# Aligned Instruction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aligned Instruction

1 / 23
Aligned Instruction

## Aligned Instruction

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
##### Presentation Transcript

1. Aligned Instruction Andrew C. PorterVanderbilt University August, 2006

2. Tools • Teacher surveys of instruction • Daily logs • End-of-semester or end-of-year surveys • Content analyses of • Standards • Tests • Curriculum materials • Alignment indices—e.g, alignment between assessment and standards

3. Content Matrix

4. Vertical and Horizontal Alignment Achievement Instruction District Assessment Standards State Assessment Standards

5. Example Matrices to Measure Alignment ∑ |X-Y| 2 Cognitive Demand Assessment Standards Topics X=Assessment Cell Proportions Y=Standards Cell Proportions Alignment Index =1 -

6. Alignment of Assessments with Standards7th-Grade Math:Goals Study Average Within-State Alignment = .40 Average Between-State Alignment = .39 Average State-Test-to-NCTM Alignment = .39

7. Alignment of Instruction with Assessment8th-Grade Math:SCASS Study Average Within-State Alignment = .22 Average Between-State Alignment = .23 Average State-to-NAPE Alignment = .39

8. Alignment of Instruction with Instruction 8th-Grade Math: SCASS Study Average Alignment = .69

9. 7th Grade Standards State F NCTM State E

10. Quality of Data • Response rates • Interrater agreement for content analyses • Validity of teacher self-report • Explaining between-teacher variance in alignment to NAEP • Predicting student achievement gains [Note: The need for a reform-neutral language]

11. Uses of Tools Describing Instructional Practices • Research • Serve as dependent variable in teacher decision-making research • Describe the implemented curriculum • Measure implementation of new curricula • Assess the validity of transcript studies • Practice • Inform teacher reflections on their own instructional practices [Note: Should not be used for teacher accountability.]

12. Uses of Tools Describing Instructional Materials • Research • Research effects of textbooks on instruction • Assess the breadth and depth of content in instructional materials • Practice • Build tests • Write content standards • Develop national, state, or district indicator systems

13. Uses of Indices of Alignment • Research • Serve as a control variable • Serve as a dependent variable • Serve as a descriptive variable • Practice • Align state tests to state standards • Align instructional materials to standards or course frameworks

14. Increasing Validity and Value • Getting the content language right • Using time samples to describe instruction for an entire school year • Replicating the finding that alignment predicts student achievement gains • Identifying contexts in which teacher self-report on the content of instruction is more or less accurate • Improving the level and consistency of interrater agreement in content analyses • Understanding the distributional properties of the alignment statistics • Building powerful professional development programs for data-based decision making • Developing a content language for reading

15. Conclusions • Much progress has been made in recognizing the importance of instructional content as a variable in education research. • Some progress has been made in building tools for including content in education research. • There have been several innovative uses of these new tools in both research and practice, and more are on the horizon. • But there is much more work to be done.

16. 7th-Grade Standards--Close View Number Sense and Numeration State E State F NCTM

17. 7th-Grade Standards--Close View Data Analysis and Probability State E State F NCTM

18. Response Rates for Survey Eisenhower Longitudinal Wave 1 75% Wave 2 74% Wave 3 75% Eisenhower Cross-Sectional 72% Reform Up Close 75%

19. Interrater Agreement Assessment Mean Range Goals Study .51 .77 to .34 CCSSO Study .47 .60 to .37 Standards Goals Study .48 .59 to .33 [Note: In each study, there was one outlier rater.]

20. Eisenhower Longitudinal Study Longitudinal data on instruction alignment to NAEP yielded: 42% of variance explained by level (elementary, middle, high school) and subject 27% of variance explained by teachers in the same school 0% of variance explained by between school or between years

21. Alignment to Predict Achievement Gains

22. Index Intercorrelations