Identifying Teachers' Needs for Results From Interim Unit Assessments

Abstract

Interim assessments have been defined variously in different contexts and can be used for predictive purposes or instructional purposes. In this paper, we present results from a study where we evaluated reporting needs for interim assessments designed for instructional purposes and intended to be used at the end of defined curriculum units. Results from such unit assessments should help teachers determine gaps in student understanding and inform ongoing instructional decision‐making. Our goal was to determine if learning progressions (LPs) could serve as the cognitive lens through which teachers can evaluate how their students' understanding of key constructs improves through periodic unit assessments. Therefore, we used the LP framework in mathematics and the key practices (KP) framework for English language arts (ELA) to design preliminary teacher report mock‐ups for these unit assessments. Within a utilization‐oriented evaluation framework, we conducted six needs‐assessment focus groups with elementary and middle school mathematics (n = 12) and ELA (n = 11) teachers to specifically evaluate the extent to which they find results presented within the LP and KP frameworks understandable and useful for their instructional practice. Results from the focus groups show teachers' overall needs for types of information sought from unit assessment reports, the extent to which teachers are familiar with the LP and KP frameworks, their interpretations (including confusions) of the information presented in the preliminary mock‐ups, and their additional needs for reports from unit assessments to be instructionally useful.

Learning Progression–Based Assessments: A Systematic Review of Student and Teacher Uses

“…Evidence in this category was primarily from teacher self-reported data and researcher observations, although two sources examined consistency of judgments (Goral & Bailey, 2019; van Rijn et al, 2018). Most reported teachers’ interpretations of their own students’ work; however, in six studies, only researcher-provided data were examined (i.e., Alonzo & Elby, 2019; Ebby & Sirinides, 2015; Jin et al, 2015; Kannan et al, 2021; Supovitz et al, 2018; van Rijn et al, 2018). Across sources, authors noted that LP-based assessment provided a structure and language useful for interpreting student work and communicating results (e.g., Edgington, 2014; Furtak & Heredia, 2014; Stille et al, 2016; Wickstrom & Langrall, 2020; Wilson, 2014).…”

“…No studies showed how teachers successfully reported LP-based results to parents via grades or report cards. Teachers in Kannan et al (2021) identified possible difficulties in reporting LP-based assessment results when students are categorized to LP levels within existing school grading practices. While studies did include teachers using their LP-based assessment judgments to track student progress (Peck et al, 2021; Stille et al, 2016), if and/or how these data contributed to student grades or reporting external to the school remained unclear.…”

“…Data highlighted LP-based assessments’ potential for informing learning goals and planning by identifying next learning steps (e.g., Stille et al, 2016; Wilmot et al, 2011). For example, an English teacher in Kannan et al’s (2021) study reported liking the LP-based score report, as it helped identify “that next step, which frees my time as a teacher to implement it” (p. 17). Parr (2011) found teachers generally agreed that LP use helped clarify expectations and identify appropriate learning goals.…”

“…LP-based assessment is claimed to support both formative and summative assessment purposes (e.g., Kannan et al, 2021; Lehrer et al, 2014; Peck et al, 2021; Wilson & Lehrer, 2021); however, to satisfy both purposes, teachers must be able to coordinate use for both purposes, judge student responses reliably, and grade and report data to students, parents, and education systems. The review found limited data showing teachers using the same LP-based assessment for each purpose, even though some did provide tools to assist with both formative and summative applications (e.g., Anderson et al, 2018).…”

“…Teachers in some sources appeared more comfortable discussing class-level patterns rather than classifying individual students (Edgington et al, 2016;Wickstrom & Langrall, 2020). Kannan et al (2021) found English teachers reported more difficulties making meaning from the LP-based assessment score report data than math teachers, attributing this to discipline differences or lower LP familiarity. No studies showed how teachers successfully reported LP-based results to parents via grades or report cards.…”