Linking Construct Maps to Scoring Procedures

Construct Map Scoring Guide

ConstructMap–TeacherPosing

More

Respondents who integrate context for learning with their purposes for

questioning in relation to learning target, while leveraging relevant

knowledge of students in their posing. Can pose questions that size up

learners’ needs in the lesson and across the unit. They plan questions that

reflect anticipation of likely misconceptions, sticking points, and student

questions. They plan hinge questions. They tend to enact lessons featuring

questions that reflect a balance in addressing a variety of learners’ needs.

They are able to reflect on how questions posed functioned to elicit

evidence of student understanding in relation to targets of the lesson/unit.

Respondents who demonstrate flexibility in their questioning and

awareness of the need to align questioning with purposes. They plan a

variety of questions designed to elicit a wide range of responses. They

plan repetition of key questions and supports for questioning. They tend

to enact lessons in which activities conducted are contingent upon student

responses to questions posed related to learning target. They are able to

reflect on likely effects of improving posing and can offer ideas on how

to from multiple standpoints.

Respondents who demonstrate a commitment to the general purposes for

posing questions. Many of these questions take the form of guess the

teachers’ thinking or correct response; hence they do not elicit a range of

responses, including unanticipated ones. They reflectively plan questions

as “checks for understanding” of the lesson’s objective without

consideration of timing, set-up, or outcome. They are able to reflect on

several aims of improving posing and suggest alternatives to the posing

enacted. They may provide a theoretical rationale of the purpose of

questioning in a lesson (e.g., constructivism, socio-emotional needs).

Respondents who demonstrate through their questioning a primary focus

on orchestrating student behavior. They plan questions that do not

communicate a clear prioritization of purposes. They tend to enact

teacher-centered lessons that do not reflect a pedagogical structure

dependent upon student responses. They are able to reflect on benefits

that might accrue from using a questioning scheme or scaffold.

Respondents who are not attentive to how and why making student

thinking related to learning target visible matters. They may plan

questions not focused on eliciting evidence of student thinking related to

learning target. They tend to enact lessons that do not invite or

incorporate students’ prior knowledge. They can reflect through re-

Differentiated

“adaptive”

Strategic

“purposeful”

Multistructural

“intentional”

Unistructural

“emergent”

Prestructural

“pre-posing”

Responses to tasks/items indicate posing adjusts to students’ learning edges in

real-time in relation to learning goals. Questions posed leverage a range of

student responses. Observation of teaching demonstrates posing elicits

responses used to adjust lesson. Responses to planning and reflection tasks on

posing show productive use of learning progression of concept/skill/

understanding (e.g., anticipation of typical bottlenecks, hinge points, procedural

errors, etc.) that is the target of instruction. Responses show control over

curricular context and student learning needs.

Responses to tasks/items indicate posing of how and why questions and

questions from a of mix of Webb’s DOK or taxonomic levels (e.g., Bloom’s,

Costa’s, SOLO). Observation of teaching will likely show changing

questioning strategies in response to students’ responses and evidence that

posing is within students’ ZPD. Responses to planning and reflection tasks tend

to anticipate and/or address student misconceptions and unorthodox responses.

Responses indicate ways to scaffold questioning by incorporating other FA

moves to support different configurations and modalities of posing, including

incorporation of students’ questioning routines.

Responses to tasks/items indicate posing a high percentage of, or posing only,

what/when/where, fact recall, and lower-level questions. Observation of

teaching shows questions posed as checks for understanding of

procedures/concepts. These may be tied to learning targets and used as

invitations to elicit prior knowledge. Observation of teaching shows questions

seldom elicit a wide range of student responses. Responses to planning and

reflection tasks indicate questions are planned in advance and connect to

learning target. Responses indicate “how to improve” with general posing

strategies or routines to increase student engagement.

Responses to tasks/items indicate posing to manage and/or control students

(e.g., Do you have a pencil? Are your books open to page 39?) Observation of

teaching reveals little student thinking made visible and imbalance between

learning target-related requests and other behavioral/activity requests.

Responses to planning and reflection tasks indicate non-systematic crafting of

questions and tend to be confounded with classroom management techniques

and pacing challenges

Responses to tasks/items indicate no questions aligned with lesson target are

posed by the teacher. Observation of teaching may show arbitrary questions.

Responses to planning and reflection tasks on posing show questions are not

well-crafted to elicit student responses related to learning target. Reflection is

limited to concerns about time constraints, classroom management issues,

Less

Sample Scoring: Posing-Pausing-Probing

Participant Hypothesized Dimensions and Facets of FA Practice

“Serena” Score

Dimension Posing Pausing Probing

Overall 3 2 3

Facet P E R P E R P E R

Facet score 3+ 3, 3 3 3- 2, 2 1+ 3- 3, 3+,4 3+

Modeling and Measuring Teacher Moves:if the levels of the teacher learning progression are levels of several

progress maps

Courtesy of Validity Partners, LLC

Priming Posing Pausing Probing

Investigating steps and pathways toward becoming a formative assessor

Courtesy of Validity Partners, LLC

Posing

Pausing

Tagging

ProbingBouncing

Binning

But let’s remember that there is more to the story of teacher

research

Reliability

Validity

Generalizability

Fairness

“Good”Measures “Bad”Measures

X Inconsistent indicators

X Invalid conclusions

X Random noise and static

X Unfair or bias

Purpose and uses of data drive all “valid”measures of teachers (and their students!)

Diagnostic? Formative?

Summative?

Courtesy of Validity Partners, LLC

Evidence

for

Content

Response processes

Internal structure

Relations to external variables

Consequences

Role of 2014 Testing Standards

Courtesy of Validity Partners, LLC

To summarize: Domain-specific FA teacher learning progressions “moves based”

research can…

Courtesy of Validity Partners, LLC

Identify different

continua and levels of

FA expertise

Support myriad

curricular purposes

and subject areas

Connect instruction and

assessment with

common grammar of

“feedback” to teachers

and mentors

Be visible to all

stakeholders—what is

“best practice”