I just finished my master’s in literacy course about assessment. There are two big take-aways that we all agreed on, and today I’ll write about the first–the CURRV method of assessing your assessments.
Consequences of Assessment: Reading assessments must have the consequence of helping students develop as readers. There are many consequences–both positive and negative–of reading assessments ranging from increased student self-esteem to robbing valuable teaching time from the students.
Usefulness of Assessment: We need all types of assessments, but we need to determine their usefulness before we give it. At my last school we had to give spelling inventories to our students–an assessment I always found quite useful for informing instruction and creating a snapshot of each student from varied assessments. I recently found out that many teachers had no idea why we gave the assessment and so it was useless to them.
Roles and Responsibilities Realated to Assessment: Teacher roles may include encouraging students to take the test seriously or teaching the testing genre to the student. Students roles may include preparing to take the assessment.
Reliability of Assessment: Is the assessment going to be affected by teacher state of mind? Then it is not reliable unless checks and balances are put into place to make assessment practices consistent.
Validity of Assessment: The intuitive test of validity is asking the question, “Is this worth the time?”
This is an extremely truncated explanation of the CURRV method, and you can find more in Peter Afflerbach’s book, Understanding and Using REading Assessment K-12.
I made this survey for a class project at the University of New England. I designed it for teachers at InterAmerican Academy in Guayaquil, Ecuador, but would love to hear what anyone else has to say about assessment in their schools. Puh-lease take a minute to fill it out.
Build disciplinary and world knowledge. (AKA Background knowledge)
Provide exposure to a volume and range of texts.
Provide motivating texts and contexts for reading.
Teach strategies for comprehending.
Teach text structures.
Engage students in discussion.
Build vocabulary and language knowledge.
Integrate reading and writing.
Observe and assess.
Differentiate instruction (Samuels & Farstrup, 2012, p. 52).
This list comes from my new favorite book, What Research Says About Reading Instruction. I just discovered there’s also a What Research Says About Vocabulary Instruction which I’ve put on my Amazon wish list.
I don’t think any of this is new news to anyone teaching reading, but it is wonderfully affirming news. I realize that my weakness has been teaching text structure in non-fiction reading. I’ve busily been collecting information on structure so I can work with it more than usual next year. Last year my focus was student discussion. I’ve been preparing a website at Collaborative Classroom to have my students have online discussions as “boardwork” when they enter the room, exit tickets before they leave the room, or in-depth discussions in the middle or for homework. I love online discussions as it makes it possible for the teacher to monitor all the discussions not just those in earshot.
Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2012). What research has to say about reading instruction. (fourth ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
I know it’s silly, but as my students leave each day I sing to them (decidedly off key), “Oh, it’s crying time again, you’re gonna’ leave me.” Many of them beam with joy that I’m going to miss them.
It’s that time of the school year for reflection–for us and for our students. Here’s a visual created by Peter Pappas for a taxonomy of reflection that would be helpful for all of us. Read more about it on his blog.
This morning I was reading some research about reading and came across some information about how our brains turn print into language. The idea that sent fireworks exploding in my brain is the very last step when words receive meaning: ”Reading a word such as stagger, limp, or tiptoe activates the motor areas in the brain that are involved in controlling the legs and feet, whereas reading a word such as chop or carve activates those controlling the hands. Whereas understanding a sentence about eating activates the areas related to gustatory sensations, understanding a visual description activates areas of the visual cortex (Adams, 2011, p. 8).
How cool is that! The next step is a response or completed circuit. Doesn’t that just give us all the more reason to include kinetic learning in our reading repetoire?
Samuels, J. & Farstrup, A., Editors (2011). What research has to say about reading instruction. Neward, DE: International Reading Association.