Should the lessons drive what we assess, or the assessment drive what we teach? This question was what I asked myself during my learning in Module 2 of CEP 813. Currently as I teach 2nd grade Eureka Math we have an abundance of lessons to teach that are wrapped up with an end of module assessment. There are 6-7 math modules that go with each grade level. These modules have 2 assessments that are tied into the unit a mid module assessment as well as an end of module assessment. The assessments usually have 12-18 questions. The questions typically are similar to questions that the students had on their practice sheets, but this is not always the case. When the students take the mid module assessment it shows what they learned from the first part of the unit, and the end of module assessment is a culmination of the first half and the second half of the unit. This is meant to give the teacher a clear picture of skills mastered from the lessons taught.
These assessments are great for showing us what the students have learned, however since the lessons do not circle back around if a topic is not mastered there is not another opportunity to teach it. The assessment is clearly, an after thought to the lessons. On the other hand, each lesson has an exit ticket which helps to guide instruction along the way, but those are usually given after the lesson when the information is fresh in the students mind. These small snippets of assessment can help to identify small gaps in learning throughout the unit, and can help with instruction, but when a student is asked to compile all their learning throughout the unit in the end of module assessment they are not always able to transfer those skills which were learned sometime ago.
When reviewing Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding By Design, they say, “Curriculum should lay out the most effective ways of achieving specific results.” (Wiggins & McTighe 2005) I interpret that as looking at what you want the students to learn, and thinking about how that will be measured adapt the lessons to be taught around that purpose. Thinking about backward design with our math units, I think a happy medium would be to assess the students in each topic. These are shorter segments of the units that are more focused on a specific skill. By assessing each topic the goal for the assessment will be more clear because only one skill will be work on at a time. This follows the assessment design checklist that I have created to make sure that the assessments being used are purposeful and consistent. Another component of that checklist is how will the goal be measured. Typically in the past we use an end of module assessment. By breaking this down to a topic. I would be taking parts of that assessment and use them as they apply to each topic.
Although much of the end of module assessment resembles question given through out the math module, I could see this assessment rewritten completely in illuminate to accommodate each topic. Illuminate is where our district collects data. Using the standards being taught in each topic, item bank assessments can be created, which can help to analyze the data one step further. Item bank assessments are a mixture of short answer and multiple choice which can give opportunity to show understanding. By giving the pre and post assessment in a digital way for each topic, the design of the lessons can be more specific, and can also help with creating strategy groups. Either way the assessment is given by using it as a formative assessment rather than a summative, will give teachers more data to create an effective sequence of lessons. Giving students more opportunity to be successful.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (Vol. Expanded 2nd ed). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Comments