standards. (2018). Retrieved
from https://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/advancedlearning/aig/ncaig-program-
standards.pdf
Ryser, G. & Rambo-Hernandez, K. E. (2014, January). Using growth models to measure school
performance: Implications for gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 17-23. Retrieved from https://sakai.duke.edu
Stiggins R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Kappan, 83
(10), 758-765. Retrieved from https://sakai.duke.edu