(Page 13) “According to Nolen and Taylor, ‘…there are two ways to obtain sufficient evidence of mastery: 1) multiple assignments, and 2) tracking the progress of a few important works over time.’”
While it certainly is a whole lot easier, is it really fair to use one assessment to determine a student’s knowledge of material? Y’all know I’m not a big fan of EOC’s to begin with, but when I think about those exams and their high stakes, I always reflect back to a crew I had taking the Math Tech II EOC. I’ll protect the innocent (or is that guilty?) and spare names, but I had Student A who was failing MT2 out the wazoo and didn’t have a clue what was going on. (He shouldn’t have gotten credit for MT1, but that’s another story.) Though he failed the class overall, he ended up passing the EOC. Then I had Student B who was a pretty good MT2 student. The afternoon before he took the EOC, one of his good friends died in a car accident, so he wasn’t very focused on the exam and ended up failing it. Though he passed the class, the required exam did impact his final grade. Do you think it was fair that that test counted for 20% of each student’s final grade?
While having multiple assignments may add a little more to our plate, it definitely gives a better picture of what the student does or does not know. I think back to an undergraduate class I took at USC where we were supposed to read a novel each week and discuss it in class. Our grade in the class, however, was based solely on our written responses to only two of the books; one counted as the mid-term and the other as the final. Guess how many books I read for the class? If said two, you win the prize. Looking at my transcript you would see that I had a B in African-American literature and would probably think I’m pretty well-versed on such novels; if the professor had assessed me on multiple assignments, she would have quickly found out I neither read nor knew squat!
How many of know of great teachers who had a really tough time passing the Praxis or NTE (for us old-timers) to become certified? Or know of some not-so-great teachers who breezed through the test? Even though the ADEPT process seems quite daunting to those of us who did not have to go though it, I think the idea of it is much better at assessing new teachers than the old APT checklist. (Did I get my humor point in this post?!? )
Okay, so I think I’ve made my case for the support of multiple assignments. What are your thoughts on the topic and/or other parts of Chapter 2 and the first part of Chapter 3?
While it certainly is a whole lot easier, is it really fair to use one assessment to determine a student’s knowledge of material? Y’all know I’m not a big fan of EOC’s to begin with, but when I think about those exams and their high stakes, I always reflect back to a crew I had taking the Math Tech II EOC. I’ll protect the innocent (or is that guilty?) and spare names, but I had Student A who was failing MT2 out the wazoo and didn’t have a clue what was going on. (He shouldn’t have gotten credit for MT1, but that’s another story.) Though he failed the class overall, he ended up passing the EOC. Then I had Student B who was a pretty good MT2 student. The afternoon before he took the EOC, one of his good friends died in a car accident, so he wasn’t very focused on the exam and ended up failing it. Though he passed the class, the required exam did impact his final grade. Do you think it was fair that that test counted for 20% of each student’s final grade?
While having multiple assignments may add a little more to our plate, it definitely gives a better picture of what the student does or does not know. I think back to an undergraduate class I took at USC where we were supposed to read a novel each week and discuss it in class. Our grade in the class, however, was based solely on our written responses to only two of the books; one counted as the mid-term and the other as the final. Guess how many books I read for the class? If said two, you win the prize. Looking at my transcript you would see that I had a B in African-American literature and would probably think I’m pretty well-versed on such novels; if the professor had assessed me on multiple assignments, she would have quickly found out I neither read nor knew squat!
How many of know of great teachers who had a really tough time passing the Praxis or NTE (for us old-timers) to become certified? Or know of some not-so-great teachers who breezed through the test? Even though the ADEPT process seems quite daunting to those of us who did not have to go though it, I think the idea of it is much better at assessing new teachers than the old APT checklist. (Did I get my humor point in this post?!? )
Okay, so I think I’ve made my case for the support of multiple assignments. What are your thoughts on the topic and/or other parts of Chapter 2 and the first part of Chapter 3?
13 comments:
Fair Isn't Always Equal: Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 through Page 32
Thoughts and reflections by Andrea Baker
I think so much of Chapters 2 and 3 applies to teaching teachers as well! For example, one of my responsibilities this year is to make SMART Board software training available to interested Airport High School teachers. When I email directions on how to access the executable and product registration key next week, teachers who are comfortable with installing software are going to take that information and run with it, and some folks are going to need more assistance. There would be no reason for me to require a teacher to sit through a training session when that person is so advanced technologically s/he and I could trade places. The author makes a similar point on page 25 stating, “For advanced students, we make sure they have all the essentials necessary for the next portion of the trip, but we don’t require the mileage – that is, doing the same work as everyone else – if it’s not needed.”
Granted only 5 SMART Boards are in our building, but I would not be doing my job to the best of my ability if I didn’t offer training (both group and one-on-one) to interested teachers. Each Airport High School teacher has their own “truth”)see p. 20) regarding new and emerging technologies and it is up to me to adapt to what the teacher needs. Wormeli, the author, states “differentiated instruction: location, location, location of the student’s mind.” He goes on to state, “We cannot teach blind to our students.” My two cents is that both statements apply to teaching adults technology as well!
Fair Isn’t Always Equal
Chapters 2 and 3
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Diane. While I understand that EOC’s have been developed in order to make sure students are learning essential material in their benchmark courses, I also think that it’s completely unfair to make this one test count as 20% of their grade. I have already had the “EOC talk” with my ninth graders, and I know some of them are already panicked at the thought of such a major grade. I have explained to them that they have the opportunity to show what they learn throughout year, but there are just some students who are not good testers. Not only could there be a number of outside factors that affect their performance on the day of the test, but some kids have serious test-taking anxiety.
I also thought it was interesting when Wormeli wrote,
“The Latin root of assessment is ‘assidere,’ meaning ‘to sit beside.’ This means that assessment is a coaching, nurturing tool. Its emphasis is not so much on documenting deficiencies as it is on shaping our instructional decisions.”
(No, I didn’t just choose this quote because it references Latin, Claire and Amanda.) It is just so true. As teachers we have to use assessment all the time…always checking up on what our students are “getting” and finding ways to help them along the way. It’s not all about checking at the end of the unit to see what they learned; it’s about working with them throughout the unit to ensure that they’re actually learning and retaining the skills and material.
Another part of the text that particularly interested me was on page 22. Wormeli writes,
“Very few things are as frustrating to a student as working long hours on a project over several weeks’ time only to find out she wasn’t doing it correctly.”
This reminds me of my sophomore year in high school. My American Lit class was reading Moby Dick. We had just finished reading the book, and my teacher (retiring that year) gave us a prompt for a final essay. I went home and worked hours on my essay, even calling my aunt and asking for her help. When I showed my essay to the teacher the next day she said, “If you write about this, you’re going to fail.” I had no idea what she wanted. She hadn’t explained it well (not very politely, either), and yet she was looking for one certain response. I think that Wormeli makes a good point when he says it’s important we share with the kids what they’re going to be tested on. They need to have that heads-up. They should know what they will be learning and what they will be required to do in those final assessments. This experience from American Lit has stuck with me. I know I over-explain assignments a lot of times, but I want to make sure the students don’t go home completely lost…like I did. It’s only fair that they know exactly what they’re expected to learn and how they are going to be assessed.
Diane and Ruth Anne I definitely agree with you two about the EOC. I think it counts too much toward a student's grade. Just like with Diane situations did those students get a grade that represented what they mastered? My thoughts would be no they did not.
As with Ruth Anne I found it interesting that the latin root word of assessment means to sit beside. I agree that assessments should be used to see what students are understanding and what they are not understanding to further help them master the material. As Wormili states assessments should be used as a coaching and nurturing tool. I agree that assessmnets are often used too much on documenting deficiencies.
Blog One
Fair Isn’t Always Equal by Rick Wormeli
Chapters Two and Three through Page 32
The only time I remember being assessed on a minimal number of assessments was in college. Never in high school was a grade in a class determined by only a few grades. Thank goodness! As for EOC exams, I do take issue with a test counting 20 % for all students regardless of the level of the course. I’ve always thought the EOC exam should count 10% for TP, 15% for CP, and 20% for Honors.
As for the reading, I really liked the emphasis on beginning with the end in mind. You have to determine the EEK and the KUD before you do anything. I also thought the quote from assessment expert, Douglas Reeves, on page 20 was fabulous!! “Too often, educational tests, grades, and report cards are treated by teachers as autopsies when they should be viewed as physicals.” That is so true. I believe assessments should be designed so students are able to show what they know, not get caught in what they don’t know.
I’m interested to know the reactions of others to Wormeli’s statement on page 31, “First, for most grade levels and in all subjects, it’s developmentally inappropriate to hold students to adult-level competencies and guidelines.” How many times have you heard a teacher say something along the lines of, “They won’t get to redo their work in the real world,” or “In the real world, you can lose your job if you don’t have your ID?” We say things like that all the time. This chapter helped remind me that part of our job is to help kids get ready for the real world, not to bring the real world to them now.
Interesting Question, Claire. I tend to lean towards saying, "They won't get to do that in the real world." Maybe I'm bitter since I don't get retests for those moments when I lose my temper or say something stupid to my students and I have to live with those consequences (ie, the students' memories) FOREVER! But I've been thinking recently that I've often made the mistake of believing the signals (and sometimes overtly stated messages) that students send that they are fully-grown adults. They're not! They would like to be, but they're not!
I thought the reading was common sense and practical. We need to teach with the end in mind, we need to use assessments as a diagnostic tool, not an autopsy report. I also liked his comparison to a teacher evaluation based on one day in the classroom. It reminded me just how important it is to pay attention to overall progress.
For me, the biggest point I recognized that 1) I need to make sure I wasn’t just going for assignments that were easy to accomplish, but rather assignments that were preparing them for their IPA (the big end of unit assessment) and 2) I need to learn what to do with the information I get from quizzes, writing assignments, etc. I need to learn how to go back and work to improve that, rather than simply entering the grade and moving on. This will be easiest to do with writing assignments, but I’m just not sure about the others…
Wormeli Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 (through page 32)
Claire, you were reading my mind when I read that passage. How many times have we discussed this very issue? I have not been a big cheerleader of re-testing. I have often made comments similar to the statement on page 31. But, how many times have we gone to administration to get a deadline pushed back or missed an observation for an Adept team and had to re-schedule??? This was a big wake-up call for me- I, as a teacher, am here to PREPARE my students for the real world, not bring it to them.
Wormeli makes a valid point when he suggests that we teachers should spend time on formative assessments. How much better would my students perform with feedback along with way instead of at the end? I guess I need to re-wire my thinking and focus more on sitting aside with my students. Wormeli also makes a valid point that could be of interest to us now…page 30 “Pre-testing students without taking action with the results isn’t assessment.” I think that is such an important point. If we take the time to pre-assess, then we must use that information in planning our units and planning the formative assessments for a unit. To me, this is the real challenge but is the most beneficial to my students.
I just finished reading all of the blog entries posted before me, and I found it interesting that the two things I wanted to discuss weren’t mentioned, but I still think they tie into the idea of multiple assessments. In teaching my Academic Support students, I have to support their learning in their other classes so I am always interested in ways that content area teachers can vary their assessments. Many of my students don’t have the ability to memorize large chunks of information so assessments that only include multiple choice items, fill in the blank, or short answer that require the regurgitation of facts are very difficult for them. So I was particularly excited to read page 21 and the suggestion of giving students the end-of-unit test on the first day of teaching the unit. Many content teachers use the tests from the textbook test banks so it would be easy to rearrange the order of questions so that students wouldn’t just memorize the answers in order. Anyway, as I said earlier, most special services students can’t remember information that long, but by having the test up front they might be able to develop connections, hooks, or mnemonic devices that would help them learn the info and also retain it. In keeping with our district theme of differentiated instruction, I also like the exit slip opportunity that is mentioned on page 26. Anybody teaching math could easily do this at the end of a unit in preparation for the next unit. Wormeli suggests, “In other math units, ask students to solve three math problems of the type you are teaching in the unit ahead that reflect different aspects of the concept you’re to teach.” Even if the teacher has already prepared the lessons for her next unit, this would give her information the day before so that she could make last minute adjustments to her delivery or possibly group students by readiness levels.
Although I'm not certain how much EOC's counted for when I was in high school, I remember being terrified of them then because test taking has never been a strong suit of mine. I understand and agree that EOC's are a necessity, but not at the percentage they currently count for.
My students hear test and automatically shut down, so I’ve learned to not always tell them when they are being assessed. Obviously, I want to prepare them for the real world, so I don’t completely take away assessments, but they struggle so much with the pressure of remembering all steps and completing everything that’s necessary. Sometimes I’ll give them alternate assessments (like verbal) and if they participate and get the answers correct, I’ll count it.
Claire, I also really like the quote about how we treat assessments as autopsies rather than physicals. Right now I started my group in Math Tech I and they like to get the answers via calculator and just write down the answer. Then, when they get a problem wrong, they want my help. I always ask them to write their steps out. If they do, I’ll help them find what they did wrong and get the right solution, and usually, they can find out where they went wrong themselves which is the point. If they didn’t write the steps out, I always tell them I can’t help them because neither of us know where they went wrong. To me, the process is just as important if not more so than the final result.
“In an effort to streamline and safeguard definitions of mastery and to be assured that every child has the same foundations and standards across the district, some districts provide scripts for teachers to follow…” (p. 18) I felt that I would be the best to respond to this statement in the text. I was provided a Teacher’s Guide from the CPO publisher with my new textbooks this year. What makes this TE different from most is that it does not include a copy of the student text with wrap-around teacher information. Instead, I am provided with a “script” for the investigations activities. Within the script are possible student answers and mishaps during the experiments. Now with that said, I would never read the “script” to my students. Instead, I use the book as a guide and reference during the first/second class since this is the first year for these new lab activities. And after the first/second time of doing the activity with my classes, I don’t even need the script anymore.
I can’t imagine being forced to read a script during my classes, especially since there are six of them. It gets boring as it is doing the same thing six times, but luckily I change how I phrase things for my students in each class. I understand the need for uniformity because of the EOC and other state tests to ensure that students are really learning the same things even if they have different teachers. However, I am a professional and have learned how to work cooperatively with the other teachers in my content area. The other physical science teachers and I work well together at trying to keep our students on the same page. Often Stephanie and I are showing the same United Streaming on the same day, so she and I coordinate when to push play so that it will be a simul-cast through our thin wall. We do a good job in coordinating assessments with one another. We discuss how we want to assess the current material and often write the assessments together.
I have always felt that testing can be an unfair advantage to measure one’s achievements and accomplishments. It does not always provide a true, fair, and accurate depiction of one’s knowledge base. Where one student could master a test and be a great test taker another student could not possess the same ability. I feel that saying a student can not graduate from school unless passing a test is ludicrous. Can we truly measure students’ abilities through standardized testing? I think not, one needs to look at students’ overall achievements through their 4 years of school to make assumptions that students have measured up the standards one needs to achieve. Do we let the teachers make the decisions that a student has mastered these achievements; or the politicians that decide that a student has mastered what a student should have learned in the 12 years of his education? Do we allow what a teacher accomplished in her 4 years or more of education to show her mastery in her ability to teach; or a standardized teat to reveal her mastery of teaching?
In Virginia, as a Special Education teacher I was able to make a determination with the IEP team whether a student could best demonstrate his achievements or mastery better by building a portfolio instead of taking a standardized test. However, this process was not as easy as handing out a test, but took a great deal of work on the teacher’s preparation and imagination. You had to demonstrate through various means for example using audio, visual equipment, and samples of work in the classrooms. You had to demonstrate that the Virginia Standards of Learning were being taught in the classroom and students’ mastery of these objectives was being attained.
If teachers were truly to apply the information that was presented in this week’s reading what a phenomenal way to demonstrate the great achievements and mastery of knowledge of our students. We could trust ourselves to know that we are depicting a true picture of mastery by our students by not having to use standardized tests to show what we think students have or have not achieved.
I agree with Pam and think that the idea on giving students the test at the start of the unit is a great idea. I also agree with Pam that there would have to be some sort of minor modification to the test given at the beginning. I do not allow students to write on tests to keep copy quantities down and doing exactly what is suggested would make it exceptionally easy for students to cheat. Furthermore, I disagree with this comment " If a student shouts to classmates during our unit lecture "Hey, that's the answer to number 12. Everyone write that down," be proud; it's exactly what should happen." Where's the learning in that? It seems more like memorization to me. I understand that many times that is a lot of what students do, memorize. But, I also want my students to learn and feel that handing them the exact test only supports short term memorization. I think students should know what is expected of them upfront, however, I think application and not memorization is a more important.
Fair Isn’t Always Equal
Rick Wormeli
From reading your blogs, I feel safe to say we are all in agreement that each and every student learns differently and it is our job as the instructor to differentiate our teaching methods so as to meet every child’s need. As many of you stated, EOC is not a clear means to completely test a student’s knowledge. I think it’s a great tool to assess where it is they stand and to correlate lesson plans accordingly. In fact, that’s what I spent the first week of school doing, providing them grammar tests and figurative language tests. I even assigned them a paper with a rubric that clearly stated what was asked of them, which was due at the end of the week so I could figure out their level of written and verbal comprehension. I have thus taken my results and adjusted accordingly and it seems to be working well. It’s a great diagnostic tool.
I also agree with the “Begin with the End in Mind,” technique. I find that this works especially well for lower level achievers. From my experience, students need not only something to look at and to guide them, but they also need repetition. By going over just the test questions at the beginning and then completing the questions as the unit progresses, a lot of memory stimulation is taking place here, thus learning. I do feel, however, that these tests should be written response questions and not multiple choice and one word answers so as to steer clear from simply memorizing the answers and cheating.
When I was teaching Civics in NC (to resource level students) they were held accountable for passing the EOC to get credit. They had 3 tries and then if they didn't pass it, they didn't get credit for the entire class. I found it interesting though, that many kids failed it the first time, but after coming back for remediation (5 hours) and re-testing a second time, quite a few passed and those who didn't and did a 2nd remediation and testing often passed the 3rd time they took the test. Why? As the kids took the test one, two, or three times, they realized what was expected of them, what was on the test, and how to prepare for the test, therefore they were able to prepare for the test and pass it.
Shouldn't this be how we teach kids? With the understanding of exactly what they are supposed to learn, what is most important, and what they will be tested on?
I liked how Wormeli talked about beginning with the end in mind. If we give students a "clear picture of expectations", they will be able to achieve more. We should give them a clear idea of what is expected of them to ensure they are achieving to their maximum potential.
Post a Comment