Assessment and Disciplinary Learning

In teaching there is so much focus on instruction, classroom management, building community, and other elements. However, when it comes to assessment, summative standardized tests are used to benchmark the abilities of students rather than formative authentic assessments. Many times, this is not the best practice to targeting the true achievement of students. In our educational system there is a major focus on standardized tests. These are unauthentic lengthy computer based tests that pose great challenges for our students.  In the article “Disciplinary Literacy Assessment A Neglected Responsibility”, authors Gillis and Van Wig call for a new strategy of assessment for students claiming, “Summative assessments of learning have overshadowed formative assessment for learning.” Their method uses the Strategic Content Literacy Assessment (SCLA) illustrating a shift to disciplinary literacy practices used by all core teachers, not just the ELA teacher. I agree with the authors about the importance of small formative assessment such as the SCLA, that can use used several times throughout the year to track student achievement. If assessment is truly meant to guide and inform instruction, then it is in our best interest as teachers to give assessments that provide better data on student achievement.  
Reviewing the social studies sections, the authors give a great explanation of how to create, evaluate, and reflect on the SCLA. In history we want to use primary sources, however, the authors state, “[using] archaic vocabulary and syntax can be difficult for students to comprehend without appropriate scaffolding.” This is where I believe many of our standardized tests go astray. They are not authentic or culturally relevant to groups of students such as minorities or emerging bilinguals. 
The most helpful section was the SCLA adaptation chart to specific literacy sources. The assessments need to be structured in a format that builds in cognitive rigor while forcing our students to practice skills such as contextualization, close reading, sourcing, corroboration, and identifying vocabulary. For example, in the past I have used unit tests for content knowledge. The first few questions will require recall and comprehension skills such as matching, true or false, or fill in the blank. The next level would include application, analysis, and evaluation of historical documents. Finally, the most difficult is the creation piece. Following this structure of Bloom’s Taxonomy will not overwhelm students as the assessment becomes more and more difficult.
What do we do with these assessments? “One of the hallmarks of good assessment is that the information obtained is useful to both teachers and students” (Alvermann et al., 2013 ). Teachers will use this data to adjust instruction practices and target students for tiered intervention. I think that SCLA has a great opportunity to motivate students to better themselves if teachers share results. “Such conversations can help students set academic goals and take ownership of their own learning.” With SCLA students will have multiple opportunities to demonstrate achievement, compared to the once or twice a year standardized test. 

Strategies/Instructional practices 
Targeting struggling readers can be difficult because of different factors such as classroom environment and subject interest. The Simpson article suggests using an observational checklist when screening for struggling readers. Having clear standardized norms for reading can help teachers better support students. I could see myself using this checklist in a grade level meeting to discuss struggling students and possibly comparing the result with other disciplines. Most importantly, this provides measurable goals that students can accomplish overtime. I think this checklist could be an easy indicator in identifying struggling readers and could be done quickly.
The other strategy that I found interesting was the learner autobiography. It is a collection that students create about their interests and interests in literacy. The article examines this strategy stating, “The idea is that students need opportunities to examine their personal histories as readers, writers, and learners both in and out of school. By exploring their past, students might better understand their current approaches and beliefs about learning.” This aligns directly with the RAAD framework of using read identity, reflection, self-tracking, and refining schema. If I were to use learner autobiography, I would include milestones in literacy along the way, such as book reports, essays, and other projects to show growth. This year, I have my students creating writing binders accumulating their work, feedback, and reflections from English and History. I find this strategy could be very helpful in making assessments more personal and meaningful.

Discussion Questions: 
How might student choice affect authenticity and outcome of an summative assessment? 
How might it be a truly relevant and authentic assessment?
-How would it be graded? 
What would be the roll of the teacher summative assessment? 
How could assessment results used?