When analyzing data with a group of teachers, we inevitably hear one of these two concerns:
- I don't need to look at assessment data. I'm a good teacher, and good teachers already know how their students are doing.
- These results are not valid.
This protocol is designed to engage teachers in the data analysis process by first acknowledging their expertise and deep knowledge of the students they serve by suggesting they view the assessment as a piece of student performance at a specific point in time, to be viewed alongside other data points like teacher created assessments, writing samples, and teacher observations.
Takeaway: Teachers need to view benchmark data through a lens that respects their knowledge and expertise.
Materials: Sticky notes or index cards, Schoolzilla, copy of the normed assessment where appropriate or information about content likely assessed.
Step 1: Instruct teachers to write each student's name on a sticky note or index cards. Without looking at the assessment data, teachers should group students into 4 categories (high, med-high, med-low, low or similar) based on academic performance.
Step 2: Go to the Our Students page. Use the clickable bar chart to see students broken into four groups based on the benchmark assessment data you are reviewing. Have teachers compare these groups to the groups they created. Highlight the students whose scores were relatively different from the teacher's "gut" assessment.
Step 3: Ask the following questions:
-
Which students performed better than you expected? Which students performed worse than you expected?
-
What might account for this difference?
-
Some highly verbal students can “fake” reading comprehension in a group setting.
-
Some students don’t test well/were not invested in the test.
-
Students who have mastered the material previously may not make much effort during class.
-
Some students may not have retained knowledge from earlier in the year.
-
Text-heavy tests can prevent students from demonstrating knowledge.
-
-
How might this inform your instruction moving forward?
-
Use additional assessments with a student who performed differently than expected to collect additional data points.
-
Have conferences with individual students to review the data, discuss their effort, and reflect together.
-
Create initial groups (heterogeneous and homogeneous) based on this data; remember that all ability-based groups should be fluid.
-
Identify students or content that would benefit from review and incorporate into homework, warm-up exercises, etc.
-
Touch base other teachers who work with students who performed below where you expected to see if they have other information about students or ideas to support.
-
Other factors to consider when planning to use this protocol with teachers:
- Compared to other students nationally, do we have higher/lower expectations within our building? (e.g. a student who scores in the 50th percentile on a nationally normed assessment might be viewed as above average/grade level by teachers in a low-performing school)
- If teachers are ready, consider looking at demographic information like gender and ethnicity, as well. What do the students we overestimated have in common? What do the students we underestimated have in common?
- We often over/under estimate the academic performance of students with significant behavior challenges.
- We often miss the strengths of EL students.