1. 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 school districts in the United States. 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. A learning map/placemat has been developed that consists of domains and indicators on which teachers are evaluated.

4. Today’s Learning Goal Students will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving a learning goal.

5. 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 This is an example of an academic scale.

7. Learning Continuum Scale  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

9. Scale Examples (Continued)

11. This is a checking-for- understanding scale.

12. This is a another checking-for - understanding scale.

13. 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.

14. Exercise 3.1 Simpler and More Complex Content for Learning Goals DANCE PARTNERS http://www.marzanoresearch.com/reproducibles/designing_teaching.aspx#reproducibles

15. 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

16. Scale Development for Student Learning

17. 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 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

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 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Develop a Scale for your Learning Goal 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.

23. Share your results  Share your scale

24. 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

25. Last Questions Parking Lot Questions? 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