For most occupations, routine continuing education is necessary to keep current with new and changing policies, procedures, and technologies and is critical to job expertise and career advancement. Why is it, then, that educators too often view professional development (PD) opportunities with a touch of dread and angst? From our conversations with teachers, we know these feelings are often rooted in concern about the relevancy of the PD and a lack of time to apply what’s been learned. In this post we offer a few suggestions for PD planners to address those challenges, based on our experiences working in schools and districts.
As mentioned in a previous blogpost, PD sessions ideally should be spread across the entire school year, giving teachers time to absorb the material and integrate what they are learning into their classrooms in a more meaningful way.
We also know that developing positive and open classroom environments helps students learn. Setting these same standards for teachers’ PD encourages a more meaningful and engaging adult learning experience, helping teachers feel more comfortable with sharing ideas, less anxious when struggling with new concepts, and at ease in acknowledging what they don’t know.
Building relationships and developing trust between the PD leader, teachers, and administrators is key, especially when multiple PD sessions will occur throughout the year. Begin developing those relationships prior to the first session by planning one-on-one meetings with each key stakeholder in the building or by scheduling an all-staff meeting. Encourage building administrators to attend the PD sessions to demonstrate that the learning is a priority and that teachers will be supported as they learn and apply their new skills in the classroom.
Consider these strategies for setting a positive tone in PD sessions:
Elicit teachers’ strengths and expertise by asking what they already know about the subject.
Encourage teachers to consider new ideas on the subject. Very few people know everything there is to know about a subject; keeping an open mind is essential to trying out new ideas and strategies.
Ask teachers what is important to them as learners and as program participants.
Ask teachers what concerns they have about the PD program. Even if there are factors out of a PD leaders’ control, at least teachers will know their concerns have been acknowledged.
We used these key strategies when piloting and field testing McREL’s mathematics formative assessment program, the Assessment Work Sample Method (AWSM). Middle school teachers attended twelve 45-minute sessions throughout the school year that were embedded in the school day. Over the course of the AWSM pilot, PD leaders developed a sense of trust and openness with teachers by taking time to build relationships and inviting administrators to attend sessions. Teachers shared their thoughts and concerns, related what they knew about formative assessment, shared strategies they used in their classrooms, and considered new ideas about formative assessment.
Developing a positive learning environment does not happen in one session—making time for these conversations throughout the year will further strengthen the trust and openness that are key to an engaging and meaningful PD experience for teachers.
Sarah Gopalani and Jesse Rainey conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses in support of McREL’s research and evaluation projects.
How does student work inform instruction? I read Katrina Schwartz's MindShift blog post, "How Looking at Student Work Keeps Teachers and Kids on Track," and immediately found connections to McREL's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) study of a formative assessment model for middle school math, now completing its third year. Not only does Ms. Schwartz highlight the use of student work as a method for improving student learning and teacher practice—a cornerstone of our study—but she also relates this to mathematics.
For the IES study, McREL's math and assessment specialists developed a program that provides teachers with authentic samples of student math work and an interactive, hands-on experience to increase their use of high-quality formative assessment practices. The program, called AWSM (shorthand for Learning to Use Formative Assessment with the Assessment Work Sample Method), has a goal of increasing middle school students' math achievement. (Read our AWSM success story.)
AWSM differs from other formative assessment professional development in that it:
focuses specifically on middle school mathematics,
features supportive peer review of colleagues' assessment practices,
centers on the use of student work samples,
is job-embedded, and
fosters teacher collaboration.
Teacher data from our pilot tests are quite promising, and many of the points that Ms. Schwartz identified in her blog post were evident in our study. For example, Ms. Schwartz noted that often students don't have a "clear sense of what a great project would look like." AWSM is designed to help teachers articulate a clear learning goal, select or develop a mathematically rich aligned task, and communicate the criteria for successful task completion to students. With clear success criteria in place, students can track their own progress, provide descriptive feedback to peers, and make adjustments in their own learning.
Interestingly, resisting the pressure to grade every assignment is a challenge for teachers in the AWSM program. AWSM promotes using descriptive feedback, rather than grades, when students are learning a new concept or skill, and, for some teachers, this conflicts with current practice and beliefs. When students receive a letter grade or number score on an assignment, they tend to pay little attention to the descriptive feedback offered by teachers, often missing important recommendations that could help them improve their work. Ms. Schwartz notes that looking at student work can bring the focus back to the learning goals, and this is echoed in our work with AWSM.
Using high-quality formative assessment practices requires many teachers to make significant shifts in their practice, as illustrated by these teacher comments gathered at the end of the pilot test:
"I used to think formative assessment was about the teacher knowing where students are in the learning process. Now I know that formative assessment must include students so that they understand how to improve their own learning."
"I used to think I had to grade everything. Now I know I can provide descriptive feedback and allow students to take action."
"It's the dimensions of clear learning goals and success criteria that have most impacted my instruction. I think I was always clear about what was being learned, but I needed to be more explicit about sharing this information with my students."
The AWSM team is disseminating study findings at conferences across the U.S. in 2014 and 2015. If you'd like more information about the program, please feel free to contact me directly at email@example.com.
Kathleen Dempsey has more than 30 years of experience as a teacher and administrator. She provides technical assistance and professional development to K‒12 mathematics educators and state education agencies, and she serves as the director of the North Central Comprehensive Center (NCCC), administered by McREL.
Out of curiosity, I recently asked 60 teachers attending a conference session on formative assessment to explain the difference between “summative” and “formative” assessment. To my surprise, the first volunteer described formative assessment as “the formal assessments we give kids to find out what they really know.” Other participant responses varied, from descriptions of in-class observations to a general understanding that any assignment a teacher uses to measure progress are all formative assessments—including online tests administered quarterly by the school district to gather program data.
When asking the question, I had mistakenly believed that most participants would easily describe the two as processes that provide assessment of learning (summative assessment) and assessment for learning (formative assessment).
In a 2007 article in Phi Delta Kappan magazine, Margaret Heritage, assistant director for professional development at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) at UCLA, defines formative assessment not as a test nor a high-stakes standardized assessment, but as a process of feedback in which a teacher learns about a student’s current level of understanding to determine the next learning steps for that student. Sounds simple enough. Yet, as the teachers’ responses showed, there is still a lot of variation in how teachers define the two types of assessments.
So, why is the concept of formative assessment still so confusing? Part of the fault lies with educational jargon. Educators tend to use the term “formative assessment” to describe a whole host of opportunities to gather evidence of student learning.
In a 2005 book, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, Lorrie Shepard, et al. tackled this confusing terminology, defining formative assessment as “assessment carried out during the instructional process for the purpose of improving teaching or learning.” What differentiates formative assessment from other classroom-based assessments (such as interim and benchmark assessments) is, first, that the evidence of student learning is not graded and, second, that the information is used immediately to inform instruction. Feedback is a critical part of the process.
My colleagues at McREL and I recently piloted a new mathematics formative assessment program, the Assessment Work Sample Method (AWSM) in a Colorado Springs school district, providing professional development for middle school math teachers to help them learn how to implement classroom formative assessment using authentic student work samples. (Read our Success Story here.) One teacher in the pilot said, “AWSM has helped me realize that differentiation is crucial. It helps me look for the outliers in my classes—the ones who are overachieving and the ones that are falling behind.”
When implemented effectively, formative assessment provides ongoing feedback to students about where they are relative to their goals, it equips them with resources and suggestions for further exploration, and it encourages questions that propel the learning process. Formative assessment matters because it has been shown to help students learn. Not only does it help with cognitive processes, but it also fully engages students with their learning.
I recently read a blog post on developing innovation by George Couros, a principal with the Parkland School Division in Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada. I'm a regular reader of Mr. Couros' blog, "The Principal of Change," but this one struck a particular chord with me.
In his blog post, Couros refers to Carol Dweck's work on "fixed" versus "growth" mindsets. In an interview with the OneDublin.org education blog's founder, Dr. Dweck differentiates between the two mindsets, explaining:
"In a fixed mindset students believe their basic abilities, their intelligence, their talents, are just fixed traits. They have a certain amount and that’s that, and then their goal becomes to look smart all the time and never look dumb. In a growth mindset students understand that their talents and abilities can be developed through effort, good teaching and persistence. They don’t necessarily think everyone’s the same or anyone can be Einstein, but they believe everyone can get smarter if they work at it."
Meaningful careers. Financial stability. Happiness. That's what we all want for the future of our students, right? This might feel like an abstract, far-off concept when working with elementary school students. However, the foundation built during these formative years is exactly what supports achieving those goals. How do we cultivate the curiosity, tenacity, and student empowerment to help our students realize that future?
Think: Science… Technology… Engineering… Math.
What is STEM and why does it matter?
While the STEM acronym stands for science, technology, engineering, and math, the real excitement comes from more than just teaching and learning academic content in those four areas, it comes from vitalizing the connections between these fields. In the best STEM programs, students are engaging in real-world problems—and solutions—creating a context for developing a deeper set of skills and new ways of thinking. STEM learning shows kids how they can make a difference, and also empowers them to make that difference.