Skip to main content

Andrew Cho

Andrew Cho's Public Library

24 Sep 12

good material for assignment on solom reflective assessment

  • Classrooms across the country are welcoming an ever-growing number of  students whose native language is not English.

     

    Learning English is tough enough, especially so when you’re a student  learning academic content at the same time.

     

    Helping students meet academic goals while negotiating a new language  challenges teachers, too. Each English language learner (ELL) has a unique set  of abilities and educational experiences. At any given grade level, and in any  given subject, their academic preparation differs, as does their familiarity  with informal and academic English. To be of most assistance, teachers need to  know how well each student is doing in any given area, at any moment.

  • One area of assessment—formative assessment—has recently grown in importance.  Formative assessment occurs regularly during the school year and helps teachers  and students monitor learning progress. Formative assessments help teachers  identify where students are, and where they need to be, relative to learning  goals. Teachers and students then address these gaps.

  • helps teachers measure student progress as they develop the essential language  needed for success in academic classes
15 Jul 12

Singh, K.. (2011). Teacher Leadership: Making Your Voice Count. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(1), 6-10. Retrieved July 15, 2012, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 2511692131).

  • To distribute leadership, as Woods and Gronn (2009)  have suggested, organizational members must move past the traditional roles  played in a "contractual" setting, where status determines relationships and  work is accomplished in order to earn pay. These authors advised organizations  to be careful to avoid using the distribution of leadership for control  purposes, as mere delegation and a way of getting others to do more. They added  that strong leadership is needed to move groups in this more democratic  direction. In addition. Flessa (2009) investigated the micro-political aspect of  distributed leadership and warned that a shift in roles challenges the  traditional structure and spurs conflict, which staff and leader must be  prepared to address. These new enhanced roles will only be fruitful and  satisfying if teachers are fully informed about this model and if formal leaders  know how to implement it correctly.

     

    In this article, the author presents a brief overview  of distributed leadership, as well as shares insights gained as the result of  creating and leading a distributed leadership team for three years at a high  school. Working with a team offers benefits; yet, to ensure smooth operation,  certain factors must be taken into consideration. The author translates her  insights into specific suggestions for both principals and teachers who are  becoming more involved in distributed leadership models at their schools.  Ultimately, the goal for teacher-leaders is to enjoy and benefit from the  experience as well as to make worthwhile contributions where it counts - in the  teachinglearning arena.

02 Jul 12

Conderman, G., & Hedin, L.. (2012). Purposeful Assessment Practices for Co-Teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 19-27. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 2606422451).

  • Assessment refers to the process of gathering data on  student performance to inform instructional decision making (Nitko &  Brookhart, 2010). Due to the range of information gleaned through assessments,  no single measure provides sufficient information for a global picture of  student progress (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005). Teachers need to have available  and base their decisions on data from various assessments, such as those  described in Table 1 . Table 1 illustrates how- based on their skills,  familiarity with assessments, and relationship with students - coteachers can  share assessment responsibilities. Planning for purposeful coassessment occurs  at four points in time: as co-teaching teams form, before lessons or units of  study begin, during instruction, and after instruction.

  • Before an instructional unit, co-teachers can assess what students already know  by using the What I Know (K) and What I Want to Know (W) columns of a KWL chart
02 Jul 12

Olszewski-Kubilius, P.. (2010). The First Word: A Letter From the Special Issue Editor. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 561-567,752-753. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 2187698261).

  • enabling students to experience authentic work in the  talent area, which is highly motivating;

     

    * assisting students in acquiring the personal skills  needed for success in the field, including the ability to receive and respond  positively to feedback and criticism and deal with competition and setbacks;

     

    * building motivation for high achievement by  providing a better match to students' interests and learning styles, and by  building a supportive peer network;

28 Jun 12

Nezakatgoo, B.. (2011). The Effects of Portfolio Assessment on Writing of EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 231-241. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2396966471).

  • The primary focus of this study was to determine the  effect of portfolio assessment on final examination  scores of EFL students' writing skill. To determine the impact of  portfolio-based writing assessment 40 university students who enrolled in  composition course were initially selected and divided randomly into two  experimental and control groups. A quasi-experimental research design was  adopted in this study. In order to appraise the homogeneity of the experimental  and control groups Comprehensive English Language Test (CELT) was employed at  the beginning of the study. The pre-test was applied to both the experimental  group and control group. Later in the study, a post-test of dependent variables  was implemented for both groups. Data analysis was carried out by SPSS 16  statistical computer program .The statistical techniques being applied were the  Levene statistic of One-Way ANOVA and the Paired-sample T-test. The results of  the study revealed that that students whose work was evaluated by a portfolio  system (portfolio-based assessment) had improved in their writing and gained  higher scores in final examination when compared to those students whose work  was evaluated by the more traditional evaluation system (non-portfolio-based  assessment).The findings of the present study highlighted the fact that portfolio assessment could be used as a complementary  alternative along with traditional assessment to shed new light on the process  of writing. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

  • The results of these statistical analyses confirmed  the significant effect of writing and assessing portfolios on final examination  scores of writing of EFL students. A possible explanation of these results may  be linked to efficiency of portfolio-based writing and assessment. It may be  that these subjects were benefited from a sufficient time span that the  researcher calls it gift of time that enables them to use challenging structures  in their written task performance. Findings from this study indicated that  writing and assessing portfolios were beneficial to students. Even if they  encountered many problems in the process, they learned a lot from solving their  problems and shouldering the ownership of responsibility of learning. The  students of portfolio-based group benefited from the reflective nature of the  task. Reflection was a self-assessment tool, which helped the learner in the  experimental group of the current study to look at the strength and weaknesses  of a particular learning activity and consider how to improve the weakness.

28 Jun 12

Hertberg-Davis, H.. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the Regular Classroom Is Equivalent to Gifted Programs and Is Sufficient: Classroom Teachers Have the Time, the Skill, and the Will to Differentiate Adequately. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253. Retrieved June 28, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1940617081).

  •    
     

    Full Text

     
    (1873  words)
     
    Copyright National Association for  Gifted Children Fall 2009

     

    Differentiation of instruction calls on a teacher to  recognize that the students in his or her classroom differ from one another in a  variety of ways - including readiness levels, interests, and learning profiles -  and to respond to these differences with learning experiences matched to  demonstrated individual student need (Tomlinson, 2003). This approach to  teaching stands in stark contrast to approaches that assume that all students in  a classroom, regardless of its heterogeneity, benefit and learn from a standard,  one-size-fits-all curriculum.

     

    Within the philosophy of differentiation, gifted  students are regarded as a diverse lot whose individual talents and needs cannot  be met with a single "gifted" curriculum. As such, recommendations for  differentiating learning experiences for gifted students include principles of  providing not only challenges generally considered beneficial for gifted  students (e.g., greater depth and complexity, adjusted pace, greater  independence) but also curricular and instructional modifications geared toward  individual student need.

     

    Taken at face value, the philosophy of differentiated  instruction is hard to argue with - who wouldn't agree that students learn more  efficiently and effectively when learning tasks are geared toward Üieir  individual needs? Who wouldn't agree that differentiating the curriculum in a  mixed-ability classroom isn't beneficial to the gifted students in mat  classroom, most of who are used to, in the words of Sally Reis et al. (1993),  waiting until January to learn anytiiing new?

  •  

    Abstract (Summary)

     
     

    In many ways, meeting the needs of gifted students tiirough differentiation of curriculum and  instruction within me regular classroom seems a perfect solution to the issues  mat have plagued gifted education for many years and  remain largely unresolved: problems with inequities in identification (in a  differentiated classroom, "identification" of student need is not a onetime  event but an ongoing process of assessment tied to  specific classroom goals), the need for an "in" or "out" mentality (space is not  limited in the regular classroom), issues with pull-out gifted programs that are only a "part-time solution to a  full-time problem" (students continually receive services matched to their needs  when learning experiences are differentiated in the regular classroom), issues  with how to define giftedness (assessing student strengths and needs can be  flexible in a differentiated classroom, determined on a task-by-task basis), and  me costs associated wim gifted programs (it doesn't  cost any more - in dollars at least - to differentiate instruction in the  regular classroom than to teach a one-size-fits-all curriculum).  Misunderstandings about differentiation - that it is a form of scaffolding for  struggling learners rather than a method of meeting  the unique needs of all levels of learners, that it is  primarily a group work strategy, that it is about  providing fun choices rather than a thoughtful, concept-based curriculum - are  prevalent in teachers new to differentiation and can lead to practices such as  using gifted learners as anchors in group work to  "make sure work gets done," using gifted students to  help tutor other children, or sacrificing highlevel content for cute activities.  

  • It comes as no surprise, men, that many school  districts across me country have decided to eliminate or cut back on more  traditional gifted programs in favor of differentiation of curriculum and  instruction in the regular classroom. In many ways, meeting the needs of gifted  students tiirough differentiation of curriculum and instruction within me  regular classroom seems a perfect solution to the issues mat have plagued gifted  education for many years and remain largely unresolved: problems with inequities  in identification (in a differentiated classroom, "identification" of student  need is not a onetime event but an ongoing process of assessment tied to  specific classroom goals), the need for an "in" or "out" mentality (space is not  limited in the regular classroom), issues with pull-out gifted programs that are  only a "part-time solution to a full-time problem" (students continually receive  services matched to their needs when learning experiences are differentiated in  the regular classroom), issues with how to define giftedness (assessing student  strengths and needs can be flexible in a differentiated classroom, determined on  a task-by-task basis), and me costs associated wim gifted programs (it doesn't  cost any more - in dollars at least - to differentiate instruction in the  regular classroom than to teach a one-size-fits-all curriculum). So why is it a  myth that differentiated instruction in the regular classroom is an appropriate  substitute for gifted programs?

     

    In truth, it shouldn't be a myth. Classrooms should  be places where teachers uncover and foster talent in all students by finding  pathways into content through students' interests and ways to scaffold learning  so mat rich, high-level concepts are accessible. They should be places where  students who excel in a certain area or areas confront continual challenge and  opportunities to grow and where appropriate curriculum is not determined by a  label affixed to a student but by a teacher's knowledge of the unique strengths,  interests, learning preferences, and needs ofthat child.

     

    But the reality is that the way we "do school" does  not make it easy for classrooms to be places where individual student needs,  rather than pressure to pass a standardized test, ultimately shape the  curriculum. Although differentiation and state standards can peacefully coexist  in a classroom (see Tomlinson, 2000), teachers often find it difficult to  reconcile attending to student differences with a broader high-stakes testing  culture that seems to mandate the opposite. Recent research indicates that the  high-stakes testing associated with /Vo Child Left Behindhas rendered the  regular classroom even less hospitable to gifted learners than it was  previously, causing teachers to resort to drill-and-kill techniques over more  student-centered approaches (e.g., Moon, Brighton, & Callahan, 2003).

     

    Many teachers also seem resistant to differentiation  because they perceive it as highly time consuming. It does take longer to plan  thoughtful differentiated units and lessons than to present a one-size-fits-all  curriculum. Of course, the amount of time it takes to plan differentiated  curriculum decreases over time as teachers become more accustomed to the  process, learn to plan efficiently, and develop a storehouse of differentiated  lessons and units from which to work. But the initial planning is off-putting to  many teachers, causing them to write differentiation off as unrealistic or to  differentiate only for the students who they perceive need it most.

1 more annotation...

  • Hollins,  E.  R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., & Towner, A.  (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: investigating an  internal model for teacher development. International Journal Of Qualitative  Studies In Education (QSE), 17(2), 247
  • Hollins, E.
18 Jun 12

Brunsell, E., & Horejsi, M.. (2012). The NSTA Learning Center. The Science Teacher, 79(4), 10-11. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from Research Library. (Document ID: 2674738721).

1 - 20 of 231 Next › Last »
20 items/page

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo