Notes for D184 Unit 1 Standards Based Assessment, Lecture notes of Educational Psychology

Download Notes for D184 Unit 1 Standards Based Assessment and more Lecture notes Educational Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

D18 4 Unit 1 Notes

What Is Standards-Based Grading ETEXT READING LINK HERE Standards Based Grading (SBG) measures student learning while incorporating culture and updated instructional practices to foster a positive environment. ▪ Breaks down the subject matter into smaller learning targets ▪ Teachers can track student progress, give feedback, and adapt instruction ▪ Uses different grading scales than traditional grading ▪ Grading is based on mastery with scales typically a 1-4 to reflect their skills o This can vary between 1-5, 0-4, half points, or use letters instead of numbers ▪ Teaching gives introductory lessons to present materials with more complex materials introduced over time as they master content Figure 1: Examples of Traditional and Standards-based Grading

their grade. This creates an emotionally safe environment where students are encouraged to stretch themselves, make mistakes, and learn. When a student gets a poor score, they can often work more on the topic, increasing their learning, and reassess. The ability to reach mastery is celebrated versus the focus on the number of mistakes made along the way. Accurate Measurement of Learning SBG can improve the situation by providing clearer criteria for measuring mastery. Mastery of low complexity work yields lower grades while mastery of higher complexity work provides higher grades. Connecting grades to complexity rather than percentage completion yields more accurate and consistent grades. A New Way of Thinking about Grading The article is from Grading with a Standards-Based Mindset by Tom Schimmer Why a Standards-Based Mindset? Developing a standards-based mindset accomplishes two things:

1. By overcoming this initial heavy lift, the prospect of actual standards-based reporting is much less daunting. The final thing that should change is the report card, and it should only change as a result of a groundswell of pressure to realign grading and reporting practices with our standards- focused instructional paradigm.
2. The standards-based mindset allows flexibility some teachers need to work within a school whose shift toward standards-based grading is incomplete or not yet started. In fact, grading with a standards-based mindset is not contingent on the system ever moving to standards-based grading and reporting. The Fundamentals The simplicity of the standards-based mindset is that there are only four specific fundamentals that need to change in order to establish an entirely new culture of grade determination.
3. Grade ONLY learning : When grades reflect only learning, students can self- regulate their learning by using grades as a springboard for future learning goals. If students have any chance of correctly interpreting their results, the grades they receive must be free of all non-learning factors; otherwise,

students are left to wonder if they know more or less than what’s reflected in their grades.

2. Give students full credit : Once a learning-only mindset has been established, the next step is to give students full credit for what they know, regardless of how low or slow they started. What a student used to know is irrelevant if new evidence shows a much higher level of proficiency, but that’s never reflected in a mean average. Giving students full credit means that teachers must recognize when old evidence of learning has been rendered invalid due to the emergence of new evidence and be willing to eliminate that old evidence from any grade determination. Giving students full credit for what they know has also led teachers to use the practice of reassessment more effectively. Reassessment is about creating another opportunity to verify new levels of proficiency given the targeted instruction and learning that occurred after the first attempt.
3. Redefine accountability : Teachers with a standards-based mindset still hold students accountable, but it’s a different working definition of accountability—a definition that views accountability not as punishment for undesirable behavior, but as responsibility for learning. If we want students to learn to be responsible, we must teach them how to be responsible. Create expectations and criteria that give students a clear understanding of what it means to be responsible. Students don’t understand less because they handed their teacher something three days after it was expected. If the proficiency grade is lowered as a result, that’s exactly what’s being communicated.
4. Grade for confidence : Above all else, grading with a standards-based mindset means using grading practices that establish, maintain, and grow student confidence about achievement. Confidence is not about lowering standards or inflating a sense of entitlement; rather it’s about a sense of real optimism about the possibility of success.

Types of Scoring What’s the Difference? Criterion-referenced tests vs. norm referenced tests ETEXT Criterion-referenced Test A criterion-referenced test is designed to measure a student’s academic performance against some standard or criteria. Norm-referenced Test Scores from norm-referenced tests are used to compare students’ progress to others in their peer group. This group may contain students in the same grade across the nation, or other categories such as special education, disability status, English learners, gifted students, and more. Most commonly, norm- referenced tests use a national peer group. How to interpret criterion-referenced tests Criterion-referenced tests compare a person’s knowledge or skills against a predetermined standard, learning goal, performance level, or other criterion. With criterion-referenced tests, each person’s performance is compared directly to the standard, without considering how other students perform on the test. Criterion-referenced

tests often use “cut scores” to place students into categories such as “basic,” “proficient,” and “advanced.” Example of criterion-referenced measures An individual’s score, and how that score is categorized, is not affected by the performance of other students. In the charts below, you can see the student’s score and performance category (“below proficient”) do not change, regardless of whether they are a top- performing student, in the middle, or a low-performing student.

The difference between norm-referenced scores and criterion-referenced scores Some assessments provide both criterion-referenced and norm-referenced results, which can often be a source of confusion. Standards-Based Grading vs. Standards-Referenced Grading ETEXT LINK HERE Standards-Based vs. Standards-Referenced ▪ standards-referenced means that what gets taught or tested is “referenced” to or derived from learning standards (i.e., standards are the source of the content and skills taught to students—the original “reference” for the lesson) ▪ standards-based refers to the practice of making sure students learn what they were taught and actually achieve the expected standards (i.e., that students meet a defined standard for “proficiency”) Another way of looking at it is that standards-referenced refers to inputs (what is taught) and standards-based is focused on outputs (what is learned). Translating Standards-Based Evaluations into Letter Grades TRANSLATING STANDARDS-BASED EVALUATIONS INTO LETTER GRADES

• Link grading procedures to the intended learning goals.

• Use criterion-referenced standards as reference points to distribute grades.
• Limit the valued attributes included in grades to individual achievement.
• Use representative samples of student performance rather than including all scores in a final grade.
• “Grade in pencil” and keep records so they can be updated easily.
• “Crunch" numbers carefully – if at all – during this process.
• Use quality assessment and properly recorded evidence of student achievement.
• Discuss and involve students in assessment, including grading throughout the learning process Figure 2.7 shows two approaches to translating this four-point scale into letter grades or GPA ranges. One of the benefits of this methodology is the opportunity to develop assessment ranges based on different scales for measuring student progress. In the case of Marzano and Heflebower’s approach in Educational Leadership, instructors can use proficiency scales that track student mastery of a range of subjects on a 0 to 4.0 proficiency scale.

o Once the student demonstrates this proficiency at a specific level, the amount of support that the student needs determines whether they receive a 1.0, 1.5, or 2.0.

• A student must demonstrate proficiency on the lower levels of the rubric prior to receiving scores for proficiency at the higher levels.
• Proficiency must be demonstrated on all of the elements on a rubric – it is never acceptable to group an entire level of the rubric together when assigning a score. Not all districts rely on a four-point scale, however. Jessamine School District uses a six point letter grade scale that also easily translates to a traditional grading scale (Figure 2.11). The district requires teachers to determine the final grade by averaging the standard grades from each summative assessment

Using Grades to Measure and Encourage Growth What does the research say about SBG? Article There are two fundamental reasons why traditional grading practices ought to be reassessed. First, the Common Core has helped make learning targets more rigorous, consistent, and transparent. Second, Every Student Succeeds (formerly No Child Left Behind) has changed the way school leaders and teachers operate. These educational laws mandate that schools may no longer simply fail students who don’t learn, and move on (Vatterott, 2015). Instead, all students must be proficient.

Facing Misconceptions About Standards-Based Grading Communicating Student Progress: What Works and What Doesn’t in SB Report Cards ARTICLE LINK Common Misconceptions Misconception 1 – More is Better Misconception 2 – Parents Will Put It All Together Misconception 3 – The Purpose of a Report Card is To Provide Information Standards-Based Grading Challenges for Students and Parents While there are many advantages for student learning and monitoring growth when using standards-based grading (SBG), implementing SBG is not without challenges for schools and teachers. Understanding potential challenges is essential for effective implementation and support. Here are five common issues schools and teachers may face:

"Four Common Roadblocks to Standards-Based Grading and How to Overcome Them" ETEXT LINK

MODULE 2 > Unpacking Academic Standards Some Problems with Assessing Standards Notes are taken from: The Assessment-Friendly Curriculum Article There are at least three reasons why standards do not provide classroom teachers with adequate guidance in using classroom assessments: (1) too much content, (2) redundancy, and (3) equivocal descriptions of content. “Think Alouds: Unpacking the Standards” Video (13: 34 ) LINK "Moving from Content Standards to Student-Friendly Learning Targets, Part 1" ETEXT ARTICLE LINK HERE

The essence of a standard, referred to in this module as the focus statement, often is known by other names that might be familiar to you. You may have heard the essence of academic standards referred to by any of the following terms:

• big ideas