Using Student Performance Data to Strengthen Assessment and Instruction

 

Section 1: Using Assessment to Drive Instruction (2 pages)
Describe at least two examples of two types of assessments: formative and summative assessments. Explain
the purpose for using each these particular forms of assessment, and how data were utilized to drive
instruction. Provide examples of how the data improved student learning. Be specific and provide details to
support your choices.
Section 2: District Practices-Standards Based Teaching and Learning
Part 1 (1 Page)
Which aspects of the information described in Figure 2.2, “Conceptual Framework for Data Driven Decision
Making,” on page 34 of the Mandinach and Jackson (2012) text, were you able to obtain? What does the data
tell you about the district’s use of standards-based teaching and learning? Be specific and provide examples.
Part 2 (1 Page)
Complete this task focusing on a specific grade level. (3rd grade)
Review Figure 2.6, “Abbott’s Framework of Improvement and Readiness,” on page 39 in the Mandinach and
Jackson (2012) text. How would a district fare in response to this process? Explain what you perceive to be the
use of student performance data to lead instruction and school improvement efforts. Be specific and provide
examples.
Section 3: Describing the Relationship (2 pages)
Finally, address the following question: What is the relationship between assessment, data, and instruction? As
a CIA leader, what strategies will you implement to make sure the relationship remains stable and effective? Be
specific and provide examples.

 

Sample Solution

Using Student Performance Data to Strengthen Assessment and Instruction

Assessment allows both instructor and student to monitor progress towards achieving learning objectives, and can be approached in a variety of ways. Formative assessment refers to tools that identify misconceptions, struggles, and learning gaps along the way and assess how to close those gaps. It include effective tools for helping to shape learning, and can even bolster students` abilities to take ownership of their learning when they understand that the goal is to improve learning, not apply final marks (Trumbull and Lush, 2013). In-class discussions and clicker questions are examples of formative assessment. In contrast, summative assessments evaluate student learning, knowledge, proficiency, or success at the conclusion of an instructional period, like a unit, course, or program. Standardized tests and final projects are some of the examples of summative assessment.

he idea of security for a long time has been a central principle as well as a debated issue amongst International Relations scholars. Security should be something we understand and belong to, it’s a shift from state safety to individual safety. The Securitisation Theory was the first theoretical response to discourse of human security. It has been observed that national security policy is a man-made design, it is not natural given, but politicians and decision makers created these policies. According to the Securitisation Theory, if there is an extreme security issue, it must be given full attention to and be dealt with immediately because of its urgency. These political issues that have to be managed immediately is often marked as ‘dangerous’, ‘threatening’, ‘alarming’ and so on by a ‘securitising actor’ who considers this a security issue and has the authority to move this issue ‘beyond politics’ because of the social and institutional authority they hold. Security issues therefore are not out in the public sphere yet but rather is expressed as issues that securitising actors wish to put “out there”. For example, a securitising actor can label immigration a ‘danger to national security’, this label shifts the threat of immigration from a low concern to a high priority issue meaning immediate action is required such as border security to be increased and monitored in more depth. (Williams, 2011) Traditional ways and methods to deal with security in IR has been criticised by the Securitisation theory, arguing that issues are not debilitating in themselves; but by labelling these issues as a ‘security’ issue, it has become a security issue. Right now, constructivist stream of IR represents a certain framework through which engaging with security studies. (Balzacq, 2010) The main argument is within the “securitisation paradigm” which the Copenhagen School of IR conceptualised, this argument states that security issues are socially constructed through discourse. (Weaver, 1995) This theory is an alternative view through which managing the process of a security threat isn’t really an “objective sense” in terms of language but the consequences of political and social interaction through discourse. This discourse includes collective identities, social values and normal which are all factors that are a piece of an intersubjective built ward. The securitisation theory has therefore broadened and deepened the views of security studies by redefining the significance and meaning of “power politics”, by doing this a security issue is characterises as existential danger thus differentiating it from “normal politics”. (McD

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.