1. No category

KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDUC 8705: Ed.D/Ed.S., Bagwell College of Education
Department BCOE
Degree Title (if applicable) Seminar on Formative Assessment for Learning
Proposed Effective Date Summer 20,13
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Approved
Not Approved
_____
Date
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
President
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
___
Course Prefix and Number
___
Course Title
___
Class Hours
____Laboratory Hours_______Credit Hours________
Prerequisites
___
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ___EDUC 8705____________________
Course Title: Seminar in Formative Assessment for Learning ___________
Class Hours
_3 Laboratory Hours____0 CreditHours_____3
Prerequisites Admission EDD program, EDUC 8100
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This seminar focuses on critically reviewing research and applying best-practices
in formative assessment. Recent research reports effective use of formative assessment
enhances student learning and teacher effectiveness. Specific topics include barriers and
misconceptions to the formative assessment process, effective practices in formative
assessment, theoretical underpinnings of formative assessment, relationships of formative
assessment to self-regulated learning and learner autonomy. Additionally, attention will
be paid to multicultural formative assessment procedures and concerns relevant to
external assessment programs.
III.
Justification
Today, the term assessment is often linked with high-stakes, large scale accountability
measurements. However, the effective use of formative assessment is a hallmark of
effective teachers and is directly tied to increased learner autonomy and self-direction as
well as and increased student learning. The overall goal of this course is for graduate
candidates to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to implement effective
formative assessment strategies in her/his educational setting. By analyzing recent
theory, research, and issues concerning formative assessment, the practicing professional
can clarify his or her beliefs about the issues, implement informed classroom practices,
and be prepared to take a leadership role within his or her school or district. Successful
candidates will complete a synthesis project that successfully demonstrates mastery of
the theory and practice of formative assessment.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Susan L. Stockdale
Text:
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree.
Brookfield, S. (2011). Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques.
NY: Jossey-Bass.
Prerequisites Admission EDD program, EDUC 8100
Objectives:
Course objectives
1. Engage and critically analysis the
recent research in formative
assessment.
2. Describe major challenges and
political controversies in the field of
formative assessment.
3. Review and summarize the pertinent
learning theories unpinning effective
formative assessment.
4. Describe, Analyze, Theorize, and Act
on applied best practices of formative
assessment.
5. Develop and implement ReflectionIn-Practice strategies for formative
assessment.
6. Design, evaluate, and implement
effective strategies for effective
formative classroom practices that
KSU outcomes
EDS/EDS
Program
Outcomes
1
4, 5, 1, 8, 2
1
4, 5
2,3
6, 7, 9
1,2,3
6, 7, 9
3
6,7, 9
2
2, 4, 5, 7, 5
support academic growth for each
student.
Instructional Method: Discussion, Reflection, Lecture, Collaborative Learning
Groups
Method of Evaluation: Formal quizzes, projects, participation
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only):
This is a new course but replaces an existing course in an established program; therefore
no new expenses.
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
0
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth 0
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the
Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
Education
EDUC 8705
Seminar Formative Assessment
3-0-3
Summer, 13
Regular
none
none
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
I.
Course Number: EDUC 8705
Course Title:
Seminar in Formative Assessment for Learning
College:
Bagwell College of Education
Semester:
Room:
II.
Instructor: Dr. Susan Stockdale
III.
Class Meetings:
IV.
Required Course Materials
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree.
Brookfield, S. (2011). Teaching for Critical Thinking: Tools and Techniques.
NY: Jossey-Bass.
V. Catalog Course Description (3-0-3); Prerequisite, Admission to Ed.S. or Ed.D. Program:
Seminar in Formative Assessment
This seminar focuses on critically reviewing research and applying best-practices in formative assessment . Recent
research reports effective use of formative assessment enhances student learning and teacher effectiveness. Specific
topics include barriers and misconceptions to the formative assessment process, effective practices in formative
assessment, theoretical underpinnings of formative assessment, relationships of formative assessment to selfregulated learning and learner autonomy. Additionally, attention will be paid to multicultural formative assessment
procedures and concerns relevant to external assessment programs.
VI. Purpose and Rationale:
Today, the term assessment is often linked with high-stakes, large scale accountability measurements. However,
the effective use of formative assessment is a hallmark of effective teachers and is directly tied to increased learner
autonomy and self-direction as well as and increased student learning. The overall goal of this course is for graduate
candidates to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to implement effective formative assessment strategies in
her/his educational setting. By analyzing recent theory, research, and issues concerning formative assessment, the
practicing professional can clarify his or her beliefs about the issues, implement informed classroom practices, and
be prepared to take a leadership role within his or her school or district. Successful candidates will complete a
synthesis project that successfully demonstrates mastery of the theory and practice of formative assessment.
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Collaborative development of expertise in teaching and learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders
who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their
students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of
candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and
leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued
development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace
the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of
validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that
way, candidates at the doctoral level leaders for learning and facilitators of the teaching and
learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices
across the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through
this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and
other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in
bringing all students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process,
the teacher education faculty at KSU believe that the concept of expertise is central to preparing
effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum
phases teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming
Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that
expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
Use of Technology: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher preparation
program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia
Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore
and use instructional media. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and
Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and create WWW resources.
VII. Policies:
Diversity: A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of
differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural
classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second
element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of multicultural populations influence decisions in
employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity,
family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of
cultural context. These diversity issues will be directly explored in the Impact on Student Learning Assignment.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of
services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make
arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443)
and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address
each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
Commitment to Addressing the Achievement Gap
Research (Black and Wiliams, 1994) suggest employing effective formative assessment strategies in the educational
setting are especially effective with closing the achievement gap.
Professionalism- Academic Honesty:
KSU expects that graduate students will pursue their academic programs in an ethical, professional manner. Faculty
of the advanced graduate programs abide by the policies and guidelines established by the university in their
expectations for candidates’ work. Candidates are responsible for knowing and adhering to the guidelines of
academic honesty as stated in the graduate catalog. Any candidate who is found to have violated these guidelines
will be subject to disciplinary action consistent with university policy. For example, plagiarism or other violations of
the University’s Academic Honesty policies could result in a grade of “F” in the course and a formal hearing before
the Judiciary Committee.
Professionalism- Participation, and Attendance: Responding effectively and appropriately to feedback from your
peers and the professor is another measure of one’s professionalism. In addition, since class meets only once a week,
failure to attend class will likely impact your performance on assignments and final exams. One absence is requires
no action; however, if you will be absent more than once, please notify me. Missing more than two classes will
result in lowering your grade one letter per absence over two. Please be prepared with all readings completed prior
to class. THERE WILL BE A QUIZ. We depend on one another to ask pertinent and insightful questions. Finally,
please turn off all cell phones. A ringing phone and the resulting conversation is an nuisance and an unprofessional
interruption in the flow of the class.
IRB Policies Relating to Student Researchers (KSU Candidates) in Educational Settings
KSU Requirements:
Research projects that are conducted in public school settings and involve human subjects in activities which are
considered “normal educational practices” (See 45 CFR 46.101 (b) in the federal guidelines) may be exempted from
Continuing IRB review. The KSU Institutional Review Board (IRB), not faculty members or student-researchers,
determines if a project meets the criteria for exemption. The research may qualify for an exemption even if the
findings and outcomes from such research are placed in online portfolios for KSU academic programs or presented
on occasions required for such programs (e.g., class sessions, capstone presentations).
EDD Performance Outcome
EDUC 8705Course
Knowledge,
Skills
Activities,
Coursework,
The KSU IRB requires that the relevant faculty member complete a short form, including a description of the
assigned research project. This applies to the Impact on Student Learning Assignment.
The policy and procedures outlined above do not cover theses, dissertations, or extended research projects from
the M.Ed., Ed.S. and Ed.D. programs but rather refer to assigned research projects contained within individual
courses.
Additional Requirements for Student-Researchers Carrying Out Course-based Research
Student-researchers who conduct projects at variance from or extending beyond a class assignment must consult
with their faculty instructor about securing KSU IRB approval and must contact any IRB-type organization available
in their own workplace setting.
For those in teacher education, it is important to remember that every district has a federally mandated
requirement for IRB review of proposals for conducting research in public schools. It is up to each studentresearcher to learn the appropriate IRB procedures to be followed in his/her district. More specifically, KSU
teacher education candidates are required to complete district-level IRB forms or to follow accepted policies
and gain approval in writing, consistent with school/district guidelines, prior to beginning any assigned
research project.
Once school district IRB approval is obtained, Kennesaw State University will honor the approval by submitting a
copy of the county proposal, approval and Human Participants Online Certificate to the KSU IRB Committee.
Course Objectives: The Professional Teacher Education Unit prepares expert teachers and leaders who understand
their disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on practice, and who apply these understandings to making
instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. As a result of the satisfactory fulfillment of the
requirements of this course, the candidate will be able to:
Course objectives
1. Engage and critically analysis the recent
research in formative assessment.
2. Describe major challenges and political
controversies in the field of formative
assessment.
3. Review and summarize the pertinent learning
theories unpinning effective formative
assessment.
4. Describe, Analyze, Theorize, and Act on
applied best practices of formative
assessment.
5. Develop and implement Reflection-InPractice strategies for formative assessment.
6. Design, evaluate, and implement effective
strategies for effective formative classroom
practices that support academic growth for
each student.
KSU outcomes
EDS/EDS Program
Outcomes
1
1
4, 5, 1, 8, 2
4, 5
2,3
6, 7, 9
1,2,3
6, 7, 9
3
6,7, 9
2
2, 4, 5, 7, 5
Objective
1.
Candidates foster a responsive,
learner-centered educational
environment that promotes
collaboration and democratic
participation for student learning
and may include co-teaching.
2.
Candidates demonstrate pedagogical
approaches which incorporate
contextual, theoretical/conceptual,
and practical influences on the
learner and learning.
3.
Candidates advance teaching and
learning through the innovative use
of technology based on sound
educational theory and knowledge of
the learner.
4.
Candidates demonstrate in-depth
foundational knowledge of contentbased research, scholarship, and
socio-political influences in the
teaching field and use this knowledge
to analyze and interpret problems
and implement solutions within their
profession.
Candidates demonstrate and apply
various types of assessment to inform
the learner’s ability to analyze,
monitor, and improve their learning
as well as interpret and use data to
inform their own pedagogical
effectiveness.
Candidates engage in scholarly,
applied research to advance
knowledge of teaching, the learner,
and/or learning.
Candidates reflect on their
professional, scholarly practice, and
analyze the ways in which they have
changed in their thinking, beliefs, or
behaviors toward improved learnercentered practices.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Candidates support academic and
linguistic needs of the learner,
enhance cultural understandings,
and increase global awareness of all
students.
Candidates demonstrate
professional dispositions, fluency of
academic language in a variety of
Dispositions
(Advanced CPI)
Assignments & Key
Assessment
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
1
1.2 (K;S)
1.3 (K;S)
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 - 2.6 (K;S;D)
Reflection On Action
1.2 (K;S)
2.1 – 2.6 (K;S;D)
2.4 (K;S)
3,2
1.1 (K)
1.2 (K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
Quizzes Over Readings
4,5,6
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
Impact On Student
Learning
DATA Analysis
Final Paper and Project
6
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
Impact on Student
Learning and Final
Paper and Project
1,2
3.2 (K;D)
Reflection-On-Action
6
1.1 – 1.4
(K;S;D)
1.2 2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
3,1
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
Final Paper and Project
contexts, , and ethical practice
expected of an engaged scholarpractitioner.
3.1 – 3.5 (K;D)
VIII.
Major Assessment and Assignments
IX.
Requirements/Assignments/Activities:
X.
A. Individual Text Readings and Lecture will increase familiarity with basic knowledge,
concepts and theories of the field of assessment(Outcome 1)
B. Collaborative Inquiries into Research and Individual Written Reviews– a sharing of
information in relationships of equality that promotes new growth in each participant to
support the Applied Formal Knowledge Base, which is defined as familiarity with the
application and outcomes in current research of the concepts and theories of the field of
assessment. (Outcomes 2 and 3)
Each graduate candidate will be assigned relevant articles to locate, copy and review for
assigned class period. In a collaborative/ cooperative process, a group of 4 candidates will
review the same article within their INTRA group after the formal knowledge base has been
developed in class. Each candidate will then write an individual review, make 4 copies
and bring all to the following class. Graduate candidates will regroup into INTER groups and
share a verbal and paper analysis of their article at the beginning of the next class period with
each member sharing a different article. (Outcomes 2 and 3)
C. Individual Written Reflections on DATA utilizing Critical Incidence Questions
Reflection on Action utilizing Peters’ (1994) model facilitates reflection on action, which is a
precursor to reflection in action. The four-step model (DATA) involves:
1. Describing a problem or incident in your classroom that represents some critical aspect of your
assessment practice that may be amendable to Pintrich and Schunk’s specific applications
incorporated within each chapter.
2. Based the pertinent research, analyzing the nature of what you described, including citing
pertinent research.
3. Theorize and reflect on specific alternate ways you may now approach the problem described
in step 1. Reflection is “generally used as a synonym for higher-order mental processes “
(Merzirow, 1990). Dewey suggested “reflection refer{s} to assessing the grounds of one’s beliefs
(p. 1933, p. 9). Some specific questions
What happened?
What took place?
What do your colleagues think took place?
What do your students think took place?
What area of practice needed improvement or change?
What worked really well?
Why did it happen?
What were the factors contributing to the problem / success?
What assumptions and underlying beliefs and motives were involved from you, your learners and
your colleagues?
Can you recognise any theory in what took place?
What external factors had any effect?
What can be done?
What are the possible ways to improve?
How could you use some of the success factors in your teaching?
How do your colleagues think you could use some of the success factors in your teaching?
How do your students think you could use some of the success factors in your teaching?
What ways forward are there?
Which parts of the changes are the most straightforward / least straightforward?
How will this affect your professional situation?
What will be done?
What action will you take?
What impact do you believe it will have on you, your learners and your colleagues?
When will you take action?
4. Act on you new assumptions- ex post facto reflection is validated through sharing or
“ exposing an expressed idea to rational and reflective discourse…we turn to those we feel are
best informed, least biased, and most rational to critically assess the evidence and arguments and
arrive consensually at the best judgment” (Merzorow, 1990; p. 10).
D. Philosophy and Action for Assessment Statement: each graduate candidate will submit a
20-page philosophy of assessment paper that will include a critical rationale with an organizing
vision of where you are going and why you are going there. Include
a. terms, aims and objectives of the certain values and principles that render formative
assessment processes meaningful to you;
b. curricula and methods that support these values and principles;
c. the composition of the teaching learning transaction, and the roles of the teacher and student
within the chosen philosophy, including specific strategies;
d. the roles that school society play within this framework with emphasis on diverse leaners;
e. a description, reflection, and outcomes from THREE specific strategies of formative
assessment you have instituted in your classroom. Include an Impact On Student Learning;
f. and include cited references to applicable theory and research.
Student Name
Article Number for
INTER Group
Review
1.
1
a
2.
1
b
3.
1
c
4.
1
d
5.
2
a
6.
2
b
7.
2
c
8.
2
d
9.
3
a
10.
3
b
11.
3
c
12.
3
d
13.
4
a
14.
4
b
15.
4
c
16.
4
d
17.
1
a
18.
2
b
Tentative Course Calendar
(Subject to Revision)
Below is the schedule of topics, readings, and assignments. Readings in brackets are optional. The topics
listed indicate what will be emphasized in that week’s readings and class meeting, but we will also
explore other issues during those meetings. Class will involve a variety of activities, including discussions
of readings, student presentations, videos, and guest speakers.
Week 1:
Weeks 2 and 3:
Introductions and Course Overview
Reflection and Critical Incidence Activity
Locating Articles
Guiding Question: In this assessment age of accountability and high stakes
testing, why are we studying formative assessment?
Writing Article Reviews
PRERead for today:
Wiliam Text:
Brookfield Text:
#1: Why Achievement Matters
#2: Case for Formative Assessment
#1: What is Critical Thinking?
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-48. (1)
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Performance counts: Assessment systems that support
high-quality learning. CCSSO Report, September 2010, 1-20. (2) Available at
http://jacksoncisd.schoolwires.com/cms/lib/MI01000251/Centricity/Domain/37/Session5/Performance%2
0Counts%20Assessment%20Systems%20that%20Support%20High%20Quality%20Learning.pdf
Dunn, K. & Mulvenon, S. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment:
The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical
Assessment Research and Evaluation. 14(7), 1 – 11. (3)
Full text of Obama’s educational speech.(2008, May 28). The Denver Post. Retrieved from
http://www.denverpost.com (4)
Assignment Due:
Week #2: Quiz over Wiliam and Brookfield Readings
(5 points)
DATA Critical Incident - #1 (5 points)
Week #3: Article Review #1 (5 points)
Weeks 4 and 5:
Guiding Question: What are the theoretical underpinnings of effective
formative assessment?
Wiliam Text: #3: Learning Intentions
Brookfield Text: #3: How Critical Thinking Is Learned
Articles:
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Education
and Psychlogical Review, 19, 141-184. (Goal Orientation Theory) 2.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from selfdetermination theory. The Journal of Social Osychology, 139(3), 355-368. (Theory) 3.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A
model
and seven principals of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199-218.
(Feedback) 1.
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421-442. 4.
Assignment Due:
Week#4: Quiz over Wiliam and Brookfield texts (5 points)
Critical Incident DATA #2 (5 points)
Week #5: Article Review #2 (5 points)
Week 6: What is the research in support of these theories? Is there any?
Read for today:
Davis, D., & Neitzel, C. (2011). A self-regulated learning perspective on middle grades
Journal of Educational Research, 104: 202-215. (Self-Regulation) 4
assessment. The
Oberle,E., Schonert-Reichl, & Thomson, K. (2010). Understanding the link between social and
emotional well-being and peer relationships ion early adolescence: Gender specific
predictors. Journal Youth and Adolescence. 39, 1330-1242. (Emotional) 3
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421-442.
Volante, L. & Beckett, D. (2010). Formative Assessment and the contemporary classroom .
Canadian Journal of Education . 34(2), 240 – 255. (Research) 1
Assignment Due:
Week 7:
PRE read for today:
Article Review #3 (5 points)
Application: What is effective feedback?
Locating your own articles for next week
Wiliam text
#5:Feedback
Brookfield text:
#3: How Critical Thinking Is Learned
#4: Basic Protocols Critical Thinking
Henderlong-Corpus, J., Ofle, C., & Love-Geiger, K. (2006). The effects of social-comparison versus
mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 335-345
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from selfdetermination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 355-368. (Theory)
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and
seven principals of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
Shirbagi, N., & Kord, B. (2008). Using different feedbacks in formative evaluation and their effects on
achievement in Iranian elementary school students. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(1,2), 1 –
15.
Assignment Due: Quiz of text readings (5 points)
Critical Incident DATA #3 (5 points)
Week 8:
What is effective questioning for learning?
Read for today:
Brookfield test: #4: Basic Protocols Critical Thinking
#5: Critical Complexity
Articles: Located your own during the week.
Assignments Due:
Quiz over readings (5 points)
Article Review # 4 (5 points)
Critical Incident DATA # 4 (5 points)
Week 9:
How to we help children provide formative feedback to each other?
Read for Today:
Articles:
Wiliam text: #6: Peer Learning
Each group will locate their own article and review.
Week 10 :
How can I as a scholar-practionioner design and measure the effect of
formative assessment in my classroom?
Read for today:
Review video. Be prepared to share 10 minute video of your favorite.
Week 11:
What does critical thinking have to do with formative assessment?
Read for today:
Assignment Due:
Complete Brookfield text.
The quiz will be a three-page critical response to the above
question of the week. (5 points)
Week 12:
Can the student growth model of assessment be applied to my action
research project?
Read for Today:
TBA
Assignment Due:
In-Class Data Analysis Project (5 points)
Week 12:
What critical issues surround formative assessment?
Read for today:
Johnson, M.A.& Stephens, M.L.. (2012). Race to the Top and the exclusion of welfare recipients
from educational policy discourse. Adult Learning. 23 (4), 188-195. (Divesity)
Week 13:
Projects and Presentations (Presentation = 10 points)
Week 14:
Projects and Presentations
Week 15
Putting it All Together: Synthesis of Projects (Group Synthesis = 10
points)
Assignment Due:
Final Paper Due by date and time of FINAL (20 points)
X:
Evaluation and Grading: (DROPPING TWO Lowest 5 POINT ASSIGNMENT= 100
points)
A= 90 – 100
B = 80 – 89
C = 70 – 79
D = 60 – 69
XI.
References and additional readings:
XIII.
References/Bibliography
Airasian, P.W. (1997). Classroom assessment. (3rd ed.).New York : McGraw-Hill.
Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural
education. NY: Macmillan.
Dana, R. H. (1993). Multicultural assessment perspectives for professional psychology.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Wilson.
Haney, W. (1989). Testing reasoning and reasoning about testing. Review of Educational
Research, 54(9), 557-654.
Haney, W. M., Maduaus, G. F., Lyons, R. (1993). The fractured marketplace for
standardized testing. Boston: Kluwer.
Hibbard, K. M. and others. (1996). A teacher's guide to performance-based learning and
assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Gronlund, N. E. & Linn, R. L. (1995). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (7th ed.)
New York: Macmillan, Chapter 6, “Constructing Objective Test Items.”
Katz, M. (1961). Improving classroom tests by means of item analysis. Clearing House,
35, 265-269.
Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the
schools. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. (1995). Measurement and evaluation in teaching (7th ed.).
New York: Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1981). Evidence and ethics on the evaluation of tests. Educational
Researcher, 10, 9-20.
Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom assessment- What teachers need to know. (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Student-involved classroom assessment. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wiggins,G. (1998). Educative assessment: designing assessments to inform and improve
student performance. SanFrancisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass.
FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Ball, E. (2009). Participatory action research study on handwritten annotation feedback and its
on staff and students. System Practice Action Research, 22, 111-124.
impact
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-48. (Introduction)
Burnette, J., O’Boyle, E., VanEpps, E., & Pollack, J. (2012). Mind-matter: A meta-analytic
review of implicit theories and self-regulation. APA Psychological Bulletin, 10, 1037.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. (2012).
Educational Psychology Review, 24, 205-249. (Self-Regulation, Theory)
Corpus, J., Ogle, C., & Love-Geiger, K. (2006). The effects of social-comparison versus mastery
praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Moti Emot, 30, 335-345.(Emotion)
Davis, D., & Neitzel, C. (2011). A self-regulated learning perspective on middle grades
assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 104: 202-215. (Self-Regulation)
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Performance counts: Assessment systems that support high-quality
learning. CCSSO Report, September 2010, 1-20. Available at
http://jacksoncisd.schoolwires.com/cms/lib/MI01000251/Centricity/Domain/37/Session5/Perform
ance%20Counts%20Assessment%20Systems%20that%20Support%20High%20Quality%20Lear
ning.pdf
Dunn, K. & Mulvenon, S. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The
limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical
Assessment Research and Evaluation. 14(7), 1 – 11. (Research)
Full text of Obama’s Educational Speech.(2008, May 28). The Denver Post. Retrieved from
http://www.denverpost.com (Diversity)
Henderlong-Corpus, J., Ofle, C., & Love-Geiger, K. (2006). The effects of social-comparison
versus mastery praise on children’s intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 335-345.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we
losing an opportunity? CCSSO Report , September 2010, 1-20.
Available at
http://www.edweek.org/media/formative_assessment_next_generation_heritage.pdf
Jenkins, J. (2010). A multi-faceted formative assessment approach: better recognizing the
learning needs of students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5),
656-576.
Johnson, M.A.& Stephens, M.L.. (2012). Race to the Top and the exclusion of welfare recipients
From educational policy discourse. Adult Learning. 23 (4), 188-195
Kapla
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Education and Psychological Review, 19, 141-184. (Goal Orientation Theory)
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from selfdetermination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 355-368. (Theory)
McManus, S.. (2008). Attributes of effective formative assessment. CCSSO. - (-), p.1-6.
Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A
model
and seven principals of good feedback practice, Studies in Higher Education,
31(2), 199-218.
(Feedback)
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychological Review, 19, 141-184. (Theory)
Oberle,E., Schonert-Reichl, & Thomson, K. (2010). Understanding the link between social and
emotional well-being and peer relationships ion early adolescence: Gender specific
predictors. Journal Youth and Adolescence. 39, 1330-1242. (Emotional)
Johnson, M., & Stephens, M (2012). Race-to-the-Top and the exclusion of welfare recipients
educational policy discourse. Adult Learning, 23(4), 188- 195. (Diversity)
from
Shirbagi, N., & Kord, B. (2008). Using different feedbacks in formative evaluation and their
effects
on achievement in Iranian elementary school students. Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 18(1,2), 1 –
15. (Research – Feedback).
Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and
educational attainment. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 421-442.
Sleep, L. & Boerst, T. (2012). Preparing beginning teachers to elicit and interpret student’s
mathematical thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education. 28, 1038-1048.
Shepard, L. A. (1991, November). Will national tests improve student learning? The Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 232-238. Retrieved July 20, 2010, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20404601.
Volante, L. & Beckett, D. (2010). Formative Assessment and the contemporary classroom.
Canadian Journal of Education, 34(2), 240 – 255.