3.3 Implementation Modification

3.3 Implementation Modification: The teacher used formative assessment effectively to be aware of the progress of all students and modified the lesson appropriately when formative assessment demonstrated that students did not understand.

This indicator assesses the degree to which the teacher uses formative assessment techniques to gain awareness of his or her students’ progress and understanding and makes appropriate adjustments and modifications to address student instructional needs throughout the progression of the lesson. Evidence of this item can be observed during the class or directly obtained by asking the teacher about lesson modifications during a post-observation interview. An effective teacher may utilize a variety of formative assessments of student progress, including written assessments like quizzes, warm ups, journals, and reflections, as well as informal assessments, such as any evaluation based on discussion, questioning, and observation.

This indicator assesses how effectively the teacher monitors the student’s progress in order to further inform his or her instructional needs. The observer should analyze the various assessments used by the teacher, examine how the assessments influenced the teaching in the classroom, and determine how the information gained was used by the teacher to alter or adapt instruction “in the moment” to change either the path of the lesson or the time devoted to a specific portion of the lesson. This indicator should capture the frequency and the quality of the teacher’s formative assessments and modifications made based on the information gained throughout the class session.

General Rubric

1. This item should be rated a 1 if the teacher did not attempt to formatively assess student understanding during the lesson. This item should also be rated a 1 if it was clear that modifications to the lesson were needed to support student understanding, but the teacher did not make modifications.
   
    
2. This item should be rated a 2 if the teacher made only occasional or sporadic attempts to formatively assess student understanding.
   
    
3. This item should be rated a 3 if the teacher made regular attempts at formative assessment, but some of these attempts were of poor quality and the teacher missed opportunities to fully elicit student understanding. The teacher should have made some modifications to the lesson based on formative assessment of student understanding, and these modifications may have been somewhat successful. This item should also be rated a 3 if the teacher made no modifications to the lesson, but the teacher’s formative assessments suggested that no modifications were needed.
   
    
4. This item should be rated a 4 if the teacher consistently used formative assessments to monitor student progress during the lesson, and these assessments were of sufficient quantity to allow the teacher to obtain a clear picture of student understanding. The teacher also adjusted the lesson based on formative assessment as appropriate throughout the class period. There may have been a small missed opportunity to modify the lesson or a modification that was not completely successful.
   
    
5. This item should be rated a 5 if the teacher consistently used high-quality formative assessment throughout the class period to monitor student understanding and was able to modify his or her teaching or carefully target instruction based on the results of this assessment. The teacher successfully and consistently adjusted the lesson based on formative assessment of student understanding as appropriate throughout the class period.

Specific Examples of Supporting Evidence

1. The teacher did not circulate during the portion of the lesson when the students were working in groups, and no instructional modification was evident. At the front of the room, the teacher seemed to be spending most of his time working on his computer or preparing for the next class. The teacher moved from the front of the room only in one instance—to a group that loudly and disruptively demanded his help and were unwilling to come to him.
   
    
2. During the introduction and warm up, the teacher called on a few students to repeat the instructions for the day’s activity to check for understanding of the procedures. Once students began working in groups, the teacher circulated infrequently and was not able to assess progress or monitor student thinking in each group, so there was little evidence of modification of instruction based on formative assessment. The teacher did assist students who came up to the front and explicitly asked for help, but the teacher’s responses were limited to repeating the instructions and showing students the procedural steps to complete the problems on the worksheet. Students who did not seek the teacher out did not get assessed and received no modification of instruction to meet their specific learning needs.
   
    
3. The teacher regularly checked on each group’s progress on a worksheet of practice problems and verified that their work was correct at each checkpoint before groups continued to the next section. Sometimes the teacher quickly stamped correct answers for completion but did not take the opportunity to ask the students questions to probe their rationale for solving problems. Sometimes the teacher asked scaffolding questions to help students who struggled with the steps in the problem-solving procedure; when students asked questions, the teacher responded with another question that guided students to the correct process. Most of the time, the teacher asked only lower-order procedural questions of the students, then checked off that they’d completed their work and moved on to the next group. There was little evidence of altering or modifying instruction when students were clearly frustrated and unable to solve the problems, and the teacher missed opportunities to ask questions that would unpack their misconceptions or gaps in knowledge.
   
    
4. The teacher consistently circulated the room to assess student progress, probing with questions that got students to articulate their thinking about how the geometric shape of the H₂O molecule contributed to hydrogen-bonding in water. After reviewing the students’ attempts to diagram the intermolecular interactions in water, the teacher decided to call one member of each group to join her at the front of the room for a brief tutorial. The teacher showed these students how to construct a geometrically appropriate model of the water molecule, then sent them back to their groups with model kits to share what they learned. The teacher continued monitoring students’ representations and asking questions that demonstrated that many students could now accurately draw and describe in words how and why hydrogen-bonding occurred in water.
   
    
5. The teacher implemented the lesson activity described above that required students to draw and describe in words how the shape of the H₂O molecule contributed to hydrogen-bonding in water. Noting that most students were able to correctly complete this part of the assignment, the teacher challenged completers to draw a picture of what the water would look like if a salt such as NaCl were added to the solution. While the completers worked on this, the teacher gathered those who were still confused back at the front desk and showed them a short video on her computer that illustrated how H₂O molecules interacted in the liquid state. After the video, the students were able to draw and describe in their own words how the shape of the water molecule contributed to hydrogen-bonding. The teacher continued circulating, monitoring student work and asking probing questions throughout the period. Depending on the student responses, the teacher alternated between molecular models and video simulations to scaffold student learning.