Section A
Assessment Strategies and Examples
The group began its work by identifying a variety of potential strategies by which teachers' capacity to use and integrate technology in the classroom might be assessed. Three subgroups were created to work on particular assessment strategies. The first subgroup worked to expand information about each strategy by identifying the potential purpose of the strategy, some existing models of the strategy, any research known to have been conducted on the strategy, the potential costs of the strategy, the type of data generated by the strategy, and the strengths and drawbacks of each. The following table represents this subgroup's ideas.
Click here for a printer friendly table outlining the following information:
Surveys (Self Assessment)
Reflective Practice
Performance Tasks
Observations
Student Work
Professional Portfolio
The purpose of surveys is to obtain teachers' perceptions of their own skill levels. The strength of a survey is that it generally has a low cost to administer but the data collected is typically an over report. The data collected is quantitative. A model is the snap-shot survey and it is backed by research from the HiCE Project.
Reflective practice assessments are meant to inform instruction, to provide professional growth and to link to student achievement. Some models include the Harvard Project Zero, the Education Trust and the Maryland Technology Academy. These assessments reflect the lifelong learning process and have a direct impact on practice and student achievement. The data collected is qualitative in nature and requires both the teachers' time in completing the assessment as well as often a cultural change for the teachers and the educational community.
Performance Tasks Assessments assess teachers’ capacity to effectively teach with technology through a decision-making process. Obtaining this quantitative data requires both the time and resources needed to develop valid tasks or questions. The strength is that the outcome is a demonstrated ability through the completion of tasks or questions. Both Maryland and Idaho have performance tasks models in place.
Observations are both formative and summative in nature and provide both quantitative and qualitative data. This type of assessment carries a significant time cost. Strong models are available through Peter Dirr and the Appalachian Regional Education Technology Consortium (ATEC).
Using student work for assessment purposes is both formative and summative in nature and requires a time cost in training and assessment as well as a potential cultural change. The type of data collected is qualitative when aggregated with a standardized rubric including the following indicators: Instructional Practices, Learning Uses and Student Performance. The strengths of using student work for assessment include a focus on content communication, authentic feedback and reflective practice. It also informs continuous improvement of acquisition of inquiry and improves communication skills for both teachers and students. The drawbacks are that it is time intensive, it requires a culture shift of reasons for technology use and it is a system-wide decision. Models include Student Scoring Guides, the North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium (NCR*TEC) Evaluation Toolkit and EDC. Research includes the Six Trait Scoring Program, the Bay Area Writing Project and Harvard Project Zero.
Professional portfolio assessments are used for diagnostic, formative and summative purposes and provide data that is qualitative in nature. While the cost of using this type of assessment varies, it often does require significant time and resources. Professional portfolios offer long-term professional development, are inquiry-based, and are job embedded. Models for professional portfolios can be found in Idaho and through International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Chapter Summary Assessment Strategies and Examples Instruments Alternative Assessments Guidelines Statewide Implementation Guidelines Detailed Guidelines |
||
|
|
 |