Author: Devon Clarke

The primary purpose of assessment and evaluation is to improve student learning. This is the first sentence in the fundamental principles section of the Growing Success document. In this section, the Ministry of Education lists seven fundamental principles to support teachers with ensuring that assessment, evaluation, and reporting are valid, reliable, and lead to the improvement of learning for all students. Included in this list is providing ongoing descriptive feedback to support student learning.

In 2010 when the Ministry released Growing Success, I was in my first-year teaching. At that time, I was in a long-term occasional teaching assignment. I was hired as a Grade 7 rotary teacher assigned to teach Language and Social Studies to two classes. I was ecstatic because I received the opportunity to work with students at the age and grade that most interested me and teaching my favorite subject areas. Reading the Growing Success document that year, I strove to incorporate the seven fundamental principles in my assessment and evaluation practices. Particularly the principle on feedback because I believed and continue to believe that if I provide descriptive feedback to each student, it has the potential to improve their academic achievement.

One incident that continues to resonate with me is the feedback I received from a student. I remember spending hours reading student work then writing copious amounts of comments. I would sometimes write one to two pages worth of constructive and descriptive feedback to guide students in ways that I believed would lead them to improve the quality of their work along with a grade. I recall returning one written assignment to a student at the end of the instructional day where I watched her look at the grade, then crumple her paper into a ball and throw it into the recycling bin as she exited the classroom. I was shocked. Yet more than shocked I was disappointed in myself. I knew that I had made an error, but with a lack of teaching experience I had yet to identify what that error was.

Two years later, again teaching grade 7, this time in in a core model as a permanent teacher, I gained some insight to the experience with the student while attending a school staff meeting. A centrally assigned instructional resource teacher facilitated a session on assessment and evaluation. She shared that if teachers attach a grade to student work, they should include limited feedback. She went on to say that students think that the grade signals that they are at the end of a learning cycle so there is no opportunity for them to action the feedback to improve the quality of their work because they’ve already been evaluated. However, the facilitator also said, include enough, but not too much specific descriptive feedback to help students improve the quality of their work if students are in the assessment stage of their learning. She went on further to say that if students have ample time and opportunities to apply feedback to their work prior to being evaluated it has the potential to lead to improved student achievement.

These comments made sense and provided some clarity in relation to why the student ignored my comments when she saw the grade on her paper. The facilitators comments also helped me to understand that I provided far too much feedback to the student at the time of evaluation that may have been overwhelming and disheartening. Following this staff meeting, I began revising my assessment and evaluation practices but still I felt I had more to learn about feedback to support student learning.

Years later I read the book, Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement and Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students by Zaretta Hammond.  In the book Hammond writes, “Contrary to what we may think, simply giving feedback doesn’t initiate change. It has to be accepted as valid and actionable by the learner. He then has to commit to using that information to do something different” (p. 102).

This quote helped me to understand that I need to teach students how to read my feedback then show them how to use my suggestions, if they believe them to be useful, to improve the quality of their work.

The meaning that I’ve now been able to deduce from the experience with the student in my first-year teaching coupled with my ongoing learning about assessment and evaluation practices is that I provided too much feedback at the time of evaluation where she had no time to use the information to improve her work. I also failed to teach her how to use my feedback to improve the quality of their work. I further understand that feedback between students and teachers is a reciprocal and iterative process. Students through direct and indirect ways provide information regarding how well I am supporting their learning while I provide direct feedback for how well they are progressing at developing the knowledge, skills, and competencies outlined in Ministry curriculums.

When I work with teachers, I share these insights by encouraging them to think about the ways they use feedback from students to re-think the feedback they give to students to support their learning. I also ask teachers to consider embracing the idea that as we gain more practical experience assessing and evaluating student work combined with our growing knowledge and understanding of diverse student learning needs and revised curriculum documents, our feedback practices should adjust and evolve in ways that better support their learning.

I can’t teach what I don’t know. This statement may seem redundant, but I think it’s worth reiterating. From experience I’ve learned that I need to feel confident in my knowledge and understanding of curriculum and instruction to support student learning and teacher professional development. When the Ministry of Education released the revised Grades 1 – 8 Language curriculum (2023) that changed the way we teach students to read, one of my initial questions was: What was wrong with the way that I and other elementary teachers had taught students to read? I had some insight from my own educational experiences learning to read and from my experience in the role of special education support teacher working with students in junior/intermediate grades who had yet to consolidate their foundational reading skills. However, I read the full report seeking to gain a more informed understanding to support my work with students and teachers.

The inquiry found that thee cueing instructional approach included in the 2006 version of the Grades 1 – 8 Language curriculum to be an ineffective method for teaching students to read words accurately and efficiently. The three cueing system taught students to use strategies to predict words based on context clues from pictures, text meaning, sentences, and letters in addition to a belief that simply immersing students in spoken and written language was enough to build their foundational reading skills. The way teachers often assessed students reading skills was through running records and miscue analysis.

The inquiry also shared that researchers in reading development have studied how children learn to read for decades. From their collective body of research, they have found that due to our innate human capacity for oral communication, the best way for children to develop their word reading skills (decoding) is by making explicit connections between oral and written language. This looks like first explicitly teaching children phonemic awareness. The sounds of the language. Alphabetics, the symbols of the language. Phonics, the ability to connect the sounds of the language to the symbols of the language. Fluency, the ability to decode words accurately, automatically, and with prosody. Vocabulary, the meanings of words and phrases. They also shared that reading comprehension, the goal of reading, is an outcome of these combined skills and knowledge in addition to an understanding of the parts of speech, sentence structures, sentence types, capitalization, punctuation, and background knowledge.

The findings from the inquiry provided the insight I needed to reconsider the instructional approaches I use, and advocate teachers use to support students reading development. The information also convinced me that shifting my instructional approaches while also encouraging teachers to shift theirs, could lead to more students developing the knowledge, skills, and strategies needed to be proficient readers.

Yet I like other teachers know that our work with students is complex, meaning there is no single approach that will work for every student. We as teachers know that that assessment data and students’ learning needs must always inform the instructional approaches we use to support student learning. Our professional judgement rooted in our knowledge of curriculum, pedagogy, students, interpretations and insights to assessment data, and our understanding of which instructional approach to utilize to best support student learning at any given time should consistently inform our practice. The more experienced we become by reflecting on our practice then revising it as needed, learning what we don’t know, and monitoring our instructional impact on student learning, the more proficient we become at knowing which instructional approach we need to utilize to support student learning at any given time. Of course, remaining aware that this is a continuous and ongoing process.

Knowing and understanding terminology is essential for me to feel competent and confident in my work. I know that I need a clear conceptual understanding of terms to ensure I use them accurately and appropriately in my work with students and teachers. In the Right to Read Inquiry it states, “This report uses terms like the “science of reading,” “reading science,” “research-based,” “evidence-based” and “science-based” to refer to the vast body of scientific research that has studied how reading skills develop and how to ensure the highest degree of success in teaching all students to read”. This led me to believe that the terms were analogous. Yet in the curriculum context section of the revised Grades 1 – 8 Language curriculum (2023) there are numerous specific references to evidence-based instruction. This then led me to question the differences between the terms and why the revised curriculum seems to exclusively focus on evidence-based instruction. In chapter 17 titled, Evidence-Based Practices in Education, in the APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol.1 Theories, Constructs, and Critical Issues, researchers Bryan Cook, Garnett Smith, and Melody Tankersley provide some clarity,

“As far as we are aware, there is no commonly acceptable definition for any of these terms, and they have been used for different purposes by different authors. Nonetheless, in this chapter we consider best practices to mean instructional approaches recommended by experts or others that may or may not be evidence-based or effective […] We use research-based as a broad term referring to educational approaches that are supported by research findings of some sort […] The term evidence-based practices represents a systematic approach to determining which research-based practices are supported by a sufficient number of research studies that (a) are of high methodological quality, (b) use appropriate research designs that allow for assessment of effectiveness, and (c) demonstrate meaningful effect size [positive impact on student learning] that merit educators’ trust that the practice works”.

From the Cook, Smith, and Tankersley chapter, I gained the insight I needed to understand why the curriculum focuses on evidence-based instructions. I now know that what the Ministry, through the curriculum, requires that we ensure the instructional approaches and practices that we use, are those that have shown to have a proven positive impact on students’ language and literacy development.

Yet, as educational researcher Steven Graham explains in his lecture on Research-Based Writing Interventions, the purpose of evidence-based practices is to share with educators’ things that have worked with other teachers and students, and for educators to use their professional judgement when applying them. The sharing of these practices is not meant to degrade or deny the knowledge, skills, or experience that teachers have developed from their practices.

I use and advocate for the use of evidence-based practices. For me, in my daily work these include practices that I know support the growth and development of early readers. I encourage all educators to consider doing the same.

Prior to the start of any professional learning session that I’m leading, I play a pre-recorded land acknowledgement. The land acknowledgement recommended by my school board was created by our Indigenous Education Department and a Treaty Partner from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nations. The land acknowledgement that I and other educators in my school board use is:

The land upon which we work, live and sustain ourselves is the ancestral and treaty lands of the Miichizaagiig Annishinaabek also known today as the Mississaugas of the Credit, the rightful caretakers and title holders of this land.

We also recognize the rich pre-contact history and relationships which include the Anishinaabek and the Onkwehonwe. Since European Contact, this land continues to be home to Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. As responsible community members, we value the diversity, dignity and worth of all people.

Colonialism displaced and dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands and continues to deny their basic human rights, dignities and freedoms. We are committed to learning true history to reconcile, make reparations and fulfill our treaty obligations to the Original Peoples and our collective responsibilities to the land, water, animals, and each other for future generations.

At the end of the recording, the creators pose the question, how does this land acknowledgment compel you to take action? Since I began using it, I’ve shared with colleagues that my personal call to action has been to learn more about the histories, cultures, and experiences of Indigenous People from across Turtle Island then find meaningful ways to infuse that knowledge in my work with teachers and students. To support this objective, I’ve committed to reading books by Indigenous authors and official documents focused on Indigenous People. Some of the books and documents that I’ve read include:

• Indigenous Relations: Insights and Tips to Make Reconciliation a Reality by Bob Joseph and Cynthia F. Joseph
• 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act: Helping Canadians Make Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples a Reality by Bob Joseph
• Seven Fallen Feathers: Racism, Death, and Hard Truths in a Northern City by Tanya Talaga
• An Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America by Thomas King
• The Truth About Stories by Thomas King
• If I Go Missing by Brianna Jonnie, Art by Neal Shannacappo
• Fatty Legs by Margaret Pokiak-Fenton and Christy Jordan-Fenton Illustrated by Liz Amini-Holmes
• The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action
• Parts of Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future Executive Summary

My call to action emerges from thinking critically about the part of the land acknowledgement that resonates most with me which is, “We are committed to learning true history to reconcile, make reparations and fulfill our treaty obligations to the Original Peoples”. For me, this quote provides clear guidance for identifying a call to action that works to support Indigenous People in one of ways they have asked such as learning a more fulsome account of Canadian history then explicitly teaching that history to others to avoid making similar mistakes in the present and future as a token of reparations.

Earlier this year, at a professional learning session I facilitated for educators working with students in grades 6, 7, 8, I shared my call to action following the land acknowledgment. Then during the session focused on explicit instruction in literacy, I modeled how educators working with students in grades 7 and 8 could use the book, Indigenous Relations: Insights and Tips to Make Reconciliation a Reality, as a tool to help them teach some specific expectations found in the revised Language curriculum and the revised Social Studies, History and Geography curriculum. The expectations I identified included:

Gr. 7 & 8 Language Foundations for Reading and Writing

B2.2 demonstrate an understanding of a wide variety of words, acquire and use explicitly taught vocabulary flexibly in various contexts, including other subject areas, and use generalized morphological knowledge to analyze and understand new words in context

Gr. 7 & 8 Language – Comprehension: Understanding and Responding to Texts

C1.1 read and comprehend various complex texts, using knowledge of words, grammar, cohesive ties, sentence structures, and background knowledge

Gr. 7 History – New France and British North America 1713-1800

A3.2: identify a few key treaties of relevance to Indigenous people during this period […] and explain the significance of some of these agreements for different people and communities in Canada

Gr. 8 History – Canada 1890-1914

B1.2: analyse some ways in which challenges affected First Nations, Métis, and Inuit individuals, families, and communities during this period, with specific reference to treaties, the Indian Act, the reserve system, and the residential school system

I then read the following passage from the book.

“Treaties are negotiated government-to-government contracts or agreements, used to define rights and powers and to formalize relations between governments […] Indigenous leaders negotiated in good faith for the survival of their people as they transitioned from their formerly expansive self-determining, self-governing, and self-reliant world to subsistence and dependence, living on small reserves. The treaty articles they negotiated included education, economic assistance, health care, livestock, agriculture tools, and agricultural training. The other signatory, the Crown, had a different intent. Under John A. Macdonald, Canada’s first prime minister, the Crown planned to use the treaties to remove Indigenous Peoples from their lands, gain access to natural resources, open up the country for settlers, and construct a railway from Upper Canada to the Pacific Ocean” (Joseph and Joseph, 2019, p. 45-47).

Following the reading I shared the insight that educators could use this book to help students build their background knowledge on the importance of treaties in Canada which could support their reading comprehension of this, and other passages found in the book. As a direct result, it could also help educators explicitly teach parts of specific expectation C1.1, found in the revised Language curriculum. I also shared that use of this passage could help educators clarify the meaning of the word treaty for students who may have a vague understanding of it. This would support building their vocabulary knowledge that could again support their comprehension of the text while also providing explicit instruction in parts of specific expectations C1.1 and B2.2 found in the revised Language curriculum. Further, I shared that use of this passage could help educators teach students about the historical importance of treaties in Canada which could help students understand why they remain such a central part of public discourses. By doing so they could also work towards meeting grade 7 History specific expectation A3.2 and grade 8 History specific expectation B1.2.

I concluded this portion of the session by reminding educators of how I strive to find meaningful ways to align my call to action with my work to ensure I honour my commitment to supporting reconciliation and making reparations to Indigenous Peoples. I encouraged them to find meaningful ways to do the same.