Learning progressions as tools for assessment and learning

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the teaching and learning side of the learning progressions literature, calling out for measurement specialists the knowledge most needed when collaborating with subject-matter experts in the development of learning progressions. Learning progressions are one of the strongest instantiations of principles from Knowing What Students Know, requiring that assessments be based on an underlying model of learning. To support student learning, quantitative continua must also be represented substantively, describing in words and with examples what it looks like to improve in an area of learning. For formative purposes, in fact, qualitative insights are more important than scores. By definition, learning progressions require iterative cycles of development so as to build in horizontal coherence among curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Learning progressions are also an important resource for teacher learning. With accompanying professional development and institutional supports, they can help teachers engage their students in richer and more equitable learning experiences. Examples are cited whereby learning progressions can be used to help teachers improve their skills in setting learning goals, interpreting student ideas in relation to a progression, and responding to student ideas with specific interventions that serve to move learning forward.

Notes

¹ As many authors have recognized, definitions of learning progressions vary (Alonzo & Steedle, 2009), and not all examples using this label have satisfied the requirements that hypothesized sequences be empirically tested and linked to instruction. In this commentary, I rely on the seminal work Knowing What Students Know (National Research Council, 2001)—which called for cognitive models that document the means for furthering learning, not just a sequence of end-points. In the same vein, the Center on Continuous Instructional Improvement Science Panel’s consensus attributes of learning progressions note that they are “crucially dependent on instructional practices” (Corcoran et al., 2009, p. 38). Smith et al. (2006) also agree with these requirements, calling their model for matter and atomic-molecular theory a possible or proposed learning progression rather than an actual progression because it lacks empirical testing derived by following students provided with concomitantly designed instruction.

² References associated with these constructs are as follows: Berland and McNeill (2010); Catley, Lehrer, and Reiser (2005); Duncan, Rogat, and Yarden (2009); Mohan, Chen, and Anderson (2009); Neumann, Viering, Boone, and Fischer (2013); Plummer and Krajcik (2010); Schwarz et al. (2009); Smith et al. (2006); Songer, Kelcey, and Gotwals (2009).