Learning Progressions in K-8 Classrooms: How Progress Maps Can Influence Classroom Practice and Perceptions and Help Teachers Make More Informed Instructional Decisions in Support of Struggling LearnersSynthesis Report 87Karin K. Hess January 2012 All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as: Hess, K. K. (2012). Learning progressions in K-8 classrooms: How progress maps can influence classroom practice and perceptions and help teachers make more informed instructional decisions in support of struggling learners (Synthesis Report 87). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Executive SummaryThis report describes perceptions and practices of Hawai’i teachers using progress maps (learning progressions) to inform their understanding of how struggling learners progress during the school year in language arts or mathematics. Participants included (K-8) elementary and middle school teachers from six Hawai’i public schools. Each teacher selected five students in his or her classroom to document progress and collect work samples from at least two quarters during the 2010-2011 school year; several of these students were ones who might have been eligible for and participated in an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) if Hawai’i had developed one. Multiple data collection tools and processes were developed for use in this project and are described in the report. This project was part of the work that Hawai’i engaged in as part of the Multi-State GSEG Toward a Defensible AA-MAS. The project used progress maps initially developed through the Tri-State (Georgia, Hawai’i, and Kentucky) Enhanced Assessment Grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education (Grant #S368A060005). Data from this project were used to analyze and document how having an underlying learning progression schema might influence teachers’ implementation of strategies to support struggling learners, with a specific focus on: (a) formative assessment practices and lesson planning; (b) progress monitoring; and (c) collaborative student work analysis. Eight findings from the year-long effort addressed (a) teachers’ reflections on practice (instruction, assessment, and instructional decisions), (b) teachers’ perceptions on learners and learning pathways, (c) facilitated collaboration sessions), and (d) unanticipated activities. This report addresses each of those, as well as the implications of the project for professional development support. Top of Page | Table of Contents IntroductionCurrently there is little existing research to help educators understand how the lowest performing students at each grade level can best learn increasingly more complex concepts and skills in each content domain. Therefore, there is a critical need for new thinking that explicitly describes the best instructional practices, high-quality resources, and effective professional development strategies for meeting the goal of teaching academic content to students with a variety of unique learning challenges. While both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2000 (NCLB) and The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) require that all students have access to grade-level general education curriculum, there tends to be a lack of targeted support for special education teachers to acquire deep content knowledge in order to meet that goal. Both deep content knowledge and a repertoire of instructional skills are essential to teachers when one considers the diverse needs of learners. In the past, educators have tended to rely on generic supplemental instructional resources, remediation when students fall behind, or adapting instructional materials on a day-to-day basis to meet the needs of their students. These approaches fall short of having a comprehensive and systemic solution. Corcoran, Mosher, and Rogat (2009) present a case for addressing this void with the use of learning progressions:
The focus of the Hawai`i Progress Maps project was on instructional practices and supports for all at-risk students, including students who would be eligible for an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) - also called the “2% assessment.” In this regard, a research study was proposed to examine how collaboration between general education and special education teachers, integrated with the use of Hawai’i Progress Maps (learning progressions) in language arts and mathematics could help to better meet the instructional needs of struggling learners. The student population included, but was not limited to, those students who would be eligible to take an AA-MAS. In light of emerging literature about the potential of learning progressions to improve teaching and learning for all students in science, mathematics, and language arts (Biggam & Itterly, 2008; Confrey, 2011; Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009; Hess, 2008, 2010, 2011; Hill, 2001; Masters & Forster, 1996; NRC, 2001; NRC, 2007; Pinnell & Fountas, 2007; Wilson, 2009), a study was proposed to focus on the implementation and use of Hawai’i Progress Maps developed and refined during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years. Teachers who were involved during the initial development phase (2007-2008), as well as educators involved in field testing the progress maps (2008-2009) were invited to participate. Inclusion of some educators knowledgeable in the purpose and use of progress maps was important because both general education and special teachers would be recruited for the study, and having some teachers with prior background knowledge of both the academic content of the Hawai`i benchmarks and progress maps and of processes for using them as tools for examining student learning would be very beneficial. Ideally, teams of teachers working in the same schools were to be recruited (e.g., a special education teacher working with a classroom teacher to support the same students at a particular grade level or grade level teams working with the same content across multiple classrooms). Throughout the study, educators were asked to expand their content knowledge and teaching skills and to document and reflect upon information related to the use of progress maps in language arts or mathematics. This included processes for collegial collaboration in setting expectations for learning and analyzing student work, instructional planning using the learning continuum described in the progress maps, and use of formative assessment strategies and tools to make instructional decisions. Professional development sessions would be planned to provide ongoing guidance to participating teachers in the use of strategies for formative assessment, instruction, collaboration, and data analysis. Top of Page | Table of Contents Progress Maps and Learning ProgressionsLearning progressions, progress maps, developmental continuums, and learning trajectories are all terms that have been used in the literature over the past decade to generally mean research-based, descriptive continuums of how students develop and demonstrate deeper, broader, and more sophisticated understanding over time. A learning progression can visually and verbally articulate an hypothesis about how learning will typically move toward increased understanding for most students. There is currently a growing body of knowledge surrounding their purposes and use, as well as ongoing research in identifying and empirically validating content-specific learning progressions (Hess, 2010a). A conceptual view of learning progressions (Hess, 2008) is one of overlapping learning zones along a continuum of learning. At the lower end of the progression are “novice” performers (at any grade level), who may (or may not) demonstrate the necessary prerequisite skills or understanding that is needed to be successful (e.g., essential skills/concepts that can be built upon over time). At the other end of the continuum are “expert” performers. Learning progressions descriptors help to “unpack” how learning might unfold for most students over time, moving from novice to expert performance (see Figure 1 below). Figure 1. Conceptual View of Learning Progressions In Figure 1, the Zone of Proximal Development/ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) is the range of actual to potential learning each person demonstrates at any given time. A conceptual view of learning progressions (Hess, 2008) is one of overlapping learning zones along a continuum of learning.
In other words, long-term memory is not about a collection of skills and knowledge, but connections among skills and knowledge built upon over time. In this report the terms “learning progressions” and “progress maps” are used interchangeably to describe what within-year progress might look like for most students. Given that the project asked teachers to pay close attention to and document how their struggling learners progressed during the school year within the general education curriculum, there was an expectation that the progress of these students might not be “typical” and analyzing teacher observations and a collection of student work might provide insights into the actual progress made. Top of Page | Table of Contents Staffing for the Progress Maps ProjectStrand 1 Activities focused on identifying and tracking the progress of five (5) struggling learners. Teachers documented which tools, processes, and strategies for assessment and instruction seemed to be working effectively for these students. Karin Hess, Senior Associate at the Center for Assessment, Dover, NH, designed the study with the Hawai’i Department of Education and National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) advisors, developed the data collection tools, met with teachers several times to conduct focus groups, interviewed school leaders and teachers, conducted classroom observations, oversaw the ongoing collection of student work samples, and guided the data analysis activities with teachers at the end of the project. Jeri Thompson and Pam Paek, also with the Center for Assessment, supported these project activities. Strand 2 Activities provided several days of professional development to project teachers, guiding their use of the Hawai’i Content and Performance Standards planning model in using student work analysis protocols and lesson and assessment planning. Valerie Kurizaki coordinated the planning and delivery of these activities with the help of three Hawai’i-based professional development providers: Mary Frances Higuchi, Lisa Leong, and Tricia Tamayose-Okamura. Hawai’i Department of Education staff were the essential glue who held this complex project together: recruiting and monitoring teacher involvement, organizing meetings and on-site school visits, acting as liaisons with school leaders, facilitating collection of data, and providing valuable trouble shooting and assistance throughout the school year. Maxine Nagamine, State Educational Specialist, Special Education Services Branch, and Milton Ching, Resource Teacher, Curriculum and Instruction Branch, played an integral role in the success of the project.
Top of Page | Table of Contents Methodology, Questions for Inquiry, and TimelinesWhat Was the Purpose of the Project?This project was designed to examine how the use of Hawai’i Progress Maps in language arts and mathematics (K-8) and collaboration among general education and special education teachers can help better meet the instructional needs of struggling learners. The progress maps used in this study were developed specifically to “unpack” how students in Hawai’i would achieve the Hawai’i benchmarks (grade level expectations of the Hawai’i standards). While care is needed in interpreting the project outcomes as representative of all teachers (in Hawai’i or elsewhere), the results of the study have some potential to be generalized to other locations and contexts in terms of how using an underlying learning progressions schema might influence teacher collaboration practices and instructional decisions in support of all learners. In other words, the results of this project could open the door to new research questions in this area, including school-based action research that seeks to better understand how learning develops. What Questions Did the Project Try to Answer?The purpose of inquiry within qualitative research is in understanding the world from the point of view of those who live in it. Our general approach to this project was that of constructivist research, borrowing the term from Guba and Lincoln (1994), who identify their qualitative research work as constructivist. The term references the acknowledgement of the social construction of knowledge. Constructivist researchers are interested in the co-construction of knowledge between researcher and researched, and thus this project approached the analysis and interpretation of data collaboratively with the teacher participants in order to make sense of how learning progressions could influence their day-to-day practice. Self-reporting surveys, interviews, and focus groups were several means used to invite teacher participants to provide their reflections on the effectiveness of the tools and protocols employed. The learning progressions project began with two broad questions which were later refined in order to develop specific data collection tools and protocols. The initial questions were framed in this way:
Revised Questions for Inquiry (with sub-questions for possible exploration during data collection, interviews, or data analyses - not all questions will be fully discussed in findings). 1. In what ways are progress maps currently being interpreted and used by Hawai’i teachers, K-8?
2. How does the use of progress maps impact understanding of how to teach the content and use assessment tools and assessment evidence in instructional planning?
3. How does the use of progress maps impact teacher expectations and instructional decision making specifically for struggling learners?
4. What contextual factors support or hinder the use of progress maps to meet the needs of struggling learners?
Who Participated in the Project and What Were They Asked to Do?Staff of the Hawai’i Department of Education made on-site school visits to recruit general and special education teachers and encouraged teams of teachers from the same schools to participate in the project. Classroom teachers working directly with a special education teacher and teachers with prior involvement or knowledge of the Hawai’i Progress Maps development or field testing were given priority. In the end, prior developers and field testers of the progress maps only made up about 40% of the total participants. Prior knowledge of the progress maps did not seem to hinder teachers’ ability to understand and use the progress maps in the project, in part because the initial training session provided extensive background information on their development, purpose, and use. The resulting teacher teams ranged from as small as two teachers at one grade level in a school, to teams that included all of the teachers (17) in the school’s mathematics department for grades 6, 7, and 8. There were four school teams of six or fewer teachers and three school teams of seven or more. Only one school had both a mathematics and language arts team involved in the project. Three special education teachers participated “officially” in the project, while other special educators working in schools with the participating teachers were engaged in many of the school-based activities in support of students. A few special education teachers even participated in the focus group interviews with project teachers they worked with because of their informal involvement. Forty-eight teachers began the project: thirty mathematics teachers and 18 language arts teachers. Two language arts teachers were unable to finish, but did participate for most of the school year. All teachers received a stipend for their participation in the project. For the purpose of further explaining the roles and responsibilities of participants, two parallel “strands” describe activities facilitated by either the Center for Assessment staff (strand 1) or the Hawai’i Department of Education staff and consultants (strand 2). Activities for both strands were required and ran simultaneously during the school year. The focus of this report is primarily on Strand 1 - activities related to teacher practices and perceptions and what they learned from the data collection and analyses for five struggling learners. Strand 2 activities related to employing the six steps of the Hawai’i Content and Performance Standards planning model for general unit and assessment planning, or HCPS III IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS MODEL. (For more information about how this model applied to use of progress maps, go to http://tristateeag.nceo.info/attachments/046_Intended%20Use%20of%20Progress%20Maps.pdf.) Strand 1 Activities. Teacher participants were asked to identify and then track the progress of five (5) struggling learners in their classrooms, including at least two students with disabilities. Teachers documented which tools, processes, and strategies for assessment and instruction seemed to be working effectively for these students. During the year-long project, facilitators from the Center for Assessment, who designed the study and the data collection tools, met with teachers on-site several times to: (1) introduce the project and explain the use of the various data collection tools, (2) make school visits to conduct focus groups and interview school leaders and teachers, (3) make school visits to conduct classroom observations and oversee the ongoing collection of student work samples, and (4) to guide the data analysis activities with teachers at the end of the project. Ongoing e-mail communication was maintained with all project teachers, school leaders, and Hawai’i Department of Education staff who monitored teacher involvement and provided valuable trouble shooting and assistance throughout the school year. Strand 2 Activities. In support of the Strand 1 activities, the Hawai’i Department of Education used project funds to hire a coordinator and three on-site professional development providers to work with project teachers, guiding their use of the Hawai’i Content and Performance Standards planning model in three full-day sessions. Strand 2 activities during year 3 and their relation to progress map development during years 1-2 are described in detail in a second paper by Valerie Kurizaki, the project professional development coordinator, Educating Struggling Learners: Reflections on Lessons Learned about Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (Kurizaki, 2011). A summary of the evaluations for these sessions is included in this report, as they relate to analysis of student work and assessment development.
Project Expectations
Summary of Required Project MeetingsMeetings were held on weekend or nonschool days, except for the school site visit day when classroom observations and focus groups were conducted.
Top of Page | Table of Contents Summary of Lessons LearnedData Collection ToolsData from multiple sources - interviews, school-based focus groups, and self-reporting surveys - as well as student work samples were collected and analyzed by Center for Assessment staff in order to describe classroom assessment practices, the frequency and nature and use of formative assessment tools and strategies, and use of assessment data to plan instruction.
Data analyses are discussed below under the following topics and draw from various data sources described above:
Teachers’ Reflections on Practice: Instruction, Assessment, and Instructional DecisionsFinding #1: As a result of the project activities - using Progress Maps to plan assessments and instruction and to track progress of individual students - all teachers identified an increased use of many formative strategies and tools. (See summary in Table 1 for selected descriptors.) Table 1: Frequency and Use of Formative Assessment Strategies
However, it appears that it was the general education teachers whose practices incorporated the most frequent use of formative strategies linked to grade level benchmarks when using the progress maps. For example, general education teachers tended to link scoring rubrics and feedback explicitly to progress towards the Hawai’i benchmarks and standards, while most special educators did not. And while one might expect a special education teacher to modify instruction on the spot while teaching (as confirmed by the five special education teachers who responded), researchers were surprised to see how many general education teachers also were using formative assessment data to modify instruction in various instructional situations. Also, special educators did not employ peer and student self-assessment strategies as frequently as did their general education colleagues. Finding #2: Progress Maps provided a clearer understand of what “within grade level progress” could look like; therefore, teachers were able to use a variety of instructional strategies and tools to monitor that progress. Teachers were asked on the formative uses survey to “describe any additional strategies you frequently use to know how well your students are progressing before giving them a performance-based summative assessment.” All teachers were able to identify several effective progress monitoring strategies. That said, there were also some lessons or assessment materials observed that showed a lack of understanding of how to make learning more accessible to students with disabilities. Since this was true of some general education and special education teachers, we can only surmise that the concept of universal design for learning is a broader issue that cannot be directly addressed using progress maps or formative strategies and should be a topic considered for future professional development across Hawai’i schools, district wide. Universal design for learning refers to a research-based framework for designing instruction that works for all students by using flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs (CAST, 2011). With regard to supporting English language learners (ELLs) - many of whom were identified as “struggling learners” in Hawai’i classrooms - researchers observed many teachers at all grade levels employing strategies to support these learners (e.g., acting out situations for math problem solving to be sure students understood the context of the problem, building content-specific vocabulary skills for better communication, using visuals and models to support vocabulary development and use). These strategies were seen by teachers as generally beneficial to all students, including students with disabilities. Below are the most common responses given when asked about progress monitoring strategies employed by project teachers. Surprisingly, the general education teachers used observations and formative warm-ups and exit cards more frequently than did special education teachers to monitor ongoing progress. Special education teachers tended to rely on pre-, mid-, and post- assessments of a larger grain size than did classroom teachers (see Table 2). Table 2: Additional Strategies Used to Know How Students Are Progressing
Finding #3: When asked specifically what, if anything, teachers had changed in their day-to-day practice for developing and using assessments with progress maps, many teachers commented that they had a new lens for developing and using assessment evidence, especially the pre-assessments.
Finding #4: Another observation made by most teachers was that their assessments now had greater clarity and focus; therefore, assessment data became more useful to them in guiding instruction. Teachers often saw flaws in the commercially available assessments they had been using and chose to redesign many assessments they had used in the past. There was strong agreement that collaboratively developed common assessments seemed to strengthen the resulting assessments and provide better opportunities for analyzing results and sharing instructional strategies across classrooms.
Teachers’ Perceptions: Learners and Learning PathwaysFinding #5: Above all, teachers told us that having the progress maps gave them greater insight into what to teach next when a student was not making progress and to see all students somewhere on the progress maps. Teachers’ perceptions of the slowest progressing students shifted for some (not all) teachers who began to see students according to what the students could do, not what they could not do. “I’m not seeing this student as ‘behind the other students’ like I might have before. I see where he is on the progress map; and now I have an idea of how I can help him.”
Facilitated Collaboration SessionsThe facilitated collaboration sessions are referenced in a companion report by Valerie Kurizaki (2011), Educating Struggling Learners: Reflections on Lessons Learned about Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. These sessions were planned and led by four Hawai’i educators as part of the Strand 2 activities. Center for Assessment staff realized early on in the project that having two separate strands might be somewhat confusing to teachers. In strand 1, teachers were using the progress maps and tools provided to track the progress of five students; while in strand 2, they were bringing full classroom sets of student work to analyze. We regret that more effort was not made to better tie the activities of the two strands more closely throughput the project. It was not until the January focus groups and teacher interviews that researchers realized this gap was as significant as it was for many teachers who expressed that it was like being involved in two different projects. Teachers did not always see the connections between the activities in the two strands as clearly as the leaders of strands did. This was easily explained when questions finally surfaced and could have been avoided. Finding #6: The use of student work analysis (SWA) protocols, combined with Progress Maps, was a major game changer for making instructional decisions. While teachers told us that in the past they had looked at evidence in student work to give a grade, they had not considered using SWA to target instruction for groups of students, nor were they always sure of what to teach next when students struggled.
Finding #7: Participants noted time and again the benefits of collaborative planning to both design assessment tasks and analyze student work together. Many teachers expressed that after the initial collaborative facilitation session to teach them how to use the process of SWA with colleagues, they would have preferred to simply have quality time with colleagues in a less structured format so they could self-direct the SWA activities.
Unanticipated ActivitiesFinding #8: During the school year, many schools, as well as individual teachers, initiated practices related to the use of Progress Maps that were not required, but supported the implementation of Progress Maps more fully and became embedded in day-to-day practice. We believe that many of the teacher-initiated practices have continued beyond the life of the project.
Structures and Supports: Implications for Professional DevelopmentThere are several simple but important takeaways from this project. While they may seem obvious, we list them to be sure that future efforts to implement a learning progressions schema in classroom practice does not overlook what may be essential to its success.
Top of Page | Table of Contents ResourcesBiggam, S., & Itterly, K. (2008). Literacy profiles: A framework to guide assessment, instructional strategies and intervention, K-4. Pearson Education, Inc. Burns, R. (2010). Burns formative assessment use scale - for teachers. In Implementation of formative assessment strategies by high school teachers and students: Professional development implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (UMI No. AAT 3398377) Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2011). About UDL. Retrieved from www.cast.org/udl/index.html Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning trajectories in early mathematics – sequences of acquisition and teaching. Encyclopedia of language and literacy development, 1-7. London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from http://literacyencyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa=items.show&topicId=270 Confrey, J. (June 2011). A new generation of instructionally supportive assessment: From drawing board to the classroom. Presentation at the National Conference on Student Assessment, Sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers, Orlando, FL. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. D. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An Evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523–545. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2007). First steps in mathematics: Chance and data. Beverly, MA: STEPS Professional Development. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2007). First steps in mathematics: Space. Beverly, MA: STEPS Professional Development. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2005). First steps in mathematics: Measurement, Volume 1. Beverly, MA: STEPS Professional Development. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2007). First steps in mathematics: Measurement, Volume 2. Beverly, MA: STEPS Professional Development. Department of Education and Training, Western Australia. (2007). First steps in mathematics: Number, Volumes 1 & 2. Beverly, MA: STEPS Professional Development. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hess, K. (2000). Beginning with the end in mind: A cross-case analysis of two elementary schools’ experiences implementing Vermont’s framework of standards and learning opportunities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont. Hess, K. (2008). Developing and using learning progressions as a schema for measuring progress. Paper presented at 2008 CCSSO Student Assessment Conference, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/CCSSO2_KH08.pdf Hess, K. (February, 2010a). Using learning progressions to monitor progress across grades: A science inquiry learning profile for PreK-4. Science & Children, 47(6), 57-61. Hess, K., (Ed.) (December 2010b). Learning progressions frameworks designed for use with the common core state standards in mathematics K-12. National Alternate Assessment Center at the University of Kentucky and the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nciea.org/publications/Math_LPF_KH11.pdf Hess, K. (Ed.) (November 2011). Learning progressions frameworks designed for use with the common core state standards in English language Arts and literacy K-12. National Alternate Assessment Center at the University of Kentucky and the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Hess, K., Kurizaki, V., & Holt, L. (2009). Reflections on tools and strategies used in the Hawai’i progress maps project: Lessons learned from learning progressions. Final Report, Tri-State Enhanced Assessment Grant. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://tristateeag.nceo.info/hawaii-main Hill, B. C. (2001). Developmental continuums: A framework for literacy instruction and assessment K-8. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Kurizaki, V. (2011). Educating struggling learners: Reflections on lessons learned about curriculum, instruction, and assessment (Synthesis Report 86). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Masters, & Forster. (1996). Progress maps. (Part of the Assessment Resource Kit.) Melbourne, Australia: The Australian Council for Educational Research, Ltd., 1-58. New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2007). The number framework. Retrieved from http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/numeracy/2007numPDFs/NumBk1.pdf New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2010). Literacy learning progressions: Meeting the reading and writing demands of the curriculum. Retrieved from http://literacyprogressions.tki.org.nz/ Nichols. P. (2010). What is a learning progression? Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/6C8F4D6F-EFB1-47CE-9247-3712D274190F/0/Bulletin_12.pdf No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C §§ 6301 et seq. National Research Council (NRC). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten through eighth grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2007). The continuum of literacy learning grades K-8: Behaviors and understandings to notice, teach, and support. Portsmouth, ME: Heinemann. Popham, W. J. (2011). Transformative assessment in action: An inside look at applying the process. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. State of Victoria, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Victoria, Australia. (learning progressions in all content areas). Retrieved from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/ Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730. Top of Page | Table of Contents Appendix ASample Classroom Observation Summary Form - MATHTop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix BSample Classroom Observation Summary Form - ELATop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix CSample Questions for Teacher Interviews & Focus Groups
Top of Page | Table of Contents Appendix DForm 2: Sample ELA Data Collection Tool for Tracking Progress and Instructional Strategies for a Single BenchmarkTop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix EForm 3: Sample Student Profile for Language Arts (Data Collection Tool for Tracking Multiple Benchmarks)Top of Page | Table of Contents Appendix FForm 1: Learner Characteristics for ReadingTop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix GForm 1: Learner Characteristics for MathematicsTop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix HStudent Work Analysis (SWA) Meeting Evaluation Survey #1 (August 2010)Top of Page | Table of Contents Appendix IStudent Work Analysis (SWA) Meeting Evaluation Survey #2 (January 2011)Top of Page | Table of Contents Appendix J(Streamlined) Student Work Analysis - Formative Assessment ToolTop of Page | Table of Contents Appendix KSchool Leader Survey |