Coach Project:
Creating Online Formative Assessments for the Arts
Part I. Coach Project Proposal/Description
For my Coach Project I focused on the Visual and Performing Arts classes, helping them develop and implement an online formative assessment process for critiquing student work by peers and instructors. I would focused on teaching the instructors the use of Google Apps For Education (G.A.F.E) to aide in this process. In the process I did some research on using G.A.F.E in the classroom as the main resource for the project. This project reached both the visual art classes (Art, Photo, Video) as well as the performing arts (theater) through a series of discussions between the me and instructors while collaboratively creating a structure for a working document/form for assessment. By the end of the project, each instructor had an online formative critique process, a better understanding of the Google Apps For Education and a common collaborative process for evaluation of student work.
The best option for the online formative assessment was utilizing the features of Google Forms. Originally my plan was to use Google Forms as the main application for all of the classes. The Form itself that I imagined would consist of an image centered on the top and a list of questions below that can be given as feedback to the artist. It would be my job to train the teachers how to create this type of form and how they can get their students to create one with their GAFE account at the school. However, my research and implementation of the software changed throughout the project based on the needs of the individual instructors. Whereas one teacher might prefer the use of Google Docs for their class, another might prefer the use of Google Forms or Google Sheets. I was able to adapt the project accordingly throughout the coaching project.The idea of interclass feedback introduced as well. Having our upper level students give feedback to some of our beginning students as well.
The plan is to reach at least 5 teachers and possibly as many as 8 teachers. I would like to start by targeting the Visual and Performing Arts classes, but it could expand out from there. I expect this to gain some interest from other schools in the district. We have 4 High Schools in the district, so there are a lot of Arts teachers to help. Ultimately this could be a district wide critique process that allows for inter-school critiques and feedback.
The coaching and training happened before school, after school, during collaborative meeting time or on common prep periods during the workweek. Most likely 30 min - 1 hour sessions each week to work with the teachers over a 3 month period. At the conclusion of the trainings the teachers will have a common assessment form for formative assessments. They will be knowledgeable of the Google Apps For Education and have a way to keep their notes and grading kept in a neat organized system.
Standards Addressed
ISTE-C 2.H. Coach teachers in and model effective use of technology tools and resources to systematically collect and analyze student achievement data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning.
ISTE-C 3.B. Maintain and manage a variety of digital tools and resources for teacher and student use in technology-rich learning environments.
ISTE-C 3.F. Collaborate with teachers and administrators to select and evaluate digital tools and resources that enhance teaching and learning and are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.
The best option for the online formative assessment was utilizing the features of Google Forms. Originally my plan was to use Google Forms as the main application for all of the classes. The Form itself that I imagined would consist of an image centered on the top and a list of questions below that can be given as feedback to the artist. It would be my job to train the teachers how to create this type of form and how they can get their students to create one with their GAFE account at the school. However, my research and implementation of the software changed throughout the project based on the needs of the individual instructors. Whereas one teacher might prefer the use of Google Docs for their class, another might prefer the use of Google Forms or Google Sheets. I was able to adapt the project accordingly throughout the coaching project.The idea of interclass feedback introduced as well. Having our upper level students give feedback to some of our beginning students as well.
The plan is to reach at least 5 teachers and possibly as many as 8 teachers. I would like to start by targeting the Visual and Performing Arts classes, but it could expand out from there. I expect this to gain some interest from other schools in the district. We have 4 High Schools in the district, so there are a lot of Arts teachers to help. Ultimately this could be a district wide critique process that allows for inter-school critiques and feedback.
The coaching and training happened before school, after school, during collaborative meeting time or on common prep periods during the workweek. Most likely 30 min - 1 hour sessions each week to work with the teachers over a 3 month period. At the conclusion of the trainings the teachers will have a common assessment form for formative assessments. They will be knowledgeable of the Google Apps For Education and have a way to keep their notes and grading kept in a neat organized system.
Standards Addressed
ISTE-C 2.H. Coach teachers in and model effective use of technology tools and resources to systematically collect and analyze student achievement data, interpret results, and communicate findings to improve instructional practice and maximize student learning.
ISTE-C 3.B. Maintain and manage a variety of digital tools and resources for teacher and student use in technology-rich learning environments.
ISTE-C 3.F. Collaborate with teachers and administrators to select and evaluate digital tools and resources that enhance teaching and learning and are compatible with the school technology infrastructure.
Part II. Literature Review
Collaborative applications such as the Google Applications for Education (G.A.F.E) in the classroom have opened the door for students to excel further in their classes than ever before. Students are able to enhance their Collaborative skills and formative online feedback abilities through the use of the virtual software, such as the Google Forms and Google Docs applications. In addition, students’ intrinsic motivation and efficiency in class is increased through the use of online collaborative documents that can be shared and edited seamlessly with both teacher and peer. By using the collaborative feedback capabilities that are available in the applications, students are able to perform at a higher level. This is shown in the data that Martinez and McGrath found in their 2014 study, which determined that “Students find all of the class resources for the projects and assignments on their learning management system and can access communication tools through Google Apps for Education, which gives them a suite of free communication and collaboration tools, including Gmail, Google Docs,and Google Sites” (Martinez, p. 45). Many students excel in a course that uses online formative feedback. As Michael Spector found in his 2016 paper on the use of collaborative formative feedback “Integration of formative assessment into teaching resulted in enhanced student performance.” (p. 58). Additionally researcher Heidi May (2011) found that “When a collaborative approach is embraced, decentralization in the art classroom can consist of a non-linear exchange of ideas between teacher and students, allowing for necessary dialogue and conversation, ultimately leading to Innovative exploration of materials and concepts” (p. 34). However, the research work by Smith (2010) gives a different opinion about the effectiveness of these applications, “Only a few studies to date have investigated the degree to which applications of technology could be considered an evidence-based practice” (Smith, p. 270). There is plenty of information about the benefits of these online assessments, this only points to the lack of sufficient studies.
For some students, the struggle to contribute to collaborative assessments or formative critiques in the classroom is greater than others. Applications such as G.A.F.E can help alleviate some of the difficulties that affect students with special needs as well as the general population of schools. The research of Smith (2010) found that “Be it in reading, writing, math, social skill development, or behavior, technology based solutions are often seen as "equalizers" for the struggling learner” (Smith, p. 257). The applications, although not without their flaws, have the ability to help students from Special Education to gifted and from Kindergarten to College students contribute the class assessments.
As educators, we understand the vital role technology plays in not just engaging students, but in giving them a voice as well. Students now frequent Chromebooks just as they would textbooks, sometimes with the former replacing the latter. For example, class websites house due dates, homework, information posts, lessons, and other items to supplement classroom learning. We use various software options to enhance learning and engage multiple types of learners, be it due to their learning style, culture, gender, and/or capacities.
This review is broken into 3 themes to help us understand the benefits of the G.A.F.E and its effect on the Art students’ growth in the classroom. (1.) The positive impact that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have on the classroom; (2) The negative impact that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have on the classroom; (3) The effect that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have ELD and LD students.
Positive Impact of Online Collaborative Assessment
Formative assessments have grown to become one of the most useful tools in the teacher’s arsenal. “Formative assessment was rated as one of the most effective methods to encourage student achievement.” (Spector, p. 58)”. It is used as a way for students to receive feedback on their performance and for teachers to evaluate their effectiveness in the classroom. More often these types of assessments are being done digitally as technology becomes more integrated in the classroom. “The opportunities to use technology to support formative assessment for learning have also grown with the development of new learning technologies” (Spector, p. 58). Students are positively affected by the opportunity that an online formative assessment provides for them. It allows for more in depth conversations about a student’s craft and starts a collaborative conversation with multiple levels involved in the academic process. “When a collaborative approach is embraced, decentralization in the art classroom can consist of a non-linear exchange of ideas between teacher and students, allowing for necessary dialogue and conversation, ultimately leading to Innovative exploration of materials and concepts” (May, p. 34). By utilizing an application such as Google Docs and Google Forms, students are able to work collaboratively and assess each other’s work as well as receive input from the instructor. This process helps the learner and the instructor dissect the performance of a specific student and analyze the resulting data. Researcher Ian Spector found “In the 21st century and with new technologies, there are multiple opportunities to capture both performance and assessment data and analyze them to understand how students are progressing with various forms of activities and then determine what adjustments might be made to help different learners”(Spector, p. 60).
Potential Negative Outcomes
The largest issue that surrounds the use of online formative assessments in the Art’s classroom, is that teachers do not understand what or how to utilize a formative assessment. “Formative assessment is not well understood by teachers and is weak in practice. Recent research supports the view that conceptually teachers are confused about the nature, purpose and effect of formative assessment” (Clark, p. 27). When the teacher is unclear about the usefulness of the assessment then the resulting work is often less than the expectation. In fact researcher Ian Clark found that “When teachers believed they were assessing formatively they were in reality completing continuous summative assessment which they then used primarily for reporting (not planning) purposes” (p. 28). Part of the problem and the reason that teachers are not using the technology correctly could be based on teacher preparation for the technology in the classroom. “Adequate training for faculty has also been problematic in keeping up with the fast pace at which technology and educational innovation changes” (Downes and Bishop, 2012). In other situations, the teacher understands the process of formative assessment but does not want to implement the process in the classroom. “Teacher sometimes find it difficult to relinquish control in order to allow students a greater sense of agency, however, this can sometimes lead to teachable moments as students are individually engaged with the content” (May, p. 37).
Another problem with the current Arts education is the lack of writing in the classroom. Teachers often overlook the value of students writing about Art and do not assign writing in the classroom. In fact, “74% of the students in the 1997 NAEP said they never wrote about their work or the work of others” (Brewer, p. 82). Without the push to have students reflect about their own work or the work of others in the form of critique, our Arts programs are going to suffer. We need to be teaching these skills in the early grades of education in order to foster the creativity that can vacate the older students. When talking about creativity, researcher Henriksen said that it ““May be harder to find in older children and adults because their creative potential has been suppressed by a society that encourages intellectual conformity” (Henriksen, p. 28).
Benefits for the ELD and LD Student
Martinez and McGrath (2014) quoted a student’s feedback on having online access to materials: "I have come to expect that we can do everything on the computer. We can write papers, journals, do our research, collaborate, and organize and store our work. I can also access all of this all of the time from anywhere,” (p. 45). This is true for the Art student that wants to have the assessment of their work in order to work on their skills away from the classroom. The advent of online formative assessments in the Arts classroom environments have potential to level the playing field for learning disabled (LD) and English Language Learning (ELL) students. Smith and Okolo (2010) noted that be it reading, math, writing, or social skills, technology-based solutions are seen as potential equalizers for educational achievement of struggling students. The path to success in education is a struggle for ELL and LD students. Technology can be a boon for these students who often struggle to organize information into coherent pattern. These students are able to become more involved in the class, and critique classmates in their native tongue with help of translation software.
This technology is improving at a rapid pace and the benefit of existing technological tools are widely recognized for ELL and LD students, the benefits are likely to become even more profound and prevalent as time goes on (Smith, Salaway & Caruso, 2009). The change in tech is unprecedented and every year, newer and better tools emerge to help and support troubled students. No one can predict where educations tools will go, or what they will look like, but the potential is vast.
For some students, the struggle to contribute to collaborative assessments or formative critiques in the classroom is greater than others. Applications such as G.A.F.E can help alleviate some of the difficulties that affect students with special needs as well as the general population of schools. The research of Smith (2010) found that “Be it in reading, writing, math, social skill development, or behavior, technology based solutions are often seen as "equalizers" for the struggling learner” (Smith, p. 257). The applications, although not without their flaws, have the ability to help students from Special Education to gifted and from Kindergarten to College students contribute the class assessments.
As educators, we understand the vital role technology plays in not just engaging students, but in giving them a voice as well. Students now frequent Chromebooks just as they would textbooks, sometimes with the former replacing the latter. For example, class websites house due dates, homework, information posts, lessons, and other items to supplement classroom learning. We use various software options to enhance learning and engage multiple types of learners, be it due to their learning style, culture, gender, and/or capacities.
This review is broken into 3 themes to help us understand the benefits of the G.A.F.E and its effect on the Art students’ growth in the classroom. (1.) The positive impact that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have on the classroom; (2) The negative impact that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have on the classroom; (3) The effect that collaborative online assessment tools such as the G.A.F.E have ELD and LD students.
Positive Impact of Online Collaborative Assessment
Formative assessments have grown to become one of the most useful tools in the teacher’s arsenal. “Formative assessment was rated as one of the most effective methods to encourage student achievement.” (Spector, p. 58)”. It is used as a way for students to receive feedback on their performance and for teachers to evaluate their effectiveness in the classroom. More often these types of assessments are being done digitally as technology becomes more integrated in the classroom. “The opportunities to use technology to support formative assessment for learning have also grown with the development of new learning technologies” (Spector, p. 58). Students are positively affected by the opportunity that an online formative assessment provides for them. It allows for more in depth conversations about a student’s craft and starts a collaborative conversation with multiple levels involved in the academic process. “When a collaborative approach is embraced, decentralization in the art classroom can consist of a non-linear exchange of ideas between teacher and students, allowing for necessary dialogue and conversation, ultimately leading to Innovative exploration of materials and concepts” (May, p. 34). By utilizing an application such as Google Docs and Google Forms, students are able to work collaboratively and assess each other’s work as well as receive input from the instructor. This process helps the learner and the instructor dissect the performance of a specific student and analyze the resulting data. Researcher Ian Spector found “In the 21st century and with new technologies, there are multiple opportunities to capture both performance and assessment data and analyze them to understand how students are progressing with various forms of activities and then determine what adjustments might be made to help different learners”(Spector, p. 60).
Potential Negative Outcomes
The largest issue that surrounds the use of online formative assessments in the Art’s classroom, is that teachers do not understand what or how to utilize a formative assessment. “Formative assessment is not well understood by teachers and is weak in practice. Recent research supports the view that conceptually teachers are confused about the nature, purpose and effect of formative assessment” (Clark, p. 27). When the teacher is unclear about the usefulness of the assessment then the resulting work is often less than the expectation. In fact researcher Ian Clark found that “When teachers believed they were assessing formatively they were in reality completing continuous summative assessment which they then used primarily for reporting (not planning) purposes” (p. 28). Part of the problem and the reason that teachers are not using the technology correctly could be based on teacher preparation for the technology in the classroom. “Adequate training for faculty has also been problematic in keeping up with the fast pace at which technology and educational innovation changes” (Downes and Bishop, 2012). In other situations, the teacher understands the process of formative assessment but does not want to implement the process in the classroom. “Teacher sometimes find it difficult to relinquish control in order to allow students a greater sense of agency, however, this can sometimes lead to teachable moments as students are individually engaged with the content” (May, p. 37).
Another problem with the current Arts education is the lack of writing in the classroom. Teachers often overlook the value of students writing about Art and do not assign writing in the classroom. In fact, “74% of the students in the 1997 NAEP said they never wrote about their work or the work of others” (Brewer, p. 82). Without the push to have students reflect about their own work or the work of others in the form of critique, our Arts programs are going to suffer. We need to be teaching these skills in the early grades of education in order to foster the creativity that can vacate the older students. When talking about creativity, researcher Henriksen said that it ““May be harder to find in older children and adults because their creative potential has been suppressed by a society that encourages intellectual conformity” (Henriksen, p. 28).
Benefits for the ELD and LD Student
Martinez and McGrath (2014) quoted a student’s feedback on having online access to materials: "I have come to expect that we can do everything on the computer. We can write papers, journals, do our research, collaborate, and organize and store our work. I can also access all of this all of the time from anywhere,” (p. 45). This is true for the Art student that wants to have the assessment of their work in order to work on their skills away from the classroom. The advent of online formative assessments in the Arts classroom environments have potential to level the playing field for learning disabled (LD) and English Language Learning (ELL) students. Smith and Okolo (2010) noted that be it reading, math, writing, or social skills, technology-based solutions are seen as potential equalizers for educational achievement of struggling students. The path to success in education is a struggle for ELL and LD students. Technology can be a boon for these students who often struggle to organize information into coherent pattern. These students are able to become more involved in the class, and critique classmates in their native tongue with help of translation software.
This technology is improving at a rapid pace and the benefit of existing technological tools are widely recognized for ELL and LD students, the benefits are likely to become even more profound and prevalent as time goes on (Smith, Salaway & Caruso, 2009). The change in tech is unprecedented and every year, newer and better tools emerge to help and support troubled students. No one can predict where educations tools will go, or what they will look like, but the potential is vast.
The following are journal entries made over the duration of my Coaching Project.
Week 1:
I met with the Photography/Art teacher to discuss the needs of the google form. The teacher has never used Google Forms or Google Classroom, both of which will play an integral part of the the project. In our meeting we started to collaboratively work on a list of questions and topics that should be considered for the Google Form. I think it is going to be necessary to have different forms for each of the Arts included in the project based on the feedback that I am getting from the teacher. Therefore, I will need to have a separate form for Visual Art, Photography and Drama to allow each medium its own space. The goal will still be the common online assessment, but it is becoming obvious that different media lend themselves to different formats.
In order to get an preliminary understanding of the process. I have asked a few students in my classes to help me streamline the process. I set up some of them on a google form and asked them to use it to create works of visual art from a different class. The process seemed a bit cumbersome for a low tech teacher to navigate through. It is going to be a difficult task to make this project error proof so that the teachers actually implement the process into their classrooms.
Week 2:
I met with the Drama teacher to talk about the online formative assessment during a common prep period. I am still working through the process and trying to understand what the difference in the Performing vs the Visual Art’s assessment form will look like, so we had a conversation about the differences. It seems to me that a Performing Art class is more interested in a Google Forms type of assessment and the Visual Arts classes are more interested in a Google Doc or Google Sheets. The teacher asked me what would force a student to write more than just a one word answer when critiquing another student's performance. In response I decided to add data validation to text in order to make the responses from the students a bit longer and deter from a one word answers. Right now I have it set at 100 characters, which seems to be about right. I am still trying to figure out if I should make the responses available for other students to see, or keep them private.
I implemented the form with the video students to get a trial run with what the other teachers might be faced with. So far I have seen nothing but positive growth and a new outlet for the students to share their feedback and receive feedback on their work.
Tomorrow an Art 1 class is going to use the form and I am very excited to see how well the teacher is able to implement the form in his class. We met on Monday to talk about the implementation and I am going to have a follow up with him on his prep period tomorrow.
Week 3:
There were some hiccups with the form when the Art 1 class used it last week. I had the teacher email me a list of things that didn't go smoothly. He is going to meet with me this week and we are going to go over what could be changed. After the teacher was able to get through the small problems, I believe the form work very well. The students were able to get a lot of great feedback. I also think that the students were able to get more feedback than they would have gotten in a traditional critique. This is a benefit of the form because each student was required to fill out a certain amount of critique forum.
I am shared the feedback from the video critiques today. I was excited to see how the students reacted to getting so much feedback on their videos. I think I might implement this as a new formative assessment that we do half way through the projects. It is awesome to give a voice to the kids that don't speak up during critiques. When they can do this is homework or quietly and class they're able to speak up more and it gives them a better voice. It was really great to see how the students appreciated the feedback and how it brought up new questions in class about their work. If a student was told that something they did was not done correctly, that would start a conversation with me about the correct way to do the assignment.
Week 4:
I have been getting a little bit of push back from one of the Art teachers that is not excited to try the form. I think this is mostly because of the hiccups that we had with the other Art class last week. I have a meeting planned with her for next week and I am going to try and win her over by making sure that I have fixed the issues that have happened with the form in the past. I think if I can get a testament from the other Art teacher that the form was helpful in getting students to talk about the work, then I will get her interested in working with the form. I know that she is interested in what is best for the students, and that she will instantly identify the positive growth that this process exhibits.
My plan is to spend this week looking for additional research material about the topic. I already have some great information to use with my project but I would like to add additional research and possibly something even newer than what I found last summer. Ideally I would find some new research that is current or maybe even 2017, but I seriously doubt that I will find anything that new.
Week 5:
I spent some time today working with the Art teacher that gave the form back on week 2 . He was interested in seeing what data we could extract from the responses of the Google form. I showed him how to extract data into a chart and since he is a visual arts teacher, he enjoyed seeing the data laid out graphically for him. We were able to see how the different classes stacked up when compared to each other and how the majority of the students were doing with the concepts of the project. I think this was great information for him to have, but also great ammunition for me to get other teachers interested in the form. Having something this accessible makes it much easier for the teacher to read the data and in turn much more likely to want to use the form for future projects.
Week 1:
I met with the Photography/Art teacher to discuss the needs of the google form. The teacher has never used Google Forms or Google Classroom, both of which will play an integral part of the the project. In our meeting we started to collaboratively work on a list of questions and topics that should be considered for the Google Form. I think it is going to be necessary to have different forms for each of the Arts included in the project based on the feedback that I am getting from the teacher. Therefore, I will need to have a separate form for Visual Art, Photography and Drama to allow each medium its own space. The goal will still be the common online assessment, but it is becoming obvious that different media lend themselves to different formats.
In order to get an preliminary understanding of the process. I have asked a few students in my classes to help me streamline the process. I set up some of them on a google form and asked them to use it to create works of visual art from a different class. The process seemed a bit cumbersome for a low tech teacher to navigate through. It is going to be a difficult task to make this project error proof so that the teachers actually implement the process into their classrooms.
Week 2:
I met with the Drama teacher to talk about the online formative assessment during a common prep period. I am still working through the process and trying to understand what the difference in the Performing vs the Visual Art’s assessment form will look like, so we had a conversation about the differences. It seems to me that a Performing Art class is more interested in a Google Forms type of assessment and the Visual Arts classes are more interested in a Google Doc or Google Sheets. The teacher asked me what would force a student to write more than just a one word answer when critiquing another student's performance. In response I decided to add data validation to text in order to make the responses from the students a bit longer and deter from a one word answers. Right now I have it set at 100 characters, which seems to be about right. I am still trying to figure out if I should make the responses available for other students to see, or keep them private.
I implemented the form with the video students to get a trial run with what the other teachers might be faced with. So far I have seen nothing but positive growth and a new outlet for the students to share their feedback and receive feedback on their work.
Tomorrow an Art 1 class is going to use the form and I am very excited to see how well the teacher is able to implement the form in his class. We met on Monday to talk about the implementation and I am going to have a follow up with him on his prep period tomorrow.
Week 3:
There were some hiccups with the form when the Art 1 class used it last week. I had the teacher email me a list of things that didn't go smoothly. He is going to meet with me this week and we are going to go over what could be changed. After the teacher was able to get through the small problems, I believe the form work very well. The students were able to get a lot of great feedback. I also think that the students were able to get more feedback than they would have gotten in a traditional critique. This is a benefit of the form because each student was required to fill out a certain amount of critique forum.
I am shared the feedback from the video critiques today. I was excited to see how the students reacted to getting so much feedback on their videos. I think I might implement this as a new formative assessment that we do half way through the projects. It is awesome to give a voice to the kids that don't speak up during critiques. When they can do this is homework or quietly and class they're able to speak up more and it gives them a better voice. It was really great to see how the students appreciated the feedback and how it brought up new questions in class about their work. If a student was told that something they did was not done correctly, that would start a conversation with me about the correct way to do the assignment.
Week 4:
I have been getting a little bit of push back from one of the Art teachers that is not excited to try the form. I think this is mostly because of the hiccups that we had with the other Art class last week. I have a meeting planned with her for next week and I am going to try and win her over by making sure that I have fixed the issues that have happened with the form in the past. I think if I can get a testament from the other Art teacher that the form was helpful in getting students to talk about the work, then I will get her interested in working with the form. I know that she is interested in what is best for the students, and that she will instantly identify the positive growth that this process exhibits.
My plan is to spend this week looking for additional research material about the topic. I already have some great information to use with my project but I would like to add additional research and possibly something even newer than what I found last summer. Ideally I would find some new research that is current or maybe even 2017, but I seriously doubt that I will find anything that new.
Week 5:
I spent some time today working with the Art teacher that gave the form back on week 2 . He was interested in seeing what data we could extract from the responses of the Google form. I showed him how to extract data into a chart and since he is a visual arts teacher, he enjoyed seeing the data laid out graphically for him. We were able to see how the different classes stacked up when compared to each other and how the majority of the students were doing with the concepts of the project. I think this was great information for him to have, but also great ammunition for me to get other teachers interested in the form. Having something this accessible makes it much easier for the teacher to read the data and in turn much more likely to want to use the form for future projects.
Week 6:
I met with the Drama teacher again today. He has had his students use the form for 2 different performances so far. We talked about what needed to be changed in the document/form and how it can better address the needs for his class. It was interesting that he wanted there to be more writing involved than there already was. His goal was to find a way that easily separated the student’s feedback so that they had a journal of progression over the course. It is great to have a Google Sheet that has the information that students wrote in the form, but he wanted it to be easier for the student to see their specific feedback as a running document over the course of time and not just on a performance by performance basis.
The result came to me in the form of an add-on. After searching for a way to help the teacher separate the information over the entire semester, I found it. There is an add-on called “row call” that allows for the form to make new tabs for a specific answer to a Google Form question. As long as one of the questions on the form was “Name of Performer,” it would make a new tab for each performer. This allows the students to keep a tab of just their critiques over the course of the school year. I was very excited to get that working for him. He was excited as well.
Part IV: Final Reflection
My coaching project yielded some great results and overall I would say that I am happy with how it turned out. I know have four teachers that are using the critique format that I gave them in their classrooms to provide formative feedback. They each have individually come to me at different times over the past month and thanked me or told me stories about the success that they have had in class do to the new process. It feels really good to know that I was able to improve so many student’s Arts education with just a new process of assessment. I think that knowing this will allow me to try new things and have my ideas more readily accepted by my peers.
I do regret that I never was able to work with one of the Art teachers in the department. It seemed like every time I had a meeting scheduled with her, either she or I had to cancel at the last minute. This had a big impact on the department, wider spread than I had initially thought it would. Because she did not meet with me and talk about the form and process, her students either felt like they were getting the short end of the stick or being picked on. Some thought it was great that they did not have to write. Others wished that they could have had the chance to write more about their peer’s Artwork and have written feedback from their teacher. I discovered that uniformity in a department is more valuable than I had previously thought. To have a common assessment can be a great tool for teachers to align in their teaching, but I did not realize what a great tool it can be for the student’s as well.
I do regret that I never was able to work with one of the Art teachers in the department. It seemed like every time I had a meeting scheduled with her, either she or I had to cancel at the last minute. This had a big impact on the department, wider spread than I had initially thought it would. Because she did not meet with me and talk about the form and process, her students either felt like they were getting the short end of the stick or being picked on. Some thought it was great that they did not have to write. Others wished that they could have had the chance to write more about their peer’s Artwork and have written feedback from their teacher. I discovered that uniformity in a department is more valuable than I had previously thought. To have a common assessment can be a great tool for teachers to align in their teaching, but I did not realize what a great tool it can be for the student’s as well.
Part V: References
Brewer, T. (2011). Lessons Learned From a Bundled Visual Arts Assessment. Visual Arts Research, 37(1), 79-95. doi:10.5406/visuartsrese.37.1.0079
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: A Systematic and Artistic Process of Instruction for Supporting School and Lifelong Learning.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 35(2), 24-40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.35.2.24
Danah Henriksen, Punya Mishra, & Petra Fisser. (2016). Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21st Century Education: A Systemic View for
Change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.27
Downes, J., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their experiences with technology: Integrating technology
engages students in their learning.Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23119436
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.
Retrieved February 22, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43575413
Martinez, M., & McGrath, D. (2014). Technology alone won't transform teacher to facilitator. The Phi Delta Kappan,96(1),
41-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24375918
May, Heidi. “Shifting the Curriculum: DECENTRALIZATION in the Art Education Experience.” Art Education, vol. 64, no. 3, 2011, pp. 33–40.,
www.jstor.org/stable/23034053.
Smith, Sean J., and Okolo Cynthia. "Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: where does technology fit?" Learning Disability Quarterly 33.4
(2010): 257-72. Web.
Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate student and information technology. EUCAUSE
Center of Applied Research, retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF0906.pdf
Spector, J. Michael, et al. “Technology Enhanced Formative Assessment for 21st Century Learning.” Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, vol. 19, no. 3, 2016, pp. 58–71., www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.58.
Clark, I. (2012). Formative Assessment: A Systematic and Artistic Process of Instruction for Supporting School and Lifelong Learning.
Canadian Journal of Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 35(2), 24-40. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/canajeducrevucan.35.2.24
Danah Henriksen, Punya Mishra, & Petra Fisser. (2016). Infusing Creativity and Technology in 21st Century Education: A Systemic View for
Change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 27-37. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.27
Downes, J., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their experiences with technology: Integrating technology
engages students in their learning.Middle School Journal, 43(5), 6-15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23119436
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257-275.
Retrieved February 22, 2017, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43575413
Martinez, M., & McGrath, D. (2014). Technology alone won't transform teacher to facilitator. The Phi Delta Kappan,96(1),
41-45. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24375918
May, Heidi. “Shifting the Curriculum: DECENTRALIZATION in the Art Education Experience.” Art Education, vol. 64, no. 3, 2011, pp. 33–40.,
www.jstor.org/stable/23034053.
Smith, Sean J., and Okolo Cynthia. "Response to intervention and evidence-based practices: where does technology fit?" Learning Disability Quarterly 33.4
(2010): 257-72. Web.
Smith, S. D., Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. B. (2009). The ECAR study of undergraduate student and information technology. EUCAUSE
Center of Applied Research, retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/EKF/EKF0906.pdf
Spector, J. Michael, et al. “Technology Enhanced Formative Assessment for 21st Century Learning.” Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, vol. 19, no. 3, 2016, pp. 58–71., www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.58.