Abstract
This is an exciting time in education. With widespread adoption of the more rigorous Common Core State Standards, the continued emphasis on access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities, and increasing diversity in schools, public education is at a critical juncture—one that demands that general education teachers and special education teachers work together. This special issue of Intervention in School and Clinic was born of a desire to capitalize on this moment. More than ever, special educators will need the content expertise of general educators, and general educators will need the intervention expertise of special educators.
The articles in this issue are meant not to serve as an endorsement of the Common Core State Standards but rather to recognize that, for now, Common Core is the reality in the U.S. educational landscape. Common Core may not be perfect—nor is a one-size-fits-all approach to education. However, its adoption has the potential to cause a shift in the professional narrative on educating all students, a shift toward improved practices characterized by better alignment between assessments and instruction, more effective progress monitoring, consistent use of data to make instructional decisions, and an emphasis on helping students know where they are in relationship to where they need to be.
The challenge of adopting new standards is not new, but unfortunately, focus on applying effective practices to the new standards is often overlooked. Over time, states and school districts have periodically adopted new curricula and, at each turn, have invested significant funds largely devoted to creating tools and preparing staff about what students should know and be able to do. With the advent of the Common Core, there is a renewed opportunity to put emphasis on the instructional strategies that will help students successfully achieve these standards.
Enter formative instructional practices; these versatile, effective practices comprise four components: setting clear learning targets, collecting and documenting evidence of student learning, using effective feedback, and cultivating student ownership of learning. These practices are the subject of this special issue. Although they are practices that can be used in any instructional setting and with any population of students, the emphasis in this issue is on how to use these practices with students with disabilities and how educators can collaborate to improve outcomes for students with learning challenges.
In the first article, Graham-Day, Fishley, Konrad, Peters, and Ressa set the stage for the remaining articles by providing an overview of formative and summative assessment and familiarizing readers with formative instructional practices. They argue that special education teachers have long used these practices, even if not called by the same names. Specifically, special educators set measurable learning goals, continuously monitor students’ progress toward mastery of those goals, and adjust instruction based on progress-monitoring data. Thus, these authors reason that special education teachers are well positioned to support schools with the adoption of more rigorous standards.
In the second article, Konrad, Keesey, Ressa, Alexeeff, Chan, and Peters describe the first component of formative instructional practices, setting clear learning targets. The authors underscore the importance of establishing clear targets, provide tips for interpreting the standards and translating them into accessible targets, and discuss the balance special educators seek to achieve to address the learning demands of the general curriculum while simultaneously responding to the individualized needs of their students. The tables and figures included in this article are particularly helpful as they provide examples and resources to assist teachers in developing standards- and IEP-based learning targets.
Next, Joseph, Kastein, Konrad, Chan, Peters, and Ressa discuss the importance of collecting and documenting evidence of student learning. They describe several methods of collecting data, including direct observation, teacher-made tests, curriculum-based measurement, rubrics, and goal attainment scaling. They address measurement procedures not only for primary learning targets but also for “supporting targets.” Setting these individualized targets is important for students who have disabilities or are at risk for failure. Teaching to and measuring progress on these targets will help teachers “close the gap” so students can catch up with their peers. The authors of this article also discuss how to use data to help with instructional decision making.
Chan, Konrad, Gonzalez, Peters, and Ressa, in the fourth article, identify feedback as the keystone of formative instructional practices. The purpose of formative instructional practices is to help move students’ learning forward. Effective teaching does not occur in the absence of effective feedback. Chan and colleagues underscore the interdependence of all the components for formative instructional practice and specifically note how feedback, to be most effective, relies on clear learning targets, collection of evidence of student learning, and student ownership of learning. In addition, the authors provide descriptions of evidence-based teaching strategies that embed frequent feedback opportunities and suggest ways to make delivery of feedback most powerful.
Finally, Chan, Graham-Day, Ressa, Peters, and Konrad inspire readers to provide students with meaningful opportunities to engage in formative instructional practices. They argue that merely involving students in the learning process is not sufficient. Rather, to maximize outcomes, students must take ownership of their learning. The authors present several evidence-based approaches to increasing student ownership of learning and discuss how student ownership pushes educators to think beyond their notions of student engagement. True ownership results when students become self-reliant learners who know how to seek the resources they need to move their learning forward. Student ownership is pivotal to the success of formative instructional practices. Indeed, it is the ultimate objective. Teachers cultivate ownership by consistently implementing and intentionally modeling the other components of formative instructional practices with their students. In other words, teachers must be clear about the learning targets, so they and their students know where they are headed. Logical data collection systems need to be in place, so students can begin to collect and interpret their own data. And feedback needs to be delivered clearly, regularly, and effectively, so students know how to act on it to make progress.
Formative instructional practices are not prescriptive teaching strategies. Rather, they are a collection of practices that help all teachers think strategically about teaching and learning. This collection was inspired by the work of many researchers and experts from both the general and special education fields. As such, these practices serve as an important bridge for educators from these fields as they work together to support student learning.