1.  Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the school districts in the United States.  A learning map/placemat has been developed that consists of domains and indicators on which teachers are evaluated. *This presentation has been significantly adapted from the HAPPY Hour workshop presentation on Creating Scales by Courtney Kavanaugh, Val Brown, and Kim Dansereau, Seminole County Public School educators.

4. Learning Goal: The teacher candidate will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving the learning goal. 4.0 The teacher candidate will design formative and summative assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances. 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The teacher candidate will construct a scale to track student progress toward achieving a learning goal. Scales should:  be related to the learning goal  articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy  provide consistent feedback to students 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The teacher candidate recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:  Learning Continuum  Target Learning Goal  Simpler Content  More Complex Content The teacher candidate is able to communicate a clear learning goal.  Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do at the end of a period of instruction. 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the teacher candidate has some understanding of a learning goal. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the teacher candidate has no understanding of a learning goal. Instructional Excellence & Equity This is an example of a completed academic scale.

5. What Marzano’s research says - High Probability Strategies - Marzano Research Laboratory

6.  A scale is an attempt to create a continuum that articulates distinct levels of knowledge and skill relative to a specific topic.  It can be thought of as an applied version of a learning progression.  A well-written scale should make it easy for teachers to design and score assessment tasks that can be used to generate both formative and summative scores. - Dr. Robert Marzano

8. Courtesy: Hamilton Elementary 1 st Grade Team Instructional Excellence & Equity This is a simplified academic scale.

9. Simplified Academic Scale Examples

10. Simplified Academic Scale Example

11. Organize Learning Goals into a Scale Advanced = 4.0 More Complex Content Proficient = 3.0 Target Learning Goal (Complex Content) Progressing = 2.0 Simpler Content

13. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model. Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model. Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support planetary model. Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra The student will: Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded Describe the procedure used for each experiment Summarize the important results of each experiment No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

14. Development of a Scale for Student Learning: Example Student Learning Goal: ScaleComments Score 4.0 Score 3.0 Score 2.0 Score 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Score 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. The student will: -define model, subatomic particle, proton, electron, nucleus -understand results of historical experiments and previous atomic model representations Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained. Instructional Excellence & Equity Students will be able to describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence.

15. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model. Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model. Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support planetary model. Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra The student will: Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded Describe the procedure used for each experiment Summarize the important results of each experiment No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

16. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

17. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence. The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

18. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus The student will: Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded. Describe the procedure used for each experiment. Summarize the important results of each experiment. No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

19. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence. - Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model. Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model. Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his planetary model. Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model. The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus The student will: Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded. Describe the procedure used for each experiment. Summarize the important results of each experiment. No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity

20. 4.0 In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard The student will: Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content 3.5In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success 3.0 The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence. - Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the result obtained support his plum-pudding model. Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model. Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his planetary model. Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex) 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus The student will: Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded. Describe the procedure used for each experiment. Summarize the important results of each experiment. No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes 1. 5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, the student will have some understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, the student has no understanding of the changes in the atomic model over time. Instructional Excellence & Equity