Research Question:

Do interim assessments have an impact on the achievement gap between low- and high-achievers?

Objective:

This study examines the effects of interim assessments on the achievement gap using data form the U.S. Specifically, we examine the impact of interim assessments throughout the distribution of student achievement with a focus on the lower tail of the achievement distribution. The effects of two interim assessment programs (i.e., mCLASS and Acuity) on mathematics and reading achievement for high- median- and low-achievers are investigated. To our knowledge the literature thus far has not documented clearly the effects of interim assessments at different levels of achievement, and for low-achievers in particular. The only evidence we could find was that formative assessments may help low-achievers more than other students (see Black & William, 1998). In this study we fill in that gap in the literature.

Theoretical Framework:

In the U.S., motivated by the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, all states operate accountability systems that measure and report school and student performance annually. The NCLB accountability mandate further resulted in a plethora of assessment-based school interventions that targeted to improve student performance (Bracey, 2005; Sawchuk, 2009). Among the assessment-based solutions offered to improve student performance are periodic assessments variously known as interim assessments (Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B., & Wurtzel, J., 2007). Such assessments are administered typically three or four times during the school year providing information on students’ understanding of the material. These systems provide resources designed to help teachers use assessment-based evidence to make better instructional decisions and differentiate instruction to meet students’ needs. 

Instructional change is considered the essential link between interim assessments and student performance. Specifically, interim assessments are hypothesized to lead to constructive feedback and differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2000), which are commonly believed to mediate the relationship between assessment and academic performance. Interim assessments are expected to help teachers identify areas of instructional need for each student by providing immediate, detailed insight on students’ strengths and weaknesses. With frequent access to objective data about student performance, teachers can monitor student progress closely. In turn, this ongoing evidence about student performance will guide teachers’ choices about which instruction is more effective for which student.

Because of the key component of differentiated/individualized instruction interim assessments should in principle be especially beneficial for low-achievers. Through interim assessments low-achievers should be easily identified and via appropriate differentiated instruction they could improve at least as much as higher achieving students. In addition, another key element of interim assessments is that teachers conduct meaningful follow-ups with students who struggle with certain tasks. These follow-ups would naturally incorporate re-teaching important concepts and skills in particular areas where low-achievers may have specific problems and need support. Thus, our hypothesis is that interim assessments have the potential to reduce the achievement gap between low- and high-achievers.

References Black, P. & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Assessment: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74. Boruch, R., Weisburd, D., & Berk, R. (2010). Place Randomized Trials. In A. Piquero & David Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp 481-502). New York: , Springer. Bracey, G.W. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Where does the money go? (EPSL-0506-114-EPRU). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Buchinsky, M. (1998). Recent Advances in Quantile Regression Models: A Practical Guideline for Empirical Research. Journal of Human Resources 33: 89–126. Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica 46: 33–50. Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B. & Wurtzel, J. (2007). The role of interim assessments in a comprehensive assessment system: A policy brief. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment; Washington, DC: Achieve, Inc; and Washington DC: The Aspen Institute. Sawchuk, S. (2009). Testing faces ups and downs amid recession. Education Week 28 (31 May 13), pp. 1, 16-17. Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois.