interpretations of standards-based grading and reporting - School ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sara Hagen Chapter 2: A New Vocabulary of Standards-Based Grading Implementing standards-based grading requires developing and sharing a language of standards and criteria. Language specific to the MMSD implementation of standards-based grading includes "understanding," "power standards," the labels "I," "2," "3," and "4," and "trend scores." Knowing how teachers are defining and using these terms is a key step in facilitating or redirecting conversations about them. Teachers very much want to have a shared understanding of these terms. ( Understanding [page 47] The MMSD has chosen to use "understanding" as the key descriptor for the labels I, 2, 3, and 4 in their standards-based grading. Teachers described understanding in ways that fell into three categories: statements about the basic nature of understanding, statements describing the process of understanding, and statements about how understanding is visible in students' work. Of these, the third category has the most potential for developing a shared, practical understanding of understanding. Embodied metaphors [page 48] In this section I use cognitive scientists Lakoff and Johnson's (1999) work to identify teachers' metaphors for understanding that are based on human beings' experience as embodied persons. These include understanding as ... • Getting and processing information • Seeing • Movement through physical space • Hitting a target or reaching a goal • Mastery or being in control • The result of strength These metaphors provide very general, summative statements about a student's understanding that cannot be used reliably and consistently to inform a conversation on learning or to provide a basis for formative feedback. ( Process metaphors [page 50] Teachers' metaphors about the process of understanding may provide the basis for useful conversations about teaching and learning. These include understanding as ... • Sudden - a "Eureka" moment • A slow process • Cumulative • Something forced upon the learner • Completeness • Having different levels These metaphors provoke questions about how learning occurs and what teachers can do to best facilitate learning. ( Page 6
Sara Hagen Understanding as visible in students' work [page 53] Teachers also described understanding using parts of the framework presented in Understanding By Design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This framework includes the following "Six facets of understanding"; • Explaining • Interpreting • Applying • Having Perspective • Empathizing • Self-Knowledge Teachers described assignments that target one or more of these six facets. Overall, use of the six facets was much less than the use of embodied or process metaphors for understanding. If teachers are to develop a shared language of criteria based on student understanding, more extensive conversations on this topic are needed. "Full" understanding: A problematic metaphor? [page 57] Because the term "full" understanding makes use of an embodied metaphor and does not focus on an aspect of understanding that is visible in students' work, the district may wish to reconsider use of this term for the level 3 score. Power standards [page 58] Douglas Reeves (1998; 2000) coined the term "power standards" as the most important standards in a given subject or grade level. The MMSD has adopted this term for a similar concept. Teachers report a grade for each student on two, three, or four power standards in each subject area. In math, these are content-specific standards such as the ability to solve problems with factors and mUltiples, or the ability to read and interpret graphs. In other subjects, the power standards are more general areas of thinking skill such as Content Knowledge, Analysis and Application, Conducting Investigations, or Writing. The general power standards are used with all topics in a course, while the specific math power standards correspond to units of instruction. These different systems have various pros and cons. The more specific power standards provide more specific feedback to parents and students. Parents then know for which content areas their children are most successful or need the most remediation. The broader power standards help teachers to focus on the balance of skills in each class. For example, the Analysis and Application power standard encourages Social Studies teachers to think about how their assigrunents include higher level thinking skills; in World Languages, teachers must balance oral and written communication. Power standards quickly become the standards that matter most and the categories that teachers use to think about teaching. It is therefore important to consider carefully the power standards that are chosen for the report card. Just as it took several years for teachers to understand and use the standards documents for their areas, it will take time for teachers to understand the power standards, use them in planning and assessment, and explain them to parents. Teachers who helped develop the power standards for their Page 7
Page 1 and 2: Appendix LLL - 2 - 8 August 17, 200
Page 3 and 4: Sara Hagen Chapter 1: A New Culture
Page 5: Sara Hagen I asked teachers how muc
Page 9 and 10: Sara Hagen Chapter 3: L 1 Interfere
Page 11 and 12: Sara Hagen Chapter 4: Practical Obs
Page 13 and 14: Sara Hagen Chapter 5: The Affective
Page 15 and 16: Sara Hagen Conclusion This chapter

interpretations of standards-based grading and reporting - School ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?