Advertisement

Formative Assessment in High School Communities of Practice: Creating a Culture of Inquiry, Introspection, and Improvement

  • Dianne YeeEmail author
Part of the The Enabling Power of Assessment book series (EPAS, volume 2)

Abstract

Although assessment concepts bridge all levels, senior high school educators face pressures regarding assessment of and for learning that are quite different from elementary or middle school educators, particularly in the Alberta context. This vignette of an assessment focus in two very large, urban high schools outlines my perspective as both a principal and a district director – influenced by the conceptual frames of Elmore’s (2002) Instructional Core, Wenger, McDermott and Snyder’s (2002) Communities of Practice, Conzemius and O’Neill’s (2002) SMART Goals, Boudet, City and Murnane’s (2005) Data Wise Improvement Cycle, Friesen’s (2009) Teaching Effectiveness Framework, and the Galileo Educational Network’s (2013) Discipline-Based Inquiry. As a school principal, I eliminated our school professional development committee and gave the days to our individual curriculum department Communities of Practices to meet their needs and support their SMART outcomes. We were very diligent in following the assessment frameworks we designed as a school to improve learning for all ability levels and programs of our students. As a district administrator, I have allocated resources in non-typical ways to allow principals, assistant principals, and learning leaders the time to engage in ongoing conversation about rich task design and formative assessment. I have both enabled and required these instructional leaders to collect and share evidence of student intellectual engagement in their classrooms and throughout their schools.

Keywords

Formative assessment Assessment for learning Intellectual engagement SMART goals Teaching Effectiveness Framework Data Wise Improvement Cycle 

References

  1. Boudett, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  2. Conzemius, A., & O’Neill, J. (2002). The handbook for SMART school teams. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.Google Scholar
  3. City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  4. Davies, A., & Busick, K. (2007). Classroom assessment: What’s working in high schools (Book One and Book Two). Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  7. Friesen, S. (2009). What did you do in school today? Teaching effectiveness: A framework and rubric. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  8. Galileo Educational Network. (2013). Discipline-based rubric for inquiry studies. Retrieved from: http://galileo.org/rubric.pdf
  9. Glaude, C. (2005). Protocols for professional learning conversations: Cultivating the art and discipline. Courtenay, BC: Connections Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Leithwood, K. (2007). What we know about educational leadership. In C. F. Webber, J. Burger, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent leadership: Constructs for thinking education leaders (pp. 41–66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Popham, J. (2008). Transformational assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
  12. Reeves, D. (2004). Accountability for learning: How teachers and school leaders can take charge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
  13. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centred leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).Google Scholar
  15. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wenger, E., White, N., Smith, J., & Rowe, K. (2005). Technologies for communities. In L. Langelier (Ed.), Work, learning and networked (pp. 47–66). Quebec, QC: CEFRIO.Google Scholar
  17. Willms, D., Friesen, S., & Milton, P. (2009). What did you do in school today? Transforming classrooms through social, academic, and intellectual engagement (First National Report). Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Area III, Calgary Board of EducationCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations