Executive Summary
Emerging research predicts that disruptions caused by COVID-19 will likely result in severe learning losses – especially for the most vulnerable students. Existing gaps – between students from high socioeconomic and low socioeconomic status, students of color and white students, English language learners and proficient speakers, students with disabilities and those without, and confident and less confident learners – may become even wider.
School board members have a critical role in improving instructional equity and ensuring that none of the students in their district are left behind in remote, hybrid, or brick-and-mortar classrooms. Instructional equity means that every student learns the lesson every day and can demonstrate evidence of their learning – it’s not enough that every student has access to the lesson. In other words: Just because the teacher is teaching the lesson doesn’t mean that every student is learning the lesson.
All the tools teachers would normally use to gauge student learning during a lesson are disrupted in remote and hybrid learning environments. Yet the need to understand students’ learning progress is as urgent as ever. If daily learning gaps are allowed to multiply, they become achievement gaps over time and are difficult to close.
This paper argues that at the heart of instructional equity is a process called student-initiated formative assessment – which reframes assessment as an ongoing, everyday process. It is not something done to students, but something done with students. Student-initiated formative assessment works in remote, hybrid, and in-person classrooms. The process, in brief, looks like this: Every lesson has a rigorous, standards-based goal (learning target); students are aware of the learning target, work towards it, and track their progress; and teachers gather minute-to-minute evidence to confirm that every student is on track, provide feedback to students, and give them opportunities to revise their work. Students and teachers become partners working toward learning outcomes and tracking progress. Teachers better understand which students need support in which specific areas – every day – without waiting for state test results.
Instructional equity means that every student learns the lesson every day and can demonstrate evidence of their learning. The heart of instructional equity is a process called student-initiated formative assessment, which reframes assessment as an ongoing, everyday process. It is not something done to students, but something done with students.
Research proves the effectiveness of student-initiated formative assessment – one research review discussed later in this paper reported an effect size that meant students who scored at the 50th percentile in the control group would have been at the 73rd percentile if their classroom had used student-initiated self-assessment (Lee et al., 2020). And yet, despite the research consensus, data points on over 1,300 classrooms show that in only 6% of classrooms, teachers tracked student learning, in only 6%, students tracked their own learning, in only 2%, both teacher and student tracking occurred (as detailed further on in this paper).
School boards can play a significant role in instructional equity by implementing policies that support systemwide structures for student-initiated formative assessment and reporting. These policy considerations are explored later in the paper. In brief, this paper argues that school boards should expect their staff to be able to answer these questions at any given time, without additional testing data:
- Is there evidence of teachers and students using student-initiated formative assessment across all classrooms, in all schools?
- Is there evidence of principals inspecting and supporting teachers to use student-initiated formative assessment to drive instructional decision-making and inform planning lessons around students’ needs?
- Is there evidence of student achievement improving on district tests and gaps among subgroups of students closing?
Data collected from student-initiated formative assessment from technology-enabled tools can be used to answer these questions – and the benefits of student-initiated formative assessment are transformative at all levels. When implemented properly:
Students have the opportunity for self-assessment and are empowered with the agency to take ownership of their own learning. They develop not only academic skills but also social-emotional skills such as self-regulation and intrinsic motivation for learning.
Teachers have access to minute-to-minute student evidence that shows whether students are learning. They can make quick and effective adaptations during lessons to prevent daily learning gaps from becoming achievement gaps over time.
Educational leaders monitor students’ progress using data from formative assessments – rather than waiting for data from state tests – and they can make proactive, informed decisions.
Below, read:
- Research-based predictions of COVID-19 impacts on education.
- Where teachers need support to improve classroom instruction right now.
- What the research says about student-initiated formative assessment.
- Three practical strategies to guide educational leaders in addressing systemic instructional equity gaps using student-initiated formative assessment.
- Important policy questions for school board members to consider.
What are the immediate and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on student learning?
Although it may be months or even years before we understand the full impact of COVID-19 school closures and disruptions to student learning, preliminary research predicts serious effects, including but not limited to the following:
- LACK OF ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY INSTRUCTION: When schools went from in-person to online in spring 2020, the quality of virtual instruction varied widely and often inequitably – with some students unable to access instruction at all. The findings, as summarized from , are as follows:
40% of Black students and 40% of socioeconomically disadvantaged students likely received no instruction, compared to 20% of students overall (Dorn et al., 2020).
Further, only 32% of K-12 students likely received high-quality remote instruction. The numbers were even lower for Black students (14%) and socioeconomically disadvantaged students (0%) (Dorn et al., 2020).
Students reported that online learning isn’t working for them. According to an August 2020 survey of 890 teens, 59% said online learning is worse or much worse compared to in-person instruction (Wronski, 2020).
- ACADEMIC LEARNING GAPS: Every student likely will be behind in their learning to some degree due to the pandemic, but students from underserved populations are at risk for the most severe academic gaps.
According to a study by the University of Southampton in the UK, it could take a full year for students from disadvantaged families to catch up. Even students from advantaged families will need an estimated six months to recover lost learning (Pensiero et al., 2020). This was only taking into account the school closures from spring 2020.
McKinsey & Company used NWEA data to predict learning losses and found startling disparities between different groups of students: a January 2021 mass reopening of in-person school would mean 10.3 months of lost learning for Black students and 12.4 months lost for economically disadvantaged students – compared to an average of 6.8 months lost for all students (Dorn et al., 2020).
If low-quality remote instruction continues, the impact on student achievement could be devastating. According to projections based on NWEA data, students who experience low-quality remote instruction would have no growth from August 2020 to May 2021 – therefore losing another entire year of learning – and then they would hit a summer regression. If students receive no instruction (or disengage from remote instruction), their learning will fall into an even sharper decline from which they may never be able to recover (Dorn, et. al, 2020).
- LONG-TERM SKILL LOSS AND ECONOMIC INEQUITY: When left unaddressed, student learning gaps can translate to adult skill gaps and lead to potentially lifelong economic inequities:
The Royal Society’s Data Evaluation and Learning for Viral Epidemics (DELVE) estimates skill loss associated with the spring 2020 school closures could translate to a reduction in students’ earning potential by about 3% a year if no action is taken (DELVE Initiative, 2020).
The potential economic impact would be more severe for students of color and those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Average earnings could be reduced for Black students by $2,186 per year (3.3%) and for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds by $1,642 per year (4%), compared to white students, who could lose $1,348 per year (1.6%). Over a 40-year working life, that amounts to $61,000 to $82,000 in lost earnings as a direct result of spring 2020 school closures and associated learning losses (Dorn et al., 2020).
The number one area where teachers need support right now
It’s understandable that most teachers were flustered when they were thrown into the unfamiliar territory of distance learning. Many were without access to training to build the new skills and competencies they needed to provide high-quality virtual instruction for students.
A survey of 816 teachers found that 79% considered remote learning less effective compared to in-person learning (Hart Research, 2020). But due to safety concerns, most districts started the 2020-21 school year with remote or hybrid instruction (76%, according to Education Week, 2020).
As virtual instruction continues for many, teachers need support so they can focus on providing all students with access to the highest quality instruction possible.
A separate survey, conducted by RAND, asked teachers where they needed support from their school or district. Teachers indicated the number one area was “strategies to keep students engaged and motivated to learn remotely,” with 44.6% of teachers calling it a major need. This need was ranked much higher than the need for technical support, access to high-speed internet and devices, and other areas (Hamilton et al., 2020).
Teachers indicated the number one area was “strategies to keep students engaged and motivated to learn remotely,” with 44.6% of teachers calling it a major need.
While there are many factors in student’s lives that result in equity gaps and which education leaders can’t control – for example, students’ home life situations and socioeconomic status – it’s important to focus on what we can control.
We can control the quality of instruction students have access to and whether we’re taking proactive steps to prevent and close gaps within Tier 1 core instruction. We can control what role students have in that process and whether they are empowered to take ownership of their own learning. One of the best ways to achieve that vision is by implementing formative assessment.
How formative assessment can help
Student-initiated formative assessment is when both students and teachers track students’ progress to learning goals during instruction, and each knows where they are in the learning progression – rather than waiting for a test to reveal the same. This empowers both the teacher and student to close real-time gaps appearing in their learning.
One of the easiest ways to understand why formative assessment is so important is through a simple analogy. Imagine you are leading a field trip. You understand that if you start with 30 students, you need to return with 30 students, so you count heads constantly to check that everyone is staying with you. You wouldn’t count heads just at the beginning and end of the field trip because you know that if one of your students wanders off, proximity matters. The quicker you notice the student is no longer with you, the faster you can act to get them back with the rest of the group.
Why would we not do the same thing during a lesson?
Achievement gaps form when a student gets lost during daily lessons, and no one realizes how far behind the student is until the test. At that point, daily learning gaps have already compounded into achievement gaps. A simple formula explains this concept:
Daily learning gaps x Time = Achievement gaps
Constant tracking within daily lessons ensures students aren’t left behind and is the key to closing the equity gap in core instruction. The more teachers can prevent gaps from forming, the fewer students will be pulled out for Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions. A great deal of research indicates that , leaving students in the same situation year after year, perpetually behind (Steiner & Weisberg, 2020).
So how can teachers quickly identify which students are at risk for falling behind?
During in-person instruction, teachers had many methods to check student understanding and monitor engagement. For example, a teacher could simply ask students questions aloud, walk by students’ desks and read their responses, or ask students to write their answers on a whiteboard. If students didn’t participate or raise their hands for help, teachers could spot physical cues of student disengagement or frustration and offer support as needed. However, in a virtual learning environment, all those methods are gone.
Formative assessment looks different in remote and hybrid learning environments – students have to do more self-regulation for themselves. Formative assessment doesn’t have to – and shouldn’t – be only the teacher’s responsibility. Students deserve to understand where they are in their own learning and become engaged partners in the learning process.
Student-initiated formative assessment is when students take an active role in their own self-assessment during learning (Brookhart, 2020).
Formative assessment doesn’t have to – and shouldn’t – be only the teacher’s responsibility. Students deserve to understand where they are in their own learning and become partners in the learning process.
What the research says about student-initiated formative assessment
Susan Brookhart explains the research behind student-initiated formative assessment in . A review of 33 studies of formative assessment in K-12 education in the U.S. found a positive effect size of .29 for general formative assessment. That figure jumped to .61 when formative assessment included student-initiated self-assessment strategies. To put that into perspective, a student who scored at the 50th percentile in the control group would have been at the 61st percentile in the formative assessment group and at the 73rd percentile in the student-initiated self-assessment group (Lee et al., 2020).
Figure 1. A review by Lee, Chung, Zhang, Abedi, & Warschauer (2020) found that a student who scored at the 50th percentile in the control group would have been at the 61st percentile in the formative assessment group and at the 73rd percentile in the student-initiated self-assessment group.
Student agency and student-initiated formative assessment
Further research supports the idea that when students have a more active role in their learning and can develop autonomy and self-regulation skills, their learning improves. Studies have shown that teacher support of student cognitive autonomy is positively correlated to reading achievement (Marshik, Ashton, & Algina, 2017), and students’ ability to self-regulate is positively correlated to academic achievement (Hinnant-Crawford, Faison, and Chang, 2018).
These studies show us that learning is most effective when students become active participants in their own learning. That is because teaching and learning are two distinct processes. Teachers can teach the content, but what matters is whether students learned what was taught. When students take an active role in student-initiated self-assessment, they develop student agency. Student agency is the ability of students to set academic goals, reflect, and act responsibly to achieve the goals (OECD, 2019).
Student agency is especially important in a virtual environment where students have to take on more responsibilities than they may have been accustomed to during in-person instruction. In a global survey, 37% of children reported that they had no one to help them with their learning during the pandemic, which was an obstacle to their education (Edwards, 2020).
How many classrooms are using student-initiated formative assessment?
Despite years of research proving the effectiveness of formative assessment (besides the review above, see Kingston & Nash, 2011 and Klute et al., 2017), many classrooms and schools do not use formative assessment.
Learning Sciences International (LSI)’s Applied Research Center analyzed walkthrough data from 136 schools, in 25 different districts, with 1,378 classrooms. Data was collected between 2018 and 2020. Observers walked through classrooms looking for evidence of the item: “Teachers track evidence of students meeting the lesson learning target.”
Data is available for 1,347 classrooms. 1,263 (94%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that teachers track evidence of students meeting the lesson learning target. Only 84 classrooms (6%) agreed or strongly agreed.
Observers also looked for evidence of the item: “Students self-monitor their progress to the lesson learning target, and data is available for 1,343 classrooms. 1,270 (94%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that students self-monitor their progress to the lesson learning target. Only 73 (6%) agreed or strongly agreed.
Of the 1,342 classrooms with data for both items, only 27 classrooms (2%) agreed or strongly agreed that teachers were tracking evidence and students were self-monitoring their progress. In other words, 98% of classrooms observed were missing the full power of student-initiated formative assessment.
Figure 2. In 94% of classrooms, teachers did not track evidence of students meeting the learning target. © Learning Sciences International. n = 1347 classrooms
Figure 3. In 94% of classrooms, students did not self-monitor their progress to the learning target. © Learning Sciences International. n = 1343 classrooms
| Students self-monitor their progress to the lesson learning target. | |||||
| Teachers track evidence of students meeting the lesson learning target. | Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| Strongly Disagree | 734 | 28 | 2 | 0 | |
| Disagree | 333 | 114 | 40 | 4 | |
| Agree | 31 | 18 | 17 | 1 | |
| Strongly Agree | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
Figure 4. In only 27 classrooms (highlighted in green) – or 2% of 1339 total classrooms – did both teacher tracking and student tracking occur.
Three strategies to address systemic instructional equity gaps using student-initiated formative assessment
As described above, instructional equity gaps form when students are not learning the lesson and teachers don't realize it until the test. Preventing these gaps on a systemic level requires structures that teachers can use in any learning environment with every student.
The following three strategies – based on from Learning Sciences International’s Applied Research Center – can help districts implement student-initiated formative assessment during and after the pandemic. Although teachers may already be using some of these strategies, the real questions are: Are these happening at a systemic level in your school or district. Do you have a way to monitor if the strategies are effective for students?
Strategy #1: Create structures that allow all students to self-assess using clear learning targets and success criteria
For students to develop agency and ownership over their own learning, they must first understand what they are expected to learn and how they will demonstrate their learning. Through the LSI Applied Research Center’s classroom observations and conversations with students, we have found that more often than not, students are simply complying with what the teacher asks them to do and lack a real understanding of what they are meant to be learning.
The terms “learning target,” “success criteria,” and “task” are not used in the same way in every district. The book The Power of Student Teams: Achieving Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Learning in Every Classroom Through Academic Teaming (Toth & Sousa, 2019) provides a clear definition of each term (p. 12-13).
Learning targets describe the knowledge and skills students should be able to demonstrate by the end of the lesson. Learning targets are broken down into success criteria – once students meet all the success criteria, it means they have achieved the learning target. Success criteria are not a list of directions for students to follow, but they are sometimes misused this way. Students use learning targets and success criteria during an academic task. A task is specifically designed for students to produce evidence of the learning target – which distinguishes it from an activity, which is simply something to be completed.
Learning targets, success criteria, and a description of the task should be written and visible to all students. Ideally, students should have either a paper copy or digital version where they can actually check off their success criteria. Non-readers should have access to a version with images to guide their understanding.
When students are learning in a virtual or hybrid environment, it is even more important that they have access to clear learning targets and success criteria. Virtual students have to take on more responsibilities and function more autonomously than they may have been accustomed to during in-person instruction. For example, virtual students can’t rely on the teacher to notice when they are off track or to redirect them if their attention wanders. Clear learning targets and success criteria help students stay focused, self-identify areas where they need assistance, and hold themselves accountable to their own learning.
Research confirms that when students have the opportunity to engage in tasks using learning targets and success criteria to self-assess and track their own learning, both learning and motivation increase (McMillan & Hearn, 2008). In order to ensure these benefits for every student systemwide, districts must create structures for teachers to use learning targets, success criteria, and tasks and for leaders to verify and do quality checks to make sure every student has equitable access to them.
|
Definitions from The Power of Student Teams: Achieving Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Learning in Every Classroom Through Academic Teaming (Toth & Sousa, 2019) Learning target: The academic standard, or lesson-size chunk of it, that includes the knowledge and skills students will be expected to demonstrate by the end of the lesson. Students use learning targets as goals to drive their learning in every lesson (p. 12) Success criteria: Characteristics and qualities that define mastery of the learning target. Success criteria help teachers decide if their students have achieved the learning target and are used by students to track their progress to achieving the learning target. Success criteria are not a list of directions to complete a task. They are a tool the students use to plan for and gauge their mastery of the learning target for the lesson (p. 13) Task: Tasks are often confused with activities for students. A task is specifically designed for students to produce a product or evidences that they have learned or are building toward learning the target. These evidences must be either seen or heard in order to ensure the learning target was achieved by all students (p. 13) An example of each, from the Academic Teaming free resource site () Learning Target: Analyze how the author unfolds an analysis or series of ideas or events, including the order in which the points are made, how they are introduced and developed, and the connections that are drawn between them.
Task: Use the text set sources The Assassination of Julius Caesar by Suetonius Tranquillus and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar excerpt to analyze how an author unfolds an analysis or series of ideas or events, including the order in which the points are made, how they are introduced and developed, and the connections that are drawn between them. Prepare your evidence for the task to bring to your academic team. Have a team discussion by explaining and justifying your thinking about the differences in the texts’ organization, development, and connections. |
Strategy #2: Create structures for teachers to gather minute-to-minute student data and for leaders to monitor the data
If we expect teachers to facilitate successful student-initiated formative assessment, they need access to real-time student data. As explained in the field trip analogy earlier in this paper, teachers need to know where students are in their learning at all times in order to prevent any student from falling behind. When teachers have access to formative assessment data, they can be more equitable in their teaching by being responsive to each student’s needs. Teachers can use student data to make quick adjustments within the lesson and can also use it to plan the next lesson.
While it is possible for individual teachers to create their own systems for gathering and keeping track of student evidence, it is no easy feat. Teachers can have students self-assess by checking off success criteria on paper (or Google docs, if students are virtual), but then the teacher has to manually check in with each student by walking around the room or bouncing between Google docs and student chats. At the end of the lesson, the teacher would have to organize all the papers or digital documents and record them into a spreadsheet if they wanted to keep track of the student’s progress over time. If a school or district leader wanted to check student progress, they would have to work with whatever they could gather from individual teachers and try to assemble a schoolwide report.
However, there are technological innovations that make this process easier for the teacher and more feasible for districts concerned with creating a consistent system from classroom to classroom. One such example is the , which greatly reduces the burden of data monitoring for teachers and leaders. Student Evidence Tracker allows teachers to share the lesson’s learning target and success criteria directly with students digitally – students can access the tool on their devices regardless of if they are learning in-person or virtually. The tool’s dashboard shows teachers which students are logged in, engaged, and making progress to the learning target. The tool also generates reports that allow teachers to track student data over time and give leaders transparency into classrooms so they can identify and prevent systemic instructional equity gaps. While tools such as Student Evidence Tracker do not replace test data, they provide important information about student learning and engagement between tests when there is still time for teachers to adapt their instructional strategies to serve all students equitably.
Strategy #3: Create structures for verifying student evidence and providing students with feedback
For students to experience the full benefits of student-initiated formative assessment, each classroom must have systems in place for students to receive actionable feedback. Formative feedback differs from the feedback students receive from tests and quizzes, which often only tell them whether they answered the items correctly with no chance for revision. Providing students with the chance to use formative feedback might be considered an example of an “opportunity to learn” (Elliott & Bartlett, 2016) that not every student receives, making it an equity issue.
Teachers should have a structure for reviewing students’ work and their self-assessment. The teacher can decide whether a student has met each success criterion and achieved the learning target and can provide feedback. Students will then have the opportunity to revise their work if needed and deepen their understanding in the process. The teacher may not have time to verify each student’s self-assessment, so it is important that teachers have a system for identifying and monitoring students who may need extra support.
Teachers can create their own systems to verify evidence and monitor students, but as discussed in Strategy #2, these individual self-made systems can be inconsistent and create a greater burden because they are manual. Digital tools like Student Evidence Tracker, discussed previously, may help alleviate these issues. For example, after the teacher reviews the student’s work and self-assessment, in Student Evidence Tracker the teacher can give a “star” for each success criterion that they agree the student has met. Or, if the student has not demonstrated sufficient evidence, the teacher can uncheck the student’s success criterion, give feedback, and ask the student to try again. Student Evidence Tracker also has a function in its monitoring dashboard for the teacher to flag students who might need more support than others. Systems such as these make student-initiated formative assessment feasible on a districtwide scale and create a reliable feedback loop that can equitably serve each student.
Important policy questions for school board members to consider
School boards have a significant role in ensuring instructional equity. The difference between vulnerable students receiving the support they need vs. being unintentionally left behind as learning gaps worsen may very well hinge on the school board’s policies around student-initiated formative assessment.
As school boards consider the strategies above and how they might focus on improving instructional equity on a systemic scale, the following questions may help shape policies:
- Does your district have a plan with structures for systemic implementation of student-initiated formative assessment?
- Is there evidence of teachers and students using student-initiated formative assessment across all classrooms, in all schools?
- Does your district have a system for providing reliable reports on daily student learning and engagement?
- Is there evidence of principals inspecting and supporting teachers to use student evidence to drive instructional decision-making and planning lessons around students’ needs?
- Can your district tell whether student learning and engagement is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same over time – before test results come out?
- Is there evidence of student achievement improving and equity gaps closing on district and state tests?
- Does your district have the data to understand the relationship between students’ self-assessments and their test scores?
Reflecting on these questions can help school boards ensure that student-initiated formative assessment best serves students and paves the way for instructional equity across the district.
Resources
- Blog:
- Blog:
- Blog:
- Blog:
About the Author: Michael D. Toth
Michael D. Toth is founder and CEO of Learning Sciences International and leads LSI’s Applied Research Center. He is the author of the award-winning book The Power of Student Teams: Achieving Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Learning in Every Classroom Through Academic Teaming with Dr. David Sousa, Who Moved My Standards, and several books with Dr. Robert Marzano. Connect with him here: .
References
Brookhart, S. (2020). Address Learning Loss: Classroom Formative Assessment Tools Aid in Remote Learning. Learning Sciences International.
DELVE Initiative (2020), Balancing the Risks of Pupils Returning to Schools. DELVE Report No. 4. Published 24 July 2020.
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., and Viruleg, E. (2020, June 1). COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. McKinsey & Company.
Education Week. (2020, July 15). School districts’ reopening plans: A snapshot.
Edwards, J. (2020). Protect a generation: The impact of COVID-19 on children's lives. Save the Children International.
Elliott, S. N., & Bartlett, B. J. (2016). Opportunity to learn. Oxford Handbooks Online.
Hamilton, L. S., Kaufman, J. H., & Diliberti, M. (2020). Teaching and leading through a pandemic: Key findings from the American educator panels spring 2020 COVID-19 surveys. RAND Corporation.
Hart Research for AFT, NAACP, LULAC, AROS (2020). Parents and Teachers on Reopening Schools.
Hinnant-Crawford, B., Faison, M. and Chang, M. (2018). Culture as mediator. Co-regulation, self-regulation, and middle school mathematics achievement. Journal for Multicultural Education, 10(3), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-05-2016-0032
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28-37.
Klute, M., Apthorp, H., Harlacher, J., & Reale, M. (2017). Formative assessment and elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence (REL 2017–259). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central.
Lee, H., Chung, H. Q., Zhang, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140.
Marshik, T., Ashton, P. T., & Algina, J. (2017). Teachers’ and students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as predictors of students’ achievement. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 20(1), 39-67. DOI 10.1007/s11218-016-9360-z
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
OECD (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Conceptual Learning Framework: Student Agency for 2030.
Pensiero, N., Kelly, A., and Bokhove, C. (2020, July 23) Covid-19 lockdown primary-secondary education impact. University of Southampton.
Steiner, D., and Weisberg, D. (2020). When students go back to school, too many will start the year behind. Here’s how to catch them up — in real time. The 74.
Wronski, L. (2020). Common Sense Media|SurveyMonkey poll: COVID and the return to school.
Toth, M.D., and Sousa, D.A. (2019). The power of student teams: Achieving social, emotional, and cognitive learning in every classroom through academic teaming. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Share this content