# data[].attributes.body
NWEA article on using data to triangulate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cris Tovani, in her book So What Do They Really Know: Assessment That Informs Teaching and Learning, has a great way of thinking about differentiation:

Differentiation is about adjusting my instruction to meet more student needs. It isn't about each student doing an elaborate, individualized project.

If we look at data differentiation from this perspective, flexible grouping is just one strategy which allows us to meet more student needs.

When was the last time you used flexible groups in your classroom? What was the purpose? What data did you use to form the groups? How flexible were the flexible groups? Flexible grouping is a strategy often associated with differentiated instruction. Sometimes we get stuck on the flexible part. Let's talk about ways that data might give you more flexibility.

On the last state assessment your data showed that this year's math class was divided into 2 groups (proficient/not proficient) on the standard related to measurement. Although you received this data in August, as a starting point you could identify two groups the first week or two of school and do some quick assessments to try and get a clearer picture on what aspects of measurement were strengths and stretches. Now to get more specific information, your district uses an interim assessment which offers more detailed information about students and specific standards and sub-standards. Your plan for flexible grouping shapes up to look like this:

1. Form 2 groups based on state assessment - proficient/not proficient.

2. Administer short assessments focused on this year's measurement standard to identify strengths and stretches within both groups.

3. Form new groups based on results of short assessments.

4. Students take the district's interim assessment. Analyze those results and triangulate with the state assessment and your classroom assessments.

5. Form new groups based on the triangulation of data. You may have two sets of groups, one that focuses on expanding students' strengths and one set that focuses on addressing students' stretches.

As you can see from the scenario above, we have formed and reformed groups at least three times in probably the first six weeks of school. Additionally as you get better at narrowing the instructional focus for these groups, students get better at learning what they need to know and to do, which causes you to flex the membership and focus of each group once more.

Differentiating with flexible groups works best when based upon data. You have a wide variety of data at your fingertips (as do students). Becoming data literate means that you can enhance your differentiation skills. While we want all students to meet the same success criteria, how they meet those criteria is the key to differentiation. In their book Data Driven Differentiation, Gregory and Kuzmich talk about a wide variety of data we can and need to collect in the classroom to successfully differentiate for student growth and achievement. They also discuss differences between ability, heterogeneous, random and constructed groups - all flexible and all formed by analyzing and acting upon the data.

What does this culture of using data to differentiate look like in your classroom from your perspective? From your students' perspective? What strategies are you finding most useful? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom Strategies: Using Data to Differentiate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student data differentiation can give educators the ability to create flexible groups for better student growth and achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
Kagan research cites that it student achievement increases when students are placed in groups of 4 students consisting of: 1 high; 2 mid; and 1 low

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeanie M. Dotson
Culminating Project
(Kagan Online Magazine, Winter 2001)

This study compares achievement scores of sixth-grade social studies students who participated in classes using Spencer Kagan's Structures of Cooperative Learning with students who did not. Heterogeneous grouping of students is essential to the use of cooperative learning structures and the groupings involved consisted of students with varying abilities, from mentally impaired to gifted. The measures were curriculum-based assessments and the mean scores of each class were compared.

Introduction

Article At-A-Glance

Abstract

Introduction

Literature Review

Discussion

References

Cooperative Learning is a teaching arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a common goal (Kagan, 1994). Students work together to learn and are responsible for their teammates' learning as well as their own. The basic elements are:

1. Positive Interdependence - occurs when gains of individuals or teams are positively correlated.

2. Individual Accountability - occurs when all students in a group are held accountable for doing a share of the work and for mastery of the material to be learned.

3. Equal Participation - occurs when each member of the group is afforded equal shares of responsibility and input.

4. Simultaneous Interaction - occurs when class time is designed to allow many student interactions during the period.

Hundreds of studies have been undertaken to measure the success of cooperative learning as an instructional method regarding social skills, student learning, and achievement across all levels from primary grades through college. The general consensus is that cooperative learning can and usually does result in positive student outcomes in all domains (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). However, very few studies have been published that specifically target the use of Spencer Kagan's Structures of Cooperative Learning (Kagan, 1994) as teaching methods to increase student achievement.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis: Sixth-grade Social Studies students at Dunbar Middle School who participate in Kagan's cooperative learning structures will gain higher curriculum-based assessment scores than students who do not use this method of learning.

Literature Review

Cooperative learning is generally defined as a teaching arrangement in which small, heterogeneous groups of students work together to achieve a common goal. Students encourage and support each other, assume responsibility for their own and each other's learning, employ group related social skills, and evaluate the group's progress. The basic elements are positive interdependence, equal opportunities, and individual accountability. Human beings are social creatures by nature and cooperation has been used throughout history in all aspects of our lives. Therefore, it follows that cooperative learning groups in schools would be used as a logical teaching method. The study is of a quasi-experimental design, due to the fact that the participants were chosen as a convenience, cluster sample. Non-Equivalent Groups, Posttest Only is the design style of the study with one group receiving treatment (cooperative learning instructional method) and the other (control) group receiving more traditional lecture/discussion teaching method.Curriculum Based Assessments are teacher made or textbook published instruments specifically designed to measure mastery of material presented. Mastery is considered to mean that students will score at least 80% on each assessment. Various formats have been used such as multiple choice, matching, short answer, essay, and map completion. The textbook used was World: Adventures in Time and Place, published by Macmillan/McGraw-Hill in 1997. The assessment instruments are considered to be field-tested, have face validity, and were peer-reviewed by other social studies teachers. All assessments were based on 100%; scores indicating the percentage of correctly answered items. Sample assessment instruments are included in the appendix.The study took place during the first nine weeks grading period of the school year. The students received instruction about working in cooperative groups and practiced before the study began. For each block of material, one class used the cooperative learning structures and the other did not receive instructions in this manner. The group not receiving cooperative learning structures as a teaching method was involved in the traditional lecture/demonstration method with individual assignments. Student achievement was measured through curriculum based assessment instruments designed by the teacher. The assessments were quantitatively compared. Students in the group have roles: Speed Captain (prompts more ideas), Super Supporter (encourages/recognizes all ideas), Synergy Guru (encourages members to build upon one another's ideas), and Recorder (writes ideas). Members carry out their respective roles while the team generates a variety of possible responses.

Methodology

Design

Dunbar Middle School is located in Fairmont, West Virginia. While West Virginia is mostly rural, the school is considered to have some characteristics of an inner city population. The students in the study, chosen as a convenience, cluster sample, are fifty 6th graders, eleven or twelve years old. There are a wide range of SES levels, from homeless children to children of professional, upper-class parents. The students are a mix of abilities, gender, and race, with 12% minority population, who were randomly placed in two (out of seven) Social Studies class periods. Each class period has five to eight students who currently receive special education services. The teacher in the study is an experienced veteran of twenty-five years, who has taught 6th grade at Dunbar Middle School for nine years. This is her seventh year of Social Studies instruction. Participants

Measures of Assessment Instruments

Each class received the same material and the same assessments. Achievement was measured by the percentage of correct responses on teacher made and textbook published assessments and the mean score for the group of students in each class period was computed. Comparisons were made between classes that received instruction using cooperative learning strategies and classes that did not use this method.

Cooperative Learning Structures are methods of organizing the interaction of individuals in a classroom. Step-by-step procedures are used to present, practice, and review material. Some regulate interaction between pairs, some are best for teamwork, and others involve the entire class. The following examples illustrate a few of these instructional methods used. Sample lesson plans for selected structures are included in the appendix. Procedures

Think-Pair-Share - The teacher poses a question to the class and the students think about their response. Then students pair with a partner to talk over their ideas. Finally, students share their ideas with the class.

Rallytable - Students are working in pairs, within their teams. Students will take turns writing on one piece of paper or completing a task.

Numbered Heads Together - Students within the team number off from 1-4. The teacher poses a question and the students put their heads together to discuss the answer. The teacher randomly calls a number and from each team the student with that number writes the answer on the team response board.

Showdown - Each student writes his answer on his individual response board. When everyone in the group is ready, the leader says "Showdown" and team members compare and discuss their answers.

Teammates Consult - Students all have their own copy of the same worksheet or assignment questions. A large cup is placed in the center of each team, and students begin by placing their pencils in the cup. With pencils still in the cup, they discuss their answers to the first question. When all team members are ready, they remove their pencils from the cup and write their answers without talking. They repeat this process with the remaining questions.

4S Brainstorming -
Analysis

The mean for each group's (control and treatment) scores was calculated to find the standard mean deviation effect size and compared using the t-Test for Independent Samples. An effect size was derived to provide an estimate of the magnitude of the results independent of sample size. This gives an indication of practical, rather than statistical, significance.

Results

The purpose of the study was to determine if sixth-grade Social Studies students at Dunbar Middle School who participated in cooperative learning structures would gain higher curriculum-based assessment scores than students who did not use this method of learning.

Student scores from each assessment were recorded and a class period mean was calculated. Table 1 shows the mean percent correct on each assessment for the control and treatment groups. Figure 1 shows this information in graph form and Figure 2 shows the overall group averages of the control and treatment groups.

Table 1

Assessment mean scores

For decades cooperative learning has been implemented in classrooms with diverse populations primarily as a means of fostering positive student interactions. In the United States, cooperative learning was first viewed as an approach to facilitate racial integration.

During the 1960s specific cooperative learning methods began to be developed and evaluated in a wide variety of teaching contexts. In an historic overview (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) nine methods of cooperative learning are listed. Johnson and Johnson developed Learning Together and Alone and Constructive Controversy, DeVries & Edwards created Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), Sharan & Sharan developed Group Investigation, Aronson developed the Jigsaw Procedure, Slavin created Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), and Kagan developed Cooperative Learning Structures.

A synthesis of research about cooperative learning finds that cooperative learning strategies improve the achievement of students and their interpersonal relationships. In 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning 61% found significantly greater achievement in cooperative than in traditionally taught control groups. Positive effects were found in all major subjects, all grade levels, in urban, rural, and suburban schools, and for high, average, and low achievers (Slavin, 1991).

Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne (2000) summarize that cooperative learning strategies are widely used because they are based on theory, validated by research, and almost any teacher can find a way to use cooperative learning methods that are consistent with personal philosophies. In a meta-analysis of 158 studies, Johnson & Johnson report that current research findings present evidence that cooperative learning methods are likely to produce positive achievement results. The studies included eight methods of cooperative learning: Learning Together and Alone, Constructive Controversy, Jigsaw Procedure, Student teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI), Cooperative Integrated Reading & Composition (CIRC), Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), and Group Investigation. No studies were found that specifically investigate Kagan's Cooperative Learning Structures. In each case, the achievement levels were significantly higher when cooperative learning methods were used as compared to individualistic or competitive methods of learning.

Grouping is essential to cooperative learning. The most widely used team formation is that of heterogeneous teams, containing a high, two middle, and a low achieving student and having a mix of gender and ethnic diversity that reflect the classroom population. The rationale for heterogeneous groups argues that this produces the greatest opportunities for peer tutoring and support as well as improving cross-race and cross-sex relations and integration. Occasionally, random or special interest teams could be formed to maximize student talents or meet a specific student need (Kagan, 1994).

While many cooperative learning training packages exist, one study found that most teachers who use these methods have been self-taught (Sparapani, Abel, Easton, Edwards, & Herbster, 1997) and that teachers are likely to use a combination of methods. This resulted in very few activities that involved higher-level thinking skills and most of the observations were of drill and review or routine activities. The reason for lack of teacher training is given as lack of funding and/or administrative support. Another study (Nath & Ross 1996) of teachers using Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) found that if teachers did not strictly adhere to the framework of cooperative learning, the method was unsuccessful and students spent more time on disagreements or conflict management than they did on academic tasks. Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewind (1989/1990) assert that teacher buy-in is an essential factor for success and that cooperative learning needs to be embraced as a teaching philosophy and a set of principles rather than as a teaching gimmick if it is to reach its full potential.

Factors contributing to achievement effects of cooperative learning are group goals and individual accountability. Providing students with an incentive to help each other and encourage each other to put forth maximum efforts increases the likelihood that all group members will learn. As well as individual grades and evaluations there is strong evidence that group grades and team rewards are most successful for motivation (Slavin, 1995). Others argue that the group grades and team rewards allow for the free rider effect of students who do not participate to the fullest extent of their abilities (Joyce, 1999 and Cohen, 1998). Also, it is argued that group grading de-emphasizes the importance of hard-work, personal ability, and perseverance (Kagan, 1995).

Cooperative learning enhances social interaction, which is essential to meet the needs of at-risk students (Slavin, Karweit, & Madden, 1989; Johnson, 1998). Within the framework of cooperative learning groups, students learn how to interact with their peers and increase involvement with the school community. Positive interactions do not always occur naturally and social skills instruction must precede and concur with the cooperative learning strategies. Social skills encompass communicating, building and maintaining trust, providing leadership, and managing conflicts (Goodwin 1999).

In two studies (Nelson & Johnson, 1996; Prater, Bruhl, & Serna, 1998) researchers found that students with behavior disorders who did not receive social skills instruction performed better with direct instruction methods rather than cooperative group methods and that students who did receive social skills instruction performed better with cooperative group methods.

Cooperative learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels, from pre-school to post secondary. The developmental characteristics of middle school students make cooperative learning a good fit of teaching strategy for the needs of the students. Young adolescents need to socialize, be a part of a group, share feelings, receive emotional support, and learn to see things from other perspectives. Cooperative learning groups do not separate students on the basis of class, race, or gender and the goals of middle schools are consistent with the goals of cooperative learning theories. It is a peer-centered pedagogy that promotes academic achievement and builds positive social relationships (Sapon-Shevin, 1994).

Social Studies classes lend themselves to cooperative learning methods due to the skills and values within the curriculum. Students may use their thinking, communication, and information-sharing skills to increase their content knowledge as well as their interpersonal skills. Several suggestions were given by Karnes and Collins (1997) to implement cooperative learning structures within the social studies context.

The amount of research suggests that many have studied the effects of cooperative learning and found positive results. In a search for studies that specifically explored Kagan's Structures of Cooperative Learning and/or the use of cooperative learning in social studies classes only a few were located. One study (Maheady, Mallette, Harper, & Sacca, 1991) compared the effects of Numbered Heads Together to a whole-group questioning strategy on social studies tests scores with third graders. Students always performed better when Numbered Heads Together was used and on-task rates were approximately twice as high using this structure. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of Kagan's cooperative learning structures as a teaching method to increase student achievement in social studies classes with sixth graders.

A one-tailed, unpaired t test was calculated using the computer software Stat View on the difference between the two class periods. The results are statistically significant at .04 probability level.

Table 2

Unpaired t-test

A standardized mean difference effect size was calculated by dividing the difference between the mean of the treatment group (period 2) and the control group (period one) to provide an estimate of the magnitude of difference, which is an indicator of practical significance. The result is a moderate to large effect size in educational research.

Another question was raised when examining the results: What were the effects of cooperative learning structures on the achievement scores of sixth-grade Social Studies students with disabilities or special needs at Dunbar Middle School? No statistical analysis was calculated specifically on the mean scores of students with special needs, due to the small number involved, but the scores are reported in Table 3. In each case and for each exceptionality, the students with special needs in the treatment group scored higher than the students with special needs in the control group. Figures 3-6 illustrate this information in graph form.

Table3

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

The primary goal of this study was to measure student achievement for those using Kagan's cooperative learning structures as a method of instruction and to compare that achievement with those using a traditional lecture/independent style of instruction. For each assessment the assumption that using cooperative learning structures would result in higher achievement was proven. The results were consistent with those of earlier studies comparing other cooperative learning methods against lecture/independent styles of instruction (Slavin, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 2000). Figure 6

Discussion

Although the intent did not focus on measuring achievement for students with disabilities, the results indicate that cooperative learning structures can be used successfully for students of diverse abilities. The students in the study presented a wide variety of abilities and functioning levels; including mildly mentally impaired (MMI), learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit (ADD), obsessive compulsive (OCD), English as a second language (ESL), and gifted (GT). All students with special needs in the treatment group were more successful than those in the control group

A goal of placing students with disabilities in an inclusive setting is to foster acceptance and increase social interaction. Kagan's structures and other methods of cooperative learning address this issue due to the inherent nature of the heterogeneous groupings (Kagan, 1994). While not measured, this goal was reached according to the teacher's observations of social interactions within the groups. One of the students in the treatment class was a non-English speaking student. The social context of the group helped avoid the isolation that this student could have felt beginning school in a new country. The students in his group certainly aided in his acquisition of English, as well as social studies content. Other students with disabilities reported that they felt more comfortable working with classmates than working independently.

There were no students with behavior disorders included in the population of this study. Other studies (Nelson & Johnson, 1996; Prater, Bruhl, & Serna, 1998) have found that the social skills needed for cooperative learning should be taught prior to beginning cooperative learning lessons. While social skills are included in Kagan's structures, this pre-teaching of skills for students with behavior disorders would enhance the success of the method.
Cohen, E. G. (1998). Making cooperative learning equitable. Educational Leadership, 56, 18-22.

Goodwin, M. W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how to teach them. Interventions in School & Clinic, 35, 29-34.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved July, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl-methods.html

Johnson, G. M. (1998). Principles of instruction for at-risk learners. Preventing School Failure, 42, 167-181.

Joyce, W. B. (1999). On the free-rider problem in cooperative learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74, 271-274.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, California: Kagan Publishing.

Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52, 68-72.

Karnes, M. & Collins, D. (1997). Using cooperative learning strategies to improve literacy skills in social studies. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 13, 37-52.

Maheady, L., Mallette, B., Harper, G.F., & Sacca, K (1991). Heads together" A peer-mediated option for improving the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 25-33.

Nath, L. R. & Ross, S. (1996). A case study of implementing a cooperative learning program in an inner-city school. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 117-137.

Nelson, J. R. & Johnson, A. (1996). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53-63.

Prater, M. A., Bruhl, S. & Serna, L. A. (1998). Acquiring social skills through cooperative learning and teacher-directed instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 160-172.

Sapon-Shevin, M. (1994). Cooperative learning and middle schools: What would it take to really do it right? Theory Into Practice, 33, 183-190.

Sapon-Shevin, M. & Schniedewind, N. (1989/1990). Selling cooperative learning without selling it short. Educational Leadership, 47, 63-65.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L. & Madden, N. A. (1989). Effective Programs for Students At Risk. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82.

These findings have relevance to the general classroom teacher faced with implementing inclusion of students with special needs. Cooperative learning structures can be easily used as a modification to instruction with no extra time or effort required of the teacher. One lesson plan using cooperative learning structures has built in peer tutoring and support within the heterogeneous class groupings, which eliminates the requirement for several different plans to meet the needs of all students. Because structures are content free, this method of cooperative learning could be adapted to any curricular area and any level. In this study the sixth grade social studies textbook was the foundation for instruction.

A limitation of the study could be the differences in students within each class period. Although efforts were made to ensure that each class period contained students of comparable abilities, the group make-up could have affected the outcomes. The control group did score lower on each assessment. If the control group would now receive instruction with cooperative learning structures, would they increase their scores? Due to time restraints, this information is not included in this report but is the focus of a follow-up study now being conducted.

The teacher involved in this study was an experienced teacher with an interest and background in cooperative learning that received continual support and feedback from trainers and other teachers using the cooperative learning structures. Sapon-Shevin and Schniedewind (1989/1990) found that teacher buy-in is essential to the success of cooperative learning which was evident during this study. The results could be quite different if the teacher were inexperienced, not committed to using structures, or did not receive support.

Implications for further study would be to explore the success of cooperative learning structures in school wide versus isolated classrooms settings and long-term usage of the methods. In this study the approach was a novel one for the students, as this was their first exposure to using structures in their classes.

While this study focused on sixth-grade social studies students using cooperative learning structures, others have found the method to be successful across all levels. Positive effects were found in all major subjects, all grade levels, in urban, rural, and suburban schools, and for high, average, and low achievers (Slavin, 1991). Perhaps future studies will concur with these findings.

References

Kagan is compiling data on the effectiveness of the Kagan methods. If any of you have any action research from your own classrooms or any comments you would like to share, we would very much appreciate hearing from you. Please E-mail Kagan at: NOTE:
Research@KaganOnline.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
kagan publishing teaching catalog teacher resources school supplies music games cooperative learning differentiated instruction educational products esl ell foreign language posters multiple intelligences textbooks math books science literature social studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kagan specializes in staff development and educational resources for teachers. Visit our online store, magazine and message board the leading authority on cooperative learning, classroom discipline and multiple intelligences.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Channel: Choosing Collaborative Groups

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Channel: Choosing Collaborative Groups

# data[].attributes.body
Using data to group students into heterogeneous or homogeneous groups by levels or test scores, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether to form groups with students of similar or mixed ability depends on the purpose of the learning activity.

©Shutterstock.com/Syda Productions

"OK, kids, we're going to be learning in groups today. Each group needs a math checker, a presenter, a writer/editor, and an illustrator. You decide who does what. You'll be reviewing the best ways to solve polynomial problems. Please pull out the instructions and the rubric for this assignment. As a group, your task is to create a one-page, step-by-step process that someone could follow to arrive at a solution. You have 15 minutes to complete this task according to the rubric that I have handed out. Ready, set, go!"

The teacher who gives these instructions then spends the next 15 minutes roving about the classroom, reviewing the progress of each group and asking probing questions to help the individual groups clarify their thinking.

Grouping sounds so easy. What we don't see in the above example is how the teacher has organized students in the groups in order to achieve the best results. Some educators firmly believe that a teacher must mix the groups so that students of all levels are represented in each group (heterogeneous grouping of students), while others believe that a teacher must organize the students by ability levels (homogeneous grouping of students). Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jane Pollock explain in Classroom Instruction That Works (first edition) that there are advantages to both methods, depending on what the teacher wants to do.

Identifying Purposes

If the purpose of the group learning activity is to help struggling students, the research shows that heterogeneous groups may help most. On the other hand, if the purpose is to encourage medium ability groups to learn at high levels, homogeneous grouping would be better.

I learned this as a teacher when one of my gifted and talented students told me in confidence that she really hated being in heterogeneous groups (she said it differently, of course) all the time because by default, the other members of the group expected her to be the leader, organize things, and do all the work.

This was a tipping point for me, because it made me realize that I wasn't grouping students for increased learning. I was using grouping mainly as a discipline management tool, and in actuality my attempt to increase student engagement had completely backfired. By always making sure that the "smart" students and the struggling students were equally divided in the groups, I was actually limiting the student participation to the de facto leaders of the groups.

Deciding Which Is Best

Because of this epiphany, I remember vowing that I would further differentiate my teaching by also seeking ways to give the upper-level students challenging and engaging learning activities. I promised to stop using the "good kids" in the hope that some of their "goodness" would rub off on the other students. An interesting thing happened when I grouped the students by ability. New leadership structures formed, and students who had never actively participated in groups before all of a sudden demonstrated skills and creativity that I never knew they had.

Students are smart and can easily figure out what we're really doing. Students, in our classrooms, know when they are being grouped to mainly tutor and remediate less capable students and... most of the time they resent it. We can also tick them off when we form groups solely for discipline purposes by placing the calm, obedient students in each group to separate and calm down the unruly ones. My daughter Mercedes, who falls in both categories above, said that when teachers do this to her, she doesn't learn and it's not fun for her or the other students. Perhaps more often than not, students are savvy enough to play along when they recognize that the grouping is nothing more than a routine way to spend the time and has no real learning purpose at all.

If given a choice, students prefer to learning in groups of their peers and friends (homogeneous groups), but they also appreciate getting to know and learn from other members of the classroom. This requires that we trust students to make good decisions and hold them accountable for following the norms of learning in groups.

According to Marzano, Pickering and Pollock, effective learning in groups must have at least the following elements:

The work must involve every member of the group.

Each person has a valid job to perform with a known standard of completion.

Each member is invested in completing the task or learning goal.

Each member is accountable individually and collectively.

Remember that the desks are not attached to the floor-we can mix things up in heterogeneous and homogeneous groups in interesting and creative ways: eye color, left- or right-handedness, preferred pizza toppings, number of siblings, music preferences, gender, nationality, hair length, shoe laces, genetic traits, learning styles, etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Learning Groups: Homogeneous or Heterogeneous?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether to form groups with students of similar or mixed ability depends on the purpose of the learning activity. ©Shutterstock.com/Syda Productions "OK, kids, we're going to be learning in groups today. Each group needs a math checker, a presenter, a writer/editor, and an illustrator. You decide who does what.

# data[].attributes.headline
55 Digital Tools and Apps for Formative Assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
55 Digital Tools and Apps for Formative Assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There is no shortage of formative assessment strategies, techniques, and tools available to teachers who use formative instructional practice in their classrooms. Here is an extensive list of 75 digital tools, apps, and platforms that can help you and your students use formative assessment to elicit evidence of learning. We didn't just add any old tool to this list. Here are the criteria we used for those that made the cut:

Supports formative instructional strategies and ways to activate learners to be resources for themselves and peers

Is free or awful close to it (under $10 per year, where possible)

Allows both students and teachers to take the activator role when possible (sometimes teachers need to get things started)

Before you dig into the tools, I encourage you to spend some time thinking about exactly what you want to accomplish with your students. "How to pick the right digital tool: Start with your learning goal" by Erin Beard can help you wrap your head around goals and guide you in choosing the best tool for the task. "27 easy formative assessment strategies for gathering evidence of student learning" can help you decide what strategies work best for you and your students.

Record audio and video

Create quizzes, polls, and surveys

1. Crowdsignal Lets you create online polls, quizzes, and questions. Students can use smartphones, tablets, and computers to provide their answers, and information can be culled for reports.

2. Edulastic Allows you to make standards-aligned assessments and get instant feedback.

3. FreeOnlineSurveys Helps you create surveys, quizzes, forms, and polls.

4. Gimkit Lets you write real-time quizzes. And it was designed by a high school student!

5. Kahoot! A game-based classroom response system that lets you create quizzes using internet content.

6. MicroPoll Helps you create polls, embed them into websites, and analyze responses.

7. Naiku Lets you write quizzes students can answer using their mobile devices.

8. Obsurvey Designed to make surveys, polls, and questionnaires.

9. Poll Everywhere Lets you create a feedback poll or ask questions and see results in real time. Allows students to respond in various ways. With open-ended questions, you can capture data and spin up tag clouds to aggregate responses.

10. Poll Maker Offers unique features, like allowing multiple answers to one question.

11. ProProfs Helps you make quizzes, polls, and surveys.

12. Quia Lets you create games, quizzes, surveys, and more. Access a database of existing quizzes from other educators.

13. Quizalize Helps you create quizzes and homework.

14. Quizizz Guides you through designing quizzes and lets you include students in the quiz-writing process.

15. Quizlet Lets you make flashcards, tests, quizzes, and study games that are mobile friendly.

16. Survey Hero Designed to build questionnaires and surveys.

17. SurveyMonkey Helpful for online polls and surveys.

18. SurveyPlanet Also helpful for online polls and surveys.

19. Triventy Lets you create quizzes students take in real time using individual devices.

20. Yacapaca Helps you write and assign quizzes.

21. Zoho Survey Allows you to make mobile-friendly surveys and see results in real time.

Brainstorm, mind map, and collaborate

Present, engage, and inspire

Generate word or tag clouds

1. EdWordle Generates word clouds from any entered text to help aggregate responses and facilitate discussion. Word clouds are pictures composed of a cloud of smaller words that form a clue to the topic.

2. Tagxedo Allows you to examine student consensus and facilitate dialogues.

3. Wordables Helps you elicit evidence of learning or determine background knowledge about a topic.

4. WordArt Includes a feature that allows the user to make each word an active link to connect to websites, including YouTube.

Get real-time feedback

Foster family communication

1. Remind Lets you text students and stay in touch with families.

2. Seesaw Helps you improve family communication and makes formative assessment easy, while students can use the platform to document their learning.

3. Voxer Lets you send recordings so families can hear how their students are doing, students can chat about their work, and you can provide feedback.

Strengthen teacher-to-student or student-to-student communication

Keep the conversation going with live chats

1. Backchannel Chat A teacher-moderated version of Twitter.

2. Chatzy Supports live, online chats in a private setting.

Create and store documents or assignments

1. Google Forms A Google Drive app that allows you to create documents students can collaborate on in real time using smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

2. Piazza Lets you upload lectures, assignments, and homework; pose and respond to student questions; and poll students about class content. This tool is better suited for older students as it mimics post-secondary class instructional formats.

Learn more

There are several resources for learning more about formative assessment and responsive instruction strategies. Consider our formative practices workshops, where school and district teams can gain a better understanding of the role formative practice plays in instruction and the four foundational practices to use in the classroom. Or for a quick start, download our eBook "Making it work: How formative assessment can supercharge your practice."

Jump in, try new tools and methods, and have fun!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
75 digital tools and apps teachers can use to support formative assessment in the classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is no shortage of formative assessment strategies, techniques, and tools available to teachers who use formative instructional practice in their classrooms. Here is an extensive list of 75 digital tools, apps, and platforms that can help you and your students use formative assessment to elicit evidence of learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Seven Things to Communicate to Students Before Testing

# data[].attributes.subject
Seven Things to Communicate to Students Before Testing

# data[].attributes.body
NWEA Article - prior to assessments, how do we get students to take the test seriously? A precursory conversation to testing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We can all agree that students are a key stakeholder in their own education. When they are involved in the assessment process and in their own learning, the result is an improvement in achievement. So while reviewing test results with them after the fact is important, communicating with students - as a class or individually - before they test is equally important. Here are seven things to consider discussing with your students before testing:

Getting students on the same page before an assessment or test can really help settle nerves and reduce stress. If you have time, consider one-on-one meetings with your students to allay individual concerns or answer specific questions. If your students are taking the MAP® Growth™ assessment, you should consult this post in particular - 11 Talking Points for Teachers Preparing Students for the MAP Test. And stay tuned here on the blog, where every Tuesday we will feature some of our best tips and resources as you head back to school.

Kara brings 15+ years of marketing communications experience to her role as the Senior Manager of Digital Content at NWEA. She is passionate about learning and creating opportunities to share NWEA partner stories on a variety of platforms. For the past year, Kara has been creating content for Assessment Literacy.org, working on the NWEA-Gallup assessment perceptions study, and collaborating with the Task Force on Assessment Education for Teachers. Prior to that, Kara held communications and consulting roles in a variety of industries. She completed her undergraduate work at the University of Notre Dame and earned a master's degree from Northwestern University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 things to consider when communicating with students before testing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can all agree that students are a key stakeholder in their own education. When they are involved in the assessment process and in their own learning, the result is an improvement in achievement. So while reviewing test results with them after the fact is important, communicating with students - as a class or individually - before they test is equally important.

# data[].attributes.body
The danger of miscalculating student needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Guidelines to Eliminating Assessment Fog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It’s easier to differentiate instruction for students when we break through the fog of learning targets and logistical guidelines to understand exactly what we’re assessing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Students Can Own Their Data: 5 Ways to Get Started

# data[].attributes.subject
Students Can Own Their Data: 5 Ways to Get Started

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Identify sources of learner data
When students are involved in the assessment process, they are required to think about their own learning; they articulate what they understand and what they still need to learn; and the result is that achievement improves. Pretty bold statement, right? It's true . . . and as it happens, students are a key stakeholder in their own education, and they generate the most data in a classroom. So how do we help them own their data? Below are five key ways to help students get started with this process.
Clarify how students currently use the data
Take a few minutes to brainstorm a list of all the data students have available to them to inform or support their learning. How often, and to what degree, do students understand the results they receive from each of these data sources?

Ask yourself these four questions regarding each data source you brainstormed:

1. How do students talk about this data?

2. What questions do students ask about the data?

3. When and how do learners use the results to move their learning to the next level?

4. How do learners use the data to set goals - either academic, skill, or learning tactic goals?

Provide students the basics
As you consider your responses to these questions, you might also want to add a frequency aspect to your response - so how often do these actions occur (always, sometimes, seldom, never)? In the 2016 Make Assessment Work survey, students listed the following types of assessment as being most helpful to their teachers in helping them learn: practice tests, interim assessments, classroom tests and quizzes, performance tasks, and formative assessments. If students think these types of assessment are helpful, how can we help students better use the results themselves?

If we put learners at the heart of assessment - the purpose of assessment being to support learning - then all of our assessment efforts should be seen as learning tools that actively connect students and their learning. To empower students to own their data, they need to:

Understand the purpose and use of different types of assessment

Know how to collect evidence of their learning

Understand what the evidence means

Know how to apply or use the evidence to make decisions

Connect their individual efforts to their growth

Communicate with the teacher, peers, and other stakeholders who can offer support

Jim Popham talks about "student-determined adjustments," the application of their data by the students that informs them in regards to the learning tactics which are working, where they need to go in their learning (goal setting), how close they are to their goals or the teacher's targets, and how well they are meeting the stated success criteria. Connecting application to growth helps reinforce (or build) the ideas about growth mindset - the idea that effort will make a difference and anything can be accomplished if you apply yourself.
Strategies to support data ownership
The data students have access to helps them ask better questions related to their personal learning. The data also provides support to learners in asking for help, communicating their goals, and communicating the results with parents or guardians.

Now that you've done some reflection, collected some facts about student use of data, and provided some basic information to your learners, you may be wondering what strategies will really help you build these skills in your students. Here are a few to consider:

Student-generated questions: Teaching students to generate their own questions enhances inquiry skills, builds problem-solving skills, and causes them to think. What do they need to know about the evidence of their learning? What do they want or need to do with the results? What questions are they trying to answer when they look at the data? When students know how to ask their own questions, they take greater ownership and make new discoveries and connections on their own.

Student-created review sheets/checklists: Similar to generating questions, having students use the data available to them to create review sheets, checklists, and even success criteria, involves them in new ways in thinking about the evidence of their learning. When students are provided with clear success criteria and assessments are aligned with the learning targets and success criteria, the "feedback," or the evidence they receive about where they are in their learning, can help them clarify what's important to them as individuals and why.

Rate Your Confidence: At the end of any assessment or assignment, students can be asked to rate their confidence in their responses. How did they do on the assessment? Where were the challenges? Where were the strengths? And why? Taking a few minutes with this form of self-reflection helps build self-regulated learners. When assignments and assessment are returned, the opportunity to see the results alongside their reflection provides a way for students to use the data to monitor their progress.

Post-Quiz Reflection: As a series of reflection questions at the end of an assignment or assessment, collecting ideas from students about how prepared they felt, what preparation tactics they used, and the effectiveness of those tactics provides students data to build self-regulation and metacognition.

Basically we are talking about helping students become assessment literate - developing the knowledge and skills needed for the effective use of their results - data - to support their learning. What are you doing in your classroom to build these skills with your learners? We'd love to hear about it on Facebook or Twitter!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students can own their data - 5 ways to get started

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Identify sources of learner data When students are involved in the assessment process, they are required to think about their own learning; they articulate what they understand and what they still need to learn; and the result is that achievement improves. Pretty bold statement, right? It's true . . .

# data[].attributes.body
HUGE resource from Tim Brown (Solution Tree - PLC @ Work Conference). 77 pages (!!!) of examples/templates/handouts for student goal setting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2017 PLC Institue - Student Data Notebook Handouts 7.14.17 (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By looking at the right data teachers and administrators can build strategies to improve instructions. See how you can integrate data carousels into your school to find the areas needing attention that will help teachers and students.

# data[].attributes.body
Some

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In her ongoing Spencer Foundation-funded research on data-driven decision making, USC Rossier Associate Professor Julie Marsh was surprised by teachers' data use practices with students in some of the six middle schools she was studying.

The climate of accountability that has preoccupied every district, school, and teacher with student test scores was trickling down to the students themselves in the classroom.

"Teachers are using 'data binders,' 'data walls,' and 'data talks' with the kids, and almost a third of the examples we analyzed were performance- rather than mastery-focused, often putting kids in competition with one another," Marsh said. "We were struck by how many teachers thought it was "motivational for their students to publicly examine data and see how they were achieving compared to other students or groups of students."

According to Marsh, theory and research suggest that the practice of using data with students, which has become increasingly formalized in the schools she studied, can be beneficial when focused on individual improvement, a recognition of effort, and student agency (mastery orientation), but detrimental to some students when focused on status, performance relative to peers, and public sharing (performance orientation).

In some cases, teachers are engaging in such activities with their students unconsciously. Marsh cited an example of a teacher who said she was embarrassed and deflated when a principal posted all of the teachers' class test scores on a wall in a faculty meeting. Yet the same teacher reported doing a similar thing with her own students' scores in the classroom.

"A lot of teachers may start out with classroom practices promoting a mastery orientation - they use data to help an individual set goals and measure growth over time, but external pressures may be pushing them in the opposite direction, often sending mixed messages to students," she said.

The findings were a byproduct of Marsh's broader research study that seeks to better understand how teachers use data to inform their own instruction; how they move from raw data, to information, to knowledge, to action; and how they are supported in this process.

In today's high-stakes accountability climate, every decision is expected to be backed by data. Teachers have an abundance of data at their fingertips - from state, interim, and classroom assessments, to student work - which can be used to improve what they teach and how, but many do not know how to use these data to improve their decisions and adjust their practice.

Marsh's previous research had found a significant association between student achievement and reading coaches who spent time analyzing student data with teachers. Those findings piqued her interest in data-driven decision making, how teachers are supported in using data, and how it impacts student learning.

Her review of existing literature, recently published in Teachers College Record, found that data users often lack capacity to use data and want or lack support to help move from knowledge to action. The review also discovered only limited research on the activities that facilitate and build needed capacity for meaningful data use by teachers, which motivated her current study.

The Spencer Foundation supported research on three kinds of interventions: data coaches, literacy coaches, and data teams - to understand how they worked and their contributions to teacher knowledge and practice in middle school literacy instruction.

"Everyone you talk to will tell you they're data driven, but I've found that translates very differently across settings," Marsh said. "Most professional development for teachers focuses on the front end - how to interpret data. There is not as much in the back end - responding and acting on the data.

"If we're going to expect teachers to use data, it's best to find out how to support them to do so effectively." ￼

This article was featured in the January, 2013 Issue of Rossier Reach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research Finds Teachers' Use of Data Both Promising and Worrisome - Rossier School of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In her ongoing Spencer Foundation-funded research on data-driven decision making, USC Rossier Associate Professor Julie Marsh was surprised by teachers' data use practices with students in some of the six middle schools she was studying. The climate of accountability that has preoccupied every district, school, and teacher with student test scores was trickling down to the students themselves in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angie/Vivian Using Data to Make Meaningful Decisions 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Using Data Discover Your Students’ Stories Angie Allen & Vivian Uchima