There are a few key factors to consider when using assessment data to guide instruction. First, for students at or above grade level who are continuing to make progress, informal assessment may be adequate for determining appropriate ways to differentiate instruction. In contrast, it may be necessary to administer multiple assessments to accurately determine the source of students’ trouble when they have difficulties (Jones, et al., 2016). For example, although passage-reading fluency assessments primarily reflect code-focused knowledge and skills, they can be impacted by meaning-focused knowledge. Students’ prosody (e.g., intonation, stress, phrasing) while reading depends on their understanding of the text and vocabulary knowledge; both can also impact the speed with which students recognize and pronounce individual words. A panel of expert researchers recommended using multiple data sources, including teacher observation, when making decisions about instructional differentiation; they advised against using just one data point measured at one moment in time (Hamilton at al., 2009). For example, it may be difficult for a teacher to plan differentiated small- group lessons with only screening data related to students’ receptive vocabulary abilities. However, if additional information from student writing samples (i.e., work that indicates expressive vocabulary abilities) is also available, then both data points can be used to determine students’ instructional needs. A student may score below grade level on a general vocabulary assessment but excel in a unit about the ocean due to background knowledge and personal interest in that topic. Distinctions like this can be used to more precisely inform differentiation.
ALIGNING PRACTICE WITH RESEARCH TOPIC PAPER 11
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs