Four Models of

Assessing Student
Learning

INTEGRATING STRATEGIES
 TEACHING,LEARNING AND
RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY
TOOLS®

ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING

DAY FIVE

Dr. Chidiebere R Onyia

OrgLearning Consult
 3

What are we
trying to do
and
Why?
 4

OrgLearning Consult
 What Is Integrating Technology
• There is no clear standard definition of technology integration in
schools (Bebell, Russell, & O’Dwyer, 2004).

• For some scholars, technology integration was understood and

examined in terms of types of teachers’ computer use in the
classrooms: low-level (e.g., students doing Internet searches) or
high-level use (e.g., students doing multimedia presentations,
collecting and interpreting data for projects) (Cuban, Kirkpatrick, &
Peck, 2001).

• For other scholars, technology integration was understood and

examined in terms of how teachers used technology to carry out
familiar activities more reliably and productively, and how such use
may be re-shaping these activities (Hennessy, Ruthven, & Brindley,
2005).

• Still others consider technology integration in terms of teachers

using technology to develop students’ thinking skills (Lim et
al.,2003).
An Overview of the TIP Model
Phase 1
Determine the
Relative
Advantage

Phase 3 Phase 4
Phase 2
Design Prepare the
Decide on
Integration Instructional
Objectives
Strategies Environment

Phase 5
Evaluate and
Revise
Integration
Strategies
Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching- Roblyer 2004
 Project Definition of TI
• Technology integration is thus viewed
as the use of computing devices such
as desktop computers, laptops,
handheld computers, software, or
Internet in higher education systems
for enhancing the scholarship of
teaching, learning and research.
 Barriers of technology integration
• A total of 123 barriers were found from the review of past
empirical studies. In order to provide a coherent and
parsimonious description of the various technology
integration barriers, we classified them into six main
categories:
(a) resources,
(b) knowledge and skills,
(c) institution,
(d) attitudes and beliefs,
(e) assessment, and
(f) subject culture.
• These barriers are listed in order of the relative
frequency in which they were mentioned in the studies
reviewed
Hew and Brush, 2007- Education Tech Research Dev
 Barriers of technology integration
• Look at the six barriers and identify if they
are related.

• Share your conclusions with your partner

and allow them to share their conclusions
with you.

• What patterns did you notice if any?

(a) resources, (b) knowledge and skills, (c) institution,

(d) attitudes and beliefs, (e) assessment, and (f)
subject culture.
 Strategies To Overcome Barriers
• In order to provide a coherent description of
various strategies to overcome barriers, we have
classified them into five main categories:
(a) having a shared vision and technology
integration plan,
(b) overcoming the scarcity of resources,
(c) changing attitudes and beliefs,
(d) conducting professional development, and
(e) reconsidering assessments.

Please note that these strategies are not listed in

order of priority or importance
Hew and Brush, 2007- Education Tech Research Dev
 11

Four Models for Assessing

Student Learning

OrgLearning Consult
 Keys To Accurate Classroom Assessment

WHY ASSESS ASSESS WHAT?

What’s the purpose? What are the learning targets?
Who will use the results? Are they clear?
Are they good?

ASSESS HOW? (Design)

What method?
Written well?
Sampled how?
Avoid bias how?

Be sure students
Students are Understand targets too
users too COMMUNICATE How?
How do you manage information?
How do you report?
Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, and Chappuis, 2006- ETS
Effectively Used
Coherence… for the learner

Continuum

Personal
Subjects
Development

Skills
 Keys To Accurate Classroom
Assessment
• Sound and productive classroom assessments are
built on a foundation of the following five key
dimensions:
1. Arise from and be designed to serve the specific
information needs of intended user (s)
2. Arise from clearly articulated and appropriate
achievement targets
3. Accurately reflect student achievement
4. Yield results that are effectively communicated to
their intended users
5. Involve students in classroom assessment, record
keeping, and communication.
Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, and Chappuis, 2006- ETS
 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
• What follows is a summary of the most effective
and efficient ways to assess student learning.
Improved Learning
• The basic assessment question to be answered
is the degree to which improved learning has
been achieved as a result of the course
redesign.
• Answering this question requires comparisons
between the student learning outcomes
associated with a given course delivered in its
traditional form and in its redesigned form.

Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation

 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
Establish the method of obtaining data
A. Pilot Phase
This comparison can be accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Parallel Sections (Traditional and Redesign)
• Run parallel sections of the course in traditional and
redesigned formats and look at whether there are any
differences in outcomes—a classic "quasi-experiment."

2. Baseline “Before” (Traditional) and “After” (Redesign)

• Establish baseline information about student learning
outcomes from an offering of the traditional format
“before” the redesign begins and compare the
outcomes achieved in a subsequent (“after") offering of
the course in its redesigned format

Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation

 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
B. Full Implementation Phase
• Since there will not be an opportunity to run parallel
sections once the redesign reaches full implementation,
use baseline data from a) an offering of the traditional
format “before” the redesign began, or b) the parallel
sections of the course offered in the traditional format
during the pilot phase.

• The key to validity in all cases is:

(a) to use the same measures and procedures to collect
data in both kinds of sections and,

(b) to ensure as fully as possible that any differences in

the student populations taking each section are
minimized (or at least documented so that they can be
taken into account.)
Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation
 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
C. Choose the measurement method
• The degree to which students have actually mastered course
content appropriately is, of course, the bottom line. Therefore,
some kind of credible assessment of student learning is critical to
the redesign project.
Comparisons of Common Final Exams
• Some projects use common final examinations to compare student
learning outcomes across traditional and redesigned sections. This
approach may include sub-scores or similar indicators of
performance in particular content areas as well as simply an overall
final score or grade.
Comparisons of Common Content Items Selected from Exams
• If a common exam cannot be given—or is deemed to be
inappropriate—an equally good approach is to embed some
common questions or items in the examinations or assignments
administered in the redesigned and traditional delivery formats.
Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation
 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
D. Comparisons of Pre- and Post-tests

• Another approach is to administer pre- and post-tests to

assess student learning gains within the course in both
the traditional and redesigned sections and to compare
the results.

• By using this method, both post-test results and “value-

added” can be compared across sections.

Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation

 Four Models for Assessing Student
Learning
• In addition to choosing one of the four required measures,
the redesign team may want to conduct other comparisons
between the traditional and redesigned formats such as:

1. Performance in follow-on courses

2. Attitude toward subject matter
3. Deep vs. superficial learning
4. Increases in the number of majors in the discipline
5. Student interest in pursuing further coursework in
the discipline
6. Differences in performance among student
subpopulations
7. Student satisfaction measures
Copyright 2009 The National Center for Academic Transformation
Partnership For Knowledge
Solutions

THANK YOU
FOR PARTICIPATING
IN THIS
LEARNING EXPERIENCE

OrgLearning Consult 2010