View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

General Education Teacher Practices: Assessment, Decision-Making and the Influence of Co-Teaching

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: General Education Teacher Practices: Assessment, Decision-Making and the Influence of Co-Teaching
Language: English
Authors: Wherfel, Quentin M., Monda-Amaya, Lisa, Shriner, James G.
Source: Preventing School Failure. 2022 66(1):42-51.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Secondary School Teachers, Evidence Based Practice, Student Evaluation, Decision Making, Teacher Collaboration, Evaluation Methods, Students with Disabilities, Teacher Made Tests, Questioning Techniques, Teacher Effectiveness, Instructional Design, Individualized Instruction
DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2021.1934650
ISSN: 1045-988X
Abstract: The current emphasis on data-based decision-making ties discussions of accountability, school improvement and educational reform to the notion that gathering and using evidence addresses questions of rigor in our schools and classrooms. The purpose of this research was to survey secondary (middle and high school) general educators (n = 126) to determine which assessments and tools they used most frequently and the types of classroom and student-specific instructional decisions they made from those assessments, particularly for students with disabilities. In addition, comparisons were made to determine if responses differed for general educators engaged in co-teaching. Results indicated that assessments used most frequently were teacher-created tests, entrance/exit slips and questioning techniques. Teachers reported using those assessments and tools for checking for understanding and verifying whether students were retaining the material. Further, those who engaged in co-teaching reported feeling more effective in using data to design and individualize instruction and make adaptations for students with disabilities.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1326519
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGpONRyUePH0ZLie5AFyrsEAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKMGOre1YCawhLPYLQIBEICBmyePEOcI6OOe5TESHkxiGxvEzrigavalfARh-uhcEcDLN4mpXGDrjLRyK7fZ65p6NCW-962YC2HxUBWu-eDb4dlFPX1tm2JygyaT_KRXakbPqtoi-aDfQO9XCoh-PRTofCkp0iZ8d-O1fmEKtRMW8jCI5EeJwwFXVoXNRvp7PphQNbt6_zoYXuH8F3YTWf3ju2Cerg6uzw6Gmohu
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0154480122;psf01jan.22;2022Jan06.03:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0154480122-1">General education teacher practices: Assessment, decision-making and the influence of co-teaching </title> <p>The current emphasis on data-based decision-making ties discussions of accountability, school improvement and educational reform to the notion that gathering and using evidence addresses questions of rigor in our schools and classrooms. The purpose of this research was to survey secondary (middle and high school) general educators (n = 126) to determine which assessments and tools they used most frequently and the types of classroom and student-specific instructional decisions they made from those assessments, particularly for students with disabilities. In addition, comparisons were made to determine if responses differed for general educators engaged in co-teaching. Results indicated that assessments used most frequently were teacher-created tests, entrance/exit slips and questioning techniques. Teachers reported using those assessments and tools for checking for understanding and verifying whether students were retaining the material. Further, those who engaged in co-teaching reported feeling more effective in using data to design and individualize instruction and make adaptations for students with disabilities.</p> <p>Keywords: Assessment; co-teaching; data-based decision making; instructional data; teacher decision-making</p> <p>Thirty years ago, the <emph>Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students</emph> were created to build teacher competence in assessing student performance (AFT, NCME, & NEA, 1990). These standards consisted of seven assessment competencies, four of which lay the foundation for good assessment and decision-making practice: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) choosing assessment methods, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) developing methods appropriate for instructional decision making; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) administering, scoring, and interpreting results of commercially-prepared and teacher-created assessments; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) using results to make decisions about individual students, instructional planning, curriculum and school improvement. In addition to the standards, legislation reiterated the need for data-based decision making. The Every Student Succeeds Act (Every Student Succeeds Act, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]) affirms the responsibility of schools to ensure that all students have meaningful access to the general curriculum and challenging academic standards (§ 1111(b)(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>)(B)). ESSA aligns with expectations within the <emph>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</emph> (IDEA, 2004) for students with disabilities to have "access to the general curriculum...to the maximum extent possible" (§1400(c)(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>)(A)). In addition, best practices and federal IDEA guidance support the premise that decisions for general curriculum access be based upon multiple assessments of student performance (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref8">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Providing access means that general education teachers must offer high-quality, evidence-based instruction to increasingly diverse learners in their classrooms (de Brey et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v Douglas County School District (2017) overturned the <emph>de minimis</emph> educational standard that now requires teachers to provide quality education. This means, teachers should use assessments to prioritize individualized instruction for academic and functional needs of each student under IDEA. Continuous assessment identifies students who are not responding to core instruction and assists in decision making to find ways to quickly intervene. Various types of assessments or tools are used to monitor student progress, determine the effectiveness of interventions and decide if more intensive interventions are needed (RTI Action Network, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref10">38</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-2">Gathering and using data on student learning</hd> <p>Assessment is the "process of collecting information (data) for the purpose of making decisions for or about individuals" (Salvia et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref11">39</reflink>], p. 3). Various studies have explored the ongoing use of formative and summative assessment in classrooms (see Black & Wiliam, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>]) they demonstrate moderate to large effect sizes and overall results point to assessment as an evidence-based practice to increase student learning (e.g., Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). Schools use data management systems to maintain records of student learning, behavior (e.g., referrals) and attendance. In fact, Hamilton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref14">22</reflink>]) described the following categories of data that should be gathered: state assessment data, interim or benchmark assessment data, attendance records, finance and scheduling information, student and teacher demographic data, and formative assessment data. These systems often fail to provide teachers with practical information to impact instruction directly, formative data likely have the greatest impact on instructional decision making.</p> <p>While a variety of formative measures can gauge learning, teacher-created tests, quizzes, and essays are the most common forms of practice. But when developing a more comprehensive overview of data gathering tools, the range of options is far more varied. Teachers can use data from student self-assessments, technology-based tools (e.g., vlogs, online modules), Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), peer evaluations, individualized behavior assessments (e.g., behavior rating scales or checklists), student conferencing evaluations and rubrics (Ratminingsih et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]). Despite the array of assessments available to teachers, little is known about the frequency and usefulness of these varied assessments beyond scheduled district-wide assessments (e.g., Fall, Winter, Spring benchmarking) or annual state testing.</p> <p>Further, once assessments are given, teachers must use the data to make instructional decisions (Hamilton et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>]). Data-driven decision-making (DDDM) is the systematic collection and use of data to improve student learning (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]). Dunn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]) describes DDDM as "learner-centered teaching tool that supports differentiated instruction by providing information that helps teachers tailor instruction to fit class and individual learning needs" (p. 222). DDDM has positively influenced student outcomes (Airola & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]), but more research is needed on variables contributing to successful DDDM at the classroom level (Dunn et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]). Further, there is limited research on types of instructional decisions made, particularly for struggling learners and students with disabilities (Jung et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref21">25</reflink>]). In the introduction to the <emph>Handbook of Data-Based Decision Making,</emph> the debate is not whether evidence should be used in decision-making, but rather what are the types of evidence and how is that evidence collected, analyzed and used to guide practice (Kowalski & Lasley, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>], p. xi).</p> <p>Data-based decision making can be a struggle for teachers (Datnow & Hubbard, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref23">13</reflink>]; Even, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]). Even ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref25">17</reflink>]) cited two problematic areas: 1) how to make sense of the data obtained from assessments, and 2) unfamiliarity with contemporary modes of assessments. Several studies have focused on teacher's decisions, examining data systems and Web-based tools in which student information (e.g. standardized tests scores, absentee records, behavior records) was gathered and stored into a database for administrators and teachers to view (Brunner et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref26">7</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]). While these databases store information, providing convenient ways for teachers to access data for discussions with parents, administrators, other teachers, and students, more research is needed to determine if teachers are using information from these databases to make student-specific decisions, or if the databases are simply "data overload". Therefore, teachers not only need to provide a variety of assessments to elicit student responses, but they also have to use the results from those assessments to make actionable decisions to improve student learning.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-3">Does co-teaching influence practice in assessment and decision-making?</hd> <p>Co-teaching was introduced as a model to provide special education and related services in the general education classroom through collaborative partnerships between general and special education teachers (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]). Co-teaching may afford opportunities to: (a) collaborate in the design and delivery of instruction, (b) assess and monitor student performance toward IEP goals differently, and (c) create adaptations and modifications to impact student learning (Brawand & King-Sears, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>]). In co-taught classrooms educators can work together to develop a better understanding of student learning and determine how to intervene based on the data gathered. This model has potential to increase flexibility in providing instruction and addressing behavior, enabling teachers to: differentiate to the needs of the learner, use a variety of evidence-based practices, and be more proactive in gathering and using data to inform instruction (Murawski & Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref30">31</reflink>]). Further, co-teachers may use instructional practices differently or more often than teachers in solo-taught classrooms to determine (a) if students are grasping the material and/or (b) which students are not meeting performance standards (Conderman & Hedin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several researchers have conducted analyses to determine the effectiveness of such inclusive models on student outcomes (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]; Murawski & Swanson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref33">32</reflink>]; Scruggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]; Solis et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]). Review of these syntheses finds limited discussion of assessment and instructional decision-making. In addition, in an analysis of empirical co-teaching evidence, Cook et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref36">12</reflink>]) found few studies have demonstrated large effects in measuring student outcomes. The use of varied and continuous forms of assessment and careful decision-making to quickly intervene may create a path for further supporting co-teaching as a successful service delivery model, which is difficult to execute on a long-term basis in a solo-taught classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-4">Focus of the current study</hd> <p>Effective teaching not only entails the use of classroom assessment (Stronge, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref37">43</reflink>]), but also the translation of results into actions that inform instruction (Mandinach, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). Despite the understanding that classroom assessments are essential to inform instruction, to date, no studies have been conducted that explores the decisions general educator's make from various classroom assessments to inform instruction for students with disabilities. Further, studies using co-teaching have only begun to examine co-teacher's perceptions of using assessment practices and making corresponding decisions (Brendle et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref39">6</reflink>]). More research is needed in the assessment and decision-making practices of co-teachers because the intent of co-teaching is to provide meaningful access and responsibilities of ascertaining that each student receives what they should. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to survey secondary (middle and high school) general educators (n = 126) to determine the classroom assessment practices they used and the types of classroom and student-specific instructional decisions made from those assessments, particularly for students with disabilities. We were also interested in exploring whether teachers who co-taught used different types of assessments and what decisions were made. The following questions guided this research:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What types of assessments or tools do secondary general education teachers commonly use in their classrooms, how frequently do they use them, and how useful do they perceive them to be in measuring student learning?</item> <p></p> <item> What decisions do teachers make from common assessments for students with disabilities?</item> <p></p> <item> When general educators engage in co-teaching are there differences in the assessments used and decisions made to address student learning?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0154480122-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154480122-6">Selecting schools and teacher participants</hd> <p>A stratified random sampling procedure was used to recruit teachers, with the intention of obtaining a representative sample of schools from across one large state in the Midwest. Stratified random sampling divides populations into subgroups known as "strata," random samples are then selected from each subgroup (Blair et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]). Stratified sampling was chosen to counter concern for overrepresentation within the sample of larger counties and school districts. The State Board of Education divides the state into six geographic regions. For purposes of this study, random sampling was conducted based on geographic region, and administrator approval of teachers engaging in solid assessment practices. Other factors such as, district-type (e.g., rural, urban, suburban) and SES were not considered in the sampling procedure. Across all regions 2,096 secondary schools (public middle and high schools) were identified. Due to existing rules and restrictions in conducting research in a large metropolitan district in one region, that district was not included, bringing the potential sample of schools down to a list of 1,519.</p> <p>There were two key criteria used in identifying the teacher participants once schools were selected. First, participants had to be secondary general educators certified in and teaching core curriculum (English language arts, reading, math, science, social studies, or a combination of content areas). Second, participants had to be recommended by a school administrator (e.g., superintendent, principal, assistant principal), as engaging in good assessment practice. Administrators were sought to find teachers who engaged in good assessment practices with a particular focus of teachers using the data to make informed decisions about student learning and growth. Table 1 provides data on teacher demographics.</p> <p>Table 1. Teacher demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Overall</td><td>Co-Teaching</td></tr><tr><td>Characteristics</td><td>η</td><td>%</td><td>η</td><td>%</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Male</td><td char=".">42</td><td char=".">33.3</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">35.0</td></tr><tr><td> Female</td><td char=".">84</td><td char=".">66.7</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">65.0</td></tr><tr><td>Content Area</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> English/Reading</td><td char=".">35</td><td char=".">27.8</td><td char=".">16</td><td char=".">26.7</td></tr><tr><td> Math</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">25.4</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">33.3</td></tr><tr><td> Science</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">25.4</td><td char=".">14</td><td char=".">23.3</td></tr><tr><td> Social Studies</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">17.5</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td></tr><tr><td> Multiple Content</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">5.0</td></tr><tr><td>Grade Level</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Middle School</td><td char=".">55</td><td char=".">43.7</td><td char=".">27</td><td char=".">45.0</td></tr><tr><td> High School</td><td char=".">71</td><td char=".">56.3</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">55.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total Years Teaching</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td char="."> 1-10</td><td char=".">57</td><td char=".">45.2</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">43.3</td></tr><tr><td char="."> 11-20</td><td char=".">41</td><td char=".">32.5</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">31.7</td></tr><tr><td char="."> > 20</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">20.6</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">25.0</td></tr><tr><td> No Response</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The 126 respondents (71 high school and 55 middle school teachers) represented 38 school districts from across the 6 regions, the largest number of participants were from suburban areas. Rural regions had low representation because generally there were far fewer schools and teachers from which to choose. The majority of participants (66.7%) were female, exhibiting varying levels of teaching experience (see Table 1). Content area representation was fairly equally distributed across science (26.0%), math (25.2%), English/reading (27.6%), and social studies (17.1%). Five teachers from school districts with small student populations reported teaching across multiple content areas (i.e., English/Social Studies). The majority of teachers held a master's degree (66.7%) and nearly half held a secondary certificate (49.6%) exclusively. Of the 126 teachers, 60 (47.6%) reported that they were currently or had in the previous school year engaged in co-teaching. Additional demographic data on co-teaching include the following: 34 (56.7%) reported co-teaching for a total of 3 years or less, 25 (41.6%) reported four or more years of co-teaching and one teacher did not respond to this question. Thirty-seven respondents (61.6%) reported co-teaching for 60 minutes or less per day, whereas 23 (38.4%) reported co-teaching between 61–210 minutes per day. In addition, 21 (35%) respondents reported teaching with the same co-teacher for one year, while 26 (48.3%) co-taught together for 2–4 years and 10 (16.7%) co-taught together for 5 or more years.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-7">Survey procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154480122-8">Survey development</hd> <p>The survey instrument, developed following a thorough review of the literature, focused on the use of assessment practices, decisions made with data gathered, and differences in use of assessment and decision-making practices in co-taught or solo-taught classrooms. In addition, three experts in assessment practices and co-teaching were sent a draft of the survey to review for overall design and validating content of the survey. Feedback was provided during two initial meetings where minor changes were implemented (e.g., providing examples of state-wide assessments, progress monitoring systems, and formative assessment). Next, the survey was transferred into the Qualtrics ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref41">36</reflink>]), a survey instrument platform. To test the utility and ease of the online survey, we conducted a pilot test to a group of seven secondary general education teachers. These teachers completed the online survey (either on their phone or computer), and completed a questionnaire commenting on whether questions or directions were ambiguous, misleading, or confusing. Feedback from the teachers led to rewording the definition of classroom assessment at the beginning of the survey. Last, the committee of experts once again examined and approved the survey to establish face and content validity, and examined internal reliability scores before disseminating the survey. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency for sections of the instrument yielded scores of 0.82 for assessment (42 items), 0.84 for decision-making (13 items) and 0.86 for co-teaching (17 items), indicating good internal consistency.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-9">Survey instrument</hd> <p>The first section contained a list of 21 assessments and tools used to gather student data, along with a corresponding description and examples for each. Examples of tools included: student response systems, rubrics, data from IEPs, individual conferences, observations and technology (e.g., online modules). For practical purposes, hereafter we will use the term assessment(s) to include all of the aforementioned practices. Teachers rated each assessment in two ways: (a) frequency of use (1 <emph>=</emph><emph>never used</emph> to 6 <emph>=</emph><emph>used daily</emph>) and (b) usefulness in evaluating student learning (1 <emph>=</emph><emph>not useful</emph> to 4 <emph>=</emph><emph>extremely useful</emph>).</p> <p>The second section of the survey focused on decision-making. In an open-ended question, teachers were asked to identify an assessment they used most frequently, describe how they used it and explain planning and/or instructional decisions they made from the data gathered for improving the performance of students with disabilities or struggling learners in their classroom. Next, participants were given 13 types of decisions (e.g., prioritize content, alter presentation of content, select strategies to adapt to the needs of learners) and asked to rate on a 4-point Likert (1 <emph>=</emph><emph>extremely unlikely</emph> to 4 <emph>=</emph><emph>extremely likely</emph>) the likelihood of making those decisions on a daily basis.</p> <p>The final section of the survey contained nine demographic questions, with a question at the end asking if they currently (or within the last year) engaged in co-teaching. For those who responded <emph>NO</emph> to co-teaching, the survey ended and they were thanked for their participation. Those who responded <emph>YES,</emph> were linked to the co-teaching section of the instrument, which consisted of general questions about their co-teaching and 12 questions about whether co-teaching helped them gauge student learning in different ways. Teachers who co-taught with more than one partner were asked to select one of their current or more recent co-taught classes. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 <emph>=</emph><emph>completely disagree</emph>, 4 <emph>=</emph><emph>completely agree</emph>). Teachers then rated the frequency with which they discussed (with their co-teaching partner) class-wide data, individual student data, behavior management, and adaptations of the curriculum for students with disabilities. Last, since perceived success of a co-teaching experience (as defined by effectiveness in providing instruction and supports) may influence co-teachers use of assessment and decision making in their classrooms, researchers had them rate their experience (1 = <emph>not at all successful</emph> to 10 = <emph>extremely successful</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-10">Survey dissemination</hd> <p>Upon receiving approval from the University Institutional Review Board, schools were randomly selected. Each school was given a unique number with a regional identifier. Using a random numbers generator, the researchers developed a table indicating the sequence with which each school from each region would be contacted. Attempts were made to contact the first school on the list from each region and if the attempt was not successful, the researcher moved to the next school on the contact list until at least 50 schools were contacted from each region. By the end of this process a total of 274 schools were contacted with 126 respondents fully completing the survey.</p> <p>The website for each selected school was reviewed to identify potential teacher participants who might fit the criteria for content area taught. An email sent to the school administrator explained the purpose of the study and the criteria for teacher participation. The email also provided a list of potential participants drawn from their school website. Non-respondents received a follow-up email and if no response followed the second contact, the administrator from the next school on the list in that region was contacted using the same process. Administrators who did not respond to the initial contact were not given access to the survey and therefore were not included in the calculation of response rate.</p> <p>While it originally was intended that the researcher would send surveys directly to teachers, many administrators insisted on contacting teachers themselves. For that reason, it was determined that administrators had to be given the option of either responding to the researchers' email by highlighting teachers who demonstrated good assessment practices in the list provided or by forwarding the invitation and survey link directly to those types of teachers. If administrators identified the teachers for the researcher to contact, the survey was distributed via an email invitation. Follow-up emails were sent to teachers on the 5<sups>th</sups> and 12<sups>th</sups> days after initial distribution. When the administrator chose to send the link, the researchers had no way of verifying: a) if the survey actually was passed along, b) the actual number of teachers who received the survey, and c) if administrators forwarded follow-up emails.</p> <p>Of the 1,519 qualifying middle and high schools in the state, 274 schools were randomly selected, approximately 40 from each region. This equates to roughly 18% of all schools within the population that met the criteria being selected for participation. After multiple contacts, 40 administrators responded. Twenty-two administrators (55%) identified teachers as engaging in good practice and requested the researcher send the link directly to those teachers (n = 168). Eighteen administrators (45%) forwarded the link to teachers. The administrators from those 18 schools had the potential of enlisting 328 teachers on the basis of teaching area alone, but again with a request to send the link only to those engaged in good assessment practice, it is not known how many teachers actually received the link from the administrator. Therefore, there was no way of calculating a true response rate because administrators did not notify the researcher as to how many teachers received the link. Although it was impossible to calculate a true response rate, the response rate when researchers sent the link was 43.4% (73 out of 168), and the response rate when the administrator sent the link 16.2% (53 out of potential 328). This response rate may in fact be much higher if all 328 were not given the link, but we have no way of knowing. In all, 126 teachers completed all sections of the survey. The combined response rate was 29.8%. This rate was within range suggested by Shih and Fan ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref42">41</reflink>]) meta-analysis of mail and web-based survey response rate.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-11">Data analysis</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics were used to examine the frequency of use and perceived usefulness of the 22 assessments. Inferential statistics were applied for usefulness items. Because the assumption of normality was violated, Mann-Whitney U was used to calculate differences in mean ratings of usefulness for each assessment for co-teaching membership. Descriptive statistics also were used for the 13 Likert-type instructional decision questions and the 17 co-teaching Likert-type questions.</p> <p>Qualitative data on the most frequently used assessment and decisions made from that assessment for improving the performance of students with disabilities were analyzed using an open coding process. In this coding procedure, decisions were grouped by assessment type. Two coders independently reviewed the decisions under each assessment and divided responses into themes. Themes were reviewed under each category to build final consensus by decisions made for each assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0154480122-13">Frequency and usefulness of assessments</hd> <p>Overall, secondary teachers (n = 126) reported they use three common assessments on a daily or weekly basis: questioning techniques (97.6%), homework (91.3%), and teacher-created tests (78.6%). Table 2 provides ratings on the frequency of use of the 21 assessments. Majority of assessments reported only being used annually or never included: state-wide tests (77.4%), progress monitoring (63.8%), student portfolio (61.3%), technology (54.4%), and commercially-prepared tests (45.6%). Assessments used on a weekly or daily basis include: questioning techniques (97.6%), homework (91.3%), teacher-created tests (78.6%), entrance/exit slips (52.8%), observations (51.6%), and data from IEPs (44.8%). Other assessments stood out for use on a quarterly or monthly basis such as group (74.4%) or individual (69.1%) projects, student self-assessments (62.8%), pretests (58.8%), peer evaluations (56.0%), rubrics (53.1%), essays (51.2%), and individual conferences (49.2%). Behavior assessments (e.g., behavior checklists and rating scales) appeared to be fairly equally distributed across the three time periods at about 30%.</p> <p>Table 2. Percentage of frequency of use to gauge student learning.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Never or Annually</td><td>Quarterly or Monthly</td><td>Weekly or Daily</td></tr><tr><td>Assessments/Tools</td><td>CT</td><td>Solo</td><td>Comb.</td><td>CT</td><td>Solo</td><td>Comb.</td><td>Solo</td><td>Comb.</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>School-Wide Tests</td><td char=".">35.5</td><td char=".">41.9</td><td char=".">77.4</td><td char=".">12.9</td><td char=".">8.9</td><td char=".">21.8</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Progress Monitoring</td><td char=".">31.5</td><td char=".">32.3</td><td char=".">63.8</td><td char=".">12.9</td><td char=".">16.9</td><td char=".">29.8</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">6.4</td></tr><tr><td>Commercially Tests</td><td char=".">21.6</td><td char=".">24.0</td><td char=".">45.6</td><td char=".">18.4</td><td char=".">20.8</td><td char=".">39.2</td><td char=".">8.0</td><td char=".">15.2</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher Created Tests</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">7.9</td><td char=".">12.7</td><td char=".">20.6</td><td char=".">39.7</td><td char=".">78.6</td></tr><tr><td>Student Portfolio</td><td char=".">23.5</td><td char=".">37.8</td><td char=".">61.3</td><td char=".">17.6</td><td char=".">12.6</td><td char=".">30.2</td><td char=".">5.0</td><td char=".">8.4</td></tr><tr><td>Group Projects</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">8.8</td><td char=".">16.0</td><td char=".">35.2</td><td char=".">39.2</td><td char=".">74.4</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">9.6</td></tr><tr><td>Individual Projects</td><td char=".">9.5</td><td char=".">7.1</td><td char=".">16.6</td><td char=".">28.6</td><td char=".">40.5</td><td char=".">69.1</td><td char=".">4.8</td><td char=".">14.3</td></tr><tr><td>Essay</td><td char=".">13.8</td><td char=".">14.6</td><td char=".">28.4</td><td char=".">21.1</td><td char=".">30.1</td><td char=".">51.2</td><td char=".">8.1</td><td char=".">20.3</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td char=".">23.2</td><td char=".">31.2</td><td char=".">54.4</td><td char=".">22.4</td><td char=".">20.0</td><td char=".">42.4</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Pretests</td><td char=".">14.5</td><td char=".">21.0</td><td char=".">35.5</td><td char=".">30.6</td><td char=".">28.2</td><td char=".">58.8</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">5.6</td></tr><tr><td>Entrance/Exit Slips</td><td char=".">11.2</td><td char=".">12.8</td><td char=".">24.0</td><td char=".">6.4</td><td char=".">16.8</td><td char=".">23.2</td><td char=".">23.2</td><td char=".">52.8</td></tr><tr><td>Homework</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">5.6</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">3.2</td><td char=".">50.0</td><td char=".">91.3</td></tr><tr><td>Individual Conferences</td><td char=".">13.7</td><td char=".">13.7</td><td char=".">27.4</td><td char=".">20.2</td><td char=".">29.0</td><td char=".">49.2</td><td char=".">9.7</td><td char=".">23.4</td></tr><tr><td>Student Response Systems</td><td char=".">12.1</td><td char=".">8.1</td><td char=".">20.2</td><td char=".">6.5</td><td char=".">10.5</td><td char=".">17.0</td><td char=".">34.7</td><td char=".">62.9</td></tr><tr><td>Rubrics</td><td char=".">4.0</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">6.4</td><td char=".">19.0</td><td char=".">34.1</td><td char=".">53.1</td><td char=".">15.9</td><td char=".">40.5</td></tr><tr><td>Questioning Techniques</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">51.2</td><td char=".">97.6</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Evaluations</td><td char=".">17.6</td><td char=".">15.2</td><td char=".">33.1</td><td char=".">25.6</td><td char=".">30.4</td><td char=".">56.0</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">11.2</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Assessments</td><td char=".">9.1</td><td char=".">8.3</td><td char=".">17.4</td><td char=".">28.1</td><td char=".">34.7</td><td char=".">62.8</td><td char=".">9.1</td><td char=".">19.8</td></tr><tr><td>Behavior Assessments</td><td char=".">21.6</td><td char=".">16.0</td><td char=".">37.6</td><td char=".">9.6</td><td char=".">23.2</td><td char=".">32.8</td><td char=".">13.6</td><td char=".">29.6</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td char=".">9.0</td><td char=".">15.6</td><td char=".">24.6</td><td char=".">11.5</td><td char=".">12.3</td><td char=".">23.8</td><td char=".">26.2</td><td char=".">51.6</td></tr><tr><td>Data from IEPs</td><td char=".">9.6</td><td char=".">18.4</td><td char=".">28.0</td><td char=".">15.2</td><td char=".">12.0</td><td char=".">27.2</td><td char=".">22.4</td><td char=".">44.8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. CT = co-taught; Solo = solo-taught; Comb. = co-taught and solo-taught combined.</p> <p>Results of data across the groups of teachers (co-taught and solo-taught) were fairly similar. Both groups of teachers reported using questioning techniques and homework on a daily and/or weekly basis as their main assessments, although teachers in solo classrooms reported using these assessments slightly more frequently. Co-teachers reported using entrance/exit slips and rubrics slightly more frequently on a weekly basis.</p> <p>In rating the usefulness of assessments for gauging student learning (see Table 3), co-teachers and solo-teachers generally showed similarities in results with rating teacher-created tests (<emph>M</emph> = 3.86) and questioning techniques (<emph>M</emph> = 3.70) as extremely useful in gauging student learning. Other assessments such as rubrics (<emph>M</emph> = 3.41), individual conferences (<emph>M</emph> = 3.32) exit slips (<emph>M</emph> = 3.21), and student response systems (<emph>M</emph> = 3.13) were reported as being moderately useful, while state-wide assessments (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96) and progress monitoring (<emph>M</emph> = 2.17) were reported as least useful for gauging learning.</p> <p>Table 3. Teachers rating of usefulness of assessments and tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Not Useful</td><td>Slightly Useful</td><td>Moderately Useful</td><td>Extremely Useful</td><td>CT</td><td>Solo</td></tr><tr><td>Assessments/Tools</td><td>*Combined</td><td>*Combined</td><td>*Combined</td><td>*Combined</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>School-Wide Tests</td><td char=".">26.2</td><td char=".">47.6</td><td char=".">22.2</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">1.97</td><td char=".">0.72</td><td char=".">1.95</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>Progress Monitoring</td><td char=".">27.0</td><td char=".">18.2</td><td char=".">26.2</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">2.10</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">2.24</td><td char=".">1.02</td></tr><tr><td>Commercially Tests</td><td char=".">19.8</td><td char=".">12.7</td><td char=".">42.8</td><td char=".">14.3</td><td char=".">2.44</td><td char=".">1.03</td><td char=".">2.71</td><td char=".">0.97</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher-Created Tests</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">14.2</td><td char=".">84.1</td><td char=".">3.86</td><td char=".">0.35</td><td char=".">3.85</td><td char=".">0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Student Portfolio</td><td char=".">12.6</td><td char=".">10.3</td><td char=".">34.9</td><td char=".">17.4</td><td char=".">2.70</td><td char=".">1.01</td><td char=".">2.82</td><td char=".">0.99</td></tr><tr><td>Group Projects</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">23.0</td><td char=".">44.4</td><td char=".">29.4</td><td char=".">3.12</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">2.97</td><td char=".">0.76</td></tr><tr><td>Individual Projects</td><td char=".">0.8</td><td char=".">10.4</td><td char=".">36.5</td><td char=".">47.6</td><td char=".">3.33</td><td char=".">0.76</td><td char=".">3.42</td><td char=".">0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Essay</td><td char=".">6.4</td><td char=".">9.5</td><td char=".">26.2</td><td char=".">46.8</td><td char=".">3.28</td><td char=".">0.95</td><td char=".">3.27</td><td char=".">0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td char=".">11.1</td><td char=".">19.8</td><td char=".">39.7</td><td char=".">14.3</td><td char=".">2.75</td><td char=".">1.00</td><td char=".">2.61</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr><tr><td>Pretests</td><td char=".">11.1</td><td char=".">23.0</td><td char=".">27.8</td><td char=".">30.2</td><td char=".">2.93</td><td char=".">1.10</td><td char=".">2.75</td><td char=".">0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Entrance/Exit Slips</td><td char=".">11.9</td><td char=".">5.6</td><td char=".">26.2</td><td char=".">47.6</td><td char=".">3.27</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">3.14</td><td char=".">1.06</td></tr><tr><td>Homework</td><td char=".">6.4</td><td char=".">12.7</td><td char=".">39.7</td><td char=".">40.4</td><td char=".">3.08</td><td char=".">0.96</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">0.80</td></tr><tr><td>Individual Conferences</td><td char=".">3.2</td><td char=".">9.6</td><td char=".">34.1</td><td char=".">44.4</td><td char=".">3.40</td><td char=".">0.77</td><td char=".">3.24</td><td char=".">0.82</td></tr><tr><td>Student Response Systems</td><td char=".">8.7</td><td char=".">11.9</td><td char=".">31.0</td><td char=".">42.1</td><td char=".">3.00</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Rubrics</td><td char=".">1.6</td><td char=".">8.8</td><td char=".">34.9</td><td char=".">51.6</td><td char=".">3.40</td><td char=".">0.75</td><td char=".">3.42</td><td char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td>Questioning Techniques</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">4.8</td><td char=".">20.6</td><td char=".">73.0</td><td char=".">3.78</td><td char=".">0.50</td><td char=".">3.62</td><td char=".">0.60</td></tr><tr><td>Peer Evaluations</td><td char=".">8.8</td><td char=".">40.5</td><td char=".">38.1</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">2.46</td><td char=".">0.86</td><td char=".">2.47</td><td char=".">0.69</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Assessments</td><td char=".">2.4</td><td char=".">23.8</td><td char=".">46.0</td><td char=".">19.8</td><td char=".">2.93</td><td char=".">0.85</td><td char=".">2.88</td><td char=".">0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Behavior Assessments</td><td char=".">12.6</td><td char=".">23.8</td><td char=".">34.1</td><td char=".">15.0</td><td char=".">2.61</td><td char=".">1.02</td><td char=".">2.59</td><td char=".">0.89</td></tr><tr><td>Observations</td><td char=".">8.0</td><td char=".">23.0</td><td char=".">34.9</td><td char=".">27.8</td><td char=".">2.91</td><td char=".">0.99</td><td char=".">2.86</td><td char=".">0.90</td></tr><tr><td>Data from IEPs</td><td char=".">7.2</td><td char=".">30.2</td><td char=".">32.5</td><td char=".">27.8</td><td char=".">2.85</td><td char=".">0.98</td><td char=".">2.81</td><td char=".">0.89</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note.</emph> CT = co-taught; Solo = solo-taught.</item> <item>3 Co-taught and solo-taught combined; Some rows do not add to 100% due to no response for certain items.</item> </ulist> <p>Although Mann-Whitney U test confirmed no statistically significant differences between co-teachers and solo-teachers across the reporting of usefulness of assessments, there were slight mean differences between assessments rated as extremely and moderately useful. For instance, teachers who co-taught rated questioning techniques (<emph>M</emph> = 3.78) and individual conferencing (<emph>M</emph> = 3.40) higher than solo-taught teachers (<emph>M</emph> = 3.62) and (<emph>M</emph> = 2.24), respectively, indicating that they found them more useful in gauging student learning than those who did not co-teach. Solo-taught teachers rated individual projects (<emph>M</emph> = 3.42), student response systems (<emph>M</emph> = 3.25) and student portfolios (<emph>M</emph> = 2.82) as slightly more useful in gauging student learning than co-teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-14">Decision-making for students with disabilities</hd> <p>Teachers selected the assessments they used most frequently in their classroom to gauge student learning and described the planning and instructional decisions made to improve the performance of students with disabilities or struggling learners in their classroom. In analyzing the qualitative data, the assessments selected most often were: <emph>teacher-created tests</emph> (35%), <emph>entrance/exit slips</emph> (16%), <emph>questioning techniques</emph> (15%), <emph>homework</emph> (9%), and <emph>student response systems</emph> (7%). Responses for the remaining 23 teachers (18%) were distributed across the remaining 11 assessments. In general, teachers described using data from these assessments to make decisions regarding planning, accommodations, collaboration (with other teachers and professionals, and/or students) and grouping arrangements. Teachers described adjusting, developing, and modifying instruction with strategies such as shortening assignments, adjusting questions, simplifying directions, or re-teaching content.</p> <p>More specifically, teachers used data from teacher-created tests to check for understanding, to determine whether students retained content taught, or if re-teaching of content was needed. Data gathered from questioning techniques was used to verify student comprehension and adjust instruction. Decisions made from homework were related to assessing student understanding of previously taught concepts and instructional or curricular improvements. Teachers used student response systems to make decisions regarding the immediacy of students' response and to identify potential gaps for determining whether instruction could move on. Last, decisions from entrance/exit slips related to determining who needed additional help, and locating student's misconceptions of the material.</p> <p>Many decisions were focused on accommodations that may have coincided with requirements in IEPs like extended time, modifying tests and quizzes, and extra support such as resource instruction outside the classroom. For example, one math teacher noted, "I work closely with my inclusion teacher in making decisions for helping these students. We use resource time on a daily basis for students eligible for this accommodation". Other teachers created their own accommodations in working with students with disabilities. For example, one teacher stated, "I usually develop a study guide that also streamlines the concepts in the order that we've learned them and both the study guide and test parallel the way we discussed and acquired the information."</p> <p>The final set of questions in this section was the 13 items related to decision making. The majority of respondents (80% or more) were likely or extremely likely to make <emph>daily decisions</emph> about: determining if students are retaining content (98%), gauging class progress toward goals (98%), evaluating student understanding (97%), prioritizing content (95%), altering content (94%), determining class-wide strengths/weaknesses (94%), redesigning assignments (94%), selecting strategies to accommodate learners (91%), determining individual strengths and weaknesses (90%), and adapting instruction (82.5%). Only three decisions were noted as not being made on a daily basis: using data to form instructional groups (62%), setting individual learning goals (59%), and assigning a grade or score (55%).</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-15">Influences of co-teaching on assessment and decision making</hd> <p>Those engaged in co-teaching were asked to reflect on their current or most recent co-taught classes and respond to 12 assessment and decision-making items (see Table 4) regarding whether they believed they were more effective as a result of those experiences. On all 12 items mean ratings were at or above a 3.2 (on a scale of 1 to 4), with more than 80% of co-teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 60) indicating that they agreed or completely agreed that they were more effective as a result of co-teaching. These general educators felt they were more effective in recognizing students who did not understand the material, they provided more specific feedback to students, and they increased their individual attention to students with disabilities.</p> <p>Table 4. Co-teacher perceptions in being more effective with these decisions as a result of co-teaching.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Completely Disagree</td><td>Disagree</td><td>Agree</td><td>Completely Agree</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td><italic>n</italic></td><td><italic>%</italic></td><td /><td /></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Designing activities that allow students to demonstrate understanding</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">10.0</td><td char=".">39</td><td char=".">65.0</td><td char=".">15</td><td char=".">25.0</td><td char=".">3.15</td><td char=".">0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Using flexible instructional groupings based on performance data</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">55.0</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">33.3</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">0.64</td></tr><tr><td>Providing students with specific feedback on assignments</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">48.3</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">40.0</td><td char=".">3.28</td><td char=".">0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Using different types of assessments to gauge student learning</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">53.3</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">35.0</td><td char=".">3.23</td><td char=".">0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluating the effectiveness of adaptations for students with disabilities</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.7</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">8.3</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">56.7</td><td char=".">20</td><td char=".">33.3</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">0.67</td></tr><tr><td>Deciding how to adjust or adapt instruction for future lessons</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">8.3</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">55.0</td><td char=".">22</td><td char=".">36.7</td><td char=".">3.28</td><td char=".">0.61</td></tr><tr><td>Increasing individual attention to students with disabilities</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">10.0</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">55.0</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">35.0</td><td char=".">3.25</td><td char=".">0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Recognizing quickly which students are not understanding the material</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">13.3</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">43.3</td><td char=".">26</td><td char=".">43.3</td><td char=".">3.30</td><td char=".">0.70</td></tr><tr><td>Making decisions about how to structure the classroom</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td><td char=".">32</td><td char=".">53.3</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">35.0</td><td char=".">3.23</td><td char=".">0.65</td></tr><tr><td>Implementing a variety of classroom management strategies</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">7</td><td char=".">11.7</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">56.7</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">31.7</td><td char=".">3.20</td><td char=".">0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Locating and correcting student errors more quickly</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.7</td><td char=".">8</td><td char=".">13.3</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">46.7</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">38.3</td><td char=".">3.22</td><td char=".">0.74</td></tr><tr><td>Making decisions about how to intervene for students with disabilities</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0.0</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">10.0</td><td char=".">31</td><td char=".">51.7</td><td char=".">23</td><td char=".">38.3</td><td char=".">3.28</td><td char=".">0.64</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In terms of decision making, some co-teachers (23.3%) reported never setting aside time to discuss class-wide student data, but most reported discussing classroom and behavior management and accommodations (73%) and individual student performance (55%) on a daily or weekly basis. Last, most of these teachers (76.7%) rated the success of their co-teaching experience at a level of 7 or above on a scale 1–10 (1 = not at all successful and 10 = extremely successful). Generally, those who rated their experience at a level less than 5 did not feel they were more effective in gauging student learning as a result of co-teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Assessments, in and of themselves, do not improve students learning (Mandinach, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). Rather, careful interpretation and translation of assessment data into actionable events to transform teaching and inform instruction are necessary for teachers to make informed decisions to improve practice (Means et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref44">30</reflink>]). Teachers who are skilled in using assessments for gauging student learning are intentional in diversifying the types of assessments and have a better understanding of how results can be used to obtain a more complete picture of student learning and performance (Obiakor et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]). Decision-making should not be taken lightly; the more evidence gathered, the more precise teachers can be in designing and implementing instruction and solving problems as they occur.</p> <p>Although assessment practices are commonplace, this study was designed to explore how general educators assessed student learning and made decisions with the data gleaned. A second element to this study was to examine general educators' perceptions of the influence co-teaching had on the use of assessments and the decisions made for instruction and students. General educators' use of assessment practices has not been fully explored, particularly examining those practices in co-teaching (Conderman & Hedin, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]). Based on the findings from this study, general education teachers resorted to the most familiar assessments (e.g., questioning techniques, homework, teacher-created tests), rather that applying other less familiar assessments such as peer evaluations, conferencing, self-assessments and observations (Frey & Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref47">19</reflink>]; Ohlsen, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref48">34</reflink>]). Those who co-taught were found to use exit slips, rubrics and behavioral assessments more frequently. This finding seems to make sense considering rubrics and behavioral assessments require time to develop or expertise to administer. It was interesting to note that teachers did not find progress monitoring measures particularly useful considering it is a critical tool in the identification of struggling learners within a Response to Intervention framework (Catts et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]), although additional research is needed on how progress monitoring is or can be useful at the secondary level.</p> <p>This study examined a variety of different assessments including those that may not naturally be in a teacher's toolbox. The use of an array of measures presented here is something that has not been carefully examined in the literature. Unique to this study is the development of a more varied and comprehensive list of assessments that can be used to gauge student learning, extending well beyond traditional measures (e.g., teacher-made tests, homework) to include group and individual projects, exit slips, questioning techniques and rubrics. Findings indicated that assessments not overtly documented in the general education literature were being used by teachers in this study, including: student response systems, student self-assessments, individual conferences, behavioral assessments, observations, and data from IEPs. Perhaps these teachers, who were nominated as having effective classroom assessment practices, were using more varied options to come to different or newer understandings of student performance and behavior.</p> <p>Findings indicate that general education teachers relied heavily on special education teachers' expertise for assisting and working with students with disabilities. For those who engaged in co-teaching, it would appear that having two teachers available for assessment and collaborative decision-making may offer an advantage to increase student learning by finding struggling learners earlier and quickly intervening.</p> <p>The second research question addressed the types of instructional decisions made based on assessment data. General educators indicated they were taking on the responsibility for providing support for students with disabilities with 82% likely or extremely likely to make decisions around adapting instruction. There were three decisions that were reported as likely made on a daily basis: evaluating student understanding of the content, determining if students retained the content, and prioritizing content to be delivered. Although not surprising, teachers were less likely on a daily basis to make decisions on assigning a letter grade or score or setting individual learning goals and objectives. This finding supports previous research that there is variation in how teachers use grades as a decision point to inform practice (McMillan, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]). However, what was surprising was that teachers did not use results to make decisions about different grouping arrangements regardless of co-teaching membership, suggesting that these teachers may have used more whole class instruction or their intentionality of grouping students was not based on assessment data.</p> <p>As noted above, 82% of teachers reported making daily decisions around adapting instruction for individual students. Qualitative data indicated that while general education teachers were thinking about the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms, they tended to rely on the support of special education teachers to assist in their adaptations: "I discuss [assessments] with my special education teacher. Together, we come up with a plan" (Reading teacher). "Decisions are made with the help of the special educator's expertise" (Math teacher). Although collaboration is necessary, general education teachers should feel comfortable in providing and selecting adaptations without feeling they must consult with the special education teacher as 62.7% of students with disabilities are taught in general education classrooms for 80% or more of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref51">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>The final research question addressed whether general educators who engaged in co-teaching reported differences in the use of classroom assessments and the application of data to make instructional decisions. Descriptively, there were few differences on the frequency with which teachers used different types of assessments. The remaining assessments were fairly consistent in the frequency of use across co-taught and solo-taught teachers. Teachers were not aware of co-teaching questions until the final section of the survey. This was done to avoid influencing their responses to the previous sections. With respect to usefulness of the assessments, there were no statistically significant differences.</p> <p>Having two professionals working together in the same classroom may provide more frequent opportunities to apply a variety of assessments to gauge student learning. The majority of co-teachers agreed or completely agreed that they were more effective in designing activities, adapting and adjusting instruction, and increasing individual attention in their co-taught classrooms. Furthermore, the majority rated their co-teaching experience as successful, which has direct implications for how effective teachers use instructional strategies such as flexible groupings, providing increased individual attention to students with disabilities, and locating student errors more quickly. It can also offer unique opportunities to look differently at behavior management, planning and instruction, and consider how to determine the specialized needs of groups and individuals in their classrooms (Friend & Cook, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because teachers were recommended by their principals as skilled in using assessments, it is not surprising that a variety of assessments were used regardless of co-teaching membership. The strength of co-teaching is having opportunities to discuss data and create strategies and interventions for students in their classroom. An interesting finding was that about 25% of co-teachers reported never setting-aside time to discuss class-wide student data, but again, the majority of respondents did not consider progress monitoring data (which can offer a view of class performance) as very useful. Further a lack of time to discuss planning and other day-to-day decisions often is cited as a barrier to effective co-teaching (Bryant Davis et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]). Based on results from this study, it is important to consider what occurs when teachers are engage in co-teaching and co-planning.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-17">Limitations</hd> <p>Findings from this study are limited by the nature of self-reported data. It is not possible to know whether survey responses reflected actual practice. Furthermore, while steps were taken to clarify of items on the survey for common understanding, it is difficult to know how items were interpreted. For example, districts use different assessment systems for school-wide benchmarking or progress monitoring and these tools differ from statewide assessments. Results indicated that 19.5% reported using statewide assessments on a quarterly basis which could point to some confusion over state-wide versus district-wide assessment.</p> <p>Limitations of the sampling method also should be noted. Administrators were asked to identify teachers who engaged in good assessment practice, but we had no guarantee that those who responded actually were skilled in using those practices. Administrators may not be completely aware of practices teachers used, particularly in larger high school settings. In addition, asking administrators to identify teachers who engage in good assessment practices for participation in the survey reduced the overall representation of teacher participation in this study. Further, because some administrators wanted to contact teachers directly without involving the researchers, there was difficulty in calculating a true response rate. We had no assurances that administrators actually forwarded the survey link, nor did researchers know how many teachers they selected to receive the links.</p> <p>A final limitation pertains to comparisons of teachers engaging or not engaging in co-teaching, based on the frequency and usefulness of assessments. The co-teaching questions came at the end of the survey. We do not know if teachers who engaged in co-teaching were considering or reflecting solely on assessment practices used in their co-taught classrooms when completing the first three sections of the survey.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-18">Implications and future research</hd> <p>This study was a preliminary exploration into general educators use of assessments in their classroom. Significant additional research is needed on this topic to fully understand how teachers can use the results from a variety of assessments to make different types of decisions to improve student learning. When teachers are skilled in assessment practice and understand how to use the data to plan, adapt, and adjust instruction while providing fluid movement through the curriculum then student outcomes are improved.</p> <p>Further, this study also has direct implications for teacher education programs, as preservice teachers should have opportunities to discuss and practice using various types of assessments and making instructional decisions for individuals and groups of students based on data gathered. Addressing assessment literacy in teacher education programs is paramount in helping preservice teachers decide what is and is not working for students (Xu & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref54">46</reflink>]). Unfortunately, some programs offer only one course in assessment while other programs do not have any course requirements (Popham, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref55">35</reflink>]) and it is unclear how assessment practice might be interweaved through a program. Teachers should enter the classroom with a broad understanding of the types of assessments they can use to gather data to help students succeed both academically and behaviorally. They also need to understand how continuous use of data from various assessments assists them in making more informed decisions.</p> <p>Decision-making is a multi-faceted skill in which teachers are constantly engaged. The results from this study indicate that many student-specific decisions such as reteaching or checking for understanding were done quite often. More research is needed to investigate how the decisions teachers make are impacting student learning and improving teaching practice. Further, examining types of or differences in decisions made about students with disabilities should be explored further, particularly when examining co-taught and solo-taught classrooms. Currently, gaps still exist in determining if students experience achievement gains as a result of co-teaching (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]), but in relation to assessment additional research is needed that investigate: a) how co-teachers can maximize the opportunities afforded when two professionals work together to gather evidence of student learning, b) design individual and class-wide interventions that increase learning, and c) use results from a variety of assessments to determine the effectiveness of their instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0154480122-19">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study provides a preliminary glimpse into a broad scope of assessment practices that might be used in secondary schools and supports the argument that those practices coupled with instructional decision-making and backed by reliable evidence requires more attention. There is little data about the range of assessment practices teachers use and the decisions teachers make from data gathered. It is critical to gather these data because teachers are evaluated in part on their contributions to student growth (Goe & Holdheide, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]). Despite the variety of assessment and tools available, teachers often resort to more common assessments in both co-taught and solo-taught classrooms. Assessment and decision-making must be viewed as a collaborative rather than an isolated endeavor where teachers can explore new assessment practices and generate a plethora of decisions based on student need.</p> <ref id="AN0154480122-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), & National Education Association (NEA). (1990). Standards for teacher competence in education assessment of students. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9 (4), 30 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1990.tb00391.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Airola, D. T., & Dunn, K. E. (2011). Oregon DATA project final evaluation report. Next Level Evaluation, Inc., Fayetteville, AR. https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl:13336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25 (6), 551 – 575. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2018.1441807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blair, J., Czaja, R. F., & Blair, E. A. (2013). Designing surveys: A guide to decisions and procedures (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brawand, A., & King-Sears, M. E. (2017). Maximizing PEDAGOGY for secondary co-teachers. Support for Learning, 32 (3), 216 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref39" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brendle, J., Lock, R., & Piazza, K. (2017). A study of co-teaching identifying effective implementation strategies. International Journal of Special Education, 32 (3), 538 – 550.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref26" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., Mardinach, E., & Wexler, D. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10 (3), 241 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1003_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bryant Davis, K. E., Dieker, L., Pearl, C., & Kirkpatrick, R. M. (2012). Planning in the middle: Co-planning between general and special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 22 (3), 208 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2012.706561</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., Liu, Y. S., & Bontempo, D. E. (2015). Early identification of reading disabilities within an RTI framework. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48 (3), 281 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413498115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students' learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (Jespar), 10 (3), 309 – 332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr1003_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conderman, G., & Hedin, L. (2012). Classroom assessments that inform instruction. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48 (4), 162 – 168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2012.733964</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B., McDuffie-Landrum, K. A., Oshita, L., & Cothren Cook, S. (2011). Co-teaching for students with disabilities: A critical analysis of empirical literature. In J. Kaufmann & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 147 – 159). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2015). Teachers' use of assessment data to inform instruction: Lessons from the past and prospects for the future. Teachers College Record, 117 (4), 1 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Brey, C., Musu, L., McFarland, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Diliberti, M., Zhang, A., Branstetter, C., & Wang, X. (2019). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2018 (NCES 2019–038). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved [7/14/20] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019038.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, K. E., Airola, D. T., Lo, W. J., & Garrison, M. (2013). What teacher's think about what they can do with data: Development and validation of the data driven decision-making efficacy and anxiety inventory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (1), 87 – 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Endrew, F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Even, R. (2005). Using assessment to inform instructional decisions: How hard can it be? Mathematics Education Research Journal, 17 (3), 45 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). Of 2015, Pub. L. 114–95, 129 STAT. 1802.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frey, B. B., & Schmitt, V. L. (2010). Teachers' classroom assessment practices. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5 (3), 107 – 117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2016). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals. Pearson Education, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goe, L., & Holdheide, L. (2011). Measuring teachers' contributions to student learning growth for nontested grades and subjects [Policy brief]. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/MeasuringTeachersContributions.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009–4067). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <ulink href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U. S. C. § 1401 et seq. (2004).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jung, P.-G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33 (3), 144 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12172</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kowalski, T., & Lasley, T. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of data-based decision making in education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47 (2), 71 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (OP–170). RAND Corporation. https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional%5fpapers/OP170.html">www.rand.org/pubs/occasional%5fpapers/OP170.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan, J. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20 (1), 20 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00055.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., Chen, E., DeBarger, A., & Padilla, C. (2011). Teachers' ability to use data to inform instruction: Challenges and supports. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516494.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murawski, W. W., & Hughes, C. E. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53 (4), 267 – 277. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22 (5), 258 – 267. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. (2012). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35 (3), 477 – 490. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ohlsen, M. T. (2007). Classroom assessment practices of secondary school members of NCTM. American Secondary Education, 36 (1), 4 – 14. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/41406094">www.jstor.org/stable/41406094</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popham, W. J. (2011). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qualtrics. (2018). Provo, Utah, USE: Qualtrics. https://<ulink href="http://www.qualtrics.com">www.qualtrics.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ratminingsih, N. M., Artini, L. P., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2017). Incorporating self and peer assessment in reflective teaching practices. International Journal of Instruction, 10 (4), 165 – 184. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10410a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RTI Action Network. (2020, April). What is RTI? <ulink href="http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti">http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Witmer, S. (2017). Assessment in special and inclusive education. (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73 (4), 392 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shih, T., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta- analysis. Field Methods, 20 (3), 249 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X08317085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49 (5), 498 – 510. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21606</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Dear Colleague Letter on Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. <ulink href="http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf">http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Thirty-ninth anuual report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2017/parts-b-c/39th-arc-for-idea.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A reconceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Quentin M. Wherfel; Lisa Monda-Amaya and James G. Shriner</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Quentin M. Wherfel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education, Counseling, and Leadership at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. His current research focuses on access to the general education curriculum, assessment and decision-making practices, collaboration, and interventions and supports for students with disabilities.</p> <p>Dr. Lisa Monda-Amaya is the Interim Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a Professor in the Department of Special Education. Her research interests are in the areas of teacher education, collaboration and strategies for preparing general education teachers to work with students with disabilities. Currently she serves as president of the Higher Education Consortium in Special Education. Dr. Monda-Amaya has received numerous campus and college awards for teaching and service during her tenure at Illinois.</p> <p>James G. Shriner is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His work includes research on the effects of federal and state education policies and priorities on students with disabilities' educational services. With support from Institute of Education Sciences grants (R324J06002; R324A120081) and from the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), he created and developed the IEP Quality Tutorial. The online Tutorial includes decision-making supports for IEP teams to prioritize and plan instructional goals for students' academic and behavioral needs. Shriner serves on several state and national advisory committees including the Stakeholder Advisory Group of the National Center on Educational Outcomes. He is coeditor of the Journal of Disability Policy Studies.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1326519
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: General Education Teacher Practices: Assessment, Decision-Making and the Influence of Co-Teaching
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wherfel%2C+Quentin+M%2E%22">Wherfel, Quentin M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Monda-Amaya%2C+Lisa%22">Monda-Amaya, Lisa</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shriner%2C+James+G%2E%22">Shriner, James G.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Preventing+School+Failure%22"><i>Preventing School Failure</i></searchLink>. 2022 66(1):42-51.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Made+Tests%22">Teacher Made Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questioning+Techniques%22">Questioning Techniques</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individualized+Instruction%22">Individualized Instruction</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1045988X.2021.1934650
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1045-988X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current emphasis on data-based decision-making ties discussions of accountability, school improvement and educational reform to the notion that gathering and using evidence addresses questions of rigor in our schools and classrooms. The purpose of this research was to survey secondary (middle and high school) general educators (n = 126) to determine which assessments and tools they used most frequently and the types of classroom and student-specific instructional decisions they made from those assessments, particularly for students with disabilities. In addition, comparisons were made to determine if responses differed for general educators engaged in co-teaching. Results indicated that assessments used most frequently were teacher-created tests, entrance/exit slips and questioning techniques. Teachers reported using those assessments and tools for checking for understanding and verifying whether students were retaining the material. Further, those who engaged in co-teaching reported feeling more effective in using data to design and individualize instruction and make adaptations for students with disabilities.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1326519
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1326519
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1045988X.2021.1934650
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 42
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Made Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questioning Techniques
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individualized Instruction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: General Education Teacher Practices: Assessment, Decision-Making and the Influence of Co-Teaching
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wherfel, Quentin M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Monda-Amaya, Lisa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shriner, James G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1045-988X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 66
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Preventing School Failure
              Type: main
ResultId 1