At the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, we see the inherent problem of putting out 25 (!) different sets of standards, but we don’t always do a good job of helping districts see how to integrate and simplify these guidance documents. One area of connection we’re currently working on is STEM – discussing a goal of transdisciplinary STEM literacy that we hope all students gain by the time they graduate from high school. These conversations have gotten me thinking about ways to coalesce around a smaller set of core literacies (or perspectives or lenses) that schooling should support as students work to make sense of the unique aspects of the world related to disparate courses and standards. Students cannot meaningfully bring 25 different literacies or perspectives to bear as they explore phenomena and solve problems; I propose there are 5 that should frame student learning opportunities in PK-12.
First, students grow in understanding of how social systems work—how cultures, economics, political systems, and communities function. They explore what power means and how limited resources impact societies and individuals, including their own job prospects. There is a core aspect of them figuring out how they fit into these systems, their own civic and community engagement, and how ethics play out in these structures. Ideas of environmental sustainability come into play here. As students learn other languages and build intercultural competence, they also grow in this social literacy.
Second, students grow in understanding of themselves—how they think and feel. Introspection and metacognition are important processes. This psychological literacy often comes in relation to and builds from the social-emotional and cultural aspects of themselves; it’s hard, likely impossible, to make sense of ourselves apart from our cultures. Inward looking pulls from many perspectives and our unique “self” to frame our thinking and decision-making; it’s more than a social process as we analyze our learning and ourselves and how/why we feel about it as we do, including how our own racial and cultural identities connect with these elements.
A cultural and personal literacy could also be connected to what some would call a spiritual literacy. This spiritual sense-making clearly pulls from these social and psychological lenses, though the complex nature of spiritual perspectives is likely best left out of PK-12 schooling. Notably, this spiritual perspective often gets confused with an ethical or moral perspective. I argue here that ethics belong more in that social area of how we function as a society. We have expectations, laws, and responsibilities to make social systems function well instead of constantly becoming mired in the tragedy of the commons.
Third, again connected to these other facets of sense-making, I would argue that there is a unique aesthetic literacy. Through this lens we see things, often purely, for their beauty and how they make us feel. This artistic literacy would include music, dance, poetry, and other forms of creative expression and interpretation.
Fourth, students grow in STEM literacy. A challenge here, perhaps more than in other areas, is defining what that means. At its essence, it is pulling in science, technology, and mathematics understanding to solve technical problems in the world around us. A social systems perspective is necessary to solving societal problems, but there are nuances of those problems that require a technical skill set as well. This literacy could logically be called engineering, or an engineering design perspective, on problem solving. While, again, it weaves in social, psychological, and aesthetic lenses, it also requires unique technical and data-driven perspective and abilities.
Fifth, students develop in science literacy as they work toward understanding how the natural world works. This is not necessarily to solve problems or connect to product/process development, like the frequent focus of STEM and engineering literacy. It is to understand how natural systems work, from the broad universe to the quarks within the atoms making our bodies.
Other subject areas of schooling largely combine these five core literacies or provide tools to use them. For example, career and Technical Education (CTE) courses generally build on STEM and social lenses. At their core, they can be technical problem-solving in a particular field (like health care), though there’s always the sociological and psychological (people) elements in these fields. Similarly, a business class might be a blend of the social (economics/community) and technological, along with some psychology (advertising), to work through the development, selling, and eventual obsolescence of a product.
I can see an argument that there is a purely mathematics literacy, a unique numeracy of our being, but I’m not convinced that perspective is a core aspect of PK-12 learning. Perhaps at the university or in an extracurricular. Mathematics at PK-12 is more of a key tool in service to understanding the world from these other lenses.
Similarly, I’d argue that an English class also isn’t building a unique PK-12 perspective, unless you’re considering the aesthetic angle. It’s a tool too, though one that logically requires its own opportunities for learning. There is an underlying communication required for everything. There are stories and reports, where writing and reading them engage the cultural, individual, and aesthetic lenses, but they don’t stand on their own as another lens.
Like English, a technological literacy, whether employed or developed, isn’t truly isolated either. It’s in service to our social interests (psychology, sociology) or our problem solving (engineering/STEM).
So, we’re left with five main lenses that should be explicitly engaged in and connected through the PK-12 years: social, psychological/individual, artistic/aesthetic, STEM/engineering, and science. Five lenses feel much more approachable than 25 sets of standards. Though, certainly, there are other unique disciplinary literacy elements that are also valuable—perhaps deeper studies of economics and sociology, for example—but these are likely more appropriate for advanced coursework. Finer nuances and hard delineations within these literacies are less critical within a core set of lenses for students to make sense of the world.
Considering what these literacies mean for education, it would be ideal if they were not always treated as isolated perspectives within traditional course arrangements. Engaging students in making sense of the world requires them to use these different perspectives, not attempt to pull from 25 areas of learning. The enormous challenges and “information” inundation we face cannot be limited to the emotional response of the psychological or the technical response of the STEM. What if educators collaborated around the same phenomenon, then tackled it from these differing perspectives? What if students were given opportunities to explore, develop, and evaluate solutions to real problems? There are underlying elements of inquiry, problem solving, evidentiary thinking, questioning, etc., within each of these areas from which learning could be built as students use these multiple literacies.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Monday, April 29, 2019
Making Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) Meaningful
I recently met with a group of teachers to discuss assessments that align with the vision of the new Wisconsin Standards for Science (very similar the NGSS). When I brought up Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as an opportunity to collaboratively create aligned assessments and review student work, they shared that their principals required them to use standardized tests that didn’t align well to their discipline-specific visions or standards.
I have heard similar challenges across states, so I wanted to share a few thoughts here (and a longer version of these ideas can be found here).
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness (EE) System is a learning-centered system of continuous improvement designed to support teachers and principals -- a structure for districts to enable meaningful, individualized, and professional learning.
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) are one of two goals within an educator’s Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP). The WI EE System User Guide for Teachers describes the EEP goals as teacher-driven, with “his/her SLO based on his/her subject area, grade-level, and student data.” The teacher also develops a Professional Practice Goal (PPG) based on “self-identified needs for individual improvement” (p. 2) that will ideally relate to their SLOs. It is imperative that teachers have ownership over their learning goals and plans, making them relevant to their subject, their students, and their own needs. The alignment of teacher SLO goals to principal SLO goals and/or district goals can provide opportunities for leveraging collaborative efforts to support student learning. When administrators prescribe generic SLOs for their teachers, however, the professional growth intent of the EE System is lost. The power of SLOs lies in the analysis of data to inform specific change in instructional practice. When content teachers use data from the same standardized test, it does not empower teachers to reflect on their student data to inform their own learning. This approach to SLOs wastes an opportunity for deep, collaborative learning.
One example of a district focusing on a common SLO goal, while remaining true to particular subject areas and teacher needs, is Baraboo. At the high school, they collaboratively developed a rubric for evidence-based writing that is used across subjects multiple times per year. Teachers review subject-specific writing tasks that would’ve been done as part of a unit anyway--not some additional, artificial tasks. While student products look different in each subject, the rubric emphasizes common skills such as using evidence and discipline-based reasoning. This process has allowed for meaningful cross-disciplinary conversations while staying true to subject matter learning. Over time, it has also improved teacher practice and student outcomes.
Educator Effectiveness is designed to be a collaborative process of setting relevant goals, implementing new instructional practices, reviewing student learning through authentic assessments, and determining what to do next. This cycle of continuous improvement is also referred to as action research or “Plan-Do-Study-Act.” When done well, it is shown by research to be highly impactful professional development for school improvement. Teachers pouring over students’ work together in relation to standards-based learning progressions enhances their practice and student outcomes.
Accomplishing meaningful growth requires that teachers have the opportunity to create or identify assessments that are connected to their unique SLO goals. With direct links to particular standards and classroom learning, these types of assessments are arguably more valid than a standardized test. A performance assessment’s reliability comes from the teachers’ collaborative review of assessment responses in relation to rubrics, establishment of anchor papers to guide their reasoning, and check-ins on one another’s work. For the science world, fabulous 3D assessment resources examples can be found from Achieve and DPI, with rubric ideas on this DPI website. Notably, considering equity and bias in testing, disenfranchised students are much less likely to engage in a standardized test than in one that connects directly to their learning, their communities, and their interests and identities.
Looking forward, EE is a process that will always continue in education systems as the core elements of this process are the basis of effective professional learning communities and structures for professional development.
I have heard similar challenges across states, so I wanted to share a few thoughts here (and a longer version of these ideas can be found here).
The Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness (EE) System is a learning-centered system of continuous improvement designed to support teachers and principals -- a structure for districts to enable meaningful, individualized, and professional learning.
Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) are one of two goals within an educator’s Educator Effectiveness Plan (EEP). The WI EE System User Guide for Teachers describes the EEP goals as teacher-driven, with “his/her SLO based on his/her subject area, grade-level, and student data.” The teacher also develops a Professional Practice Goal (PPG) based on “self-identified needs for individual improvement” (p. 2) that will ideally relate to their SLOs. It is imperative that teachers have ownership over their learning goals and plans, making them relevant to their subject, their students, and their own needs. The alignment of teacher SLO goals to principal SLO goals and/or district goals can provide opportunities for leveraging collaborative efforts to support student learning. When administrators prescribe generic SLOs for their teachers, however, the professional growth intent of the EE System is lost. The power of SLOs lies in the analysis of data to inform specific change in instructional practice. When content teachers use data from the same standardized test, it does not empower teachers to reflect on their student data to inform their own learning. This approach to SLOs wastes an opportunity for deep, collaborative learning.
One example of a district focusing on a common SLO goal, while remaining true to particular subject areas and teacher needs, is Baraboo. At the high school, they collaboratively developed a rubric for evidence-based writing that is used across subjects multiple times per year. Teachers review subject-specific writing tasks that would’ve been done as part of a unit anyway--not some additional, artificial tasks. While student products look different in each subject, the rubric emphasizes common skills such as using evidence and discipline-based reasoning. This process has allowed for meaningful cross-disciplinary conversations while staying true to subject matter learning. Over time, it has also improved teacher practice and student outcomes.
Educator Effectiveness is designed to be a collaborative process of setting relevant goals, implementing new instructional practices, reviewing student learning through authentic assessments, and determining what to do next. This cycle of continuous improvement is also referred to as action research or “Plan-Do-Study-Act.” When done well, it is shown by research to be highly impactful professional development for school improvement. Teachers pouring over students’ work together in relation to standards-based learning progressions enhances their practice and student outcomes.
Accomplishing meaningful growth requires that teachers have the opportunity to create or identify assessments that are connected to their unique SLO goals. With direct links to particular standards and classroom learning, these types of assessments are arguably more valid than a standardized test. A performance assessment’s reliability comes from the teachers’ collaborative review of assessment responses in relation to rubrics, establishment of anchor papers to guide their reasoning, and check-ins on one another’s work. For the science world, fabulous 3D assessment resources examples can be found from Achieve and DPI, with rubric ideas on this DPI website. Notably, considering equity and bias in testing, disenfranchised students are much less likely to engage in a standardized test than in one that connects directly to their learning, their communities, and their interests and identities.
Looking forward, EE is a process that will always continue in education systems as the core elements of this process are the basis of effective professional learning communities and structures for professional development.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Students Using Proper Science Vocabulary Can Mask Authentic Understanding
A couple weeks ago, I participated in a workshop session led by Professor Rosemary Russ of UW-Madison. She shared a story of a mystifying event: her dog tends to sniff around more on walks after it rains. She broke us into small groups, gave us some chart paper, and asked us to discuss why that may be happening. Our group gradually dug in, shared ideas, and started drawing out our thinking (we were modeling, though she never used that term). After a while groups shared their thoughts, and she asked questions. In particular, she repeatedly pushed us to explain our thinking, our “why,” our understanding of concepts, how our ideas compared with others’ ideas… When I shared, she didn’t let me get away with using the term “volatile” – she made me explain what I meant!
Professor Russ then emphasized that students too often hide a lack of full understanding behind memorized vocabulary words and definitions. In this Illusion of Explanatory Depth, students repeat ideas without fully understanding what they mean. They can’t use these ideas to help make sense of a phenomenon, because they’ve never truly understood them. Often, in a typical class discussion, assignment, and assessment, students are able to throw around these words and regurgitate ideas, and they appear to really get it. They pass the test but aren’t pressed. They sound capable but aren’t challenged. The concepts are not retained.
Worksheets, questions at the end of a chapter, and taking notes in class do not constitute strong pillars of instruction. Effective science learning happens when students engage in dialogue about phenomena, revise models, and evaluate whether the evidence they have is sufficient to support one explanation over another. It comes when they have to do the work to make sense of the world, not when the figuring out has really already been done for them.
In the conversation with Professor Russ, someone brought up a concern that student explanations might contain “misconceptions” that other students will pick up on. As she noted, that’s an essential part of the scientific process. We hear things all the time in life that are unfounded and not based in accurate or sufficient evidence. In the classroom, it’s critical that students don’t stop after this first stage of sensemaking, just like it’s essential that all people don’t stop thinking about and looking for further evidence after reading some random “scientific” article online. Students will work together to engage in further investigation and evidence gathering after this initial process. They figure out why a particular explanation doesn’t pass muster. They must figure that out themselves if it’s going to stick; for conceptual change, it does not work to have the teacher jump in and counter an idea.
Importantly, this Illusion of Explanatory Depth does not only happen in science. Students in math can hide behind the algorithm (the formula, the typical problem, etc.) to mask their lack of sensemaking and of conceptual understanding. Students in economics, history, or psychology might throw out terms such as “supply and demand” or “culture,” or note theories such as “institutional determinism” or “behaviorism.” As noted in the previous blog post, students should be wrestling with phenomena across subject areas to develop deep understanding and use these ideas as part of their efforts to make sense of various aspects of their world.
Professor Russ then emphasized that students too often hide a lack of full understanding behind memorized vocabulary words and definitions. In this Illusion of Explanatory Depth, students repeat ideas without fully understanding what they mean. They can’t use these ideas to help make sense of a phenomenon, because they’ve never truly understood them. Often, in a typical class discussion, assignment, and assessment, students are able to throw around these words and regurgitate ideas, and they appear to really get it. They pass the test but aren’t pressed. They sound capable but aren’t challenged. The concepts are not retained.
Worksheets, questions at the end of a chapter, and taking notes in class do not constitute strong pillars of instruction. Effective science learning happens when students engage in dialogue about phenomena, revise models, and evaluate whether the evidence they have is sufficient to support one explanation over another. It comes when they have to do the work to make sense of the world, not when the figuring out has really already been done for them.
In the conversation with Professor Russ, someone brought up a concern that student explanations might contain “misconceptions” that other students will pick up on. As she noted, that’s an essential part of the scientific process. We hear things all the time in life that are unfounded and not based in accurate or sufficient evidence. In the classroom, it’s critical that students don’t stop after this first stage of sensemaking, just like it’s essential that all people don’t stop thinking about and looking for further evidence after reading some random “scientific” article online. Students will work together to engage in further investigation and evidence gathering after this initial process. They figure out why a particular explanation doesn’t pass muster. They must figure that out themselves if it’s going to stick; for conceptual change, it does not work to have the teacher jump in and counter an idea.
Importantly, this Illusion of Explanatory Depth does not only happen in science. Students in math can hide behind the algorithm (the formula, the typical problem, etc.) to mask their lack of sensemaking and of conceptual understanding. Students in economics, history, or psychology might throw out terms such as “supply and demand” or “culture,” or note theories such as “institutional determinism” or “behaviorism.” As noted in the previous blog post, students should be wrestling with phenomena across subject areas to develop deep understanding and use these ideas as part of their efforts to make sense of various aspects of their world.
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Phenomena-Based Instruction Isn't Only for Science
I
have heard of an “integrated” elementary unit on apples. The class does science
by cutting open the apple and looking at the seeds, learns about Johnny
Appleseed for social studies, writes about their favorite type of apple for
English Language Arts (ELA), and does some apple-based word problems for math. Building
on current instructional approaches with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), phenomenon-based integrated learning looks a bit different.
Figure 1: New Jersey Summer Bat Count Longitudinal Data, n = 22 sites (Conserve Wildlife NJ, 2016).
In
another third-grade classroom, student groups are given copies of this bat data (Figure 1). The teacher asks, “What do you notice?” and “What do you
wonder?” They’re immediately engaged in number sense and mathematical
thinking. In science, small groups become experts on different challenges bat
populations are facing and share those with the class, comparing the impact of
each. In social studies, they learn to make sense of maps as they see where the
white nose fungus has spread across the country and within their state. For
social studies and ELA they write a letter to a local government official
talking about why bats are important and why white nose syndrome is a problem
(which also builds on science learning about ecosystems). Overall in this unit,
students are asked to collaboratively make
sense of this phenomenon of bat population change from science, mathematics,
social studies, and ELA lenses.
This sense-making approach is
central to the NGSS and inquiry-based
instruction. It has been discussed for years, but professional learning rarely
supports teachers in seeing how it connects across all subject areas. It’s no
wonder that elementary educators are overwhelmed, when they feel their modes of
instruction have to be completely different in every subject. Inquiry-based
approaches could meaningfully form the core of every subject, connecting schoolwork
and better mirroring real-life endeavors. Inquiry allows for teachers to connect
to students’ lives and interests, making learning more engaging and more
equitable.
To further
illustrate how a phenomenon-based inquiry approach works across subject areas, it’s
useful to elaborate on how it connects to the standards and unique goals in
each core subject.
The national C3 Framework emphasizes that “inquiry is at the heart of social studies.” My daughter,
however, memorized every president, every country, and every country capital in
her middle school social studies classes. That’s information she could find in
under five seconds on her phone. She didn’t learn skills to find information.
She rarely, if ever, had opportunities to make sense of historic and societal
events with a group of her peers. Instead, student learning about a topic such
as supply and demand should be more than memorizing definitions; it should
include speculating why a student’s favorite new game is sold out at a store (the
phenomenon) and welcoming a store owner to the classroom to discuss stocking
and pricing decisions. Students in fifth grade should not simply read a chapter
about slavery within a heavy book and answer some comprehension questions. They
could come to understand some horrors of slavery through reading and comparing aseries of slave narratives from the past and present–delving into a phenomenon of oppression throughout
history and continuing today. They don’t recreate a sugar and slave trade
triangle; they problematize events, dig into them from multiple perspectives,
and connect them to their world now.
Math might be the most difficult
core subject for teachers to conceptualize as making sense of a phenomenon.
Instructionally, it is well entrenched as a worksheet or a listing of many
similar practice problems. Students largely replicate a skill their teacher
shows them, having to be shown how to do a problem if it varies in any
significant way from the examples. Math can, however, be practical and
beautiful as students learn how to make sense of the world mathematically. In
particular, the Standards for Mathematical Practice of the Common Core
encourage creating opportunities for students to think about and solve novel problems
mathematically, not simply repeat a standard algorithm. Generally, mathematics
instruction and textbooks start with a skill and practice problems that vary a
little bit from what’s been learned before. Students then do a long series of
practice problems and probably a couple word problems, which really only ask
students to plug new numbers into previously practiced ways of doing. Conceptual
understanding may or may not be emphasized. The math section doesn’t start with
an interesting problem, based on a phenomenon that relates to the students. Instead
of having students replicate an area model for 5x4, we might start by saying, “We
need a new rug that will fit all 20 students in this area of the classroom.”
Or, instead of adding decimals, we might say, “I run a store and need to figure
out if my assistant did a review of sales correctly.” The goal is not to learn
isolated mathematics skills, but rather how to approach problems. An example of
this type of work is the “3 Act Tasks” from Dan Meyer, where students are asked
to use mathematics to make sense of a particular situation, such as how long it
will take an octagonal tank to fill up.
In a practical sense, the phenomena
used for ELA can be anything that is going to meaningfully engage students and
allow for standards connections, such as a recent polar vortex weather event, a
school shooting, or the opioid epidemic. Students read, research, interview,
write, and argue about the phenomenon as they consider various viewpoints and
formulate their own. They dig into related fiction and nonfiction texts, and/or
develop and share their own related stories. The phenomenon itself could even
be the writing, the media, the “text” (slides 24-30 here).
Why did the person write or create this piece? How would you create a text to
convey the same tone and message? Why did the character within the text act a
certain way? Students collaboratively ask questions of this phenomenon (this text),
seek more information about it, and connect it to their lives in order to make
sense of it.
In science, a group of students
likewise begins by engaging with a meaningful phenomenon—by meaningful, I’d say
it prompts students’ curiosity and links to standards-based goals. Students use
their background knowledge, figure out what they can about what they’re
observing, and ask questions. They collaboratively create, share, and reflect
on an initial model that shows their thinking about the phenomenon. This
process is not “one and done.” They keep coming back to the phenomenon and
their models as they do experiments and research, have peer discussions, and
investigate related phenomena. They build up evidence and understanding,
leading to an explanation that ties their evidence and scientific learning
together.
The NGSS also emphasize an engineering
approach within science. A science, tech ed, or STEM class should similarly
move beyond activity-doing (e.g., building the tallest spaghetti tower) and
have students using background knowledge to solve meaningful problems.
Considering our earlier bat example, students might design bat houses to
address habitat loss, drawing them out with proper measurements so they’re the
right size for bats and bat groups in their region.
Summary
If we value teaching that connects
to authentic thinking and doing, we must provide students opportunities across
subjects to make sense of their world. The challenges we face cannot be solved
from one disciplinary lens; students must learn how to bring varying
epistemologies and diverse perspectives together to effect change.
The beginning elementary apple unit example could
be redesigned. Students might start in science by observing an apple tree with
a branch of a different type of apples on it. They learn about, and observe,
the structure and function of apples and apple trees, delving into comparative
structure and function of plant life. They connect that to learning about
heredity and reproduction. In social studies, their phenomenon might be simplified data on the amounts of different types of apples that are bought along with their cost, where students use that to build a basic discussion of supply and demand. They further look at apple consumption per region on a map, considering about their own region, geography connections to apple growing, and their cultural connections to apples. In mathematics, students would investigate
apple production numbers, per area and per tree per year. They’d connect that
to learning about geometric area and multiplication, continuing their work by
investigating production numbers within a faltering orchard and determining whether
it makes sense to plant new trees considering long term yield vs. short term
loss. In ELA, their first text—their phenomenon—is an apple cookbook. Students
build from there to write out clear directions for how to make and cook a
certain type of dish, using apples or another type of vegetable or fruit used
at home. They collaboratively revise their directions and create and publish a
class recipe book, comparing that to recipe books of other classes across the
country.
Of course, teachers need
instructional materials that support this type of learning, and they need time
for collaborative professional learning to put it into practice and reflect on
how it goes. As teachers note, this type of instruction takes more time. It’s
worth it for student learning.
Monday, February 4, 2019
[Guest Post!] Student Feedback and Standards Based Grading
So, your district is considering a switch to Standards Based Grading (SBG)....
Are you excited for that change or does it make you nervous?
Are the student results going to be worth the struggle of changing your grading philosophy and practices?
Will people just say, “This too shall pass”?
The above are very real questions in the hearts and minds of teachers as they ponder a switch from traditional grading to SBG. Our district began the conversion from traditional grades to SBG 6 years ago. We could probably write pages about our transition process, but instead today we are going to focus on three outcomes of our switch to not only standards based grading, but also to standards based reporting (on their report cards, our students see their grades as 1-4, not A-F).
You will notice two things. First, by providing these types of opportunities in our class, we are placing emphasis on our students being curious and driving their own learning. Our curriculum has actually become more rigorous because students dive deeper into the content than what we would have probably covered in class as a whole. Second, students are also able to make connections to their real-world, thus giving meaning to the content they are learning in our class. Third, we are placing emphasis on the science practices, the skills in science. We use the same rubric of science practices in all the science courses offered at Marshall High School. Because our standards are centered on practices, we look for ways to have students learn content through the process of doing science. Students learn that all science classes focus on thinking and behaving like a scientist; they must actually DO science, not just learn about science content.
When you move to an SBG world, your rubrics must make sense not only to the educator that is assessing the student, but to the students themselves. As mentioned above, we use the same rubric of standards in all our science courses. Students quickly understand the rubrics involved because all our science teachers use the same language when it comes to expectations. Another key part that aims to ensure clarity is our row under the actual standard (you can see this in blue text in the linked assessment above). We call this row the “What this looks like here?” row. We can say in our standard to “apply scientific reasoning to explain how the evidence supports a claim,” but to a freshman, what does that really mean, and most importantly, what does that look like? Sometimes this row is given to the students, and sometimes it is generated with the students. This hopefully then provides everyone (teachers, students, and parents) with a richer understanding of what students were able to do, and most importantly, what the next steps were in learning.
Our rubrics are written in an “I can” format, and this paves the way to have discussions about their next steps in their learning. One of our favorite things to do in terms of feedback are Mini Conferences; a student and teacher co-assess student work and plan next steps for growth. This also provides immediate and actionable feedback to the students so they can grow in their skills from assessment to assessment. Throughout the semester, we focus on building students’ ability to self assess - with the goal of building a students’ ability to identify and produce more quality work. Additionally, as students see the power in the 1:1 mini conference, classroom culture becomes focused on growth and student productivity. A key component of our feedback system has been to have rubrics that are clearly written, student friendly, and tailored to assessments that connect with student curiosity.
In the comments below, please share other ways that you have increased the role of feedback in your classroom or the way that standards based grading has enriched student learning!
Guest blog authors:
Danielle Bendt, dbendt@marshallschools.org
Life Science Teacher, Marshall High School
Allison Fuelling, afuelling@marshallschools.org
Life Science Teacher and Secondary Instructional Coach, Marshall Public Schools
Are you excited for that change or does it make you nervous?
Are the student results going to be worth the struggle of changing your grading philosophy and practices?
Will people just say, “This too shall pass”?
The above are very real questions in the hearts and minds of teachers as they ponder a switch from traditional grading to SBG. Our district began the conversion from traditional grades to SBG 6 years ago. We could probably write pages about our transition process, but instead today we are going to focus on three outcomes of our switch to not only standards based grading, but also to standards based reporting (on their report cards, our students see their grades as 1-4, not A-F).
- Greater emphasis on students mastering science practices, less emphasis on memorization of content (our curriculum became more rigorous).
- Well-defined rubrics provided us (teachers, students, and parents) with a richer understanding of what students were able to do, and most importantly, what the next steps were in learning.
- Well-defined rubrics and aligned assessments lead naturally into improved feedback (teacher → student, student → student, student → self, and student → teacher).
You will notice two things. First, by providing these types of opportunities in our class, we are placing emphasis on our students being curious and driving their own learning. Our curriculum has actually become more rigorous because students dive deeper into the content than what we would have probably covered in class as a whole. Second, students are also able to make connections to their real-world, thus giving meaning to the content they are learning in our class. Third, we are placing emphasis on the science practices, the skills in science. We use the same rubric of science practices in all the science courses offered at Marshall High School. Because our standards are centered on practices, we look for ways to have students learn content through the process of doing science. Students learn that all science classes focus on thinking and behaving like a scientist; they must actually DO science, not just learn about science content.
When you move to an SBG world, your rubrics must make sense not only to the educator that is assessing the student, but to the students themselves. As mentioned above, we use the same rubric of standards in all our science courses. Students quickly understand the rubrics involved because all our science teachers use the same language when it comes to expectations. Another key part that aims to ensure clarity is our row under the actual standard (you can see this in blue text in the linked assessment above). We call this row the “What this looks like here?” row. We can say in our standard to “apply scientific reasoning to explain how the evidence supports a claim,” but to a freshman, what does that really mean, and most importantly, what does that look like? Sometimes this row is given to the students, and sometimes it is generated with the students. This hopefully then provides everyone (teachers, students, and parents) with a richer understanding of what students were able to do, and most importantly, what the next steps were in learning.
Our rubrics are written in an “I can” format, and this paves the way to have discussions about their next steps in their learning. One of our favorite things to do in terms of feedback are Mini Conferences; a student and teacher co-assess student work and plan next steps for growth. This also provides immediate and actionable feedback to the students so they can grow in their skills from assessment to assessment. Throughout the semester, we focus on building students’ ability to self assess - with the goal of building a students’ ability to identify and produce more quality work. Additionally, as students see the power in the 1:1 mini conference, classroom culture becomes focused on growth and student productivity. A key component of our feedback system has been to have rubrics that are clearly written, student friendly, and tailored to assessments that connect with student curiosity.
In the comments below, please share other ways that you have increased the role of feedback in your classroom or the way that standards based grading has enriched student learning!
Guest blog authors:
Danielle Bendt, dbendt@marshallschools.org
Life Science Teacher, Marshall High School
Allison Fuelling, afuelling@marshallschools.org
Life Science Teacher and Secondary Instructional Coach, Marshall Public Schools
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)