. Topic: Writing Scales. Courtney Kavanaugh Geneva Elementary School Val Brown Jackson Heights Middle School Kim Dansereau Hagerty High School.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Understanding by Design Stage 3
Advertisements

I Can Goal Statements Connect Students to Formative Assessment 18 th National Quality in Education Conference November 2010 Chicago, Illinois Becky Martin.
Creating and Using Rubrics for Evaluating Student Work Prepared by: Helen Jordan Mathematics Coordinator Normandie Avenue Elementary.
Square Peg and Round Hole… As parents and educators, the change in grading systems requires a fundamental switch in our thinking… 4=A 1=F 2=D 3=B.
We accept learning as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of the impact on learning.. - DuFour,
Designing Scoring Rubrics. What is a Rubric? Guidelines by which a product is judged Guidelines by which a product is judged Explain the standards for.
David C. Yanoski Director of Standards Development Marzano Research Laboratory.
CLEAR OBJECTIVES AND SOUND ASSESSMENTS : DETERMINING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Adjunct Faculty Retreat February 2, 2013 Gail Niklason, Ed.D. Louise R. Moulding,
WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?  Anything a teacher does to gather information about a student’s level of knowledge regarding a specific topic.
Marzano Art and Science Teaching Framework Learning Map
 The rubric uses a 4 point scale  3.0 represents what you want the student to know and be able to do  This means that a student can do all of the processes.
Conestoga Valley’s C&I Framework Effective Planning & Instruction.
Engaged Learners: Current Research and Implications for Effective Instruction exists to strengthen Christian Schools and equip Christian Educators worldwide.
Preparing for the Data Team Process 1.  Know the rationale for “Step A” with respect to the data team process.  Experience Step A as a tool to help.
The Marzano Framework Design Question 1
We accept learning as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of the impact on learning.. - DuFour,
Learning Goals, Scales and Learning Activities
Understanding the Process and the Product Professional Development Spring, 2012.
The 5 E Instructional Model
Session 2 K-5 Mathematics Unpacking the Standards A New “Look” for Teaching and Learning.
Day 3: Rubrics as an Assessment Tool. "There are only two good reasons to ask questions in class: to cause thinking and to provide information for the.
The difference between learning goals and activities
Standards-based grading What does it look like?.
Reading Comprehension Strategies Rubrics Standards-based Assessment of and for Learning.
AGENDA  A teacher’s perspective  Barb Schmidt Stevens High School  Acacia Trevillyan South Park Elementary  Review steps to create a quality CFA 
Timber Trace Elementary School October 4, Introduction Module # 1 Structure of the Handbook Design Questions and Modules Sample Activity Box How.
Standards-based assessment and reporting An Overview for Parents.
Creating Rubrics. Information taken from Formative Assessment and Standards-Based Grading Robert Marzano 2010.
Courtney Kavanaugh Geneva Elementary School Val Brown Content Support Team Kim Dansereau Hagerty High School.
2015 Staff Development Day Matrix of Services Sharon Rodgers Laura Schneiderman August 19 th, 2015.
SHOW US YOUR RUBRICS A FACULTY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP SERIES Material for this workshop comes from the Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning.
21st Century Classrooms and Questioning Nancy Krueger Instructional Coach Sioux Falls.
Summative vs. Formative Assessment. What Is Formative Assessment? Formative assessment is a systematic process to continuously gather evidence about learning.
Atomic Theory Chapter 4 Section 1. Standards  Imbedded Inquiry  Recognize that science is a progressive endeavor that reevaluates and extends what is.
Georgia will lead the nation in improving student achievement. 1 Georgia Performance Standards Day 3: Assessment FOR Learning.
Student Learning Objectives (SLO) Resources for Science 1.
Georgia will lead the nation in improving student achievement. 1 Georgia Performance Standards Day 3: Assessment FOR Learning.
2015 Staff Development Day Learning Strategies Melissa Lyford August 19 th, 2015.
Learning Goals and Learning Scales
Teacher Assistant Professional Development Day Accommodations: Assisting Students with Disabilities Laura Schneiderman Sharon Rodgers October 26, 2015.
New Beginnings 2015 Florida Standards: Secondary ELA Anjanette McGregor August 11, 2015 Tavares Middle School.
Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model*
EDG 4410 Week Three Goals and Outcomes for Instruction Bell Ringer: Discuss with a peer what the following quote means to you and your future teaching:
The School Effectiveness Framework
MASTERY BASED GRADING DVD Back to School Night 2014.
Marzano’s Essential 9 Instructional Strategies Engaged Time = Student Gains.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS: THE POWER OF SETTING OBJECTIVES September 2014 Ed Director Meeting.
Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the.
 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.
Learning Goals & Scales EAGLE POINT ELEMENTARY SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 SCHOOL PRESENTATION.
1. Welcome 2. Working with the WIKI 3. Discussion of Assessment in curriculum development 4. Break 5. Divide into curricular areas – discuss: A.Standards.
COMMON CORE STANDARDS C OLLEGE - AND C AREER - READINESS S TANDARDS North East Florida Educational ConsortiumFall 2011 F LORIDA ’ S P LAN FOR I MPLEMENTATION.
COMMON CORE STANDARDS C OLLEGE - AND C AREER - READINESS S TANDARDS North East Florida Educational ConsortiumFall 2011 F LORIDA ’ S P LAN FOR I MPLEMENTATION.
LEARNING GOALS AND PERFORMANCE SCALES PLC FOCUS FOR BVS
Building Effective Content Literacy Tasks. The Cycle of Assessment Teach: Does the instruction and the tasks align to the identified learning target(s)?
Grading based on student centred and transparent assessment of learning outcomes Tommi Haapaniemi
"We know that true transformation in schools can only happen when there is a clear target that is known and owned by those who are implementing the goal.
RUBRICS AND SCALES 1. Rate yourself on what you already know about scales. Use the scale below to guide your reflection. 2.
Components of Quality Classroom Assessments Mitch Fowler School Data Consultant, Calhoun ISD
November 15, 2010 Camdenton R-III School District.
1. Welcome 2. Working with the WIKI 3. Discussion of Assessment in curriculum development 4. Break 5. Divide into curricular areas – discuss: A.Standards.
Standards-Based Grading Olympic Middle School School Board Presentation August 25, 2009.
LEARNING GOALS AND SCALES. LEARNING GOALS FOR TODAY Teachers will understand the characteristics of learning goals. Teachers will understand the difference.
Learning Goals & Targets
Sources of Instructional Goals
Taking the TEAM Approach: Writing with a Purpose
Professional Development Day 2016
We have defined what the student should be able to do.
Marzano Art and Science Teaching Framework Learning Map
Presentation transcript:

. Topic: Writing Scales

Courtney Kavanaugh Geneva Elementary School Val Brown Jackson Heights Middle School Kim Dansereau Hagerty High School

 A re Respectful of Other’s Opinions and Listen with an Open Mind; Limit the Use of Electronics for Breaks  C ollaborate in Group Work  T ake Responsibility for Engaging in Learning and Continuous Growth It’s Okay to have Fun! Suffering is Optional.

Participants will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving a learning goal.

Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving Score: the learning goal. 4.0 Participant will design unobtrusive and obtrusive assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances. 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 Participant 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  be written in student language  provide consistent feedback to students  encourage students to improve. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:  Learning Continuum  Target Learning Goal  Simpler Content  More Complex Content Participant is able to communicate a clear learning goal.  Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do.  Goal is not written as an activity or assignment.  Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

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

 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

Courtesy: Hamilton Elementary 1 st Grade Team Instructional Excellence & Equity

Scale Examples Cont.

Monitor Learning with Scales & Formative Assessments to Track Student Progress & Inform Instruction Plan Activities & Assignments to support the Learning Goal Develop Units with Multiple Learning (Lesson) Objectives Generate Assessments Formative and Summative Create Clear Learning Goals & Develop Scales Align with Standards for Learning Over Time A Scale is written for a single Learning Goal. Unpack Standards/Benchmarks Effectively "Chunk" the Standards (Combine, or Break-Apart Standards/Benchmarks) Instructional Excellence & Equity

A learning goal identifies what students will learn or be able to do as a result of instruction, separate from what they do to demonstrate the learning. Learning activities and assignments help students reach learning goals. MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEARNING GOALS AND LEARNING ACTIVITIES OR ASSIGNMENTS

SubjectLearning GoalActivityAssignment ChemistryStudents will be able to describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence. Students will watch a video that recreates the experimental results that lead to changes in that atomic model. In small groups, students will design and construct 3D atomic models using experimental evidence to support their models to assess understanding/ Read pp and complete a graphic organizer and the chapter review questions. Instructional Excellence & Equity

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

Why is this not an example of a scale or rubric? 3D Atomic Model ProjectPossible PointsScore Creativity15 Listening/Following Directions10 Followed Criteria10 Team Effort10 Structural accuracy15 Description of experimental results supporting this model 20 Atomic parts clearly labeled20 Learning Goal: The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence Instructional Excellence & Equity

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: Draw and 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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

Development of a Scale for Student Learning: Example Student Learning Goal: ScaleComments Score 4.0 Score 3.0 Score 2.0 Score 1.0With help, partial success Score 0.0Even with help, no success 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.

EXERCISE 3.1 Simpler and More Complex Content for Learning Goals DANCE PARTNERS

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: 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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

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: Draw and 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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

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 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: Draw and 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, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

ScaleComments Score 4.0 Inferential Understanding (Beyond Standards) More Complex Content Score 3.0 Essential Complex Content (Based on the Standards) Target Learning Goal Score 2.0 Essential Foundational Knowledge Simpler Content  Start with Score 3.0 and write your Target Learning Goal  Continue to develop Score 2.0 and Score 4.0  Include specific indicators that would demonstrate acceptable performance for that score.

 Share your scale

Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving Score: the learning goal. 4.0 Participant will design unobtrusive and obtrusive assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances. 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 Participant will construct and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving the learning goal. Scales should:  be related to the learning goal  articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy  be written in student language  provide consistent feedback to students  encourage students to improve. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content 2.5No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content 2.0 Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:  Learning Continuum  Target Learning Goal  Simpler Content  More Complex Content Participant is able to communicate a clear learning goal.  Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do.  Goal is not written as an activity or assignment.  Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content 1.5Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content 1.0 With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes. 0.5With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content 0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated Instructional Excellence & Equity

 Parking Lot Questions? We accept learning as the fundamental purpose of our school and therefore are willing to examine all practices in light of the impact on learning. - DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many