Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202

Deng 2
Rui Deng
Cal State LA
Dr. Farner
LBS 2666-01
3/9/2021
Film Reflection
Factors and Conventional Elements Used to Analyze Genre
Genre is a literary composition category, artistic and musical,
characterized by specific form, content or style (Yashar et al.
207). In short, genre categorizes films. Classifying films makes
it easier for viewers to discover what they want to see and wha t
they like. Genre comprises of four elements which are setting,
character, plot and the story, and when these elements vary,
they create a different category of a movie (Yashar et al. 207).
Movies can have genres that overlap, but one is always
dominant than the other one. The role of identifying film genres
is to help screenwriters and film audiences as it creates a tonal
expectation. Additionally, genre help screenwriters with general
organizational patterns that can help them arrange what they say
and where they say it (Yashar et al. 207).
Factors, Elements and Expression Characterizing the Science
Fiction Genre
Science fiction also called a literature of ideas, involves a wide
diversification of futuristic concepts (Yashar et al. 207). They
are typical, imaginative, scientific, comic strip-like visionary,
expert film production design and advanced technology gadgets.
Other than the setting and characters, all sci-fi genre are
complex, explore larger themes and commentary, which are
sometimes satirically, and contain nuanced details (Yashar et al.
207). Time travel, mind control, teleportation, space travel and
exploration, a parallel universe and interplanetary warfare are
the classic elements of the science fiction genre (Yashar et al.

207). In most cases, sci-fi movies show technology's ability to
destroy humankind by Armageddon-like occurrences, earth
imperiling disasters and wars between worlds (Yashar et al.
207).
A Trip to The Moon Genre
A Trip to The Moon is a short film directed by Georges Méliès
and is regarded as the earliest example of the sci-fi film genre
(Livingston 188). What makes this film genre so amazing is its
capability to achieve almost every science fiction element in
one story. This film is not just enjoyable; it also makes its
audience reflect on the chances of spaceflight and dread what
would happen if they would come across an alien life form. The
film is considered a sci-fi film as it shows a group of scientists
travelling to the moon where they are captured by aliens but
manage to escape and find their way to back to earth
(Livingston 188). This film takes you on an adventure which is
a highly inaccurate one. Elements that make this movie qualify
to be a sci-fi genre is the use of rockets fired up to the sky, the
journey to the moon. The moon's portrayal shows that they
indeed arrived in space; an encounter with aliens indicated
interplanetary wars (Livingston 188). Generally, the entire film
illustrated the use of technology as it is the means that the
group of scientists used to travel to the moon.
Cognitive Estrangement by Suvin
According to Suvin, science is an approach to contemplating the
reality that is its objectivity is not accounted for (Gray 75).
Fiction is a manner of illustrating reality that presumes the
subjectivity of experience. In every fiction film, there is a
different approach to perceiving things and a different reality.
Science fiction is two words that contradict each other since a
thing cannot be science and, at the same time, be fiction.
Suvin's idea of cognitive estrangement as the factual reporting
of fictions has separated people from the usual premise of
reality (Gray 75). Suvin emphasizes estrangement for two
reasons; the first one is as a Marxist, he perceives science
fiction as the literature of revolt and a genre of how thing can

be done differently, and the second one is reinventing literary
history in Marxist terms to identify how science fiction has
been in existence for many centuries but it is known about it has
been suppressed and neglected, and its materials are
ideologically persecuted myths (Gray 75).
Visual Realism and Its Aspects
Visual realism is the extent to which people perceive an image
as a photo instead of a computer-generated image (Krakauer
165). The main aspects of visual realism are realistic setting and
characters, understandable details about daily encounters, a
plausible plot that is a similar story than I can connect with a
story I know from my setting or environment, real dialects in
the area, character development as well as the importance of
portraying social class.
Realism in Metropolis Film
Even though most films have advanced in technology, no film
has surpassed Metropolis regarding its influence on production
design (Krakauer 165). Its impact can be detected in numerous
subsequent films such as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. Lang's
eye for impressive special effects and set pieces results in
memorable images such as the notable skyscrapers that control
Metropolis's skyline and when the robot acquires Maria's
features (Krakauer 165).
Approaches Used in Metropolis Film
This film's ideology exposes the mechanics of capitalism,
starting from the labouring masses at the low levels to the
powerful elites at the top level (Krakauer 165). It is concerned
with the wider political and cultural challenges that are depicted
thematically and visually. The movies' social preoccupations
have been identified as a commentary on the political setting
that existed in Germany at the time (Krakauer 165).
Additionally, it serves as a warning of where Germany was
heading in the coming days.
Defining Factors and Conventional Elements of a Film Genre
Works Cited

Deldjoo, Yashar, et al. "Using visual features based on MPEG-7
and deep learning for movie recommendation." International
journal of multimedia information retrieval 7.4 (2018): 207-219.
Gray, Martyn. "Domestication as Cognition, Foreignization as
Estrangement?." Transletters. International Journal of
Translation and Interpreting 3 (2020): 75-97.
Kracauer, Siegfried. "14. THE NEW REALISM." From Caligari
to Hitler. Princeton University Press, 2019. 165-180.
Livingston, Cecilia. "A Trip to the Moon (An Opera for All
Ages) by Andrew Norman." The Opera Quarterly 33.2 (2017):
188-202.
University of Connecticut
[email protected]
NERA Conference Proceedings 2010
Northeastern Educational Research Association
(NERA) Annual Conference
Fall 10-20-2010
Students as the Definitive Source of Formative
Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the
Self-Regulation of Learning
Heidi L. Andrade
University at Albany, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010

Part of the Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Andrade, Heidi L., "Students as the Definitive Source of
Formative Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the Self-
Regulation of
Learning" (2010). NERA Conference Proceedings 2010. 25.
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010/25
http://lib.uconn.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.uconn.edu%2
Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCo
verPages
http://lib.uconn.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.uconn.edu%2
Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCo
verPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu?utm_source=digitalcommons.u
conn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010?utm_source=digital
commons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera?utm_source=digitalcomm
ons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_c
ampaign=PDFCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera?utm_source=digitalcomm
ons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_c
ampaign=PDFCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010?utm_source=digital
commons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/784?utm_source=digi
talcommons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PD
F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/nera_2010/25?utm_source=dig
italcommons.uconn.edu%2Fnera_2010%2F25&utm_medium=PD

F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
1
STUDENTS AS THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE OF FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENT:
ACADEMIC SELF-ASSESSMENT AND THE SELF-
REGULATION OF LEARNING
Heidi L. Andrade
University at Albany, State University of New York
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeastern
Educational Research Association
Rocky Hill, CT
October 20, 2010
2
If formative assessment is exclusively in the hands of teachers,
then it is difficult
to see how students can become empowered and develop the

self-regulation skills
needed to prepare them for learning outside university and
throughout life. (Nicol
& Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p. 200)
Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to next? An
ideal learning
environment or experience occurs when both teachers and
students seek answers to
each of these questions. Too often, teachers limit students’
opportunities to receive
information about their performances in relation to any of these
questions by
assuming that responsibility for the students…. Students, too
often, view feedback as
the responsibility of someone else, usually teachers, whose job
it is to provide
feedback information by deciding for the students how well they
are going, what the
goals are, and what to do next. (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, pp.
88, 101)
This paper is an adaptation of a chapter I wrote for the
Handbook of formative assessment

(Andrade & Cizek, 2010). In that book, nearly every author
identified the primary goal of
formative assessment as providing feedback to students and
teachers about the targets for
learning, where students are in relation to those targets, and
what can be done to fill in the gaps.
In this paper, I will argue that students themselves can be
thought of as the definitive source of
such feedback, given their constant and instant access to their
own thoughts, actions, and works.
To researchers in the area of self-regulated learning, such a
position is not new: It has long been
known that effective learners tend to monitor and regulate their
own learning and, as a result,
learn more and have greater academic success in school
(Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk,
2001). However, the assertion that students themselves are the
definitive source of feedback is a
relatively new way of thinking about the role of the student in
assessment.
In this paper I make the case for students as key producers and
consumers of formative
assessment information, drawing on the research on self-
assessment and self-regulated learning.

My primary goals are to offer an expanded conception of the
role that students can play in their
own learning, as well as to propose practical approaches to
scaffolding self-regulation and
assessment. A secondary goal is to urge scholars of classroom
assessment to scour the literature
on self-regulated learning, which has produced a very nuanced
view of the roles of standards,
goal-setting, monitoring, feedback, and other topics central to
assessment. My reading suggests
that both scholarship and classroom practices related to
assessment could benefit from a close
examination of the literature on academic self-regulation. This
paper represents just the tip of a
very promising iceberg.
Some Basic Definitions and Background
Self-regulated learning is the process whereby learners set goals
for their learning and then
attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition,
motivation, and behavior in order to
reach their goals (Pintrich, 2000). Self-assessment is a process
of formative assessment during

which students reflect on the quality of their work, judge the
degree to which it reflects explicitly
stated goals or criteria, and revise their work accordingly
(Andrade & Boulay, 2003). To
oversimplify a bit, studies of self-regulated learning have
concentrated on how students manage
learning processes, including, for example, understanding a
text, sticking to a study schedule, or
maintaining the motivation to achieve, while studies of self-
assessment have focused on
3
students’ judgments of the products of their learning, such as
written papers, oral presentations,
or solutions to mathematical problems. A central purpose of
both self-assessment and self-
regulation is to provide learners with feedback that they can use
to deepen their understandings
and improve their performances.
Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review of the research on
feedback suggests that it can have
very powerful effects on achievement, with a whopping average
effect size of 0.79. They put this

effect size into perspective by comparing it to other influences
on achievement, including direct
instruction (0.93), reciprocal teaching (0.86), and students’
prior cognitive ability (0.71). They
also note that, compared to over 100 factors known to affect
achievement, feedback is in the top
five to 10 in terms of effect size. They conclude that “feedback
is among the most critical
influences on student learning” (p. 102).
Although research has indicated that feedback tends to promote
learning and achievement
(Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Brinko, 1993;
Butler & Winne, 1995; Crooks,
1988; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) if
delivered correctly (Shute, 2008),
most students get little informative feedback on their work
(Black & Wiliam, 1998). This
scarcity is due, in part, to the fact that few teachers have
sufficient time in the typical school day
to regularly and promptly respond to each student’s work.
Fortunately, research also shows that
students themselves can be useful sources of task feedback via
self-assessment (Andrade, Du &
Wang, 2008; Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Gray, 1999), and

effective producers of process and
regulation feedback via self-regulation (Boekaerts, Pintrich, &
Zeidner, 2000; Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Because
self-assessment and self-
regulation involve students in thinking about the quality of their
own products and processes
rather than relying on their teacher as the sole source of
evaluative judgments (or getting no
feedback at all), they are key elements of formative assessment.
To date, however, only self-assessment has been included in
theory and practice related to
formative assessment. With few exceptions (e.g., Nicol &
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006), self-
regulation has received little consideration in the literature on
formative assessment. A central
argument of this paper is that self-regulation and self-
assessment are complementary processes
that can lead to marked improvements in academic achievement
and autonomy. The following
sections provide very brief overviews of scholarship on self-
assessment and self-regulation in
order to prepare a foundation for synthesis.

Self-Assessment
As indicated previously, self-assessment is a process of
formative assessment during which
students reflect on the quality of their work, judge the degree to
which it reflects explicitly stated
goals or criteria, and revise accordingly. The emphasis here is
on the word formative: Self-
assessment is done on drafts of works in progress in order to
inform revision and improvement.
The primary purpose of engaging students in careful self-
assessment is to boost learning and
achievement. It does so by serving as a readily available source
of feedback about the students’
own understandings and performances.
According to the above definition, self-assessment is task-
specific. This distinguishes it from
other forms of self-assessment such as judging strong or weak
abilities (e.g., reading,
interpersonal skills, leadership, language). Such a process,
which can be called self-reflection, is
intended to promote self-discovery and awareness (Harrington,
1995) rather than to improve

performance on a specific task.
4
Self-assessment is also not a matter of determining one’s own
grade. That is self-evaluation,
which involves students in grading their work, perhaps as part
of their final grade for an
assignment or a class (e.g., Sadler & Good, 2006). Gi ven what
we know about human nature, as
well as findings from research regarding students’ tendency to
inflate self-evaluations when they
will count toward formal grades (Boud & Falchikov, 1989), I
subscribe to a purely formative
type of student self-assessment.
Features of Self-Assessment
There are number of ways to engage students in effective self-
assessment. In general, the
process involves three steps. The first step is articulating
expectations. The expectations for the
task or performance are clearly articulated, either by the
teacher, by the students, or both

together, perhaps by reviewing model assignments and/or co-
creating a rubric.
The second step involves critique of work in terms of
expectations. Students create rough or
first drafts of their assignment, be it an essay, word problem,
lab report, volleyball serve, or
speech. They monitor their progress on the assignment by
comparing their performances-in-
progress to the expectations. An example from writing
(Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008) involves
students in seeking evidence of success in their drafts. Using
colored pencils, students underline
key phrases in a rubric with one color (e.g., they underline
“clearly states an opinion” in blue on
their persuasive essay rubric), then underline or circle in their
drafts the evidence of having met
the standard articulated by the phrase (e.g., they underline their
opinions in blue in their
persuasive essay drafts). If they find they have not met the
standard, they write themselves a
reminder to make improvements when they write their final
drafts. This process is followed for
each criterion on the rubric, with pencils of various colors.
The third, and final, step is revising. In this step, students use

the feedback from their self-
assessments to guide revision. This last step—revision—is
crucial. Students are savvy, and will
not self-assess thoughtfully unless they know that their efforts
can lead to opportunities to
actually make improvements.
Conditions for Self-Assessment
Although even young students typically are able to think about
the quality of their own work,
they do not always do so. Often this is because one or more
necessary conditions are not present.
According to Goodrich (1996), in order for effective self-
assessment to occur, students need:
1. awareness of the value of self-assessment
2. access to clear criteria on which to base the assessment
3. a specific task or performance to assess
4. models of self-assessment
5. direct instruction in and assistance with self-assessment,
including feedback
6. practice
7. cues regarding when it is appropriate to self-assess, and
8. opportunities to revise and improve the task or performance
This list of conditions might seem prohibitive but student self-
assessment is feasible and is

occurring in many schools around the world (Deakin-Crick,
Sebba, Harlen, Guoxing, & Lawson,
2005). Several of the key conditions listed above, including
modeling, cueing, direct instruction,
and practice, are commonly employed classroom practices. The
second condition—access to
5
clear criteria on which to base self-assessment—can be met by
reviewing models and/or
introducing a rubric (Andrade, 2000).
Research on Self-Assessment
Actively involving students in self-assessing their work has
been associated with noticeable
improvements in performance. Research on the effects of
student self-assessment covers a wide
range of content areas including social studies (Lewbel &
Hibbard, 2001), science (Duffrin,
Dawes, Hanson, Miyazaki, & Wolfskill, 1998; White &
Frederiksen, 1998), and external
examinations (MacDonald & Boud, 2003). In each case,
students were either engaged in written

forms of self-assessment using journals, checklists and
questionnaires, or oral forms of self-
assessment, such as interviews and student-teacher conferences.
Much of the research on self-assessment has focused on writing
and mathematics. Studies of
writing have found a positive relationship between self-
assessment and quality of writing
(Andrade & Boulay, 2003; Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008; Ross,
Rolheiser & Hogaboam-Gray,
1999). The improvements in students’ writing include more
effective handling of sophisticated
qualities such as ideas and content, organization, and voice—
not just mechanics. In mathematics,
self-assessment has been associated with increased autonomy
and mathematical vocabulary
(Stallings &Tascione, 1996), and dramatically higher
performances on word problem solutions
(Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Rolheiser, 2002). Black, Harrison,
Lee, Marshall and Wiliam’s
(2004) study of formative assessment practices in math and
science classes for 11-15 year olds
also revealed a strong relationship between formative
assessment, including self-assessment, and

achievement. These authors concluded that “the development of
self-assessment by the student
might have to be an important feature of any programme of
formative assessment” (p. 14).
Another possible benefit of self-assessment is that it could be
helpful to students who do not
seek help or engage in learning because of perceived threats to
self-esteem or social
embarrassment (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). By self-assessing,
students engage in the important
processes of reorienting to the goals of an assignment and
determining how to make
improvements, without the threat of negative feedback or
perceived insults from a peer. The ego-
protective feature of self-assessment may be especially
important for some students. This might
explain, in part, why students typically report that they value it
(Andrade & Du, 2007) as long as
it does not become self-evaluation by counting toward a grade
(Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-
Gray, 1998).
Although the research on self-assessment has illuminated a
powerful way in which students
can serve as both the producers and consumers of feedback, it

has been limited by a focus on
concrete products, assignments, and tasks. Hattie and
Timperley’s (2007) review of feedback
placed a strong emphasis on the need for feedback on processes
and regulation as well as on
tasks. The field of self-regulated learning represents a rich
source of information about how
students generate and respond to feedback about how they work.
Self-Regulated Learning
Being a self-regulated learner means exercising executive
control over one’s own learning or,
to use the lingo of young learners, “being the boss of yourself.”
More formally, self-regulated
learning is a dynamic process of striving to meet learning goal s
by generating, monitoring, and
modifying one’s own thoughts, feelings, actions and, to some
degree, context. Self-regulated
6
learners use a wide variety of strategies and tactics to promote
learning, such as task

interpretation, goal setting, planning, selecting and adapting
learning strategies, seeking help and
feedback, managing affect and motivation, administering
rewards, arranging study spaces and
schedules, and monitoring and evaluating progress toward their
goals. Self-regulation is situated
within a complex context, including but not limited to the
classroom. As a result, it influences
and is influenced by a multitude of factors, including personal
characteristics (e.g., temperament,
self-efficacy, motivation), social circumsta nces (e.g., family
and cultural values, peer pressure,
teacher expectations), and physical conditions (e.g., noisy or
quiet, online or face to face), each
of which reciprocally influences the others (Boekaerts, Pintrich,
& Zeidner, 2000; Butler &
Cartier, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2004).
Features of Self-Regulated Learning
There are many elements of self-regulation, and several
competing models (e.g., Butler &
Cartier, 2004; Pintrich, 2000; Winne, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000),
each of which make important

contributions to our emerging understanding of this complex
phenomenon. One of the most
commonly accepted models was proposed by Zimmerman
(2000). The model includes three
main phases that function cyclically: Forethought, which
precedes efforts to learn and involves
consideration of the goals, expectancies, and standards for the
task at hand, as well as strategic
planning and self-efficacy judgments; Performance or Volitional
Control, which occurs during
learning and involves self-monitoring and the use of learning
management strategies; and Self-
reflection, a phase that follows learning efforts and involves the
self-evaluation of mastery,
causal attributions, and reactions to the task and performance;
self-reflection leads back to the
forethought phase that precedes the next learning efforts. Each
of the three phases of
Zimmerman’s model has multiple components. For example, the
forethought phase involves
analyzing a task, setting goals for performance, selecting
strategies, making plans, managing
one’s motivational beliefs and expectations, and so on.

I am focused on the aspects of self-regulation most closely
associated with self-assessment.
Zimmerman’s model includes two sub-phases that involve
explicit self-assessment: self-
observation and self-judgment. Self-observation means tracking
specific aspects of one’s own
performance, the conditions that surround it, and the effects that
it produces as one engages in a
task. In other words, self-observation means paying attention to
what you are doing, why you are
doing it, and how it helps you (Schoenfeld, 1987). Self-
judgment involves judging one’s
performance against criteria or standards. It also entails making
causal attributions by
determining, for example, whether poor performance is due to
ineffective learning strategies,
insufficient effort, a lousy teacher, or something else.
I chose to use Zimmerman’s model in this paper because of its
elegant simplicity but it is
important to note the existence of other, more detailed models
with potential usefulness in terms
of classroom assessment. Winne and Hadwin’s information
processing model of self-regulation
(1998; Winne, 2001), for example, includes (among other

things) five elements: Conditions,
Operations, Products, Evaluations, and Standards (COPES).
Standards, of course, are the
qualities that the products of student learning—either
ephemeral, such as thought experiments, or
concrete, such as a written essay—are supposed to have.
Evaluations “characterize the fit
between standards and products” (Winne, 2001, p. 163) and can
be generated internally by
learners or externally by others. Winne and Hadwin (1998)
provide a comprehensive accounting
of self-regulation that has since been analyzed and endorsed by
their peers (Greene & Azevedo,
7
2007); future scholarship on classroom assessment in general
and self-assessment in particular
could benefit from a similar analysis.
Research on Self-Regulated Learning
Several decades of study of self-regulated learning have
produced a rich and elaborate body

of knowledge. Briefly, the research suggests that self-regulation
and academic achievement are
closely related: Students who set goals, make flexible plans to
meet them, and monitor their
progress tend to learn more and do better in school than
students who do not. Less effective
learners, in contrast, have minimal self-regulation strategies and
depend much more on external
factors such as the teacher, peers, or the task for guidance and
feedback (Hattie & Timperley,
2007; Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2004).
Research suggests that the type of goals set by students matters.
For example, in a study of
students in an educational psychology course, Morgan (1985, as
cited in Winne, 2001) showed
that students who set specific goals related to the conditions,
products, and standards of their
studying learned more than students who either set goals related
to the amount of time spent
studying or general goals such “learn the material”. Apparently,
the students who set specific
goals benefitted from having “subject-matter relevant standards
for monitoring” (p. 175) their
learning, a conclusion that echoes the findings of the studies of

self-assessment reported above.
The literature on self-regulated learning reveals that the role of
goal-setting in learning is
more complicated than that, however. For one example, research
has shown that students benefit
from setting process as well as product goals, in that order (e.g.,
Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999).
This is part of that “nuanced view” I mentioned earlier: We
have a lot to learn from studies of
self-regulated learning.
Fortunately, academic self-regulation is learnable. Studies have
shown that all kinds of
students, including those with mild to moderate cognitive
impairments (Brown & Palincsar,
1982), can learn to monitor and regulate their own learning
more effectively.
A Synthesis
In addition to having much in common with each other, theories
of self-assessment and self-
regulation have many commonalities with recent scholarship on
formative assessment. The
simple model in Figure 1 represents formative self-assessment

as an integral component of self-
regulation. The figure draws on the three phase model of self-
regulation proposed by
Zimmerman (2000) and includes: Forethought, which is when
learners set goals and make plans
for reaching them; Performance and Control, which occurs
during learning and involves self-
monitoring and the use of learning management strategies; and
Reflection, during which learners
evaluate and reflect on their work.
-------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here.
-------------------------------------
The model also incorporates the conception of feedback in
learning proposed by Hattie and
Timperley (2007), in which they identify the main purpose of
feedback as reducing discrepancies
between one’s goal and one’s current understandings and
performance. According to Hattie and
Timperley, feedback that effectively closes the gap between
current states and the target must
address three questions: “Where am I going? (What are the
goals?), How am I going [or doing]?

8
(What progress is being made toward the goals), and Where to
next? (What activities need to be
undertaken to make better progress?)” (p. 82). As indicated in
Figure 1, self-regulation theory
posits that effective learners ask similar questions, and engage
in regular self-assessments of
their work.
Figure 1 represents a synthesis of Zimmerman’s taxonomy and
the three questions posed by
Hattie and Timperley (2007): Forethought involves learners in
asking “Where am I going?” and
“What are the goals?” The performance and self-reflection
phases include, among other things,
self-assessment by asking, “How am I doing? What progress is
being made toward the goals?” as
well as “Where to next? What activities need to be undertaken
to make better progress?” The
link between the performance and control phase and the
reflection phase indicates how effective
learners will respond to perceived deficiencies in their work or
approaches to it by revisiting and

revising it.
Oneself as a Source of Formative Assessment
“Where am I going?” “How am I doing?” “Where to next?”
These questions can refer to the
quality of one’s work or one’s learning processes, depending on
how they are asked and
answered. Hattie and Timperley (2007) noted that feedback that
aims at improving students’
strategies and processes as well as making improvements in the
task at hand are most powerful.
The key challenge for educators, of course, is in figuring out
how to scaffold self-assessment and
regulation while at the same time teaching important content
and skills. This section describes
several such efforts. It does not refer to stand-alone courses that
teach self-regulation skills (e.g.,
Dembo & Seli, 2008).
Some scholars have capitalized on the similarities between self-
regulation and self-
assessment and designed instructional techniques that promote
both. Paris, for example, created a
portfolio assessment process that scaffolds self-regulation
(Paris & Ayres, 1994), and has written

about the role of self-assessment in providing students with
opportunities to monitor and
understand their own learning (Paris & Paris, 2001). Gregory,
Cameron and Davies (2000) have
created a collection of self-assessment and goal-setting
techniques for use in middle and high
school classrooms. Perry, VandeKamp, Mercer, and Nordby
(2002) emphasize how even young
learners in third grade can effectively self-regulate their
behaviors after analyzing the results of a
non-threatening assessment. These and other approaches
described below combine the goals of
student self-regulation and self-assessment in practical
classroom applications, often
emphasizing one or the other. In each case, recommendations
are made for enhancing the
regulatory or assessment aspects of the instructional design.
Strategic Content Learning
Butler (2002) designed an instructional model called Strategic
Content Learning (SCL) in
order to promote self-regulated learning in secondary and post-
secondary students with learning

disabilities. Her approach emphasizes the value of co-
constructing learning strategies with
students rather than teaching predefined strategies. Butler
recommends, among other things,
having students submit a list of performance criteria and
personalized learning strategies as part
of an assignment, and helping students self-evaluate their work
prior to submission. She also
recommends promoting strategy development by facilitating
discussions about strategies that
might meet task demands, having students try them out, and
articulating strategies they plan to
use in the future.
9
For instance, one English teacher in Butler’s (2002) study
created a strategy form that
students revised and turned in across a sequence of writing
assignments:
In a first column students described each assignment in turn
(e.g., writing a first
narrative paragraph). In a second column students outlined the
strategies they

planned to use to complete that row’s assignment. In a third
column, students
interpreted teacher feedback on each assignment in light of
specific task criteria
(generated in a class discussion before starting the project). In a
final column,
students recorded ideas they had about how to improve their
performance for the
upcoming assignment. (p. 90)
The process described by the English teacher includes a minor
element of self-assessment—co-
creating task-specific criteria for an assignment—as well as
major components of self-regulation.
In order to more comprehensively include self-assessment, a
column or separate form could be
added that asks students to assess their work according to the
co-created task criteria before
receiving and interpreting their teacher’s feedback. A
hypothetical example of such a form is
shown in Figure 2. The form reveals that the student using the
form has completed a persuasive
essay assignment and is working on an autobiography. The
strategies used by the student, the

student’s self-assessment, the teacher’s feedback, and ideas for
making improvements to future
writing projects are shown.
-------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here.
-------------------------------------
Project-Based Portfolio Assessment
Alonso-Tapia (2002) studied a project-based portfolio
assessment for 14 to 16-year-olds that
includes both process-oriented self-regulation and task-specific
self-assessment. As part of the
portfolio process, students produce and reflect on written work.
They write responses to
questions referring to the writing process, such as: “What
strategies have I used to decide what to
say? Does my portfolio include drafts, schemes or products
deriving from brainstorms? What
questions have I asked myself to organize the text? Have I
considered the purpose of my essay
and the readers’ needs? Have I considered potential arguments

against my point of view and
accepted them (as far as possible)? Have I revised the written
text?” Students also respond to
questions referring to the content of their writing: “Have I
articulated my point of view well
enough? Why do I think so? What kinds of comment have I
received from my classmates about
my point of view? Do I agree with them or not? Why?”
Portfolios like those described by Alonso-Tapia (2002) are
especially good vehicles for
reflection on process and product; in fact, reflection is one of
the primary purposes of portfolio-
based assessment (Brookhart, 2008; Danielson, & Abrutyn,
1997; Seidel et al., 1997; Wolf,
1989). In order to enhance the self-assessment aspect of this
portfolio project, students could be
engaged in generating a list of qualities of excellent pieces of
work, and in a process of judging
their own work in relation to those qualities. This process would
be followed by opportunities to
revise.

10
King’s Medway Oxford Formative Assessment Project
(KMOFAP)
A final example of a classroom practice that combines self-
regulation and self-assessment
comes from work done by Black, Wiliam, and their colleagues
on formative assessment practices
in classrooms (2004), which emphasizes the importance of
student self-assessment. Some of the
approaches they describe represent a blurring of the distinction
between self-assessment and self-
regulation because they require students to assess their
understanding of a topic or lesson—a
metacognitive act.
A tool they called “traffic lights” serves as a powerful example
of the integration of self-
assessment and self-regulated learning. Students in the math and
science classes they studied
used red, amber and green icons to indicate their perceptions of
the extent to which they
understood the content being studied. They did so in a variety
of ways, such as labeling their

work with a color, or placing a red, amber, or green cup on their
desks during a lecture or
demonstration (Wiliam, 2008). The teachers could immediately
respond to the students’
confidence in their understanding by, for example, pairing up
the greens and ambers to clarify
areas of confusion between them, while the teacher helps the
red students as a group. According
to Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall and Wiliam (2004), the traffic
lights allowed for “instant
differentiation but the recognition of the learning needs has
been done by the students, allowing
the teacher to focus on steering the remedial action. Because the
response to their needs is
immediate, students begin to realize that revealing their
problems is worthwhile, as the focus of
the teaching is to improve learning” (p. 52).
Strategic Content Learning, portfolio-based assessment, and
traffic lights represent a small
sample of the many ways in which students can be their own
and their teachers’ best source of
formative assessment information. Students have instant,
ongoing access to their own thoughts,
actions, and works, and there is ample evidence that they can

accurately self-assess and self-
regulate under the right conditions (Paris & Paris, 2001). The
challenge is in creating the right
conditions.
General Principles for Supporting Self-Assessment and Self-
Regulation
Lacking supportive conditions, students across the K-16+
educational span often do not have
well-developed skills in self-assessment and self-regulation.
Self-evaluation strategies were
found by Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1988) to be one of the
least used self-regulation
strategies by American students and, writing about their work
with 11–15 year-olds in the United
Kingdom, Black et al. (2004) state that one of their most
difficult tasks was helping students to
think of their work in terms of learning goals. This section
presents a list of general principles for
classroom practices that cue, scaffold, and even push students to
self-regulate and self-assess.
Creating a Culture of Critique

It is easy to blame students for failing to think about their own
work or thinking but the
extant assessment and evaluation ethos can inhibit self-
assessment and regulation (Ames, 1992).
Hattie and Timperley (2007) note that “the climate of the
classroom is critical, particularly if
disconfirmation and corrective feedback at any level is to be
welcomed and used by the students
(and teachers). Errors and disconfirmation are most powerful in
climates in which they are seen
as leading to future learning” (p. 100). As with many other
school-related topics, self-assessment
11
and self-regulation are likely to work only when students
perceive them to be valued and
valuable, and to the extent that teachers’ messages about the
relationships between effort,
understanding, and grades are influential.
Where Am I Going? Setting Learning Goals
Research on the effectiveness of feedback has shown that “goals

without clarity as to when
and how a student (and teacher) would know they were
successful are often too vague to serve
the purpose of enhancing learning” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007,
p. 88). Effective goal setting
involves articulating clear, reasonably challenging goals
regarding the type or level of
performance expected of students. Students should set goals for
nearly everything, more or
less—assignments, the processes they are using to complete
them, and the regulatory
mechanisms they employ.
One popular way to set task-specific goals is to distribute a
rubric to students or, better, to co-
create one with them. Checklists, scoring guidelines, and
detailed assignment briefs can serve the
same purpose, particularly when they are discussed or generated
with students (Andrade, 2000;
Butler, 2002). Genuine interaction between teacher and students
enhances the process of goal
setting because “goals are more effective when students share a
commitment to attaining them”
(Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 89).

Because “a great deal of student behavior that we see in the
context of the classroom should
be labeled as ‘compliance’, ‘self-control’ or ‘self-management’
rather than self-regulation”
(Boekaerts, 2001, p. 598), Boekaerts highlights the need to
distinguish between students’
personal goals and teachers’ imposed goals. Students’ personal
goals are often related to valued
future goals. Brickman and Miller (2000) have illustrated the
ways in which goals that students
believe are instrumental to future goal attainment, such as
attending college or beginning a
career, provide the foundation for meaningful self-regulation. In
light of this and related
research, teachers should engage students in setting goals that
are meaningful to them.
How Am I Doing? Aiding Students in Generating Feedback for
Themselves
I previous portions of this paper I have presented evidence that
students can provide feedback
for themselves under the right conditions. The right conditions
include at least the following
(Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Butler, 2002; Macguire, Evans, &

Dyas, 2001; Ross, 2006;
Thompson, Pilgrim, & Oliver, 2005):
1. guidance in articulating the criteria by which they assess
their learning processes
and products,
2. learning how to apply the criteria by assessing their work and
approaches to it,
3. getting feedback on their self-assessments of both process
and product,
4. being offered help in using self-assessment data to improve,
5. providing sufficient time for revision of assignments and
adjustments to
strategies,
6. making some self-assessments private, since students might
say or write what
they think their teachers want to read, and
7. not turning self-assessment into self-evaluation by counting
it toward a grade.
12
In addition, the self-assessment done by students should be
near-term. According to
Zimmerman (2000) the “temporal proximity of one’s self-
observations is a critical variable. Self-

feedback that is delayed precludes a person from taking
corrective action in a timely fashion” (p.
20).
Finally, a caveat: Feedback has its limitations. According to
Hattie and Timperley (2007),
feedback is “not ‘the answer’; rather, it is but one powerful
answer. With inefficient learners, it is
better for a teacher to provide elaborations through instruction
than to provide feedback on
poorly understood concepts…. Feedback can only build on
something; it is of little use when
there is no initial learning or surface information” (p. 104). This
general caveat might also apply
to self-generated feedback in particular: In a review of student
self-ratings, Boud and Falchikov
(1989) concluded that high achieving students tended to
underrate their performance, while
lower achieving students tended to overrate it. This finding has
been replicated in more recent
research (e.g., Dochy, Segers, Sluijsmans, 1999), and leads to
the not surprising implication that
students who struggle with school work need extra help
understanding their tasks, the criteria for
them, and the self-assessment process.

Where to Next? Providing Time and Assistance with Revision
or Revisiting
Closing the gap between where students are and where they are
headed is what makes
formative assessment and feedback effective (Sadler, 1989).
Students are unlikely to
thoughtfully self-assess or self-regulate unless they know these
acts will lead to better grades,
deeper understanding, and more well-developed skill sets. Thus,
revision and revisiting are
essential components of self-regulation and assessment.
In addition to the obvious need to allow and encourage students
to revise their work and
rethink their approaches to it, there is the less obvious need to
explicitly revisit causal
attributions, or students’ beliefs about the internal and external
causes of their success or failure
(Weiner, 1986). Given what is known about the influence of
causal attributions on strategy
choices, persistence, and achievement, it is essential to teach
students to make accurate
attributions.

The question “Where to next?” can also be extended to other
contexts and assignments.
Citing the literature that argues for mindful approaches to
transfer (e.g., Perkins & Salomon,
1989), Butler (2002) notes the need to help students construct
self-regulatory skills that can
transfer to subsequent learning. She argues that this can be done
by promoting self-regulation in
the context of meaningful work, supporting students in
articulating strategies in their own words,
and having students discuss when and why certain strategies
promote success.
Concluding Remarks
Though scholars tout the value of actively engaging students in
the assessment process, our
understanding of the elements of such engagement is still under
development. One promising
avenue is the exploration of what is already known about how
effective learners manage their
own learning, and the creation of relevant assessment models,
principles and practices that can
cue, scaffold, and even push students to self-regulate and self-

assess. Since students have
exclusive access to their own thoughts and actions, they can and
should be considered the
definitive source of formative assessment information.
13
References
Alonso-Tapia, J. (2002). Knowledge assessment and conceptual
understanding. In M. Limón &
L. Mason (Eds): Reframing the processes of conceptual change.
(pp. 389-413). Dordretch,
the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ames. C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom
motivational climate. In D.H. Schunk &
J.L. Meece (Eds.), Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp.
327-348). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Andrade, H. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and
learning. Educational Leadership,
57(5), 13-18.
Andrade, H., & Boulay, B. (2003). Gender and the role of
rubric-referenced self-assessment in

learning to write. Journal of Educational Research, 97(1), 21-
34.
Andrade, H., & Cizek, G. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of formative
assessment. New York:
Routledge.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-
referenced self-assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-
181.
Andrade, H., & Valtcheva, A. (2009). Promoting learning and
achievement through self-
assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12-19.
Andrade, H., Du, Y., & Wang, X. (2008). Putting rubrics to the
test: The effect of a model,
criteria generation, and rubric-referenced self-assessment on
elementary school students’
writing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 27(2),
3-13.
Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-
referenced assessment and self-
efficacy for writing. The Journal of Educational Research,
102(4), 287-302.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan,

M. T. (1991). The instructional
effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational
Research, 61(2), 213–238.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D.
(2004). Assessment for learning:
Putting it into practice. Berkshire, England: Open University
Press.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising
standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Boekaerts, M. (2001, August). Bringing about change in the
classroom: Strengths and
weaknesses of the self-regulated learning approach. Presidential
Address presented at the 9th
European Conference of the Association of Learning and
Instruction. Fribourg, Switzerland.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.) (2000).
Handbook of self-regulation. San
Diego: Academic.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of
student self-assessment in higher
education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18,
529-549.

Brickman, S., & Miller, R. (2000). The impact of sociocultural
context on future goals and self-
regulation. In D. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on
sociocultural influences on
motivation and learning, volume 1 (pp. 119-138). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age.
Brinko, L. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to
improve teaching. Journal of Higher
Education, 64(5), 574-593.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1967). Response to pressure from peers
versus adults among Soviet and
American school children. International Journal of Psychology,
2(3), 199-207.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1970). Reactions to social pressure from
adults versus peers among Soviet
day school and boarding school pupils in the perspective of an
American sample. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 179-189.
14
Brookhart, S. (2008). Portfolio assessment. In T. Good (Ed.), 21
st
century education: A reference

handbook, volume 1 (pp. 443-450). SAGE.
Brown A. L. & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic
learning from texts by means of
informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning
Disabilities, 2(1), 1-17.
Butler, D. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated
learning. Theory Into Practice,
41(2), 81-92.
Butler, D. & Cartier, S. (2004). Promoting effective task
interpretation as an important work
habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers
College Record, 106(9), 1729-
1758.
Butler, D. & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated
learning: A theoretical synthesis.
Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
Crooks, T. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices
on students. Review of
Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
Danielson, C., & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using
portfolios in the classroom.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Deakin-Crick, R., Sebba, J., Harlen, W., Guoxing, Y., &
Lawson, H. (2005). Systematic review
of research evidence of the impact on students of self- and peer-
assessment. Protocol. In:
Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre,
Social Science Research
Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
de Luque, M., & Sommer, S. (2000). The impact of culture on
feed-back-seeking behavior: An
integrated model and propositions. Academy of Management
Review, 25(4), 829-849.
Dembo, M., & Seli, H. (2008). Motivation and learning
strategies for college success: A self-
management approach (3
rd
ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of
self-, peer and co-assessment in
higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24( 3),
331-350.
Duffrin, N., Dawes, W., Hanson, D., Miyazaki, J., & Wolfskill,
T. (1998). Transforming large
introductory classes into active learning environments. Journal

of Educational Technology
Systems, 27(2), 169-78.
Dweck, C., Davidson, W., Nelson, S., & Enna, B. (1978). Sex
differences in learned
helplessness: II. Contingencies of evaluative feedback in the
classroom and III. An
experimental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 14(3), 268-
276.
Goodrich, H. (1996). Student self-assessment: At the
intersection of metacognition and authentic
assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005).
Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies
through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational
Psychologist, 40(4), 225-234.
Greene, J.A. & Azevedo, R. (2007). A theoretical review of
Winne and Hadwin’s model of self-
regulated learning: New perspectives and directions. Review of
Educational Research, 77(3),
334-372.
Gregory, K., Cameron, C., & Davies, A. (2000). Self-
assessment and goal-setting. Merville,

British Columbia, CA: Connections Publishing.
Harrington, T. (1995). Assessment of abilities. Greensboro, NC:
ERIC Clearinghouse on
Counseling and Student Services.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback.
Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112.
15
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback
interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284.
Lewbel, S. R. & Hibbard, K. M. (2001). Are standards and true
learning compatible? Principal
Leadership, 1(5), 16-20.
MacDonald, B. & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-
assessment on achievement: The effects
of self-assessment training on performance in external
examinations. Assessment in
Education, 10(2), 209-220.

Maguire, S., Evans, S., & Dyas, L. (2001). Approaches to
learning: A study of first year
geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, 25(1), 95-107.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment
and self-regulated learning: a
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies
in Higher Education, 31(2),
199-218.
Paris, S. & Ayres, L. (1994). Becoming reflective students and
teachers with portfolios and
authentic assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Paris, S. G. & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applicati ons of
research on self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.
Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-
bound? Educational Researcher,
18(1), 16-25.
Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L. & Nordby, C. (2002).
Investigating teacher-student
interactions that foster self-regulated learning. Educational
Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.

Pintrich, P. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-
regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
452-502). San Diego, CA:
Academic.
Ross, J. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-
assessment. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation, 11(10). Retrieved January 11, 2007
from
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10
Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Rolheiser, C. (2002).
Student self-evaluation in grade 5-6
mathematics effects on problem-solving achievement.
Educational Assessment, 8(1), 43-59.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1998). Skills-
training versus action research
in-service: Impact on student attitudes to self-evaluation.
Teaching and Teacher Education,
14(5), 463-477.
Ross, J. A., Rolheiser, C., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (1999).
Effects of self-evaluation training on
narrative writing. Assessing Writing, 6(1), 107-132.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of
instructional systems. Instructional
Science, 18, 119–144.
Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-
grading on student learning.
Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about
metacognition? In A.
Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education
(pp. 189-215). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seidel, S., Walters, J., Kirby, E. Olff, N., Powell, K., &
Veenema, S. (1997). Portfolio practices:
Thinking through the assessment of children’s work.
Washington, DC: NEA Publishing
Library.
Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 78(1), 153-
189.
16
Stallings, V. & Tascione, C. (1996). Student self-assessment

and self-evaluation. Mathematics
Teacher, 89(7), 548-55.
Thompson, G., Pilgrim, A., & Oliver, K. (2005). Self-
assessment and reflective learning for first-
year university geography students: A simple guide or simply
misguided? Journal of
Geography in Higher Education, 29(3), 403-430.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and
emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling,
and metacognition: Making
science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction,
16(1), 3-118.
Wiliam, D. (2008, March). Changing classroom practice.
Presentation at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, Classroom
Assessment Special Interest
Group, New York.
Winne, P. (2001). Information processing models of self-
regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman &
D. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and

practice (pp. 153-189). New York: Longman.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated
learning. In D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in
educational theory and practice.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wolf, D. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work.
Educational Leadership, 46(7),
35-39.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social
cognitive perspective. In M.
Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-
regulation (pp. 13-41). New
York: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. & Martinez-Pons (1988). Construct validation
of a strategy model of student
self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 284-290.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (2
nd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (2004). Self-regulating
intellectual processes and outcomes: A
social cognitive perspective. In D. Dai & R. Sternberg (Eds.),
Motivation, emotion, and
cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning
and development (pp. 323-
349). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17
Figure 1. Self-Regulated Learning and Formative Self-
Assessment
Self-Regulation of
Learning via Formative
Self-Assessment
Forethought

Goal setting
“Where am I going?”
Performance and
Control
Observation and
assessment
“How am I doing?”
Reflection
Judgment and reaction
“What’s next?”
18
Figure 2. Strategy Form (Adapted from Butler, 2002)
Assignment
Strategies Self-

Assessment
Teacher’s
Feedback
Improvements
Next Time
1. Persuasive
essay
2. Auto-
biography
1a. Go over the

rubric.
1b. Brainstorm
reasons, pro and
con.
1c. Write an
outline.
1d. Write first
draft.
1e. Self-assess
according to the
rubric
1f. Revise
1g. Get feedback
from teacher.
1h. Write final
draft.
2a. Read rubric

& an
autobiography to
see how it is
written.
2b. Look at
photos of my life
to get ideas for a
theme.
Etc….
My first draft has
strong reasons for
my opinion but
doesn’t consider
other points of
view. My sentences
are correct but the
tone is boring and

spelling is a mess.
Your second draft
has clear, relevant
reasons in support of
your claim, and
touches on the
opposite point of
view. You could
elaborate on why
your opinion is
better. I recommend
finding words and
phrases that make it
sound like you care
about this topic, and
using the computer
to spell check.
Pick a topic

that I care
about.
University of Connecticut[email protected]Fall 10-20-
2010Students as the Definitive Source of Formative
Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the Self-Regulation
of LearningHeidi L. AndradeRecommended CitationMicrosoft
Word - 238801-text.native.1298480987.doc
The Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching® —or
FIT
Teaching®—is a research-based, field-tested, and experience-
honed process that captures the essentials of the best
educational
environments. In contrast to restrictive pedagogical
prescriptions
or formulas, FIT Teaching empowers teachers to adapt the most
effective planning, instructional, and assessment practices to
their particular context in order to move their students’ learning
from where it is now to where it should be. To be a FIT Teacher
is
to make a heroic commitment to learning—not just to the
learning
of every student in the classroom, but to the professional
learning
necessary to grow, inspire, and lead.
What is FIT Teaching?
What is a FIT Teacher?
This book introduces the powerful FIT Teaching Tool, which

harnesses the FIT Teaching approach and presents a
detailed continuum of growth and leadership. It’s a close-up
look at what intentional and targeting teaching is and what
successful teachers do to
• Plan with purpose
• Cultivate a learning climate
• Instruct with intention
• Assess with a system
• Impact student learning
Designed to foster discussion among educators about what
they are doing in the classroom, the FIT Teaching Tool can
be used by teachers for self-assessment; by peers for
collegial feedback in professional learning communities; by
instructional coaches to focus on the skills teachers need
both onstage and off; and by school leaders to highlight their
teachers’ strengths and value. Join authors Douglas Fisher,
Nancy Frey, and Stefani Arzonetti Hite for an examination of
what makes great teachers great, and see how educators
at all grade levels and all levels of experience are taking
intentional steps toward enhanced professional practice.
$29.95
STUDY
GUIDE
ONLINE
Browse excerpts from ASCD books: ww.ascd.org/books
Many ASCD members received this book as
a member benefit upon its initial release.
Learn more at: www.ascd.org/memberbooks

EDUCATION
Alexandria, VA USA
INTENTIONAL AND TARGETED
TEACHING
FISHER | FREY
| HITE
Targeted Teaching
A Framework for Teacher
Growth and Leadership
Intentional and
T H E F I T T E A C H I N G A P P R O A C H
Douglas FISHER | Nancy FREY | Stefani Arzonetti HITE
IntentionalTargetedTeaching_Covers_Fpp.indd All Pages
4/1/16 9:22 AM
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
IntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd
iIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd i 3/31/16 4:24 PM3/31/16
4:24 PM

iiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd ii 4/11/16 11:07
AM4/11/16 11:07 AM
www.ascd.org/memberbooks
Douglas FISHER | Nancy FREY | Stefani Arzonetti HITE
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and
Alexandria, VA USA
iiiIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iii 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
1703 N. Beauregard St. • Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 USA
Phone: 800-933-2723 or 703-578-9600 • Fax: 703-575-5400
Website: www.ascd.org • E-mail: [email protected]
Author guidelines: www.ascd.org/write
Deborah S. Delisle, Executive Director; Robert D. Clouse,
Managing Director, Digital Content & Publications; Stefani
Roth,
Publisher; Genny Ostertag, Director, Content Acquisitions;
Julie Houtz, Director, Book Editing & Production; Katie Martin,
Editor; Donald Ely, Senior Graphic Designer; Mike Kalyan,
Manager, Production Services; Cynthia Stock, Typesetter;

Kyle Steichen, Senior Production Specialist
Copyright © 2016 ASCD. All rights reserved. It is illegal to
reproduce copies of this work in print or electronic format
(including reproductions displayed on a secure intranet or
stored in a retrieval system or other electronic storage device
from which copies can be made or displayed) without the prior
written permission of the publisher. By purchasing only
authorized electronic or print editions and not participating in
or encouraging piracy of copyrighted materials, you support
the rights of authors and publishers. Readers who wish to
reproduce or republish excerpts of this work in print or
electronic
format may do so for a small fee by contacting the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA
01923, USA (phone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-646-8600; web:
www.copyright.com). To inquire about site licensing options or
any other reuse, contact ASCD Permissions at
www.ascd.org/permissions, or [email protected], or 703-575-
5749. For
a list of vendors authorized to license ASCD e-books to
institutions, see www.ascd.org/epubs. Send translation inquiries
to
[email protected]
All referenced trademarks are the property of their respective
owners. FRAMEWORK FOR INTENTIONAL AND
TARGETED TEACHING® and FIT TEACHING® are
trademarks of ASCD.
All web links in this book are correct as of the publication date
below but may have become inactive or otherwise modifi ed
since that time. If you notice a deactivated or changed link,
please e-mail [email protected] with the words “Link Update”
in the subject line. In your message, please specify the web
link, the book title, and the page number on which the
link appears.

PAPERBACK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2111-9 ASCD product
#116008
PDF E-BOOK ISBN: 978-1-4166-2113-3; see Books in Print for
other formats.
Quantity discounts: 10–49, 10%; 50+, 15%; 1,000+, special
discounts (e-mail [email protected] or call 800-933-2723,
ext. 5773, or 703-575-5773). For desk copies, go to
www.ascd.org/deskcopy.
ASCD Member Book No. FY16-7 (May 2016, P). ASCD
Member Books mail to Premium (P), Select (S), and
Institutional
Plus (I+) members on this schedule: Jan, PSI+; Feb, P; Apr,
PSI+; May, P; Jul, PSI+; Aug, P; Sep, PSI+; Nov, PSI+; Dec, P.
For current details on membership, see
www.ascd.org/membership.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Fisher, Douglas, 1965-, author. | Frey, Nancy, 1959-
author. | Hite,
Stefani Arzonetti, author.
Title: Intentional and targeted teaching : a framework for
teacher growth and
leadership / Douglas Fisher, Nancy Frey, Stefani Arzonetti
Hite.
Description: Alexandria, VA : ASCD, 2016. | Includes
bibliographical
references and index.
Identifi ers: LCCN 2015049292 (print) | LCCN 2016010993
(ebook) | ISBN
9781416621119 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781416621133 (ebook) | ISBN
9781416621133
(PDF)
Subjects: LCSH: Eff ective teaching. | Classroom environment. |

Educational
leadership.
Classifi cation: LCC LB1025.3 .F575 2016 (print) | LCC
LB1025.3 (ebook) | DDC
371.102--dc23
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
_____________________________________________________
__________________
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ivIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd iv 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.ascd.org
http://www.copyright.com
http://www.ascd.org/permissions
http://www.ascd.org/epubs
mailto:[email protected]
http://www.ascd.org/deskcopy
http://www.ascd.org/membership
http://www.ascd.org/write
http://lccn.loc.gov/2015049292
Introduction: Becoming a FIT Teacher
...................................................... 1
1. Planning with Purpose
.............................................................................15
2. Cultivating a Learning Climate

..............................................................45
3. Instructing with Intention
.......................................................................81
4. Assessing with a System
........................................................................115
5. Impacting Student Learning
.................................................................142
Conclusion: Taking Up the Challenge
....................................................165
Acknowledgments
.......................................................................................166
Appendix: Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool
.............167
References
...............................................................................................
......181
Index
...............................................................................................
................185
About the Authors
......................................................................................190
Targeted Teaching
Intentional and

vIntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd v 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
1
Introduction
Becoming a FIT Teacher
Recently we hosted a guest speaker for an evening gathering at
a local hotel. It
was a great event, with stimulating conversations about teaching
and learning
and hors d’oeuvres for the 160 or so people who attended. Th e
speaker had used
Nancy’s computer and cables to share his stories, and one of the
participants
helped pack up at the end of the evening so that we could thank
our guest.
When we got to the car, Nancy realized that she did not have
the connector that
allows her computer to communicate with the projector. We
went back inside
the hotel to retrieve it.
When we entered the room, we saw the catering manager, the
banquet
manager, and a person wearing a chef ’s hat standing at the food
table. One was
literally counting tomatoes that had been left on a tray, while
another counted
fruit sticks. Th ey stopped when they saw us, but Nancy had to
ask what they

were doing.
Th e banquet manager responded fi rst, saying, “We always do a
postmortem
after an event like yours. We have diff erent things we look for
so that we can
make changes for future events. I’m looking at the places trash
was left and the
number of remaining utensils. See right here, there’s a pile of
trash. Th at tells
me that we need to put some sort of receptacle there, because
that’s where
people are going to put their trash. We didn’t make it obvious
enough where
they could dispose of things.”
Th e catering manager added, “We’re also counting leftover
food. We look
for trends and then make decisions about how much of what to
off er groups.
Your group didn’t eat much of the desserts, but they demolished
the hummus
IntentionalTargetedTeaching.i ndd
1IntentionalTargetedTeaching.indd 1 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
2 | Intentional and Targeted Teaching
and fi nger sandwiches. Th ere are more than 20 tomatoes left.
We used them
for decoration, but obviously there were too many, and w e don’t
need to waste
money on extra tomatoes in the future.”

Th e person in the chef ’s hat chimed in, “It’s all part of our
self-evaluation
process. We learn from every group we host, and we make it
better for the next
time. If people leave hungry, they tell other people, who then
don’t want to
have their events here. When our boss comes around, he wants
to see a clean
environment, so this little pile of trash is a problem, and we can
address it the
next time we set up the room this way. And see the utensils? Th
ere aren’t any
forks left, so some people probably had to use a spoon instead.
Th at’s a problem.
Th e silverware plan wasn’t matched very well to the type of
food served. We will
defi nitely fi x that for next time.”
We looked at one another, silently making the same
connections. Although
not having a fork for one’s hors d’oeuvres isn’t too big a
problem in the larger
scheme of things, not reaching students is. Not getting them to
grasp algebra is.
Not engaging them in the subject matter you love is. Not
preparing them to be
critical thinkers and strong citizens is. You get the point.
Th e three people in this hotel spent time collecting and
analyzing data
because they wanted to improve the experience their guests had.
Th e same
should be true for teachers, coaches, and administrators. We
certainly care
as much about our students’ learning as the catering manager,

the banquet
manager, and the chef care about the food they serve and the
environment they
create. But do we routinely invest in the same kind of analysis
of our practices,
situations, and outcomes? Are these based in the same kind of
collaborative
and dialogic problem solving? Th e hotel team’s process wasn’t
about fi lling out
forms; it was about communicating with one another to reach
solutions. But, as
we saw, what made this possible was a conversation and a set of
processes that
helped the hotel staff resolve missteps and identify successes.
In this spirit, we embarked on defi ning the centerpiece of this
book: the
FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool, which harnesses the
FIT Teaching
process and presents a detailed continuum of teacher growth and
leadership.
We off er it to teachers as guidance they can use to self-assess
and chart a path
forward. We also share this with those who support and lead
teachers as a way
to highlight the eff ectiveness of teachers’ work and ground
conversations in
helping teachers achieve even greater success. After all,
teachers are lifelong
learners, dedicated to continually improving their craft.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM

Introduction | 3
What Is FIT Teaching?
Th e Framework for Intentional and Targeted Teaching®, or FIT
Teaching®, is a
process that evolved over the past 15 years. It began as a way of
identifying the
fundamental components that make up a productive educational
environment
for facilitating literacy development. We wanted to know: What
did the most
eff ective teachers do in order to promote successful learning?
How did they
plan, how did they instruct, how did they assess? What specifi c
practices could
we isolate as making the most diff erence?
Let’s start with the words we selected as the name for this
approach.
Th e fi rst is framework. We do not believe that exceedingly
scripted or highly
prescriptive approaches are the way to go, because they de-skill
the teacher
and assume that a curriculum can teach. Th ey typically leave
little room for
diff erentiation or adjustment to the learning environment as
teachers march
through lessons one after another. We remember meeting a
teacher who got
a red card from her principal for not being on the same page in
the textbook
as the other 4th grade teachers. As she explained it, “We have fi
delity checks
every few days, and if we’re behind, we’re in trouble. But I had
to stop because

the lesson was confusing and my students didn’t get it. Th ere
just isn’t much
wiggle room, and the district requires us to move on, even if
some students
don’t get it.”
Having said that, we’re not advocating for an “anything goes”
approach
to curriculum and instruction. We do believe that teachers
should have
a framework for their lessons. As you will read in the chapters
ahead, we
are interested in instructional approaches that shift the
responsibility for
learning from teachers to students in an ongoing and iterative
cycle. Th e
framework we propose includes clear learning intentions,
teacher modeling,
guided instruction, collaborative learning, and independent
learning tasks.
Importantly, teachers mix and match these components in an
instructional
sequence designed to impact learning. Th ey may model several
times in a given
lesson, or they may start a lesson with collaborative learning
and then move on
to modeling. Th e order doesn’t matter, but the components of
the framework
do. We see a diff erence between teachers internalizing a
framework for their
lessons and them being told what to teach every minute of the
day.
Intentional is the second word in this model, and we selected it
because
teachers’ actions matter. Th e planning teachers do as well as

the instructional
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
decisions they make should be purposeful. High-quality
instruction starts with
knowing what students need to learn, then moves on to creating
a wide range of
learning situations in which students can engage. Intentional
says that teachers
are deliberate and that learning is expected.
Targeted, the third word, is there to stress that teachers must
consider the
current performance of students as well as how these students
respond to the
instruction. Th ere is no reason to teach things students already
know. At the same
time, it’s important to monitor students’ learning to determine if
the class needs
to accelerate or slow down. When teaching is targeted, that
means teachers are
working to close the gap between what students already know
and what they are
expected to learn.
Two of us (Doug and Nancy) are teachers and leaders,
researchers and
practitioners, and we subjected the components of FIT Teaching
to the best test

we know: teaching them in our own classrooms and
collaborating with talented
colleagues in their classrooms. Th e framework developed
further through trial
and revision. As we learned more about what worked and what
didn’t, we
honed and improved the components until they defi ned a
coherent process
that includes the essentials of eff ective teaching while avoiding
a restrictive
prescription or formula. After all, a healthy organization must
be free to adapt
processes to meet the needs of its particular context.
As FIT Teaching evolved, it became clear that these components
can
have great value to both individual teachers and teams of
teachers, particularly
in organizations that are inundated with multiple (and often
competing)
initiatives. Th e overarching philosophy of FIT Teaching is that
it is not “one
more thing” for teachers and leaders to do but a method for
creating coherence
and improvements to the complex jobs that schools undertake.
Together,
purposeful planning, a well-designed assessment system, and
strong instruction
make a diff erence.
Overall, FIT Teaching is a process that organizes and refi nes
the hard work
of professional growth that school leaders and dedicated
teachers already seek.
We all know that we can get better, no matter how good our
lessons already

are. As we have noted many times in our careers, there is no
perfect lesson,
and there is no one “right way” to teach. (Th ere are wrong
ways, but not one
right way.) Th e FIT Teaching model is designed to keep
student learning central
while ensuring that teachers are empowered to make
professional decisions in
the best interests of their students.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 5
The Five Interrelated Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e FIT Teaching Growth and Leadership Tool—the FIT
Teaching Tool, for
short—is based on decades of research and practice. It relies on
a thoughtful
and intentional implementation of the work of teachers and of
students, as well
as the collaborative work necessary for deep learning. Th e
instructional process
it captures represents the tangible interactions of teachers and
students in their
learning environment, whether it consists of brick-and-mortar
classrooms, a
blend of virtual and face-to-face instruction, or instruction off
ered completely
online. Irrespective of the instructional mode, teachers should
plan lessons,
create a productive learning climate, provide learning

opportunities, assess
student performance, and monitor student learning. Th ese fi ve
components are
illustrated in Figure I.1.
Th e fi rst component, Planning with Purpose, highlights the
work that
teachers do to prepare lessons as they analyze the standards for
their grade level
or content area, identify learning targets and success criteria,
and sequence
learning. Cultivating a Learning Climate involves creating a
welcoming
classroom that also is effi cient and allows for students’
continuous growth and
Figure I.1 | Components of the FIT Teaching Tool
1. Planning
with Purpose
2. Cultivating
a Learning
Climate
3. Instructing
with Intention
4. Assessing
with a System
5. Impacting

Student Learning
5IntentionalTargetedTeaching.i ndd 5 3/31/16 4:24
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
development. Instructing with Intention highlights the
experiences that students
have in the classroom as they learn. Th e fourth component,
Assessing with a
System, targets the formative assessment work that teachers do
as they collect
information about students’ understandings and then take action
to close any
gaps that exist. And fi nally, the fi fth component, Impacting
Student Learning,
focuses on the short- and long-term outcomes from the
instruction—namely,
whether or not students learned anything.
We include evidence of student learning in the FIT Teaching
Tool because
we think that it is important to recognize that teachers’ eff orts
should have an
infl uence on students’ understanding. As we explain further in
Chapter 5, with
our tool, “student performance” is not limited to results on
standardized or
standards-based formal assessments. It includes evidence of
student learning
in the short term—as might be the case when a group of
kindergarten students

have mastered naming all of the letters in the alphabet or
students in a chemistry
class can successfully balance molar equations—and evidence
of student
learning in the long term, which could be measured on formal
assessments,
including state exams or other end-of-course and end-of-
semester measures.
Teachers can assess students’ long-term learning in a number of
ways, so this
aspect needs to be negotiated, at either the state, district, or site
level, depending
on where the FIT Teaching Tool is used. In other words, we
should not be afraid
of considering student performance —the impact or outcomes of
teaching—as
we learn and grow as teachers.
The Structure of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e full FIT Teaching Tool is presented in this book’s
Appendix and is also
available online at
www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf. Each
of the tool’s fi ve components includes a number of factors (see
Figure I.2), and
most of the factors include a number of ingredients. For
components 1–4, we
provide ingredient-level rubrics for teachers and others to use to
identify areas
of success and areas for growth. Component 5’s rubrics focus
on its two factors.
Th e preceding paragraph makes a point so important that we
need to say
it again. Th is tool is for identifying areas of success as well as
areas for growth.

If we, as teachers, don’t highlight our successes, how will our
administrators
and colleagues know we’re capable of providing mentoring
support to our
colleagues? If we don’t seek frequent feedback, how will we
know where to
focus our future learning?
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingTool.pdf
Introduction | 7
Using any tool for infrequent classroom observations and a
once-a-year
summative conference is woefully inadequate and will not likely
provide the
growth opportunities all teachers deserve. Imagine if we all ran
our classrooms
in a similar fashion, with a single hour of testing serving as the
only guide we
had to assess an entire year of learning. Yet, too often, the
results of a single
observation are the only information school leaders rely on to
evaluate teachers,
or worse, student performance on a summative test is the only
thing used to
determine the success of the teacher.
The Purpose of the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e FIT Teaching Tool is designed to foster discussion among
educators

about our practices and to strengthen those practices through
collaborative
interactions. It is meant to be used by teachers for self-
assessment, by teachers’
trusted peers for collegial feedback, and by instructional
coaches and leaders to
develop the skills teachers need both onstage and off stage.
Formative assessment
of teachers has a signifi cant eff ect on student learning at .90.
It’s high on the
list of Hattie’s (2012) meta-analysis of eff ective practices, yet
it is frequently
overlooked in favor of other classroom teaching practices and
behaviors.
We have identifi ed key behaviors and practices that,
collectively, are
manageable without being reductive. After all, no one is going
to use these criteria
routinely if the instrument is too cumbersome. Many of the
criteria require
Figure I.2 | Components and Factors of the FIT Teaching Tool
1. Planning with Purpose
1.1: Learning Intentions and Progressions
1.2: Evidence of Learning
1.3: Meaningful Learning
2. Cultivating a Learning Climate
2.1: Welcoming
2.2: Growth Producing
2.3: Effi cient
3. Instructing with Intention
3.1: Focused Instruction

3.2: Guided Instruction
3.3: Collaborative Learning
4. Assessing with a System
4.1: Assessment to Support Learners
4.2: Assessment to Monitor Learning
4.3: Assessment to Inform Learning
5. Impacting Student Learning
5.1: Short-Term Evidence of Learning
5.2: Long-Term Evidence of Learning
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
conversation and discussion. You won’t fi nd a checklist, as we
have learned that
checking off boxes limits the focus to obvious items while
overlooking those
that are better determined through discussion, such as what the
teacher noticed
about a specifi c student or how the teacher planned to modify
learning for
another student.
We think that the more often educators use and reference the
tool—during
professional learning, for coaching conversations, and in
professional learning
communities (PLCs)—the more likely it is that teachers will
internalize the items

within the tool and continue to grow and develop as
professional educators. For
example, a group of 4th grade teachers focused on one
ingredient, checking for
understanding. Th ey read various articles and information on
websites to fi nd
ideas, and they planned opportunities to integrate checking for
understanding
in their classrooms. Th ey also observed one another and
provided feedback
about the ways in which checks for understanding were used.
Over time,
their repertoires of strategies and techniques for checking for
understanding
expanded signifi cantly, and their principal noted that they had
developed a level
of expertise in this area.
Assumptions Underlying the FIT Teaching Tool
Th e most important assumption we made in creating the FIT
Teaching Tool
relates to the rating scale. Th e tool has four levels, with a Not
Applicable option
for those rare situations in which an indicator (which we call an
ingredient)
could not possibly be demonstrated by a given teacher. For
example, one
ingredient focuses on the classroom environment. Teachers who
travel from
room to room each period may not have an opportunity to infl
uence the
physical aspects of the various rooms they use throughout the
day. Having
said that, we realize that some traveling teachers have created
amazing spaces
for their students’ learning. For example, a fi tness teacher we

know brings her
own supplies, including mats, battery-operated candles, and
lavender spray, to
create a conducive environment in any room she uses. We
caution users of the
FIT Teaching Tool to reserve Not Applicable for very rare
situations.
Th e four growth levels are as follows:
• Not Yet Apparent—Th is level is indicated only when there is
a
complete lack of evidence that the teacher has considered a
necessary
aspect of instruction and incorporated it into practice. Th is
level should be
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
Introduction | 9
diff erentiated from Not Applicable, which indicates the very
rare situation
when the ingredient is not expected as part of the teacher’s
practice.
• Developing—Most typical with teachers new to the profession
or
new to a grade level, subject area, or curriculum
implementation, this level
is marked by inconsistency of practice. It is selected when it is
clear that a

teacher understands the criteria, but implementation is falling
short of a
desired level of success.
• Teaching—Most typical with teachers experienced in
implementing
criteria with fi delity, this level is selected when it is clear that
the teacher’s
practice is intentional, solidly implemented, and resulting in
success
for students.
• Leading—Most typical with seasoned teachers, this level is
selected
for an individual who has embraced a particular aspect of the
criterion
at its highest level and is providing support, guidance, and
resources for
colleagues. Leading teachers develop learning opportunities for
adults
that respect individual levels of personal practice and focus on
extending
collective growth. Teachers at this level have classrooms with
open doors
and consider themselves continuous learners, thereby aff ecting
classrooms
outside their own.
We operate from an assumption that teachers show up to work
every
day intending to do the best that they know how to do. Th at
does not mean
we believe problematic classroom instruction or interactions are
acceptable;
it just means we believe that people have good intentions. In
other words,

we trust them. It is worth noting that trust is an important factor
in teacher
(and school) improvement eff orts (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).
When an
organization has high levels of trust, people feel comfortable
taking risks
and stretching their practices. Without trust, people play it safe
and avoid
situations that may expose their misunderstandings. As
Tschannen-Moran
notes, when “well-intentioned principals fail to earn the trust of
their faculty
and their larger school community, their vision is doomed to
frustration and
failure” (2014, p. 1).
Th e language in the FIT Teaching Tool refl ects these positive
presuppo-
sitions about teachers and teaching. As noted, the tool includes
a rating of Not
Yet Apparent based on the assumption that the aspect of
instruction in ques-
tion is not yet happening because the person is not clear about
expectations or
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
needs support, in the form of coaching or professional learning,
to start devel-
oping a given habit.

For example, one of the indicators that we look for, referred to
as 3.1b in the
tool, states that “relevance is established and maintained
throughout the lesson
as students are reminded about why they are learning the specifi
c content.” We
assume that teachers want their instruction to be relevant. We
also assume that
relevance can be lost in the details of the tasks that students
complete, which
requires teachers to remind students of it regularly.
If a given teacher is observed not ensuring that the instruction
is relevant,
the teacher him- or herself can refl ect on that, or an observer
should ask
about that. When there is no agreed-upon understanding of the
importance
of relevance, the conversation goes one way. If a concern
emerges about how
to make content relevant, the conversation goes another way.
And if there is
a misunderstanding about the need to remind students about
relevance, the
conversation goes yet another way. Th e positive presupposition
is that the
teacher who did not make learning relevant is trying his or her
best and needs
support to develop this habit. Having honest, open, humane, and
growth-
producing conversations about this will help more than
punishing, berating, or
humiliating someone. And talking about it with colleagues and
coaches is more
likely to result in change, compared with an administrator

circling a low score
on an annual evaluation and then moving on.
Having said that, we recognize that a small number of people
may refuse
to change, even with excellent coaching and support. In these
cases, we still
assume that they are doing their best but, for whatever reason,
are not interested
in the agreed-upon practices in the school or district. We
recommend spending
some time talking with these people to fi gure out why,
exploring beliefs and
experiences that may be infl uencing practices.
In addition, we assume that all teachers are leaders—leaders of
classrooms
and leaders of learning. In creating the FIT Teaching Growth
and Leadership
Tool, we wanted to recognize this fact about teachers and
teaching, and thus we
reserve the highest level for teachers who lead their peers. Th is
feature makes
the FIT Teaching Tool unique, because it recognizes the value
of collaboration.
Rather than include a single indicator on collaboration or
leadership, every
indicator in this tool recognizes teacher leadership. It is
important to note that
teachers can be leaders on some indicators and perform at the
Teaching level on
others. Th ere is nothing wrong with being a great teacher.
PM3/31/16 4:24 PM

Introduction | 11
We also assume that teachers are refl ective about their
practices. In fact,
we take this as a given and do not include a factor about refl
ection in the FIT
Teaching Tool. We all think about our work lives (and every
other aspect of our
lives) and make decisions about what could improve the quality
of our lives.
Naturally, this assumption is related to the positive
presuppositions that drive
our work. But realistically, we cannot imagine scaling refl
ections. We are not
sure that there are “exceptional” versus “good” versus
“adequate” refl ections,
in part because they are very personal and in part because refl
ection is best
facilitated in collaboration with others. We do not think it is
fair to evaluate a
teacher’s personal refl ections or to evaluate performance based
on the quality
of interactions aff orded to that person by peers and
administrators. Th us we
have chosen to assume that teachers are refl ective and that the
people around
a given teacher will provide honest, growth-producing feedback
on which the
person can refl ect.
Another assumption we make relates to teachers’ own learning.
We do
not include an ingredient for professional development because

the very nature
of the FIT Teaching Tool requires learning. Teachers who are
performing at
the Not Yet Apparent level will have to learn something in
order to improve.
Teachers who are performing at the Developing level need to
learn to refi ne a
practice or increase their consistency in using the practice.
Teachers who are
performing at the Teaching level—again, the level we expect
from everyone
involved with providing learning opportunities for students —
can learn
to engage their colleagues. We agree with the notion that you
really know
something when you can teach it to another person; this is why
we advocate
for collaborative learning in the classroom and why we believe
that the highest
level should be reserved for people who can teach what they
know to others.
And those who are performing at the Leading level already
know that learning
is lifelong. Th us, we do not think it is necessary to include an
indicator about
lifelong learning.
A Note About Teacher Evaluation
Teaching is a complicated business. It requires passion and
perseverance,
expertise and eff ort. Th ere is no one right way to ensure that
all students learn.
Not all instructional strategies are eff ective with all students.
In fact, most
expert teachers we know adjust their instructional repertoires as
they encounter

PM3/31/16 4:24 PM
students who learn faster, or slower, than students those
teachers worked with
in the past.
Th ese facts make deciding “how good” a teacher is right now —
whether it’s
the teacher doing so for the purpose of pursuing improvement or
a supervisor
or coach doing it as part of an informal or formal evaluation
process—
complicated and tricky. So many questions need to be
considered to evaluate
the performance of a person tasked with changing the lives of so
many. It is
much easier, we think, to evaluate profi t and loss or the number
of cases won or
lost or the percentage of satisfi ed customers.
As Darling-Hammond (2013) notes, “Existing systems rarely
help teachers
improve or clearly distinguish those who are succeeding from
those who are
struggling” (p. 1). Enter the FIT Teaching Tool. It’s designed
for teacher growth
and teacher leadership, not summative evaluations. Still, we
have correlated
the FIT Teaching Tool with several of the major summative

evaluation tools
available, including
• Danielson Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007)
• Marshall Teacher Evaluation Rubrics (Marshall, 2011)
• Marzano Teacher Evaluation Model (Marzano, 2013)
• McREL Teacher Evaluation System (Davis, 2013)
• Stronge Teacher Eff ectiveness Performance Evaluation
System (Stronge
& Tucker, 2003)
See www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/FITTeachingAlignment.pdf
for these
correlations.
Along with these fi ve major models, there are state-specifi c
criteria,
home-grown rubrics developed by individual districts, and
hybrid approach-
es, particularly in schools that provide blended and fully online
options for
their students. No matter the model selected, however, there are
signifi cant
common alities around teaching expectations. Th us, if teachers
need to grow in
a specifi c area of one of the above named summative
evaluation tools, they can
use the correlations to learn how FIT Teaching supports
teachers to improve
their practice.
Having acknowledged that teacher evaluation is complicated,
we return to
the point that we all know that we can get better at our jobs.
And getting better

Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202

Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202

Similar to Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202 (20)

More from LinaCovington707

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Deng 2Rui DengCal State LADr. FarnerLBS 2666-0139202