Learner Assessment
Formative assessment can be used throughout the Our Stories learning module. “In short, formative assessment is a task or activity that provides learners with an opportunity to receive evaluation or feedback from themselves, their peers, or their instructor to enhance and support their learning” (Crockett & Churches, 2017, p. 18). With small group support, it is easy to provide students with informal formative assessment during each activity. This assessment can be done during the learning module through impromptu questions, affirmations, reflection time, and corrective feedback. Tedick and Gortari (1998) point out that the least effective technique for corrective feedback is to give students the answer. They suggest letting the learner self-correct through wait-time and cues and, they also explain that it is essential to remember the context of the language learner’s proficiency. There is no point giving feedback for a proficiency level that a student is not yet ready for. This continuous feedback allows students to test and “adjust or correct their understanding and move their learning forward” (Crockett & Churches, 2017, p. 11).
Another type of formative assessment to be used in this learning module is a criterion-based assessment rubric. There are two rubrics designed for this module to be used with students when they begin writing their stories. The first is for grades 2/3, and the second is for grade 4/5. K/1s can use the Two Stars and a Wish assessment as preparation for rubric use in older grades. These rubrics were designed specifically for the All About Me multimedia presentation. They are based on the learning outcomes of the assignment. This action follows Belanger, Zou, Mills, Holmes, & Oakleaf’s (2015) recommendations for creating and using rubrics. Additionally, these rubrics use language that describes the students work rather than the student themselves (Crockett & Churches, 2017)
Another type of formative assessment to be used in this learning module is a criterion-based assessment rubric. There are two rubrics designed for this module to be used with students when they begin writing their stories. The first is for grades 2/3, and the second is for grade 4/5. K/1s can use the Two Stars and a Wish assessment as preparation for rubric use in older grades. These rubrics were designed specifically for the All About Me multimedia presentation. They are based on the learning outcomes of the assignment. This action follows Belanger, Zou, Mills, Holmes, & Oakleaf’s (2015) recommendations for creating and using rubrics. Additionally, these rubrics use language that describes the students work rather than the student themselves (Crockett & Churches, 2017)
Evaluation of Module
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Our Stories learning module, I will reflect on student assessment and the use of the TPACK, SAMR, and SIOP frameworks. By reflecting on the formative assessment done throughout the learning module, I can take notice of which aspects of my resources and teaching might need revision or more scaffolding. The formative assessment collected at the end with the criterion-referenced rubrics will help me see which elements of the project students were consistently performing well at and which parts were more difficult for them and could use more support in the learning module.
To evaluate the success of my technology integration, I will examine this module using two strategies. The first is to use the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric created by Harris, Grandgenett, Hofer (2010) (see Figure 1) to assess the TPACK of teachers. After its creation, Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and Swan (2011) then applied further efforts to validate it and test its reliability. Their “testing results suggest that this is a valid and reliable instrument to use to assess enacted TPACK in observed lessons” (Hofer et al., 2011, p. 4357). However, it will be necessary to apply the adaptation of assessing myself with this rubric as it would likely be challenging to have a colleague assess me on six lessons that will take approximately six weeks to teach. This rubric was used to create the learning module, but it would need to be used again after the module has been taught to determine if the alignment, support, selections, and fit truly work as I currently believe they will.
The second strategy involves examining the use of technology in this module, according to the SAMR levels of technology integration (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition). Figure 2 shows how the planned use of technology currently fits into these levels. A further explanation for how each use fits into a level is given in the rationale section. Post module teaching reflection will then lead to either confirmation or adjustment of these perceptions.
Evaluating my use of the SIOP framework for this module has been done throughout its creation and will also be required post teaching. For this Echevarría, Vogt and Short (2017) have two observation protocols in their appendices. I could use either one of these tools to examine the effectiveness of this module’s use of the SIOP framework. This use could then help me inference the effectiveness of these lessons and their delivery.
To evaluate the success of my technology integration, I will examine this module using two strategies. The first is to use the Technology Integration Assessment Rubric created by Harris, Grandgenett, Hofer (2010) (see Figure 1) to assess the TPACK of teachers. After its creation, Hofer, Grandgenett, Harris, and Swan (2011) then applied further efforts to validate it and test its reliability. Their “testing results suggest that this is a valid and reliable instrument to use to assess enacted TPACK in observed lessons” (Hofer et al., 2011, p. 4357). However, it will be necessary to apply the adaptation of assessing myself with this rubric as it would likely be challenging to have a colleague assess me on six lessons that will take approximately six weeks to teach. This rubric was used to create the learning module, but it would need to be used again after the module has been taught to determine if the alignment, support, selections, and fit truly work as I currently believe they will.
The second strategy involves examining the use of technology in this module, according to the SAMR levels of technology integration (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition). Figure 2 shows how the planned use of technology currently fits into these levels. A further explanation for how each use fits into a level is given in the rationale section. Post module teaching reflection will then lead to either confirmation or adjustment of these perceptions.
Evaluating my use of the SIOP framework for this module has been done throughout its creation and will also be required post teaching. For this Echevarría, Vogt and Short (2017) have two observation protocols in their appendices. I could use either one of these tools to examine the effectiveness of this module’s use of the SIOP framework. This use could then help me inference the effectiveness of these lessons and their delivery.