What is the most significant shift a teacher must make, in terms of their planning, to ensure they are teaching test-specific thinking as a routine component of their curriculum, rather than as an isolated test-prep activity? Brian: The biggest shift is moving from teaching content to teaching how content is assessed. Instead of treating test- prep as an add-on, teachers intentionally embed item-type analysis into daily instruction, asking students to identify what the question is asking, what thinking the item requires, and which distractors are likely. When teachers plan lessons with both the learning target and the assessment architecture in mind, test-specific thinking becomes a natural part of instruction rather than an event before testing. The book emphasizes helping educators analyze recurrent structural patterns (schemas) in test questions. Can you share an example of a common structural schema that students often struggle with in either ELA or mathematics, and explain how teaching the structure of the question, rather than just the content, can change the way students respond? Brian: A common schema students struggle with is the “two correct answers, one best answer” structure in ELA evidence-based questions. Students often know the content but miss the question because they don’t anticipate this pattern. Teaching them to recognize that test makers pair a partially correct option with a fully aligned one fundamentally changes their approach. Instead of hunting for what “sounds right,” students evaluate evidence, compare options, and justify choices, revealing their true understanding rather than being misled by distractors. Implementing test-specific thinking across a school likely involves more than just classroom-level change. What role do school leaders play in supporting this shift, and what structures or practices should they put in place to sustain it long-term? Brian: School leaders create the conditions for test-specific thinking to thrive. They establish a shared instructional language around item types, ensure teachers have time to analyze questions collaboratively, and model the expectation that understanding assessment design is part of high-quality instruction, not test prep. Leaders sustain the work by embedding item-structure study into PLCs, walkthrough tools, and coaching cycles. When leaders normalize this as part of the school’s instructional identity, teachers maintain it year-round, not just before testing. You come from diverse roles, from research to school leadership, assessment design, and classroom teaching. How did your different areas of expertise come together in writing this book, and what was the collaborative process like to align on “thinking like a test maker?” Jeni: Our varied backgrounds made this book possible. Dr. Marzano brought clarity on cognitive demand and question design, as well as insight into the item architecture; the school leaders grounded the work in practical systems and teacher development; and the classroom teacher ensured everything translated into daily practice. Our collaboration centered on a shared goal: helping educators “think like test makers.” We continually aligned theory with real-world application, resulting in a unified approach that is both research-driven and classroom-ready. AUTHOR S P T L I G H T with Jeni Gotto and Brian J. Kosena Assessment
