Proficiency Notes

Depth of Knowledge Chart

posted Aug 13, 2012, 8:53 AM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Jan 24, 2013, 5:21 AM ]

Student-Centered Assessment

posted Aug 13, 2012, 8:47 AM by Matt Cronin

ASSESSING LEARNING

By Heidi Andrade, Kristen Huff, and Georgia Brooke


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE EDITORS, STUDENTS AT THE CENTER SERIES

Assessing student learning often promotes anxiety among students—and among teachers—not only because they worry about the results but because the items tested do not seem to reflect what students have learned. But when assessment is student centered, it can promote learning and even motivation. Moreover, assessment is essential to student-centered approaches to learning, which value differentiation, active engagement, and self-management as critical to learning.

To paint a picture of what student-centered assessment can be, Heidi Andrade, Kristen Huff, and Georgia Brooke have examined the full range of assessment practices, including classroom- based, local, state, and national assessments. They conclude that a blend of practices, each with different purposes, advantages, and limitations, can create a balanced, student-centered assessment system, with great benefits for efforts to prepare students for college and careers. The authors pay particular attention to large-scale, standardized tests, which are ubiquitous in U.S. schools, and to computer-based assessments, which hold special promise in a balanced system.

Andrade, Huff, and Brooke observe that:

  • >  Student-centered assessment is individualized, It is focused on learning and growth, motivating, amenable to students regulating their own learning, and informative and useful to a variety of audiences.

  • >  No single type of assessment can inform learning and instruction and simultaneously aid policy decisions. Student- centered assessment should be part of a balanced system of formative, interim, and summative assessments—both formal and informal.

  • >  A variety of classroom-based assessments are associated with significant gains in student learning and achievement. These include self- and peer assessments, portfolios, assessments using new technologies, and formative uses of summative tests.

> Large-scale tests can provide useful feedback to students, teachers, and others, particularly when tests that are based on theories of learning, sensitive to the context in which they are administered, and provide instructionally relevant reports.

> Schools and districts across the nation report impressive gains in student achievement via teacher-created interim assessments, which directly measure the curriculum enacted in classrooms and foster professional collaboration.

> Modern assessment technologies hold great promise for their ability to give immediate feedback to each student and because teachers can respond to individual learning needs with greater speed, frequency, focus, and flexibility.

A DEFINITION OF STUDENT-CENTERED ASSESSMENT
Student-centered assessment has defining qualities:

It is individualized, focusing on each student’s strengths, needs, and interests. This is as essential as it is obvious. It involves differentiating learning targets, assignments, and tasks; providing focused feedback on learning alone or in groups; and adjusting teaching and learning processes as needed.

It promotes learning and growth. The goals go far beyond measuring and reporting learning (or lack thereof). Student- centered assessment advances learning by providing useful feedback about what students need to do to progress toward the target.

Key for college and career success, student-centered assessment

actively engages young people in the regulation of their own learning. Students set individual goals, monitor their own progress, and figure out how to fill gaps.

Student-centered assessment is motivating. Recent studies show that formative assessment—particularly detailed, task-specific comments on student work—can activate student interest and result in better performance.

MARCH 2012

To support learning, student-centered assessment is useful to a variety of audiences—young people, teachers, administrators, parents, districts, and states. Despite the availability of reams of data, the U.S. education system still does a poor job of using assessment information to adapt curricula and instruction.

Student-centered assessment shares many qualities with any good assessment. For example, it articulates developmentally appropriate learning targets, and it provides feedback to students, teachers, districts, and states about how to deepen learning. It is also valid, reliable, practicable, and efficient.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BALANCED ASSESSMENT

No single type of assessment can inform classroom practice as well as school, district, and high-level policy decisions. Therefore, student-centered assessment requires a balanced system of formative, interim, and summative assessments that, taken together, provide the detailed information educators and other stakeholders need. Such a system may include everything from informal observations of student work to standardized tests.

Formative assessments are the ongoing, minute-by-minute, day- by-day classroom assessments administered in the course of a unit of instruction. The intent is to identify individual strengths and weaknesses, assist educators in planning subsequent instruction, and aid students in guiding their own learning, revising their work, and developing self-evaluation skills.

Interim and summative assessments are more formalized processes of measuring student achievement through the school year. The chief goal of interim assessments is to provide information to educators and policymakers, who can adjust curricula and instruction as needed. The primary purpose

of summative assessments—which are often standardized and typically administered at the end of a unit of instruction, semester, or year—is to categorize performance of a student or education system to inform accountability processes and decisions about grades, graduation, or retention.

Ultimately, a system using all three types of assessment, created both inside and outside the classroom, is needed to support student-centered approaches to learning.

STUDENT-CENTERED ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

While all assessment processes have some student-centered qualities, only a few meet all the characteristics of student- centered assessment. Hence, the need for a balanced approach. Generally, formative assessment tends to be more student- centered than interim and summative assessment (except for end-of-year exhibitions of student work: see box on next page). The table presents an overview of select assessment processes, along with the “student centeredness” of each.

Despite the need to use different types of assessment for different purposes, when it comes to the critical work of improving student outcomes, research has shown that formative,

TABLE 1
STUDENT-CENTERED QUALITIES OF SELECT ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

INDIVIDUALIZED

FOCUSED ON 

LEARNING AND GROWTH

MOTIVATING

STUDENT SELF- REGULATION

INFORMATIVE TO A VARIETY OF AUDIENCES

FORMATIVE

Self-assessment

Peer assessment

Portfolios    

Tests

INTERIM

Criterion-referenced tests

SUMMATIVE

Exhibitions

Tests based on learning progression

Diagnostic items

Large-scale tests

classroom-based assessments are associated with significant gains in learning and achievement. These include self- assessments, peer assessments, portfolios, and formative uses of summative tests.

SELF-ASSESSMENT

Self-assessment is feedback for oneself from oneself. The point is to help students identify their own areas of strengths and weaknesses, take responsibility for their performance, monitor their achievement, and improve their learning. Self-assessment is not a matter of students determining their own grades. Rather, it involves articulating goals, checking progress, and revising one’s work. Research suggests this can boost achievement and autonomy in a range of subjects.

A common self-assessment tool is a one- or two-page list of criteria for a specific assignment, with descriptions of varying levels of performance. Using this rubric, each student compares her or his own work to the expectations and makes a plan for improvement. Students generally react well to self-assessment but need support and practice to reap the full benefits.

PEER ASSESSMENT

With peer assessment, learners provide feedback to one another. Like self-assessment, it is available more quickly and in greater volume than teacher feedback. Students can help one another identify strengths and weaknesses in the quality of a product

or performance—and target areas for improvement. Research suggests that peer assessment can improve the quality and effectiveness of learning across grade levels, particularly in writing. Furthermore, both the student being assessed and the assessor benefit from the process.

PORTFOLIOS

An academic portfolio is a collection of one student’s work. It typically consists of physical artifacts presented in a deliberate order, assembled in a folder or binder or on a computer, incorporating audio, video, graphics, and text.

The student takes part in the construction of the portfolio, and its contents include his or her reflections. Some portfolios showcase a student’s best work; others trace progress from novice to mastery.

The portfolio scaffolds self-regulated learning and provides nuanced information about a student’s knowledge, motivations, and needs. For example, a writing process portfolio includes several successive drafts and the students’ comments on each. Research suggests that portfolios are best used formatively, for classroom assessment, rather than for summative purposes.

FORMATIVE USES OF SUMMATIVE TESTS

Traditionally, tests come at the end of a unit of study; teachers use them summatively to determine grades. In contrast, formative uses of summative tests involve two testing events: one in the middle of a unit (or even during a lesson on a concept)

and one following further instruction. The results of the first test are used formatively, while the results of the second test are used summatively.

Formative uses of summative testing are individualized: they provide information about what each student does and does
not know, at least in terms of what was tested. This approach to testing is designed with learning and growth in mind. The explicit goal of the first test is to activate learning about the content of the second test. It is not hearing the correct answers to the test that makes formative use of testing work. Rather, it is the hard thinking that happens in between the tests that matters.

Research shows that this process—called mastery learning—is related to learning gains, especially for struggling students, and has positive effects on student attitudes toward course content.

EXHIBITIONS

Exhibitions are public demonstrations of mastery that occur
at culminating moments (e.g., the end of a unit of study; graduation). Their purpose is to support sustained, personalized learning while assuring commitment, engagement, and high-level intellectual achievement aligned with established standards.

Exhibitions exemplify the characteristics of student-centered assessment. They are individualized to student interests.
They involve personalized, ongoing feedback from diverse sources before the exhibition. They actively engage students
in regulating learning by requiring them to set goals and seek feedback. Because the audience for exhibitions typically includes practicing experts, they provide an authentic, real-world task that can motivate students to do well. By definition, exhibitions provide information about student learning to students, teachers, parents, administrators, and community members.

LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENT

Large-scale assessments—those that states use for K-12 accountability and those that measure performance based on national norms—tend to be less student-centered than any of the processes discussed here. However, they are ubiquitous in U.S. schools and unlikely to go away any time soon. Policymakers use the information to compare performance within states and nationally. Local and policymakers analyze the data and often use it to determine where to allocate resources and what kinds of educational programs have the most success with particular groups.

On a positive note, recent advances in large-scale tests suggest they can do more than measure and report on a narrow band
of student knowledge and skills. Large-scale assessment can provide useful feedback to students, teachers, and policymakers when they are: based on theories of learning; address the educational context of a wide array of students; and provide instructionally relevant score reports.

For example, recent research suggests that K-12 accountability assessments could enhance student learning by providing test takers with elaborated, task-level feedback. Such an

augmentation to large-scale tests would go a long way toward making them more effective in promoting learning and growth.

Learning, Time To Know, Wowzers, Carnegie Learning, and WriteToLearn. While some products, like DreamBox Learning and Time To Know, integrate instruction and assessment into one platform, others such as WriteToLearn focus just on assessment. Continued research on the effectiveness of assessment technologies in student-centered learning environments would be valuable, yet there is already some information on their value.

WriteToLearn is an example with strong research support. WriteToLearn promotes reading comprehension and writing skills by providing students with immediate, individualized feedback. Designed for grades 4 through 12, it consists of Summary Street, where students read and summarize articles or book excerpts, and the Intelligent Essay Assessor, where students write topic- prompted essays. One study found a positive relationship between the use of Summary Street and student summary scores after just two weeks. It also found that students spend significantly more time generating summaries than do students not using the program, suggesting it may promote motivation and engagement. Another study found that eighth graders
using Summary Street have significantly higher comprehension scores and better writing skills than students who do not use the program.

ASSESSING THE ASSESSMENTS

It is clear that a balanced system of formative, interim, and summative assessments can support student-centered assessment and learning. Yet even an exquisitely balanced assessment system would present challenges. For one thing,
the sheer quantity of assessment data threatens to be overwhelming. Even as new assessment processes are created, educators must work to ensure they are useful to and used by the appropriate audiences—students, teachers, schools, districts, and policymakers alike. It is also critical to continually assess the assessments to make sure that advances in design—and their implementation—are as student centered as possible.

TEACHER-CREATED, CRITERION-REFERENCED ASSESSMENTS

Schools and districts across the nation are reporting impressive gains in student achievement through the use of criterion- referenced assessments that teachers create. Teams of teachers— within and across schools—in particular grades and subject

areas collaborate to design questions that directly measure the curriculum enacted in their classrooms. The teachers use the same assessments on an interim basis throughout the school year (usually about every six weeks). They get together to discuss the results at length and share pedagogical approaches to helping students succeed. The key to the success of these efforts is that teachers work together to develop the tests and discuss the results, and then adjust their pedagogy accordingly when they return to their classrooms.

ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES

Modern assessment technologies hold great promise for student- centered approaches to learning. They provide immediate feedback and enable teachers to respond to individual learning needs with greater speed, frequency, focus, and flexibility.

Key features of student-centered assessment technologies include: systematic monitoring of student progress to inform instructional decisions; the identification of misconceptions that may interfere with student learning; rapid feedback to students, teachers, and others; and information about student learning needs during instruction.

Computer-based assessment software integrates the management of learning (e.g., organizing student assignments, assessments, and performance), curricular resources, embedded assessments, and detailed student-level and aggregate reporting of strengths and weaknesses. Examples include DreamBox

page4image31160

Students at the Center synthesizes existing research on key components of student-centered approaches to learning. The papers that launch this project renew attention to the importance of engaging each student in acquiring the skills, knowledge, and expertise needed for success in college and a career. Students at the Center is supported generously by funds from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation.

To download Assessing Learning and all papers in the Students at the Center series, go to the project website: www.studentsatthecenter.org

TEL 617.728.4446 FAX 617.728.4857 info@jff.org 88 Broad Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110

2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 5300, Washington, DC 20006

WWW.JFF.ORG

TEL 781.348.4200 FAX 781.348.4299

1250 Hancock Street, Suite 205N, Quincy, MA 02169

WWW.NMEFOUNDATION.ORG

Local Assessment Protocol

posted Dec 8, 2010, 8:48 AM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Dec 8, 2010, 12:59 PM ]

Please use the following images of student work for our protocol:

Overview Image:



Student One





Student Two





Student Three





Scaffolding or Rescuing

posted Sep 7, 2010, 5:57 AM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Aug 13, 2012, 8:40 AM ]

Ways to provide student support that promote academic growth


Are You Scaffolding or Rescuing?
Terry Thompson

Do you remember where you were when you first saw the (now familiar) scaffolding diagram? Oh, come on. You know the one. 



The long rectangle with a diagonal line stretching from the top right corner to the bottom left dividing it in two? On the far left hand side was the word teacher and on the far right was the word student? Remember? 

I do. I was in our small campus library sitting at a child-sized study table around which sat our assistant principal, me, and the rest of my grade-level team. And I was overwhelmed. You wouldn't think that such a basic looking diagram could get me all worked up, but it did. I was suspicious. Looking at it, you'd think scaffolding was a fairly simple, straightforward concept. But somewhere deep inside me, I knew better. And as our balanced literacy trainer's voice echoed my concerns, I knew I'd be spending a lot of time getting to know this rectangle.

Over ten years later, as I've moved from classroom teacher to Reading Recovery teacher to literacy coach, I've seen that diagram and its many variations more times than I can count. No matter how many times I encounter it, its simplicity still remains a bit deceptive. Oh, don't get me wrong. It's a helpful visual, but scaffolding our instruction is anything but simple, requiring skillful teaching moves based on thoughtful interpretations of all the various information we can gather on our students. It can be even more difficult to build scaffolds for the students who need our intense instruction the most - those struggling and reluctant readers we encounter on a daily basis. 

True scaffolding takes an in-depth knowledge of readers as well as the instructional practices that will most benefit them, and it involves a seamless, almost art-like dance to the beats of varying levels of support. A dance that is different for each student, and one where the steps can change based on the needs of the reader and the focus of the instruction.

As instructors, we take the lead in this dance, determined that our readers will eventually move to the captivating melodies of reading and writing - on their own and without our guidance. But we move cautiously. We know that too many missteps or leading too much will create readers who can't dance on their own or worse, don't want to dance at all.

In all of this, we continue to sharpen our skills as instructors. We continue to learn. We continue to grow.

Simple? I think not.

Rescuing: Scaffolding's Evil Twin Brother

Recently I had a chance to work for several weeks with a group of teachers who were eager to take a good, strong look at their teaching practices. I asked them to identify four students for daily individual tutoring just after school let out for the summer. In addition to coaching them during their individual tutoring sessions, I offered to design an ongoing staff development program to support their instructional goals. During the planning stages, the teachers asked that we spend time investigating their use of language to support their students' sense of agency.

I asked teachers to record their lessons and transcribe them for the group. During our staff development time each day, one of the teachers would share a transcript of a lesson, and we would look at the way she used language to support her student in moving toward independence. 

As we investigated their instruction, I began to notice a recurring pattern. The group seemed to have a desperate need for their students to do well. Why wouldn't they? Isn't that the crux of a powerful lesson: to cater our book introductions and scaffolds in such a way that the reading - and the reader, as a result - is successful? But it seemed to run deeper than that. They definitely had a sense of urgency for their readers to get it right - however, the problem was that many of their readers didn't seem to share that same sense of urgency. The teachers were working harder than their students were. In some instances, they were doing almost all the work. This sent up a red flag and I decided we needed to take a closer look at the origins of their instructional decisions.

Returning to our original line of inquiry, we started to look at their use of language and our understanding of student agency. As we reviewed lesson transcripts and our instructional decisions, we noticed an overall pattern of teaching that included an impulsive need to sweep in and help at the slightest moment of difficulty. Sound familiar?

When I asked the group to their interpretations of this pattern, some initially reasoned that they were working within the zone of proximal development, some wondered if maybe they were jumping in too soon, and a few admitted that they really weren't sure why we were teaching this way.

I returned to that familiar scaffolding diagram and asked them to think about where they were on the scale of support during these moments. We had a lot of conversation around what it means to scaffold our instruction. In these conversations, we realized that when our scaffolds aren't strong and our students start to falter as a result, we tend to grab at straws instructionally - desperately trying whatever we can to "save the lesson". We wanted our readers to feel successful, but at the moments they weren't, fear and uncertainty had us jumping in (often too soon), taking over for the reader, and carrying the weight of the work at hand. 

Eventually we came to recognize this behavior as rescuing, and dedicated the rest of our staff development time to investigating how rescuing occurs, how to differentiate it from scaffolding, and how to adjust our instructional techniques to prevent it. 

When Rescuing Isn't Helping

There is certainly a fine line between scaffolding and rescuing, and in many ways, their similarities can be confusing. It's an easy mistake, because when you think about it, both rescuing and scaffolding stem from a foundation of collaboration and assistance. Both are helping behaviors. Both scenarios denote a more capable person (the teacher) supporting a needier individual (the learner).

Despite these connections, rescuing and scaffolding can often be polar opposites. In our work, we learned to differentiate the two by reflecting on one overarching concept: agency. I often ask teachers, "Who do you think worked harder during that lesson - you or the student?" In a rescuing situation, the teacher is generally the only one working - the sole responsibility is placed on the rescuer. On the other hand, when scaffolds are built into the instructional plan, the student is working just as hard as the teacher (if not harder) as the teacher assumes a facilitative role - supporting, modeling, and encouraging. But not taking over the reader's work at hand. In essence, scaffolders offer just the right amount of support to make it easy to learn. Scaffolding requires a shared responsibility with an end goal in mind. Rescuers simply take over. 

The Rescued

Whether conscious or unconscious, rescuers envision a learner who is helpless - someone who can't do it on his own or is simply unable to pull himself out of whatever it is that is got him bogged down in the first place. While it can happen with just about any student in any situation, it appears to occur most often when working with struggling readers, unmotivated readers, ELL students, and any of our 'harder to teach' learners. Since many teachers don't want to risk pushing these readers even further away, they may feel reluctant or uncertain as they raise the bar for them. Additionally, since many of these struggling readers often come to us with a sense of learned helplessness, both teacher and student seem primed for a rescue scenario to unfold. In reality, as these are exactly the students who need our intentionally scaffolded focus the most. Instructional rescuing is often counterproductive and may even be detrimental. In a classic case of best intentions, our readers grow accustomed to our rescuing behaviors and learn that if they wait long enough, someone will eventually feel sorry for them and jump in to do the work for them.

The Rescuers

Teachers are essentially helpers and any one of us might don our rescuing cape at different times. It comes with the territory. But it's one of those traits where less is more. While I agree that there are teachers out there who are chronic rescuers, rescuing isn't a full-time sport for most teachers. It really is about looking at our own instruction and simply noticing our tendencies. Some teachers tend to rescue more with needier readers, while others might rescue more when their overall energy is low or they're having a bad day. We may rescue when we're uncomfortable with a particular area of instruction or we haven't planned our lessons as well as we'd like. Some teachers rescue randomly based on the perceived needs of students in a particular instructional moment, while still others rescue out of a need to feel effective. 

Rescuing appears to happen most when we don't have a strong plan for the scaffold in place or when we skip a step in the scaffolding process. When we've left learners high and dry without any support system, it looks like they need rescuing. For example, I've noticed a common situation where teachers are left to feel that we've no choice but to rescue - and it's one we often set ourselves up for. Consider one of the fundamental progressions of scaffolding which, in its most basic form, involves the following continuum of instructional steps:

1. I Do/You Watch - teacher models the task and the student observes

2. I Do/You Help - teacher does the majority of the work while the student helps

3. You Do/I Help - student does the majority of the work while the teacher helps

4. You Do/I Watch - student does the task while the teacher observes

When navigated correctly, moving through this instructional sequence produces incredible results. However, I've noticed that some teachers skip Steps 2 and 3 and in doing so, create a situation that is ripe for rescuing behaviors. Still others might redefine Step 1 as simply "I tell you about it/You listen" and then continue directly to Step 4. These oversights are generally unintentional and teachers are often unaware they even happened. Yet consider how directly related they can be to situations where readers start to drown and need a life boat.

Scaffolding vs. Rescuing

I've developed a couple tools to help you gauge if you are putting up scaffolds or performing rescues with specific students. The first is a compare and contrast chart of scaffold and rescue behaviors. You can download the chart at this link:

http://www.choiceliteracy.com/Scaffolding.pdf

The second tool is a self-test to assess how you interact with students.

Quick Self-Assessment

Consider your small group and individual reading instruction. If you answer "yes" to more than just a few of these questions, it may be time to take a closer look at your rescuing behaviors:

1. Do you often find the momentum of your lesson waning without a good reason?

While there are plenty of other variables that may be at the root of this problem, rescuing is one you might consider. It isn't unusual for a rescuer's lesson to start out with a bang and then wind down to a fizzle by the end. I've noticed this problem to be twofold: the teacher tires from 'dragging the student along' and the reader tires from the boredom of having to sit through the lesson.

2. Do you find yourself physically holding the text, turning the pages, and pointing to difficult parts as your reader(s) sits back, physically uninvolved?

While there are certainly times where these teaching behaviors are necessary, they are fewer than most of us would like to think. Rescuers have a difficulty 'pushing back' from the table and letting the reader give it a try on her own.

3. Are you exhausted after a lesson?

As a result of taking on most of the responsibility around the learning, teachers who rescue often work harder than their students, leaving them utterly exhausted, despite having started out fairly energized.

4. Are you doing most of the talking?

Rescuers tend to take over conversations with students. This can be a sign that they are doing the majority of the work, so the reader doesn't have to.

5. Do you avoid challenging students for fear of where that challenge might take you?

As a defense mechanism, rescuers often want the lesson to flow smoothly, so they avoid sticky situations at all costs. They especially tend to steer clear of ambiguous situations where they can't control the outcome. In this way, they're preemptive - avoiding situations where the reader would even need to be rescued at all.

6. Is it difficult for you to allow students to work through a challenging text on their own? Could your wait time be extended?

Many rescuers jump in entirely too soon. And when they do, they generally take on the work themselves. If too much time has gone by, consider jumpstarting the stall with a decisive, well-placed prompt such as: "I see you're stuck there. What could you do to help yourself?"

7. Do you struggle to take notes on student reading behaviors?

Though not always indicative of a rescuer, it may be the reason you can't take good instructional notes is due to the fact that you're too busy doing the reader's work for him and your hands are all over the text.

8. Do you generally ask closed questions?

Closed questions usually require a one-word answer without a lot of thinking. They are a common form of rescuing, because they give the illusion that both the teacher and the student are successful. For example, Did you like the character? vs. What can you tell me about the character? is the kind of questioning shift you might try.

9. Do you machine-gun students with follow-up questions, not allowing time to really share their thinking?

This is a frequent rescue behavior. I've seen many teachers who will risk an open-ended question only to follow it up all too quickly with an onslaught of rapid-fire closed questions. There is discomfort with the silence the student's thinking time invokes.

10. Do you struggle to define a focal point for your lesson, teach many lessons "on the fly," or have difficulty keeping the lesson focused? 

Even though it may 'all seem important', we can't teach everything at once. Without a focus, our lessons can feel scattered, leaving us feeling unprepared. And when we're unprepared, we tend to rescue more. Choosing an overarching focus supports teaching that is more deliberate in its scaffolding.

Deliberately planned and intentionally executed scaffolding is the antithesis of instructional rescuing. Often, readers who appear to need rescuing actually need a stronger scaffold. It takes intentional planning on our part, not to mention lots of practice, but the first step is awareness. When we take a moment to investigate our instruction with an eye toward screening for rescuing behaviors, we are making powerful movements toward helping our students become independent lifelong learners.

Vertical Alignment with Subjects

posted Dec 17, 2009, 11:56 AM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Sep 7, 2010, 6:03 AM ]

What is Proficient?  Creating Validity….Notes



Christina: The goal that we started to talk about was to work on vertically aligning Marblehead's grading system and working on using the writing rubric more consistently. So hopefully we could finalize these if they still make sense and make an action plan from here.

Tuning Protocol?

  • Humanities: Look at the expectations for each grade level 3 humanities mtgs before….. Independence of work…..technical quality…rubrics
  • Technical quality of Assessments within the assessment
  • Consistency of task…vertical alignment of tasks
  • Use the process on other skills?
  • Whose work is it? When to assess?
  • Summative assessment vs formative assessment

Looking @ Student Work Notes

posted Dec 6, 2009, 7:49 AM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Dec 6, 2009, 8:10 AM ]

12-9-09

What is Proficient Initial Sharing

posted Nov 4, 2009, 1:28 PM by Matt Cronin   [ updated Nov 4, 2009, 1:30 PM ]

11-4-09
  • Accomplishing task independently
  • demonstrating in a variety of assessments, with multiple opportunities, and showing consistency
  • Does expressing in one modality indicate proficiency?
  • Assess of content vs. assessment of skill
  • Need common language (academic vocabulary)
  • Kid friendly language
  • Degree of difficulty matters, standards are interpreted differently by different teachers.
  • Uniform rubrics
  • How do we communicate proficiency when putting the grades into teachers corner
  • Dealing with grade level spans, divvying up grade level spans.
  • Reliable (assessment receives same score across teachers) and valid (score actually measures what it is supposed to)

1-7 of 7