Assessment

Growth Models

With the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (Every Child Succeeds Act) in 2015, we have moved from a proficiency model to a growth model (US Dept of Education). This is a move in the right direction for our gifted students because it means that now instead of merely showing proficiency, schools have the expectation to show growth for all students. The Council for Exceptional Children’s Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG) recommends the use of growth models to individually track the progress of all students on an ongoing basis (2012).  The research of Ryser and Rambo-Hernandez supports this recommendation.  These researchers explain that assessment through a growth model must consist of collecting data over time to illustrate a student’s academic growth (2014). Most state assessments contain very few items that can be used to measure how much gifted students have learned since these assessments are geared to measure the learning of typical students.  Students achieving perfect or near-perfect scores on assessments have little room to show growth on subsequent assessments (Ryser and Rambo-Hernandez, 2013).  It is important to point out, however that this does not mean gifted students are harder to grow than other students. Gifted students, like all other groups, can show growth, although the quantity of growth shown may differ because of the ceiling of the assessments. CEC-TAG recommends that assessments include above grade-level items in order to adequately track the growth of gifted students.

Formative Assessments

Formative assessment is frequently mentioned alongside summative assessment, especially in terms of formative versus summative.  Formative assessment is the process of gathering information about a student’s progress for the purpose of adjusting instruction to support learning.  Summative assessment is conducted after instruction to measure and document a student’s level of mastery of the content or to document the level of success of a program.  To explain the differences between formative and summative assessment, Burke used the imagery of learning to ride a bicycle.  She compared formative assessment to practicing with training wheels on an enclosed lot, while summative assessment was compared to riding down the street with the training wheels off.  Burke explained that both formative and summative are important components of a balanced assessment model and that only the purpose and timing of an assessment determine which category it belongs in (2010).

        The benefits of using formative assessments are well-documented in education research. Formative assessment identifies what learning has occurred for a student along with specific areas of learning difficulty.  This information enables the teacher to adjust instruction to meet the student’s learning needs.  Using formative assessment in the classroom on a consistent basis has been shown to have a significant positive impact on student achievement (Burke, 2010).  Additionally, formative assessments are used to provide feedback to the learner.  Regular feedback is crucial because it enables the learner to see specific areas that need further work. This enables the learner to reflect on ways to adjust learning in order to develop deeper understanding and meet individual learning goals.  Feedback is usually not provided with summative assessment since it occurs after a unit of instruction (Burke, 2010).

        Formative assessment plays an especially crucial role in differentiating instruction. Teachers can select from a wide variety of assessment strategies to gain understanding of what their students know.  Teachers may pose questions and students can respond orally or in writing.  Students’ responses give insight into what content has been mastered, as well as gaps in their learning or misconceptions they may have.  Teachers may also have their students to write a short reflection or “exit ticket” at the end of a lesson.  Other assessment options might be examining classwork, checklists, or observation notes to gain insight (Miranda and Hermann, 2015). Teachers use this knowledge to adjust instruction for students at various levels of performance.  A teacher can adjust instruction for students in one or more of three areas - content, process, or product, based on the learning needs revealed through formative assessments. The Response to Intervention structure in the following paragraphs provides additional information on differentiation for all learners.

Response to Intervention

        RtI is a structure for assessment and instruction that enables teachers to meet a variety of instructional needs in the classroom.  It consists of repeatedly observing and assessing students’ learning and behavioral needs and modifying classroom practices to respond to those needs.  It was initially developed to support differentiation for struggling learners (Brown, 2011).  In a Gifted Inclusive RTI, increasingly intensive layers of support may be provided to students based on the results of progress monitoring.  For example, when data shows that differentiation of core curriculum is not sufficient to meet the need, the student may receive above grade-level differentiation in an area of strength.  This layer of support could include acceleration, mentoring, or other intensive strategy (Johnson, Parker, and Farah, 2015)

Rationale for using RtI with Gifted Students - This approach modified for use with gifted students would include tiered instruction tailored to their strengths as they demonstrate mastery on various ongoing assessment measures. Brown describes RtI as “effective teaching”as it is designed to be a flexible and highly responsive system in which students move fluidly between instructional tiers.  Educators would monitor students’ progress in an ongoing manner to determine their learning needs and provide appropriate enrichment and/or acceleration.  Additionally, in a differentiated learning environment, high ability students are more likely to engage sufficiently with the curriculum to show above-grade-level skills.  It is less likely that gifted learners will achieve optimum learning in classrooms that are not differentiated.  Finally, a model that is responsive to the needs of gifted students must include assessments with sufficient challenge to enable them to reveal areas of talents (Brown, 2011).

Authentic Assessments/Performance Tasks

        Performance tasks are authentic assessments well suited to the type of instructional activities often used with gifted students.  They are a sound choice to use with gifted students because the learner must engage in higher level thinking and problem solving and construct open-ended responses.  Use of quality, challenging tasks allows students to develop and show their strengths in context, resulting in a meaningful learning experience.  Engaging in rigorous performance tasks tends to be motivating for learners, and because they are highly engaged in deeper thinking, they are more likely to learn at the top of their range. (VanTassel-Baska, 2014).  To use performance tasks for maximum advantage, teachers need to consider the following:

• • Establish and maintain high standards for learning; focus on higher level thinking.

  • Teachers should use multiple and varied assessment approaches (including oral and written responses) to monitor and document student learning

  • Choose the kind of assessment that is most efficient for the intended purpose.  There are times when a paper-and-pencil test may be a more efficient assessment tool than an open-ended assessment.  Performance tasks are best used if the purpose is to examine higher level thinking, while simple close-ended test items are used to determine mastery of specific content.

  • Include above-level tasks to ensure sufficient challenge for gifted learners.

• Pose questions in a way that encourages open-ended responses  (VanTassel-Baska, 2014).