1

“RETHINKING ASSESSMENT WITH PURPOSE IN MIND”

FINAL SCHOOL INQUIRY REPORT 2010

SCHOOL:

Bayview Glen

INQUIRY TEAM MEMBERS:

Christine Moore – Learning Strategist K-5

Rita Iafrate – Learning Strategist 6-8

Kate Neligan – Learning Strategist 9-12

Carolyn Lamy – Assistant Head, Academics

SCHOOL BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT FOR THE PROJECT:

Bayview Glen is a co-educational independent school offering an academic and co-curricular programme from

Preschool to Grade 12. Our original work began as a result of a strategic planning initiative, that involved

developing a team of educators that would focus on evolving our curriculum to keep it current, experiential and

whole child focused with a global outlook. From this, a differentiated instruction team, and ongoing professional

development were initiated to ensure the strategic plan initiative was being implemented.

Since then differentiation has been a key component of our instructional practices. All teachers were involved in

developing exemplary lessons and showcasing differentiated instruction opportunities with faculty. To extend on

differentiation, we realized the importance of linking and reviewing our assessment practices in order to ensure

that they complimented student learning.

OUR ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How, as leaders, can we facilitate a successful shift towards differentiated assessment throughout all grade levels?

“The opportunity to work on an action research project with colleagues was both

challenging and rewarding. The experience was enlightening and as we unfolded

all the aspects of this project, we realized that amongst faculty, there was a

genuine passion to assess students for success. This process also has carved the

path for future professional development in an effort to move forward with Best

Practices, ensuring students are at the centre of the learning experience.”

Action Research Team, Bayview Glen

2

OUR ACTION RESEARCH STORY:

When we began our action research, our focus was to encourage and provide teaching faculty with opportunities

to further expand their assessment practices beyond paper-pencil tasks, quizzes and tests. We wanted to

understand what our current assessment practices told us about our teaching and learning methodology.

As a team, we presented the differentiated assessment strategies to teaching faculty at all three divisions and

reviewed the purpose of assessment for, as and of learning. We also emphasized the importance of shifting our

instructional practices to provide increased opportunities for students to be at the centre of their learning. As a

team, we agreed that in order to influence and shift faculty’s instructional practices, it was important for us to

understand their preconceived ideas on teaching and learning. A survey was developed to provide us with an

understanding of where teachers were and gave us a framework for facilitating and supporting this mind-shift in

teaching, learning and assessing. This survey also provided us with insight as to where our faculty’s beliefs and

current practices lay in regards to differentiated instruction, student learning and differentiated assessment

strategies.

In June 2009, faculty participated in an Assessment Workshop, and then were provided with a Differentiated

Assessment Task (DAT) that they would complete throughout the 2009 – 2010 academic year. In teams, the main

objective was to have teachers work in groups to “Maximize the Power of Assessment” and to challenge

themselves to develop creative assessments that support student learning. The assignment for each team was to

create a Differentiated Summative Assessment for their course and to present this task to faculty, reporting on the

assessment and providing insight into how it impacted student learning. Faculty was shown a variety of student-

centred assessment examples, including choice boards, presentations, math journaling, harkness tables, layered

curriculum, posters, and media literacy projects, and other inquiry-based learning opportunities.

An action plan was set to provide time in both June and August to begin the planning process for developing

differentiated assessments, and in the Fall of 2009, faculty were required to finalize their assessments, and

introduce and implement the assessment with their students. Ongoing check-ins with the Action Research Group,

helped to support faculty who had questions and ensured that everyone was on target with planning and

implementing this task. Winter and Spring Faculty meetings provided time to share assessment tasks and outcomes

with colleagues.

Highlights of this action research project were that, as leaders, we were able to tap into all divisions of our school,

making this a school wide initiative. The action research team bridged the gap between divisions, and provided

faculty with many opportunities throughout the year to work collaboratively on their assessment tasks and to

share ideas and best practices with each other. Noteworthy, was the opportunity provided for our Prep (Grades

“As educators, we need to teach

students a set of skills that will

prepare them to be effective

global citizens, thinkers, nurturers,

and successful people, as they

meet the challenges of the 21st

Century.”

Eileen Daunt, Head of School, Bayview

Glen

3

6-8) and our Upper School (Grades 9 -12) divisions to come together, connecting with one another in developing

differentiated assessment tasks.

Professional Development was framed by the Action Research team. Teacher teams were empowered to take on

the leadership role of presenting and sharing their tasks with colleagues, allowing for Professional Learning

Communities to take shape.

Throughout this process, we encountered many successes that outweighed our challenges. We observed, right

from the initial launch of this action research, a strong commitment from faculty members to support the notion of

differentiated instruction and assessment. There was a genuine commitment from faculty to provide rich

environments conducive to enhancing and supporting student learning. Many of the assessments presented were

creative, engaging, challenging and reflective elements of a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. There

was evidence of formative assessment and ongoing feedback to students, providing a sturdy foundation for

successful Differentiated Assessment Tasks. Less pencil - paper activities were noted, and there was a shift towards

rich performance tasks that allowed student choice while tapping into their abilities, strengths and interests. We

observed a shift towards metacognitive awareness as students began to see themselves as learners, empowered by

their teachers to take ownership of and responsibility for their learning.

As our project progressed there were notable changes that took place. Throughout the process our essential

question continued to evolve. We identified commonalities between divisions, including the importance that

Differentiated Assessment Tasks are essential, and that the results of these assessments lead to greater student

learning experiences allowing for meaningful connections to the real world. We also realized that it wasn’t just

about the culminating differentiated assessment task, rather we needed to emphasize the importance of formative

assessment, digging deeper into our curriculum while placing students at the centre of their learning.

We did run into a variety of challenges that required us to be both flexible and adaptable. At times, working

across all divisions was complicated. Each division is unique; therefore, this required us to differentiate our task in

some cases, in order to meet the needs of that particular division, without altering our essential question. As an

action research team, finding time for us to meet to discuss and plan our action research was difficult. At times,

we found it challenging to strike a balance between finding time for us to learn together and collaborate as a faculty

on the importance of student –centred learning and differentiation, and for teachers to have more time to initiate

these collaborative, creative assessments practices in their classrooms. Furthermore, having all teachers present

at faculty meetings was also a huge challenge, making our message at times feel like the game, “broken telephone.”

While our Action Research was in progress, the new “buzz” word in education that we were hearing more often

was “21st Century Teaching and Learning”. As Peter W. Cookson Jr. stated in his article, “What Would Socrates

Say?” featured in the September 2009 Educational Leadership journal, “We are at a threshold of a worldwide

revolution in learning. Just as the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the wall of conventional schooling is collapsing before

our eyes. A new electronic learning environment is replacing the linear, text-bound culture of conventional

schools. This will be the proving ground of the 21st century mind”. Cookson says that we need to stop thinking

of schools as buildings and start thinking of learning as occurring in many different places, freeing ourselves from

the conventional education model that dominates our thinking. “Socrates did not teach in a conventional

classroom; his classroom was wherever he and his students found themselves. He was the first “personal learning

network,” and he taught with the most enduring tool of all time – the purposeful conversation.”

Our students responded well to a wide variety of assessment tasks, which was evidenced by student feedback, and

teacher observations and reflections. Students were actively engaged and responded well to the choices provided

to them. Within the classrooms there were noticeable changes. Less paper - pencil activities resulted in creative

culminating activities. There was a shift towards student-centred learning, with an emphasis on making real world

connections. Inquiry-based learning activities provided a sense of wonder and curiosity amongst learners. Many of

the skills that focus on learning for the 21st Century, such as problem solving and critical thinking were put to task

in the classrooms.

4

DIFFERENTIATED ASSESSMENT TASKS The following is a list of some of the assessment tasks that were completed by the students across all divisions:

Grade Subject Topic

Preschool Transportation and Harvest JK Science Transportation SK Math Graphing Grade 1 Science Structures Grade 1 Physical Ed. Basketball Skills Grade 2 Science Weather Grade 2 Music Rhythm Grade 3 Social Studies Aboriginal Tribes Grade 4 Language Arts Novel Study Grade 5 Language Arts Novel Study Primary French Gestures and French Plays Primary Art Portraits

Grade 6 Language Arts Novel Study Grade 6 ICT Internet Safety Grade 6 Science Electricity Project Grade 7 Math Amusement Park Project Grade 7 Spanish Spanish Wacky Animal Project Grade 8 Art Pourquoi Talesh Grade 8 Language Arts Pourquoi Tales

Grades 9 - 12 all subjects Basketball Skills unit, Geography, Science,

English, Visual Arts, Math

“The assignment for Glass Menagerie helped me to realize the relevance of this books'

message and how the themes applied to my own life, allowing me to provide a better

analysis, while demonstrating my inquiry skills."

Grade 9 Student, Bayview Glen

“I thought it was cool to have a choice for this project. I

like Science so I chose to create my own invention. I didn’t

have to write a report. Instead I was doing something with

my hands. Unfortunately, my invention didn’t succeed.

Although I found the source of the problem I couldn’t

repair it. Even though my project failed, I learned what the

point was. Being an inventor is hard work. Never take for

granted what technology you have. Somebody is bound to

have worked on that more than you would have

thought.”

Grade 5 Student, Bayview Glen

Grade 5 Student

5

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH AND HOW IT MAY HAVE CHANGED:

Originally, our essential question focussed on how our Differentiated Instruction strategies and instructional

teaching methods aligned with our assessment practices. However, we determined that because this was a school

wide initiative, and since assessment is a consistent practice for all divisions, we established that our focus would

be assessment strategies that tapped into inquiry, and metacognitive learning, while modelling a constructivist

learning environment for our students. Similar to a “scaffolding” model, initially our team provided the framework

for the teachers, and then as they began to work on their assessments, we were prompted to question, how, as

leaders, can we facilitate a shift towards differentiated assessment successfully throughout all grade levels?

PROJECT PROCESS:

Two surveys were conducted. Baseline data was collected at the start of our Action Research and a follow-up

survey that consisted of teacher reflection was completed at the end. The main objective was to target whether

there had been a shift in teacher attitude and practice, as they reflected on differentiated planning, teaching and

assessment within their classroom.

“Students were very much engaged in the basketball skills assessment.

The diverse skill level of students was evident; however, the students felt

greater confidence taking part in the assessment because of the choices

they were given. All students were assessed for the same key points for

the skill of dribbling a basketball, however, students with greater skill

competence were challenged with either dribbling around pylons or

around a defender, whereas students with less skill competence could

simply dribble from one end of the gym and back. From a teacher's

perspective, students could thrive in their individual assessments as they

felt the level of challenge was appropriate to their skill level, the

assessment created less anxiety for students with less basketball

exposure, and all students were motivated to succeed.”

Lori Hillis, Physical Education Teacher, Bayview Glen

6

ASSESSMENT STRATEGY:

DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA COLLECTION:

The first survey provided us with a baseline of teachers’ understanding and preconceived ideas of planning,

teaching, and assessment. As well, the survey gave us a direction as to how we needed to proceed in terms of

professional development and support. Survey One was a quick snapshot as to what types of teaching, learning

and assessments opportunities were happening in our classrooms. We had an 81% response rate to Survey One,

which was sent out to Faculty in March of 2009.

“People come to learning with

preconceptions about how the world

works. If their initial understanding is not

engaged, they may fail to grasp the new

concepts and information that are taught,

or may learn them superficially and revert

to their preconceptions in real situations.”

How People Learn: 3 Powerful Insights about How

People Learn (National Research Council)

7

8

The objective of Survey Two was to capture and make note of any shifts in faculty’s attitudes towards

differentiated instruction and assessment, and to provide us with reflective feedback. This survey was completed

towards the end of our Action Research in March of 2010. We had a response rate of 74% in completing Survey

Two.

In addition to our quantitative measures, provided by the surveys, qualitative measures included observations,

teacher and student reflections and feedback, assignments and rubrics, presentations, and student work samples.

Since the action research was a school wide initiative, our sample size included 100 faculty members representing

Upper School, Prep and Lower School divisions.

"We both thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to collaborate in preparing this

differentiated assessment. In a school with students devoted to many co-

curricular and extra-curricular activities, we both felt it important to not only

create an assignment that highlights students' multiple intelligences, but also

give students an opportunity to connect these talents to learning in the English

classroom. We were both invigorated by the excitement and engagement of

students, particularly with how they were able to take a classic text like The

Glass Menagerie and make meaningful connections."

Matthew Clark and Reshma Somani

Secondary School Teachers, Bayview Glen

9

MAKING SENSE OF THE DATA:

FINDINGS:

Accurately comparing our data from the two surveys, was a challenge. First, the number of responses changed.

Secondly, we also needed to take into account new faculty, who had not had the opportunity to complete the

initial survey and faculty who completed the first survey, but not the second. This resulted in different response

numbers, making it difficult to determine precise percentage increases. Despite these challenges, we are confident

that our data (both quantitative and qualitative) provided us with relevant information to conclude, that there was

an increase in teacher’s attitude, confidence and willingness to differentiate from a planning, teaching and

assessment perspective.

In the planning stage, by the end of the action research, there was an increase in the number of teachers who were

consistently using differentiated instruction as a part of their formative assessments, visible in their daily lesson

plans, and overall units. It is also interesting to note that in Survey One, 80% of teachers felt confident in their

understanding of their student’s knowledge and where they were in their learning. We attribute this high number

to the ongoing diagnostic assessments that teachers implement into their daily teaching (for example, K-W-L’s,

pre-tests, running records, questionnaires, dialogue and student-teacher conferencing). Furthermore, we saw a

direct correlation to our teacher's abilities to use this diagnostic assessment data to plan appropriate instruction,

based on student’s knowledge, skills, readiness and interest.

10

In the teaching stage, there was a movement towards student-centered learning. We observed a visible shift in

differentiated instruction and assessment practices. This was evident in the survey results as well as visibly evident

in the classrooms through the display of student work.

Teachers also shared this shift towards student-centered learning through their presentations to faculty members.

It is also important to note that these observations support the data that there was an increase in differentiated

instruction and assessment at all divisions.

11

In the assessing stage, we saw evidence that teachers were moving towards assessments that accurately reflected

the knowledge, skills, and understanding of their students, while providing a breadth of choice for summative

assessment tasks. We saw this as a significant gain, as this data supports the connection the teachers made to

assessment as learning. This also supports the idea that when students are provided with choice and a variety of

opportunities to demonstrate their understanding, student success increases, empowering students to

demonstrate their knowledge in a way that is engaging and supportive of their learning style. In Survey Two, it was

evident that teachers were aligning their differentiated instructional strategies with their assessment methods. The

number of tests and quizzes dropped dramatically as a form of summative assessment.

“I am definitely trying to move away from the traditional way of instructing and assessing. By

being introduced to differentiated assessment tasks, and by taking the first two terms to

incorporate the ideas into my classroom, I have realized the possibilities and I am excited to

continue to develop the use in my daily teaching practices.”

12

TEACHER REFLECTIONS:

A huge component of our Action Research was to provide teachers with

the opportunity to self reflect on their teaching practices. We were able

to understand where the teachers were in the process of differentiating

through their personal reflections captured in the final Survey. These

reflections are very important and will help to drive forward future

professional development initiatives at Bayview Glen.

HIGHLIGHTS AND CONCLUSION:

As a team, a highlight, yet certainly a challenge was to get across to faculty that differentiated instruction, and

assessment is at the core of engaging all learners, threading in many important elements of a constructivist

approach to teaching, which, by in large, empowers students to be at the centre of their learning.

We saw teachers taking risks and steps to shift their instructional teaching methods, moving them away from the

front or centre of the class. Letting go of this traditional way of teaching is not easy, however, with further

professional development and observable student success, we believe that teachers will continue to shift their

teaching methods to support this movement as the teacher becomes more of a facilitator.

If we are to take into account the diverse learning styles of all students, then, we must differentiate our assessment

tasks, in order to ensure that comprehension has occurred, allowing opportunities to empower our students to

reflect and make meaningful connections. In order to have a successful Differentiated Assessment Task, teachers

need to deliver the information in such a way that supports and facilitates inquiry and higher cognitive thinking.

Thus, placing the learner at the centre of the learning process.

We found that while teachers are doing an excellent job with

Differentiated Assessments, some are still returning to the traditional

methods of assessment, i.e. paper – pencil tasks. These tasks can be

quite relevant and should not be discounted. It is important to

recognize that traditional testing is still predominant and necessary at

times. We must prepare students for University, which by in large, still

reflects a more traditional approach to learning. However, it is

important that group work, culminating tasks and projects which

inspire creativity and inquiry, are an integral part of educating,

supporting and cultivating our students for the twenty-first century.

In conclusion, we are beginning to connect the dots – differentiation –

constructivism – 21st century teaching and learning. Having students

at the centre of their learning, supports everything that 21st century learning and teaching is about! Teachers need

to empower and develop key competencies that all students will need for the twenty first century, including,

creativity, inquiry, leading by influence, collaboration, entrepreneurialism, while developing curiosity and inquiry

and strengthening student’s oral and written communication skills.

“My students respond

much better to different

assessments, and prove

they know more than I

thought they did in

previous assessment

styles.”

“Although I have always

employed differentiated

instruction strategies to some

degree, I’ve tried to increase the

opportunities for students to

design procedures and describe

problem solving.”

13

Resource and Reference List:

Azzam, A.M. (2009). Why creativity now? : a conversation with Sir Ken Robinson. Educational Leadership,

67(1), 22-26.

Conklin, W. (2007). Applying differentiation strategies: Teacher’s handbook for grades K –2. Huntington

Beach, CA: Shell Education.

Conklin, W. (2007). Applying Differentiation strategies: Teacher’s handbook for grades 3 – 5. Huntington

Beach, CA: Shell Education.

Cookson, P.W., Jr. (2009). What would Socrates say? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 8-14.

Cooper, D. (2010). Talk about assessment: High school strategies and tools. Toronto, ON: Nelson

Education.

Parker, C. (2007). Applying differentiation strategies: Teacher’s handbook for secondary. Huntington Beach,

CA: Shell Education.

Rotherham, A. J. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational

Leadership, 67(1), 16-21.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education, (2006). Rethinking classroom

assessment with purpose in mind. Retrieved from www.wncp.ca