Dr. Laura Boyle hosted our June webinar and expands on her recent blog.
She has also provided her slide deck for easy access:
Connect on social media:
Latest posts
Assessment
We Don’t Talk About Grading
Teachingby Dr. Laura Boyle
I started teaching high school biology midway through the 2009-2010 school year after completing the first semester of an alternative certification program for those hoping to teach in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). While this program eventually led to a master’s degree, I entered the classroom as a new teacher with no student teaching experience, and what can best be described as a crash course in education. I immediately adopted the grading policies of the teacher I replaced and continued using those policies for the next full school year. During this time I had very few conversations about grading. Nobody spoke to me about how to determine letter grades, which assignments to grade, whether or not to curve a test. I was flying solo until the building administration asked all departments to come to a consensus on grading policies. At this point, the science department decided not to accept any late work for a grade, and we justified this by saying students needed to be prepared for class, especially for lab work. If students did not complete prelabs on time, there was no point to doing the work after the lab. Looking back at this policy now, I want to cringe and shake myself.
My students at this time were freshmen, just making the transition into high school, and many of them traveled long distances to get to school. I taught at a selective enrollment high school, where all students had to pass an entrance test for admission and all classes were at the honors or AP level. Teachers in the building often justified rigid grading policies as “rigorous” and appropriate for the selective enrollment environment. However, many of us failed to consider who our students were outside of school. The high school was located on the far south side of Chicago but pulled students who qualified for a selective enrollment school from all parts of the city. CPS, however, did not provide transportation for these students. Students either needed to be driven by family, or they needed to use the CTA buses and trains to get to school on their own. It was not abnormal for student commutes to and from school to be over an hour long. Often this commute was done after students completed their after school sports, clubs, and other activities, leaving less time for students to complete school work at home. This school was a Title I school – most of the students received free or reduced lunch, and many had parents who worked multiple jobs or second- or third-shift jobs, leaving them home by themselves. And since all classes were at the honors or AP level, many teachers regularly assigned large amounts of homework, leaving students with hours of homework to complete each night.
This all started to change with a new building principal who started the 2012-13 school year by asking us what we think grades should mean and communicate to students and their families. We came to the agreement that grades should reflect what students know and can do in class. Then he asked us if that was what our grades actually showed. If a student forgets to do their prelab, but comes to my class and performs the lab activity perfectly and completes all the postlab work, should their grade reflect the missed prelab? Had I ever talked to my students about why they didn’t complete the prelab? Or why they had other missing assignments? The questions kept pouring in and I had no answers, at least no good ones.
These conversations continued all year at our building-wide meetings and the following year led to a pilot group of teachers testing out equitable grading practices that were modeled off of Standards Based Grading techniques. I have been using many of these grading policies for nearly a decade, and they have changed not only how I grade, but also how I talk to students about school, and how I talk to students about their lives. There are seven equitable grading policies that I use in my classes.
- Standards-based learning objectives are provided each day to inform students of the expectations for class and the criteria for success (Guskey & Jung, 2009; Shippy et al., 2013).
- Smaller formative assessments are given each time a standards-based objective is completed; some take a day, some take a few days to cover (Butler & Nisan, 1986).
- A unit tracker is provided at the end of each unit for students to record their summative assessments, their mastery score on each, and determine their retake needs (Feldman, 2019; Iamarino, 2014).
- I plan ahead for one retake day for each unit assessment to occur during class time after students receive their retake practice work (Feldman, 2019; Iamarino, 2014).
- I do not assign homework. My courses are structured so that students have time during the class period to complete the necessary work (Feldman, 2019).
- I provide ungraded formative assessments to students prior to summative assessments. These formative assessments are only used to provide students with feedback on their learning (Iamarino, 2014).
- I provide students with rubrics for all summative projects and labs (Feldman, 2019).
These grading policies are more equitable for several reasons. First, they remove some implicit bias. I am a middle-class white woman from the suburbs of Chicago. I have never looked like the majority of my students. If I included things like effort, participation, or behavior in my grades, this could be impacted by implicit bias (DeCuir & Dixon, 2004). Next, by not including homework as a grade, I remove bias my students might face if they don’t have the time, space, or support at home to complete the homework. Those are things outside the control of students, and when we include homework in their grade we are grading them on social and familial structures they have no control over (Feldman, 2019; Ladson-Billings, 1995). I also provide them with information on what success looks like, and how they are progressing towards that goal (Guskey & Jung, 2009; Shippy et al., 2013). I give students the opportunity to demonstrate their learning more than once and provide additional time and opportunities for students who need them (Feldman, 2019; Iamarino, 2014). Every student can learn, but they don’t all learn the same way or at the same pace. Providing more individual support for students can help more students to achieve academic mastery (Ladson-Billings, 1995). I have found this last point to be the most important for me, especially in my current role. I teach many English Language Learners who are not only learning biology, but also how to read, write, speak, and understand a new language. If I were to simply grade a test and move on, many of my students would continue to struggle, not only in biology but also with their language learning. By incorporating practice work and test retakes, students are given the time and support to continue learning the content, but also the language objectives that are tied to the content. For example, my students are getting more practice with reading scientific texts, using data from a graph or figure to answer questions, or being able to justify a conclusion based on data. These are skills that they will use in every science class and are language-heavy. Giving them the opportunities to continue to master these skills makes them better at biology, but also more scientifically literate and better citizens.
References
Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-related comments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 210–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.3.210
Decuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher,33(5), 26-31. doi:10.3102/0013189×033005026
Feldman, J. (2019). Beyond standards-based grading: Why equity must be part of grading reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(8), 52-55.
Feldman, J. (2019). Grading for equity: What it is, why it matters, and how it can transform schools and classrooms. Corwin.
Guskey, T. R., & Jung, L. A. (2009). Grading and reporting in a standards-based environment: Implications for students with special needs. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 53-62. doi:10.1080/00405840802577619
Iamarino, D. L. (2014). The benefits of standards-based grading: A critical evaluation of modern grading practices. Current Issues in Education, 17(2), 1-12
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Shippy, N., Washer, B. A., & Perrin, B. (2013). Teaching with the end in mind: The role of standards-based grading. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 105(2), 14-16. doi:10.14307/jfcs105.2.5
About our Author
Joliet Central H.S., Joliet, IL
Dr. Boyle is a recent graduate from the University of South Carolina Educational Practice and Innovation program with a STEM concentration. She has 15 years experience teaching life science courses including Biology, Environmental Science, and Anatomy. She taught for eight years in Chicago Public Schools and has spent the last seven years at Joliet Central High School. All of her experience is at Title I schools, serving students who are traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields. She has been working to implement equitable grading practices in her classroom for nearly 10 years and completed her dissertation on the impact of equitable grading practices on student outcomes and biology self-efficacy, for which she was the recipient of the 2024 Outstanding Achievement in STEM Education Doctoral Award.
Equitable Assessment
WebinarMay’s webinar was a teacher panel discussion on Equitable Assessment featuring Alicia Leonard, Olivia Monroe, and Kelli Madkins. Thanks to our panelists for your insight. Stay tuned for each panelist’s blog coming soon.
Connect on social media:
How do we make literacy assessments equitable in the age of standardized testing?
TeachingOlivia Moore sheds light on the relationship between instruction, standardized testing, and equitable assessment in her blog this week. She will be a member of the panel featured in our upcoming webinar. For more about Olivia, see below.
As teachers, we sometimes feel we don’t have a say in the summative assessments we give, such as those meant to evaluate learning like an end-of-chapter test. Doing what we know is equitable can be difficult when so much rests on standardized test scores. This, in turn, leads to the belief that the assessment content is more important than learning and the information gathered from formative assessments that inform our teaching (Elish-Piper et al., 2022). This is dangerous because, as we know, teaching “to the test” is inefficient, inequitable, and often not enjoyable because it can lead to removing teacher autonomy and limiting what we can do with our students – think drill and kill teaching instead of teaching based on students’ interests and needs.
The Center for Enhancement of Learning and Teaching at Tufts University defines equitable assessments as “the on-going activities that allow students and instructors to understand student progress on meeting the course learning objectives” (Tufts, 2022). Therefore, to truly be equitable in our assessment practices, we need to focus on meeting the needs of all learners while we teach, gathering data through formative means, such as observations and conversations, during teaching. Additionally, we need to gather diagnostic data across a multitude of assessments every lesson, unit, month, and even across the year. You may be wondering what we need to do to make our assessment practices and teaching more equitable when we must use standardized, one-size-fits-all assessments that are only snapshots of student learning and not very accurate, with many wondering if they are even ethical. Below, I share a few things I consider and reflect on when I meet my students before and during assessments across the school year.
- Get to know your students.
Knowing your students is the first step because if we want to understand what our students know or don’t know, we need to know them as people. We must understand and care about their identities. That is, who they are, what they think about themselves, and their funds of knowledge (Muhammad, 2020). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) states that accomplished literacy teachers use their knowledge of children to differentiate learning experiences for students (NBPTS, 2012). With that said, if we know we need to differentiate instruction, why don’t we differentiate assessments, too? If you know that Sally loves snowboarding, giving her a biography of a famous snowboarder for her comprehension assessment may align more with her interests, which impacts her motivation to read, ultimately, a part of creating equitable assessments. When students have more background knowledge on a topic, we can better see what they comprehend from the text (Fisher & Frey, 2020).
- Get to know what you are assessing.
Using engaging texts within instruction is a start. However, we also want to consider how we assess students’ learning and if the assessment considers what a student already knows, capitalizing on students’ strengths to gather data on their needs. Let’s look at Carter. Carter is extremely bright, but his written expression and spelling are considered behind or low for a typical middle schooler his age. Students are required to engage in research and then share their learnings. Carter’s facial expressions and fidgeting show that he is stressed, possibly because this typically means writing a report, and he struggles with writing. If we want to reflect on the intent of the assignment, for students to demonstrate their learning, possible assessment modifications include Carter using a dictation program on his device to type for him, recording a video of himself sharing the information, or even reporting to you orally. Another potential modification comes in the form of what he writes. Carter loves rap music and did very well in the poetry unit. Therefore, maybe Carter would enjoy sharing his findings by creating his own rap song. This will allow Carter to demonstrate putting thoughts in writing and synthesizing information into a composition, aligning with concerns he isn’t writing. No, he may not be writing a research report, but he is writing. We always want to come back to what we mean to assess with the assignment or project. Is the goal to assess his ability to write words down on paper or his ability to research and put coherent thoughts together? Were you intending to assess spelling or his ability to share his learning? Assessment doesn’t always have to look “traditional”; it needs to align with the task at hand. If the goal for Carter is to research and synthesize information, then how he shares his learning doesn’t have to be in a written report.
By creating assessments that center students’ interests and strengths, the process builds confidence and efficacy. Carter used what he knew and loved, rap, to build from a starting point and then showcase his learning. This centers his growth versus what he can’t or won’t do, such as asking him to write a report or another assessment that would cause Carter to shut down. Therefore, when we create assessments, we want to think about the purpose of it and determine if it is designed to simply give a score or to inform how to support students’ learning better. Requiring Carter to write a research report or take a test may assess his learning; however, only the one that aligns with his interests is equitable for Carter.
- Getting to know your biases.
While we all try not to make assumptions about our students, it is important to consistently reflect on how we learn about each and every student who steps into our classrooms. It is crucial that we only assume to know a child after getting to know them. Perhaps you have a special education student or an English Language Learner on your roster. Don’t assume you know who they are and what they can do because of a label given to them by someone else; it could impact how you teach them (Savitz & Kane, 2023). Think about Carter again. When Carter steps into your classroom, it could be easy to make assumptions about his reading and writing abilities. However, if you take time to get to know him and what he likes and excels in, where he is comfortable, and consider his strengths, you can create assessments to support his success in ways that work for him, such as changing how he demonstrates his learning. This is not just for Carter, though: Do this for ALL your students! Let them come in fresh each year. Don’t listen to the teacher in the grade below who talks about what a troublemaker Samantha is. Talk to Samantha yourself and get to know her yourself, and then consistently pay attention to her during instruction to formatively assess what she needs.
- Getting to know students as people and not one test.
Lastly, remember that one test does not define a student’s capabilities or yours as a teacher. Even the code of ethics in those thick test training books says that making standardized test scores the only indicator of how well a student is learning is unethical. By gathering lots of ongoing data and creating more equitable assessments across the year, you will know (and be able to share with students and parents) the growth a child has made, regardless of their end-of-the-year test score. This positivity is needed when the stress of state testing starts to make our students feel like they aren’t smart enough to pass, when they may just not be good at taking a standardized assessment that isn’t equitable.
It is up to us to plan classroom assessments through an equitable lens. Therefore, I leave you with the following quote to ponder:
“As we shed our respective sources of blindness, perhaps we can envision a transformation in literacy assessment theory and practice, one that supports the pursuit of equity, opportunity, and rich learning.” – David Slomp and Bob Broad in Monsters, Inc.: Curing Ethical Blindness in an Era of Test-Based Accountability
References
Childress, J., Backman, A. C., & Lipson, M. Y. (2019). Reframing Literacy Assessment: Using Scales and micro‐progressions to provide equitable assessments for all learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(4), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1016
Elish-Piper, L., Matthews, M. W., & Risko, V. (2022). Reading assessment to promote equitable learning: An empowering approach for grades K-5. The Guilford Press.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2020). Improving adolescent literacy: Content area strategies at work (5 ed). Corwin.
Muhammad, G. (2021). Cultivating genius: An equity framework for culturally and historically responsive literacy. Scholastic.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2012). Literacy: Reading–Language Arts Standards. Author.
Slomp, D., & Broad, B. (2020). Monsters, inc.: Curing ethical blindness in an ERA of test‐based accountability. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(2), 232–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1077
Tufts University. (2022, November 4). What are equitable assessment practices? Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. https://provost.tufts.edu/celt/inclusive-and-equitable-teaching/what-is-inclusive-and-equitable-teaching/what-are-equitable-assessment-practices/#:~:text=Inclusive%20assessment%20is%20about%20more,meeting%20the%20course%20learning%20objectives
Rubrics to Support Writers
TeachingDr. Christina Dobbs follows up her webinar with this blog to challenge instructors to create rubrics that grow writing literacy and result in positive student-teacher interaction. Read more about her at the end of the blog.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, I had planned a study of writing instruction at the university level that involved interviews with students and visits to introductory writing classes that would help understand how undergraduates had made the transition from high school to university writing. But fate intervened and doing work to observe in class instructional spaces became complicated as we began to teach and work from home, and so I made a decision to just keep interviewing undergraduates about their experiences. Eighty interviews later, I am so glad to have had the opportunity to talk deeply with a wide range of students about their experience of writing in school across their lives and whether and how they see themselves as writers.
This work, alongside some other work with my colleague Chris Leider from UMass Boston, has caused me to spend time thinking deeply about the feedback we explicitly and implicitly give to students about their writing. As a teacher, I always struggled to give feedback on writing in a timely way that still felt deeply engaged with the work, and students didn’t always use the feedback I gave them to improve their writing, which never felt good. This new work about more effective and culturally sustaining feedback for students has helped me to understand what might have worked better in my own classroom and even in my own experience as a writer myself.
Across the work Chris and I have done with teachers over time and what I learned about feedback from my interviews with undergraduates, I have come to a new approach to feedback. Here are two lessons learned across those projects.
Lesson #1: Even if we didn’t know it, students remember our feedback, especially when they feel it was negative.
In talking with undergraduates about the feedback they received on their writing and times they felt proud of their writing, I was shocked by how much they remembered about feedback they had been given. Students relayed memories from elementary, middle, and high school as well as college, and sometimes they still felt strong emotions associated with those memories.
They described memories when a teacher had made them feel as though their ideas were worth engaging and that they had written something thought-provoking. They also described the positive experience of answering questions about their writing when feedback was given or feeling like their work inspired curiosity from the reader.
They also relayed moments when they got feedback that made them feel like their teachers had not really engaged with their ideas. This included times when they only got feedback on surface conventions or grammar, but it also included times when they just got a ‘good job’ or ‘great work’ too. Somehow this insubstantial positive feedback also made students feel as though they had not written ideas worth engaging.
Most importantly, the writers often described wanting to improve their work, but feeling as though some feedback they received was not helping them to do so. Some even described the feedback as showing them they actually would not be able to improve. They described teachers who made them feel as though they were already supposed to know everything before they took the class and those who clearly conveyed that they could improve.
This has led to a few ideas about giving feedback that I carry forward:
- Asking questions about the content seems to matter to many writers.
- Encouraging writers through feedback at various levels of the work, from the overall idea to the conventions, can support students in viewing their work as substantial.
- Telling students that they can improve, and we will help them to do so explicitly can convey our belief in students’ potential for growth.
Lesson #2: It doesn’t matter what you say to students if your rubric says something else.
The rubrics we use to evaluate student writing often use harsh and deficit-driven language to separate students in particular categories. Rubrics will have category labels such as ‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘below expectations,’ or ‘warning’ to delineate performance, with upper category labels with headings like ‘outstanding’ or ‘excellent.’
Then within categories, the statements to describe various levels of performance will have language such as:
- Writer has little or no control over sentence structure.
- Reasoning is incoherent or unclear.
- The use of language fails to demonstrate skill in responding to the task. (This example is from the ACT rubric.)
The designers of rubrics such as these likely did not think they were harshly commenting on students as writers; in fact, they likely thought they were only commenting on the piece of writing at hand and how well it communicates.
But the personal nature of writing and the ways that writers use feedback and comparison to others to drive their own writing self-efficacy (Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Johnson, 1996) makes it clear that writers likely internalize some of this commentary as about themselves, even if the teacher giving feedback did not mean it as such. Indeed, in my interviews with undergraduate students, they frequently described memorable feedback and harsh rubrics from many years earlier (going back to elementary) as drivers of whether they perceived themselves as writers in college years later.
Chris and I developed a question framework to help guide teachers in redesigning rubrics in ways that still convey critical feedback to students in ways that feel encouraging and supportive. We use these four questions to help teams of teachers we work with to revise rubrics to convey feedback in more supportive and equity-driven ways. The four questions (from Dobbs & Leider, 2021) are as follows:
- Does the rubric’s scale of values for judging responses suggest that students have room to grow?
- Do the tools emphasize development and purpose when it comes to language use?
- Does the rubric feedback connect student language to audience?
- Does the tool explicitly acknowledge that students have agency in choosing which of their language resources to use?
We use these questions not to shift the feedback away from various elements of the writing that we want to give feedback about, but rather to push us to phrase our thinking in a way that treats writers in humane and supportive ways.
So, we use these framing questions to rephrase headings and sentences on rubrics. What might have said ‘unsatisfactory’ before might say ‘still learning,’ ‘room to grow,’ or even ‘focus for next time.’ Where we might have said that ‘reasoning was incoherent,’ we might shift to say that ‘the writer’s reasons supporting their argument were challenging for the reader to understand.’
These sorts of changes convey to students that they can still be working on various elements of their writing, which all students are doing and is the purpose of schooling. They can also convey that writing feedback is not a matter of knowing how to do it ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ but it is rather a matter of whether your communicative purpose was understood by the audience. It also conveys that students made choices about the writing they chose to put forward and that they can continue to improve that writing’s purpose, not just it’s perceived correctness on things like punctuation.
Over time, I’ve learned that giving feedback is meaningful to students in ways I had not always realized, and that making purposeful and specific choices in how to give feedback can make a huge difference in how students are able to take up the feedback we give them. That way, years down the road when they are in college and being interviewed, they will relay memories of feeling supported and confident as writers.
References
Dobbs, C. L. & Leider, C. M. (2021). A framework for writing rubrics to support linguistically diverse students. English Journal, 110(5), 60-68.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 138-158.
Pajares, F. & Johnson, M. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in the writing of high school students: A path analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 33(2), 163-175.
Rubrics to Support to Writers: Creating Tools to Support Writerly Agency and Linguistic Diversity
TeachingFebruary’s webinar features Dr. Christina Dobbs, director of the English Education for Equity and Justice program at Boston University.
Connect with Social Media
Using the Jigsaw Strategy to Acquire Content in Biology
TeachingClassroom teacher Wanda Littlejohn shares how she engages striving readers using the Jigsaw Strategy. Read more about Wanda at the end of the blog.
My classroom teaching experience began over 20 years ago in an affluent school district where there were only a few elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. All of the schools focused on student academic growth and excellence, and they collaborated well together to ensure the content taught was aligned vertically and horizontally. Most of my students read fluently, were motivated to learn new things, and had similar experiences at home and at school. As a science teacher, I rarely had to provide interventions to gain student interest or to help them read and write like scientists. However, over the years I have learned that my experience as a classroom teacher is vastly different and not all students make it to high school knowing how to read and write fluently. According to the 2023 SC Ready test results, only 53% of eighth grade students either met or exceeded the reading expectations for the state while other subgroups such as pupils who are in poverty, Black, multilingual learners, and with disabilities performed at a rate of 42.3% or less (SCSDE, 2023). Because of these results, it is evident that students entering high school need reading support, and high school teachers need to be equipped with strategies that will assist students in all content areas, specifically in science. In this post, I will share how I utilized the jigsaw strategy as a means to facilitate success for striving readers a biology class.
In the January 4, 2022, issue of EdWeek Madeline Will states: “For the millions of students who struggle to read at grade level, every school day can bring feelings of anxiety, frustration, and shame” (p.1). The highly rigorous curricular standards outlining the knowledge and skills students should have by the end of each science course are designed to prepare students to predict outcomes, create procedures, analyze data, and draw conclusions. If over half of the students entering high school are unable to read at grade level, they are not able to meet the science classroom demands, ultimately leading to students’ feeling frustrated and lost in their science classes. Will (2022) goes on to state “…children who don’t receive appropriate support can fall behind in multiple classes, even though they are capable of intellectually understanding the material” (p. 2). If students are intellectually capable of understanding the material, scaffolds need to be put in place to bring that intellectual understanding out of them. Moreover, those strategies need to assist the striving reader’s comprehension of scientific text and vocabulary.
I had the pleasure of providing corrective instruction for several groups of students taking a Biology I course, many of whom were either multilingual learners or were students with a learning disability. During the lesson, we addressed the processes of cell division, cellular respiration, and photosynthesis and their importance to sustaining life. Because these concepts are so abstract, many students find them difficult to grasp. The teacher’s initial testing showed these students needed more time with the content because they were unable to clearly define the concepts or processes which had been taught nor were they able to identify models that represented each concept. It was evident from these data that students needed a way to better comprehend the vocabulary.
Addressing the concern of providing appropriate support for striving readers, I chose to use the jigsaw strategy to support these learners as we revisited the concepts stated above. In John Hattie’s research, the jigsaw strategy has a large effect on student achievement. Hattie proclaims in his book Visible Learning (2009) that self-instruction, organizing, and transforming are valuable tools to get students to be active in their learning and all create a high impact on student growth and achievement. The jigsaw strategy adds student discourse to the lesson and allows students to read, write, speak, and listen within a cooperative setting.
During the lesson, the students were assigned one of the four concepts (photosynthesis, cellular respiration, macromolecules, cell division). The students were given 20 minutes to read articles and listen to videos about their assigned topic. Each student was given a graphic organizer that supported their reading and listening and contained questions they had to answer during their individual research time to ensure they were obtaining the right information about their concepts. After their research phase was complete, the students were given 30 minutes to work in expert groups with other students who had the same concept so they could synthesize and organize their information. The students also had to create a model representing their concept and produce talking points they could use to explain their concept to others. It was imperative for me to conference with each group during the expert phase to ensure they were on the right track and they had accurate descriptions. The final step in the process was to jigsaw the students so each group contained an expert on each concept. During this phase, the students shared their models, while other students filled out a graphic organizer capturing the new information learned. As the jigsaw ended, one student indicated she really felt better about the concepts and she learned so much in the smaller group setting. At the close of the lesson, the students took a short assessment again on each concept.
In Biology, the standards require students to create models to illustrate the processes of both cellular respiration and photosynthesis. The figures above show some of the students’ interpretations of those process after completing the jigsaw activity. It was evident from the figures above that the students had a general understanding of both processes. Figure 2 shows an even deeper understanding that both processes depend on each other and produce a continuous cycle.
In closing, striving readers, according to Will (2022), need a supportive classroom environment where they are welcomed to be risk takers and to have a growth mindset. During a jigsaw activity, there are a lot of moving parts and directions. The advice I would share is to be prepared to redirect students, repeat instructions, and visit each individual during each phase to ensure the students feel supported. Allowing students to research and read individually first gives them an opportunity to make meaning of things before they have to make meaning with a peer. Becoming an expert with a peer allows striving readers to reread and repeat information a second time, which enhances comprehension. I found the jigsaw strategy increased student knowledge of the concepts, gave them the confidence they needed to engage in discussion with their peers, and gave them the ability to complete the models shown in Figures 1 and 2. To learn more about the jigsaw strategy, click here.
DEVELOPING STUDENTS AS SELF-ASSESSORS
ResearchBY: Laura Greenstein, ED.D.
When I was asked to problematize assessment, I was puzzled. Does that mean to turn something that is not a problem into one, or rather, quantifying students’ mistakes and pursuing accountability? Turning assessment into a problem implies that something has gone wrong when in truth, it has merely gone astray from its Latin root “Assidere,” which means to sit nearby and guide. Regrettably, assessment has been taken out of the hands of educationalists who accentuate improvement and have been replaced by periodic testing that quantifies learning and generates numerical comparisons. As of yet, scoring technologies cannot distinguish between a learner’s lack of knowledge and their misinterpretation of the question, nor can they provide advice on remediation. Below are 3 steps that can.
STEP 1: REVISIT FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS and PRINCIPLES OF ASSESSMENT
While some believe tests and assessments mean the same thing, the definitions below illuminate noteworthy differences in purpose and process.
TESTs are periodic procedures that establish the capacity or performance of someone or something (Merriam-Webster). They are explicit strategies to ascertain and verify a learner’s skills and knowledge (Wikipedia). Tests tend to be more standardized, analytical, and judgmental.
ASSESSMENTS are processes used throughout teaching and learning to check for understanding, monitor progress, identify lingering gaps, and guide improvement. They rely on varied practices to gauge learning such as rubrics, exit slips, fix the mistake, student reflections, and progress trackers. They are more adaptable and personalizable than tests (Assessment Network).
STEP 2: INCORPORATE STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT to DEEPEN, ENRICH, and develop OWNERSHIP of LEARNING
Classroom assessments generally offer more insights into learning than standardized tests. Student self-assessment further illuminates competencies and leads to higher-level thinking, problem-solving, and self-efficacy (Panadero, Jonsson, and Botella, 2017).
Learners engaged in their own assessment increase self-awareness. Prompts such as “I used to think__, but now I know__.” encourage insights into learning. As Anisha, a 6th grader, says, “I used to think communication was just talking and writing, but now I know it also includes listening, looking, thinking, AND patience.”
Students rarely take tests once they exit the education system, but they continue to be evaluated on their proficiencies, initiative, productivity, and more. The ability to gauge, reflect, and modify thoughts and actions is indispensable at work and home, throughout the lifespan.
STEP 3: HELP STUDENTS “SOAR” AS SELF-ASSESSORS
Have you ever said or heard something like this? “I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant” (Attributed to Allan Greenspan). Assessment can be like the Tower of Babel, where it is not easy to disentangle ever-changing and contradictory dialects. Mary Ann Burke and I have designed a straightforward and actionable acronym to support all learners as self-assessors. We call it S.O.A.R.
The SOAR model connotes Student Ownership and Agency leads to Results. It puts Students at the center of assessment by purposefully transferring Ownership to them and facilitating their Agency in ways that improve the Results and outcomes of learning. Here’s how it works:
- Put STUDENTS at the center of assessment by helping them clarify and visualize what they will be learning, compare that to what they already know and can do, describe how they plan to learn, and ways they can use their learning. In Practice: Students complete an expanded KWL chart that includes: What I think we will learn, What I know now, What I want to know, How I will find out, How can I show/use my learning.
- Offer opportunities for students to take OWNERSHIP of their learning purpose, process, and products. For example, let them decide how to organize, summarize, and display their learning using words, visuals, or performances. In Practice: Rely on coherent rubrics, sequenced through the taxonomy, that align with learning intentions. For example: Explain the main idea in your own words, elaborate on the significance of 3 key steps/events, draw conclusions or critique it, and design/produce original products and ideas.
- When students become AGENTS of assessment, they take greater charge/responsibility of their path, become participants in the learning process, and strengthen self-reliance. As learners develop deeper understanding, they gain self-confidence and become resources for each other. In Practice: Learners explain or demonstrate their understanding of the main ideas, how the author captures the reader’s attention and extends learning for deeper meaning. They may also defend a position or suggest improvements.
- The RESULTS of students being at the center of their own assessment become evident in learning outcomes. In Practice: As traditional measures evolve into student-owned assessment, they take increasing responsibility, seek to alleviate problems, and generate original ideas and solutions. Rather than relying solely on traditional test questions, learners can better reflect, investigate, analyze, and formulate ideas.
Using the SOAR sequence develops every students’ life-long self-assessment skills. In doing so, they become more accountable for their learning outcomes, analyze, can explain their misunderstandings, identify knowledge and skills in need of improvement, and self-correct their own learning. Indeed, these skills support all students in moving from academic distress to confident and successful learners.
References
Greenstein, L., and Burke, Mary Ann (2020) Rowman and Littlefield, “Student-Engaged Assessment: Strategies to Empower All Learners”
Assessment Network: Toolbox and Blogs https://www.assessmentnetwork.net/blog/ and also https://www.assessmentnetwork.net/2017/02/5-assessment-myths/
Greenstein, L. (2018) MUSTs of Assessment: in Restorative Assessment, Corwin, 2017 https://us.corwin.com/en-us/nam/restorative-assessment/book258057
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Education Research Review, 22, 74–98.
Boyer, M. (2019). Balancing Skepticism and Utility in Machine Scoring. https://www.NCIEA.org/blog/essa/balancing-skepticism-and-utility-machine-scoring
About the Author
Laura is a lifelong learner and educator who has taught and assessed from preschool to graduate school, across subject areas. Her passion for educational assessment began with her dissertation and is evident throughout her work as an author of 5 books on the topic, founder of and blogger at the Assessment Network, and mentor to many teachers and learners. Through her workshops, she brings fresh ideas on a range of assessment topics from standardized to classroom, including formative, authentic, multicultural, differentiated, brain-friendly, and balanced. (Sometimes, she even talks about standardized tests.)
