I previously posted some thoughts on connecting NGSS to SBG. My ending question was: Is 18-19 standards too many for SBG. I have since concluded that as yes, that is too many. Below is how I am tackling this now.
Over the summer, I spent a lot of time reading NGSS, the Framework, and anything else I could get my eyes and hands on. Upon returning to plan for the upcoming year, what was hanging over my head was how to set up the gradebook. What standards do I use?
The first thing to think about was whether to have the performance expectations as my standards, or something else. I decided upon using the dimensions from the Framework instead as I feel that they are more lasting. Students can work on the idea of data analysis and interpretation from Pre-Kindergarten through forever. I see the individual performance expectations as some of the ways we can tell if students are understanding the dimensions.
I tried to just throw everything in the pot. That gave me 8 practices, 7 crosscutting concepts, and 5-6 disciplinary core idea. From the get-go, this seemed like an overloaded gradebook, so some pruning had to happen.
The first thing to go from the gradebook was the crosscutting concepts. I am not saying by any means that the crosscutting concepts are not important, but I am saying that I don't see them as a "thing" to assess and report on. I see the crosscutting concepts as themes and ideas to organize the class.
From there, I combined and cut some of the practices. First, I cut out the practice: "Using mathematics and computation thinking." Again, this is not to undermine its importance, but I feel students have a whole class on math that does a better job teaching and assessing those concepts. Also, we don't have a lot of performance expectations in Life Science that requires a lot of computational thinking. I also combined the practices of "explanations/solutions" with "arguments." I feel these are very similar. As one is explaining something, you generally need to use the evidence that was gathered connected with reasoning. A good explanation is a good argument. The same goes with solutions in engineering.
Finally, I put in 5 "Disciplinary Core Ideas." I can't remember the exact document I used to do this. I teach 7th grade Life Science and I used: structure and function, growth/development and reproduction, matter and energy in organisms and environments, organisms interactions, and survival and reproduction.
This gives me 11 standards total. I don't think I have stumbled upon a lucky number or anything, but it is where I am right now. What I still like about standards-based grading though is how having these standards keeps me grounded in what I do and more importantly what I assess. It is so easy to try to teach a lot of stuff. Having the practices on hand has kept me from having kids spout out a bunch of content. Instead, I feel like we are doing more with the content.
With this said, improvements can always be made. For next year, I will likely keep the 6 practices. For the DCI, I will use 3 or 4, as they are written in the framework. We don't "cover" a lot of ecosystem interactions in our class, so I think we could fit in the other 3 DCIs.
The next big step...getting rid of the overall grade so we can just focus on these standards. We shall see how that goes.
Showing posts with label Learning Targets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Learning Targets. Show all posts
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Reflection and goals
For me, the end of the school year is always one of reflection, but also one of goals and ideas for next year. When our final day was done last year, I was all jazzed up. Not for summer, although there are a ton of fun things happening there. School starts in 84 days. I think I get more excited about the next school year starting as most do about the last one ending.
I looked at my goals a bit differently this year. Previously, in my head or on paper, I had some ideas. They were not quality goals. This year is a bit different. Over the last two school years, I have spent quite a bit of time studying John Hattie's book: Visible Learning. Hattie's book is almost entirely focused on achievement, and many of my goals in the past, although not greatly defined, were also about achievement. As I read and studied his book, I had a lot of ideas about strategies that I could/should use in my class, but I wondered how I could use his overall message about effect size. The basic idea is that a treatment's effect can be studied by comparing achievement results pre and post treatment. Then, by creating an effect size, different treatments can be compared to each other. This is typically done with meta-analyses, or collections of many studies typically with many students.
I wanted to use the idea in my class, but like all things, a good use wasn't readily apparent. I attempted, last year, to use pre-assessment data and effect sizes to make goals for students to achieve for their post assessments. I didn't like how that turned out. Too often with pre-assessments, the ideas are so new that almost any real gain will produce a very large effect size. That may help my ego, but it didn't help with real goal setting.
During the 2011-2012 school year, I finally worked out a grading system that worked well. I used a 4-point scale with well defined levels. Basically, I used a modified Marzano's scale:
4: Students understand the simple and complex ideas, concepts, and processes that were taught in class AND show the ability to make in-depth inferences and applications beyond what was taught in class.
3: Students understand the simple and complex ideas, concepts, and processes that were taught in class.
2: Students understand the simple ideas, concepts, and processes, but have trouble with the complex ones.
1: Students do not understand the simple ideas, concepts, and processes.
0: No evidence.
In addition to this, each assessment was explicitly connected to one or more pre-defined learning targets. I then used ActiveGrade as a place to hold and communicate this data with students and parents. What this gave me, finally, was a wealth of data at the end of the year. For each learning target that we had written out in our curriculum, I could tell you how well students did, in terms of grades anyway. This shouldn't be a huge accomplishment, and I am embarrassed that it took me this long to achieve this. The messed up way I have graded in the past, along with a poorly defined curriculum, I didn't have the tools to create quality data. I finally feel like I have some, and frankly, I am a bit proud of myself!
Now, what to do with this data? At first, I sort of stood back, rubbed my chin, and gave a nod of approval. Nods of approvals and patting one's back doesn't really help kids much though, so what could I do now. This is where Hattie came to the rescue. I finally have a baseline data set. I can now use that to set a goal for next year, and have benchmarks in which to gauge success. To create goals, the first thing I did was to find an average of grades for each learning target. Hattie says the "hinge-point" for success is an effect size of 0.4. I set that as my goal for next year, and ran numbers for each learning target assuming this effect size. Then, I personally reflected on what I would need to do to get students to that level.
Of course, our goal for all students should be a "4." What I really want for all of my students is to understand what we do in class and then use it in a new context. The problem is that not all students achieve that. I decided previously that all students *must* achieve at least a "2" in all learning targets, as a bare minimum, and that goal was achieved. I like how I can use Hattie's recommendation to set a, hopefully realistic, goal for next year.
Below is an Excel document that shows the learning targets, current achievement, and goals.
Each learning target is assessed multiple times throughout the school year. Next year, as a department, we will do some clarification on these. Also, I have reflected on the number of times each learning target was assessed. Lots of work to do this summer, but I feel like I have a great starting point.
I looked at my goals a bit differently this year. Previously, in my head or on paper, I had some ideas. They were not quality goals. This year is a bit different. Over the last two school years, I have spent quite a bit of time studying John Hattie's book: Visible Learning. Hattie's book is almost entirely focused on achievement, and many of my goals in the past, although not greatly defined, were also about achievement. As I read and studied his book, I had a lot of ideas about strategies that I could/should use in my class, but I wondered how I could use his overall message about effect size. The basic idea is that a treatment's effect can be studied by comparing achievement results pre and post treatment. Then, by creating an effect size, different treatments can be compared to each other. This is typically done with meta-analyses, or collections of many studies typically with many students.
I wanted to use the idea in my class, but like all things, a good use wasn't readily apparent. I attempted, last year, to use pre-assessment data and effect sizes to make goals for students to achieve for their post assessments. I didn't like how that turned out. Too often with pre-assessments, the ideas are so new that almost any real gain will produce a very large effect size. That may help my ego, but it didn't help with real goal setting.
During the 2011-2012 school year, I finally worked out a grading system that worked well. I used a 4-point scale with well defined levels. Basically, I used a modified Marzano's scale:
4: Students understand the simple and complex ideas, concepts, and processes that were taught in class AND show the ability to make in-depth inferences and applications beyond what was taught in class.
3: Students understand the simple and complex ideas, concepts, and processes that were taught in class.
2: Students understand the simple ideas, concepts, and processes, but have trouble with the complex ones.
1: Students do not understand the simple ideas, concepts, and processes.
0: No evidence.
In addition to this, each assessment was explicitly connected to one or more pre-defined learning targets. I then used ActiveGrade as a place to hold and communicate this data with students and parents. What this gave me, finally, was a wealth of data at the end of the year. For each learning target that we had written out in our curriculum, I could tell you how well students did, in terms of grades anyway. This shouldn't be a huge accomplishment, and I am embarrassed that it took me this long to achieve this. The messed up way I have graded in the past, along with a poorly defined curriculum, I didn't have the tools to create quality data. I finally feel like I have some, and frankly, I am a bit proud of myself!
Now, what to do with this data? At first, I sort of stood back, rubbed my chin, and gave a nod of approval. Nods of approvals and patting one's back doesn't really help kids much though, so what could I do now. This is where Hattie came to the rescue. I finally have a baseline data set. I can now use that to set a goal for next year, and have benchmarks in which to gauge success. To create goals, the first thing I did was to find an average of grades for each learning target. Hattie says the "hinge-point" for success is an effect size of 0.4. I set that as my goal for next year, and ran numbers for each learning target assuming this effect size. Then, I personally reflected on what I would need to do to get students to that level.
Of course, our goal for all students should be a "4." What I really want for all of my students is to understand what we do in class and then use it in a new context. The problem is that not all students achieve that. I decided previously that all students *must* achieve at least a "2" in all learning targets, as a bare minimum, and that goal was achieved. I like how I can use Hattie's recommendation to set a, hopefully realistic, goal for next year.
Below is an Excel document that shows the learning targets, current achievement, and goals.
Each learning target is assessed multiple times throughout the school year. Next year, as a department, we will do some clarification on these. Also, I have reflected on the number of times each learning target was assessed. Lots of work to do this summer, but I feel like I have a great starting point.
Friday, April 22, 2011
How Specific?
I was just reading some new comments on the ActiveGrade blog from the post Should it “Count.” This post, others like it, and just my random thoughts, has gotten me thinking. How specific should a Standard’s Based gradebook be?
In the end, I still am on the idea that the most important purpose of grades is to communicate achievement. The communication of that achievement is likely to go to the students, their parents, as well as other teachers (both current and future). Where is the appropriate line of specificity? I definitely want to be more detailed than just having one grade for the class. Science: B+ doesn’t help anyone with anything. I could list every standard and report on those. Who would look at them? Is it worthwhile to be that specific? I have tried to lump many standards together under Essential Questions headings. Is that specific enough?
In the past, my gradebook (Making the Grade) allowed for 10 categories. It also allowed for less than 20 characters of explanation of those categories. Now, I am using ActiveGrade. More than enough categories, plenty of room for explanation.
Looking for thoughts. How specific should a gradebook or grade report be? Where is the happy medium? How does a teacher decide this for their individual class?
Friday, April 15, 2011
We Don't Need no Stinking Numbers!
When we look at traditional grading, numbers are very important. From the early 1900s, grading has focused on attaching a number to learning. At first, teachers attached a percentage number to a given assessment. This seemed logical. I think that we have a sense of security in numbers. I think it is a false sense of security though. Actually, in 1912 and 1913 (yep, almost 100 years ago), a couple of papers were published that challenged the idea of using a percent scale for grades. The biggest complaint was that percentages were not consistent. If multiple teachers were to grade a given assessment and give it a percentage grade, the percentages varied widely from teacher to teacher. This range was found to be that a given paper may receive a grade as low as 28% or as high as 95% when graded by multiple teachers. Remember, this is the same paper!
We have stuck with numbers ever since, and I think it is an artifact that keeps grading from moving forward. The 100 point percentage scale doesn't work. Because it doesn't work, some schools have moved to a 3 or 4 or 5 point scale. Some do a 10 point scale, but also use decimals. That still doesn't work. (Hint, that is still 100 points). I have seen others were the teacher uses a 100 point scale to grade specific assessments, then they have to convert that to a 4 point scale for report cards.
In my opinion, to change grading, we can’t evolve. Evolution is decent with modification, or keeping the old with minor changes. We need to have a creationist philosophy here…a RE-creation. We have to get rid of the old way of thinking and have a paradigm shift.
I suppose many people will still need grades. We will feel a need to track students progress (I do anyway), and it is overwhelming to track each student individually. We need a way to make it systematic, and grades are likely to be that way. When we recreate this grading idea, I think we first need to think of precision. When we grade work, assessments, or whatever, we are basically putting that work into a category. How many different categories can you have? When I think of students, standards, and assessments, I am able to easily differentiate 4 main categories. First, you have the binary. Students either “get it” or they don’t. They either are showing proficient understanding, or they are not. I think this scale is too basic. I think we can identify categories beyond this.
Many grading scales have multiple levels describing understanding that falls below proficiency. These are terms such as basic, below basic, well below basic. I don’t know how much that helps. For me, I use one. Basically, the student's understanding is not there yet. We have work to do, let’s not try to report too much on the deficiencies. On the other side, I have a couple of categories. I think there are students who are “advanced.” They are more than just proficient. I do think there are multiple levels of advanced as well. Let me explain.
What I do is relatively simple. I have a 4 level scale. The bottom is not-proficient. I don’t think these students have shown adequate understanding. The next level is proficient. These students can basically show they have learned the targets of class. They are able to repeat knowledge, complete procedures, and do whatever we are doing in a very simple way. I think they will probably forget much of it, but they are able to function in class. Then I have 2 levels of “advanced.” The highest level are students who are able to show understanding in a complex way. This may mean that they are able to take what we have learned and apply it in a novel setting. They may be able to use the knowledge and create something from it. They may be able to apply it to another situation. There is obvious complexity in their understanding. I then reserve a level in-between proficient and advanced. These are inconsistent or “emerging” students. They may be able to know that there are applications in complex settings, but they can’t apply them correctly yet. They may need a lot of assistance from me to apply them. They are more complex than the proficient level, but they are not as complex as the advanced level.
Now, I am going to be slightly hypocritical. I did say we shouldn't evolve in grading…but I am. I do organize these levels above with traditional letter grades. Proficient is equal to a “C,” the somewhat-advanced is equal to a “B,” and the advanced is equal to an “A.” I don’t do plus or minus grades though.
To make this work, you have to give students chances to show advanced understanding. I can’t simply give an assessment were students are repeating what we did in class and document deficiencies from there. I have to have assessments where students are applying knowledge and skills in complex settings. This is done through tiered assessments. Students are given assessments, usually very similar to each other, with questions that range from simple to complex. Students who are only able to complete simple questions are graded as a “C.” Students who can do complex questions as well are graded as an “A.” The “Bs” are for in-between.
Assessments and grades are always subjective. It is important to just admit that. To help with this problem, I allow for students to redo any assessments they want. If they think they can show me more complex understanding, I let them. Sometimes they realize that they need to learn more before they can do the more complex tasks. So, I let them learn more, and then redo the assessment.
When I am grading things, I remove the numbers. I take a step back, look at the learning target at hand, and rate the students understanding with reference to the A,B,C categories. Then, that grade is entered into the gradebook into under the appropriate learning target. From there, we learn more and try again!
We have stuck with numbers ever since, and I think it is an artifact that keeps grading from moving forward. The 100 point percentage scale doesn't work. Because it doesn't work, some schools have moved to a 3 or 4 or 5 point scale. Some do a 10 point scale, but also use decimals. That still doesn't work. (Hint, that is still 100 points). I have seen others were the teacher uses a 100 point scale to grade specific assessments, then they have to convert that to a 4 point scale for report cards.
In my opinion, to change grading, we can’t evolve. Evolution is decent with modification, or keeping the old with minor changes. We need to have a creationist philosophy here…a RE-creation. We have to get rid of the old way of thinking and have a paradigm shift.
I suppose many people will still need grades. We will feel a need to track students progress (I do anyway), and it is overwhelming to track each student individually. We need a way to make it systematic, and grades are likely to be that way. When we recreate this grading idea, I think we first need to think of precision. When we grade work, assessments, or whatever, we are basically putting that work into a category. How many different categories can you have? When I think of students, standards, and assessments, I am able to easily differentiate 4 main categories. First, you have the binary. Students either “get it” or they don’t. They either are showing proficient understanding, or they are not. I think this scale is too basic. I think we can identify categories beyond this.
Many grading scales have multiple levels describing understanding that falls below proficiency. These are terms such as basic, below basic, well below basic. I don’t know how much that helps. For me, I use one. Basically, the student's understanding is not there yet. We have work to do, let’s not try to report too much on the deficiencies. On the other side, I have a couple of categories. I think there are students who are “advanced.” They are more than just proficient. I do think there are multiple levels of advanced as well. Let me explain.
What I do is relatively simple. I have a 4 level scale. The bottom is not-proficient. I don’t think these students have shown adequate understanding. The next level is proficient. These students can basically show they have learned the targets of class. They are able to repeat knowledge, complete procedures, and do whatever we are doing in a very simple way. I think they will probably forget much of it, but they are able to function in class. Then I have 2 levels of “advanced.” The highest level are students who are able to show understanding in a complex way. This may mean that they are able to take what we have learned and apply it in a novel setting. They may be able to use the knowledge and create something from it. They may be able to apply it to another situation. There is obvious complexity in their understanding. I then reserve a level in-between proficient and advanced. These are inconsistent or “emerging” students. They may be able to know that there are applications in complex settings, but they can’t apply them correctly yet. They may need a lot of assistance from me to apply them. They are more complex than the proficient level, but they are not as complex as the advanced level.
Now, I am going to be slightly hypocritical. I did say we shouldn't evolve in grading…but I am. I do organize these levels above with traditional letter grades. Proficient is equal to a “C,” the somewhat-advanced is equal to a “B,” and the advanced is equal to an “A.” I don’t do plus or minus grades though.
To make this work, you have to give students chances to show advanced understanding. I can’t simply give an assessment were students are repeating what we did in class and document deficiencies from there. I have to have assessments where students are applying knowledge and skills in complex settings. This is done through tiered assessments. Students are given assessments, usually very similar to each other, with questions that range from simple to complex. Students who are only able to complete simple questions are graded as a “C.” Students who can do complex questions as well are graded as an “A.” The “Bs” are for in-between.
Assessments and grades are always subjective. It is important to just admit that. To help with this problem, I allow for students to redo any assessments they want. If they think they can show me more complex understanding, I let them. Sometimes they realize that they need to learn more before they can do the more complex tasks. So, I let them learn more, and then redo the assessment.
When I am grading things, I remove the numbers. I take a step back, look at the learning target at hand, and rate the students understanding with reference to the A,B,C categories. Then, that grade is entered into the gradebook into under the appropriate learning target. From there, we learn more and try again!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Designing Curriculum around Learning Targets
For several years, I have approached my curriculum using Understanding by Design (UbD). This approach requires that you take a sort of "backwards design approach" in that you identify specific long-term understandings you want students to learn, then design assessments that will take you to that end, and finally designing learning tasks or lessons. It is "backwards" because the traditional approach is to think of interesting and engaging lessons first and then think of ways to assess those lessons second.
The UbD approach allows you to differentiate several aspects of your curriculum. Since you identify key understandings, you are not tied to your textbook and full class lessons. As needed, you can pull in different resources for different kids. You may come up with multiple ways to assess students. The focus is on the learning, not on the completion of tasks.
One thing I have always struggled with in the UbD approach is the textbook reading. I usually have student do very little textbook reading. I do think of and use the textbook as a resource, not as a curriculum that students take home with them every day. I do think that reading from a textbook as well as reading for information is an important task. The problem I have ran into is that there isn't a textbook that has the key things I need the students to learn all tied together in one chapter. What's a teacher to do?
This week I am out experimenting again. We are working on the respiratory system and there are some things about the respiratory system that is most simply learned by reading about it. Previously, I would have had students read a section of a given chapter, take some organized notes, and then discuss and work with those notes. The problem was that I would be pointing to very specific places in the book for the notes to come from. I hate doing all the work!
Today, I am putting more of the responsibility on the students. Students are looking back at the Learning Targets for the unit, deciding which ones they think they could learn from reading the textbook, and then reading and taking some notes from the text on those targets. My hope is that it will give a little more focus and purpose to their reading and open the door for me to use other reading materials, internet resources, or whatever in the future. Will it work?
The UbD approach allows you to differentiate several aspects of your curriculum. Since you identify key understandings, you are not tied to your textbook and full class lessons. As needed, you can pull in different resources for different kids. You may come up with multiple ways to assess students. The focus is on the learning, not on the completion of tasks.
One thing I have always struggled with in the UbD approach is the textbook reading. I usually have student do very little textbook reading. I do think of and use the textbook as a resource, not as a curriculum that students take home with them every day. I do think that reading from a textbook as well as reading for information is an important task. The problem I have ran into is that there isn't a textbook that has the key things I need the students to learn all tied together in one chapter. What's a teacher to do?
This week I am out experimenting again. We are working on the respiratory system and there are some things about the respiratory system that is most simply learned by reading about it. Previously, I would have had students read a section of a given chapter, take some organized notes, and then discuss and work with those notes. The problem was that I would be pointing to very specific places in the book for the notes to come from. I hate doing all the work!
Today, I am putting more of the responsibility on the students. Students are looking back at the Learning Targets for the unit, deciding which ones they think they could learn from reading the textbook, and then reading and taking some notes from the text on those targets. My hope is that it will give a little more focus and purpose to their reading and open the door for me to use other reading materials, internet resources, or whatever in the future. Will it work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)