Diagnostic Assessments
The two diagnostic assessments I most value in my classroom are the MAP assessment and aggressive monitoring. The MAP assessment, or NWEA’s Measures of Academic Progress, is taken school-wide at the beginning and end of each year. This test measures and projects students’ growth and, at the beginning of the year, informs the groupings of students for stations and Focus, which is a built-in tutoring and remediation class we have four days a week. To measure the growth of my students between MAP testing sessions — throughout the entire year — I utilize aggressive monitoring as an informal diagnostic assessment. I target specific, standard-aligned and skill-based questions my students are working on independently in class, and I track their progress in the moment. This allows me to prepare them for summative assessments immediately and informs the pacing and instructional practices of my lessons on a daily basis.
NWEA Measures of academic progress (MAP)
My students take the NWEA Measure of Academic Progress, or MAP, exam at the beginning and end of each school year. At the beginning of the year, I use this data to set goals with my students. We celebrate their strengths, set growth goals for their weaknesses, and begin to invest in the culture of error we live in all year; this is when I first push my students to understand their own areas of growth and to buy-in to the “good to better to best” mindset. Below are the MAP scorecards for three students at a low-, mid-, and high-range of academic levels. I use these scores at the beginning of each year to sort students into specific Focus groups, which serves as built-in tutoring and remediation, as well as to inform my book choices for the reading curriculum.
Click through the images below to view each scorecard.
The first scorecard is from a lower-level student. This data shows that in the 2017-18 school year, this student dropped in growth by 30 points and ended in the first percentile of 7th graders in the U.S. Based on this data, I know this student requires remediation in the Common Core reading literature (RL) and reading informational (RI) standards. I use this data to help inform our in-school Focus class. This student, as well as other students with similar score cards, are placed with me to improve their reading skills in a setting that offers a smaller student-to-teacher ratio.
The second is a mid-level student’s MAP scorecard, which shows that in the 2017-18 school year, this student made smaller gains than anticipated. While the student did grow by four points, the student did not meet the growth originally projected and stayed within the same percentile over the course of two years. Based on this data, this student is placed in the “bubble” Focus group, with the goal of pushing mid-level students up by gradually learning to analyze texts that are at or just above their reading level.
The last MAP scorecard belongs to a higher-level student. According to this data, in the 2017-18 school year, this student grew by 12 points, exceeding the initial projected growth of only three points, and ended the year in the in 88th percentile of 7th graders in the U.S. Because of this data, this student was placed in a high-level Focus, which challenges students to read and analyze fictional and informational texts on the high school level, as well as to expand their writing skills.
In addition to using MAP to create student groupings, I also use MAP to inform the books I choose to teach in 7th grade Reading, as well as the order in which those books are taught throughout the year.
To the left is an overall breakdown of one class’ MAP reading scores. This data showed me that the majority of our students were low- to mid-students, and as such, I rearranged my curriculum to set them up for success. Instead of starting the year with higher level texts, I decided our first book would be Number the Stars, which was just below the 7th grade reading level. Using this book first allowed the students to reaffirm and practice their skills, which built their confidence and allowed them to excel with the much harder and higher-level text My Antonia. Without this MAP data, the students would have been less successful beginning the year with a book that only a handful of students were ready to tackle.
Aggressive monitoring
Aggressive monitoring has changed the way I diagnose student misunderstandings and misconceptions in my classroom. I value this method as an informal diagnostic assessment because it allows me to gain real-time data based on my students’ performance in class, which then allows me to shift in-moment to readdress or reteach a vital skill prior to an exit ticket or quiz — all without affecting the students’ grades.
Before I began to use aggressive monitoring in the classroom, I had to wait for an exit ticket or quiz to analyze mastery on a specific objective or skill; however, I found that this was discouraging to the students who may make lower grades and that they would become less invested in their growth. With aggressive monitoring, the students are able to make corrections or push themselves within the class period, which sets them up for success on summative assessments.
To the right is my student-facing Feedback Key, which is displayed on the document camera at the front of the room. The students understand these symbols, and based on what I write on their classwork, they respond accordingly. This Feedback Key was specifically designed with the culture of error in mind — many of these symbols push students to take their work from good, to better, to best, which reinforces the skill of editing and revising, while also teaching students that there is always more to do to improve and perfect their work. The students understand that these symbols are not a punishment or consequence, and they crave the feedback, often raising their hands to call me over to check their work when they finish. In addition to investing students in their work, these simple symbols allow me to diagnose each student in the class on the questions I target during their independent work time.
As you can see to the left, pages 1-3, students receive personalized feedback on vital questions within their resources. The students’ decisions are guided by the feedback they receive; as soon as a symbol appears on their paper, it is up to the students to determine what is wrong and how to correct or improve their answers.
Sample A shows a student who understood the basic connection between the two texts, identifying that both went to Sweden; however, the student did not notice the specific details in the characters’ shared experiences. By using the upside down triangle symbol and writing a push question, the student was able to not only able to gain a deeper understanding but also take responsibility for improving the answer independently.
The student in Sample B identified that both characters received a ration of food and clothes, which showed the specific details the exemplary response required, thus earning a star for a strong answer and a sign to move on to the next question. In Question 3, however, the student did not include evidence, so I underlined that direction to point the student in the right direction.
Sample C is an aggressive monitoring example from a vocabulary practice Do Now. This is a lower student who finished quickly, and by circling the answers that were incorrect, putting stars next to the correct answers, and pointing the student to correct spelling (SP), the student was able to take full advantage of the time frame for the activity and improve the work.
In each of these samples – A, B, and C – I spent no more than 20 seconds giving each student action-oriented feedback. I have found that the students are much more engaged in their own growth, especially when asked to “dig deeper” or take their answers from good, to better, to best. In this way, the students have become invested in their own informal diagnostic assessments and, over time, have realized the difference in the quality of answers.
In addition to providing students with action steps to improve their work, I also track student misconceptions within each class period, see Sample D on page 4 above. This influences my own decision making as a teacher and helps me decide which adjustments to make based on the trends I am seeing. I track which students have participated or read aloud with numbers, and mirror the aggressive monitoring symbols I am giving the students on the tracker. I also have provided myself with note spaces to identify common misconceptions for re-teach or clarification opportunities. Based on this data, I know whether to correct in moment or to adjust my lesson plans for the following day. Tracking the aggressive monitoring data daily has become one of my most valued methods of monitoring learner progress, as I do not have to wait for quizzes or exams to see the growth or remediation of each student.