Student Work as Evidence of Learning ™

Improving student learning by understanding the effect of instruction on student work

Collegial discussions of student work are proving to be one of the most potent ways to improve classroom discussion. The effort began at an international conference in the mid-90s when an exchange of student work revealed a variety of standards and expectations among educators, but the discussion also led to greater understanding of the core issues within a discipline and various strategies to help students acquire a deeper understanding of core concepts. Modern Red SchoolHouse (MRSH) had the opportunity to expand upon the early protocols for looking at student work developed at the Council of Basic Education.

Improving student learning begins by understanding the link between classroom instruction and student work. Student work consists of everything from short writing assignments, products that emanate from project-based learning, to traditional classroom tests. Embedded within any student work are hints about persisting misconceptions held by students, the clarity of expectations in classroom assignments, the depth of understanding expected of (and achieved by) students.

Given that teachers are unaccustomed to reviewing student work in a collegial context, an important component of the process is to help facilitators acquire ways in which they can establish a safe environment for rigorous and thoughtful reflection on classroom practice.

Student Work as Evidence of Learning ™ is a professional development series designed to improve classroom instruction and student learning through careful analysis of student assignments. Looking at student work uncovers strategic issues in how teachers formulate assignments, interpret standards, and establish expectations. Structured as a two-year professional development program, the school-based program works with future school facilitators to acquire strategies and norms for inquiry around student work. These research-based, interactive sessions provide five days of professional development for teachers and facilitators—two of which focus on coaching facilitators for school-wide implementation.

At the end of the first year, school facilitators will:

• Demonstrate the process to their colleagues
• Establish discussion groups involving all educators in the school

The second year, MRSH provides on-site coaching and debriefing sessions for facilitators, ensuring that the processes are institutionalized and that reflecting on changes in practice becomes part of the agenda for these groups.

Birman, B., L. Desimone, A. Porter, and M. Garet. 2000. “Designing Professional Development that Works,” Educational Leadership 57 8, pp. 28-33.

Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall, and D. William. 2004. “Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom,” Phi Delta Kappan 86 1, pp. 9-13.

Black, P. and D. William. 1998. Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: Kings College.

Blythe, T., Allen, D., and Powell, B. Looking Together at Students’ Work. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999.

Cavanagh, Sean. 2006. “Math Teachers Encouraged to Assess Creatively,” Education Week 25 36, pp. 12-13.

Corcoran, T. and M. Goertz. 1995. “Instructional Capacity and High Performance.” Educational Researcher24 9, pp. 27-31.

Cushman, K. 1996. “Looking Collaboratively at Student Work: An Essential Toolkit.” Horace13 2, pp. 1-12. Read at http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/57

Driscoll, M., D. Bryant, Mathematical Sciences Education Board, and National Research Council. 1998. Learning about Assessment, Learning through Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Evans , S.C. 1993. “When Teachers Look at Student Work,” Educational Leadership 50 5, pp. 71-72.

Fullan, M. G. 1991. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lewis, A. C. 1998. “Student Work: This Focus for Staff Development Leads to Genuine Collaboration” Journal of Staff Development19 4.

Little, J. W. 2004. “Looking at Student Work in the United States: Countervailing Impulses in Professional Development” in International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers, C. Day and J. Sachs (eds.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, pp. 94-118.

Marzano, R., D. Pickering, and J. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction that Works: Research-based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

National Assessment of Educational Progress Web site. Internet Address: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Newmann, Fred M., Gary Wehlage, and Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. 1995. Successful School Restructuring: A Report to the Public and Educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Madison, WI

Olson, L. 2005. “Classroom Assessments Stir Growing Global Interest: Many Nations Promote Efforts to Gauge Learning and Inform Instruction,” Education Week 25 6 , p. 8.

Schlechrty, P. 1997. “10 Critical Qualities of Student Work,” Inventing Better Schools: An Action Plan for Educational Reform. Louisville , KY: The Schlechty Center for Leadership Reform.

Shulman, L. 1987. “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review571pp. 1-22.

Stiggins, R.J. 2006. “Assessment Crisis: the Absence of Assessment FOR Learning.” Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.

Stiggins, R. and J. Chappuis. 2006. “What a Difference a Word Makes,” Journal of Staff Development 27 1.

Wiggins, G. and J. McTighe. 1998. Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.