A conceptual framework for Assessment-Informed Differentiation (AID) in the classroom

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Research Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/00131881.2021.1942118
Tessa H. S. Eysink, K. Schildkamp
{"title":"A conceptual framework for Assessment-Informed Differentiation (AID) in the classroom","authors":"Tessa H. S. Eysink, K. Schildkamp","doi":"10.1080/00131881.2021.1942118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: To enable all students to reach their full potential, teachers have to adapt their instruction to students’ varying needs. In order to do this, teachers need to engage in activities associated with formative assessment, as well as those associated with differentiation. However, both of these types of activities are, in themselves, difficult for teachers to carry out. Furthermore, as both fields tend to use their own terminology, frameworks, and cycles of teacher activities, it can be even more difficult for teachers to navigate both. Although the notion of the strong relationship between formative assessment and differentiation is not new, we argue that a better understanding of the close relationship between the two is needed in the context of teacher education. Purpose: Our aim was to develop a conceptual framework which offers teachers and teacher educators a coherent set of teacher activities in which both formative assessment and differentiation are represented. Sources of evidence: International literature in the fields of formative assessment and differentiation was reviewed. Through this process, we sought to identify, describe and compare teacher activities regarded as crucial for formative assessment and for differentiation. The review was based on extant review studies and frameworks used in both fields and handbooks on both topics. Main argument: Our analysis demonstrated that both approaches have much in common, but differ substantially in terms of the emphasis placed on different activities and the depth of elaboration. As such, we argue that the approaches complement each other well and that it is feasible to present teachers with one coherent set of teacher activities in which both approaches are unified. We propose a conceptual framework for Assessment-Informed Differentiation (AID), which involves a continual cycle of in-depth activities related to preparing and providing differentiated instruction based on assessment data. Conclusion: Formative assessment and differentiation approaches need to be treated as an integrated set of activities in order to realise the full potential of all students. Further research should focus on the usability and effectiveness of the proposed cycle. The conceptual framework we propose could ultimately be used in many different teacher education settings internationally, forming a starting point for much-needed teacher professional development in this area.","PeriodicalId":47607,"journal":{"name":"Educational Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00131881.2021.1942118","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1942118","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: To enable all students to reach their full potential, teachers have to adapt their instruction to students’ varying needs. In order to do this, teachers need to engage in activities associated with formative assessment, as well as those associated with differentiation. However, both of these types of activities are, in themselves, difficult for teachers to carry out. Furthermore, as both fields tend to use their own terminology, frameworks, and cycles of teacher activities, it can be even more difficult for teachers to navigate both. Although the notion of the strong relationship between formative assessment and differentiation is not new, we argue that a better understanding of the close relationship between the two is needed in the context of teacher education. Purpose: Our aim was to develop a conceptual framework which offers teachers and teacher educators a coherent set of teacher activities in which both formative assessment and differentiation are represented. Sources of evidence: International literature in the fields of formative assessment and differentiation was reviewed. Through this process, we sought to identify, describe and compare teacher activities regarded as crucial for formative assessment and for differentiation. The review was based on extant review studies and frameworks used in both fields and handbooks on both topics. Main argument: Our analysis demonstrated that both approaches have much in common, but differ substantially in terms of the emphasis placed on different activities and the depth of elaboration. As such, we argue that the approaches complement each other well and that it is feasible to present teachers with one coherent set of teacher activities in which both approaches are unified. We propose a conceptual framework for Assessment-Informed Differentiation (AID), which involves a continual cycle of in-depth activities related to preparing and providing differentiated instruction based on assessment data. Conclusion: Formative assessment and differentiation approaches need to be treated as an integrated set of activities in order to realise the full potential of all students. Further research should focus on the usability and effectiveness of the proposed cycle. The conceptual framework we propose could ultimately be used in many different teacher education settings internationally, forming a starting point for much-needed teacher professional development in this area.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
课堂评估知情分化(AID)的概念框架
背景:为了使所有学生都能充分发挥他们的潜力,教师必须根据学生的不同需求调整教学。为了做到这一点,教师需要参与与形成性评估相关的活动,以及与分化相关的活动。然而,这两种类型的活动本身都是教师难以开展的。此外,由于这两个领域都倾向于使用自己的术语、框架和教师活动周期,因此教师在两者之间进行导航可能更加困难。虽然形成性评估和分化之间的密切关系这一概念并不新鲜,但我们认为,在教师教育的背景下,需要更好地理解两者之间的密切关系。目的:我们的目标是建立一个概念框架,为教师和教师教育者提供一套连贯的教师活动,其中包括形成性评估和差异化。证据来源:回顾了形成性评价和分化领域的国际文献。通过这个过程,我们试图识别、描述和比较被认为对形成性评估和差异化至关重要的教师活动。审查是根据两个领域中使用的现有审查研究和框架以及关于两个专题的手册进行的。主要论点:我们的分析表明,这两种方法有很多共同点,但是在强调不同的活动和细化的深度方面有很大的不同。因此,我们认为这两种方法可以很好地互补,并且可以为教师提供一套连贯的教师活动,其中两种方法是统一的。我们提出了一个基于评估的差异化(AID)的概念框架,它涉及到一个与基于评估数据准备和提供差异化教学相关的深度活动的持续循环。结论:形成性评估和区分方法需要被视为一套完整的活动,以实现所有学生的全部潜力。进一步的研究应侧重于拟议周期的可用性和有效性。我们提出的概念框架最终可以在国际上许多不同的教师教育环境中使用,为这一领域急需的教师专业发展形成一个起点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Research
Educational Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Educational Research, the journal of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), was established in 1958. Drawing upon research projects in universities and research centres worldwide, it is the leading international forum for informed thinking on issues of contemporary concern in education. The journal is of interest to academics, researchers and those people concerned with mediating research findings to policy makers and practitioners. Educational Research has a broad scope and contains research studies, reviews of research, discussion pieces, short reports and book reviews in all areas of the education field.
期刊最新文献
Exploring cooperative learning as a tool in civic education Invisible and fluid walls in early childhood nature learning: collecting data through video Conditions for higher education study: the perspectives of prospective students from rural areas What is the meaning of family participation in schools? A multi-voice perspective Leadership as a profession in early childhood education and care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1