This may sound obvious, as it pertains to most teachers, but on the outset, my grades mean that a student has either understood what I was trying to teach or has failed to understand the required content. I believe that this is a simple analysis of students grades but a good one. To delve into this concept a little deeper, for me, grades do not always consist of just whether or not student shave understood CONTENT, but also that they have acquired skills that I was aiming at building. School is not just a place where students acquire a bunch of information that they may deem useless to them. In fact, I totally understand why students would believe this notion. Many teachers do not make it clear that school is an integral place for developing the skills necessary to succeed in the real world. Having this mindset, I am able to show students the importance of their grades to their development as a person intellectually as well as socially.
Nitko and Brookhart wrote that “some persons work for concrete, tangible rewards; others work with and for symbolic rewards” (340). Within my classroom, skills are rewarded as well as intellectual knowledge of the content being assessed. Some assignments require that a grade be given, while others are solely used for the purpose of developing social skills needed to succeed in the real world. For example, at the end of the unit on Shakespeare’s Othello, I require of senior students to do two projects, one, a group project, aimed at developing social skills and creativity, the other an individual writing assessment to display their understanding of the play. The group project is graded based on the students skill level at working with other people and being able to present with a group in front of the class, while the writing assessment allows for each individual to display their knowledge of the story itself. Although both parts of the project are graded, the group project allows for me to assess different skills than the individual project thus creating a more complete, holistic view of student progress. Students are aware of this fact as I clearly communicate the different skills being assessed before beginning the two projects.
During a unit, I tend to provide feedback to students through the use of verbal communication. Not ALL assignments are graded. Instead, I use inferences based on student performance to assess the development of certain skills. For example, during a public speaking unit, I communicate immediately following speech rather than grading the students and returning grades to them the following week. Activities within my classroom are also “graded” in this style. Activities are used to show development of understanding but are not always graded. Instead, these forms of assessment are only observed, and allow for me to provide one on one feedback to each student without hindering the progress of the other students in the class. In a way, I have created a “multiple reporting system” as Nitko and Brookhart suggest (346). Students get immediate feedback in the form of words while parents can measure student achievement by reading their child’s quarterly report card.
Following this type of grading style, I am able to determine whether or not students have acquired certain skills that I am teaching. Sometimes, low grades do not necessarily mean a bad thing. Students may have acquired the necessary skill that I had set as a target, but may have failed to understand all of the content. This allows for me to review or re-teach the content but to move on from teaching and assessing the skill being assessed.
Of course, grades are sometimes critical. In the case of my classroom, senior students need English 12 to graduate. Scores become critical in this situation. Therefore, it is important that grades make sense to the students and are quickly reported back to them. For this reason, I have developed a grading system based on points rather than averages. Allotting certain point values to each assignment helps students to see the importance of assignments in relation to other assignments being given. It also allows for students to determine which assignments are more important for them to complete in order to succeed in class. Although, as a teacher, I would hope every assignment would be completed, this is not always the case. The point system allows for criterion-referenced feedback. “When a student understands what a high quality performance looks like, and how his status differs from that high quality, he will be encouraged to put forth greater (or sustained) effort to achieve the standard” (Nitko and Brookhart, 349).
I think that it is important for students to take ownership of his/her achievements and successes. At the same time, it is important for them to see and understand where they could perform better. Grades using the point system and feedback within the classroom allow for them to build this self-preservation skill, a skill that all students should have mastered by the time they graduate high school.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
I Personally Believe...
I personally believe that the appropriate focus for all teachers should be on the students in our classrooms. Teachers should not be in school to solely earn a paycheck. We (teachers) chose our profession because we have some sort of love for imparting knowledge to the youth of our society that will one day take our place. A teacher should be willing to go out of his or her way to help a student.. It is my belief that upon completion of my class, each of my students should be a better more well-developed person, morally, socially as well as intellectually and in order to reach this goal, it is important for me to realize the impact that I may have on each individual. A teacher is a role model, an educator as well as a friend and therefore should always strive to reach each individual that enters the classroom in order to learn. While we cannot know the aptitude each of our students has towards what we will be teaching them, we should work towards gaining their interest. If we cannot get them to like what we are teaching, we should at least impart our knowledge as clearly, precisely and creatively as possible with the hope that our students will grow from the experience.
As far as assessments are concerned, teachers should, once again focus on reaching the students. Classrooms should be student based rather than teacher oriented. This type of classroom format and philosophy most definitely encourages teachers to continue to modify, strengthen and perfect assessments in order to get the best result from each student. I personally feel that assessments have more value to the students when they appeal to their emotions, allow for creativity and the expressing of opinions. Of course, this tends to be my philosophy because of my content, English Language Arts. This may be different for other content areas, but the same sort of empathetic view can undoubtedly be administered within all classrooms. Nitko and Brookhart state that teachers should “craft assessments that are free from characteristics irrelevant to assessing the learning target” (87). Within the English Language Arts content area there seems to be a lot more freedom when it comes to this well-informed guideline. Learning targets tend to be more expansive ranging from lower level learning taxonomies (Blooms), as in vocabulary acquisition and plot summaries, to higher level thinking activities that draw upon student experiences and personal creativity. Still, I agree that keeping learning targets in mind while crafting assessments is critical. Students should be able to express themselves freely within a classroom, while it is the teacher’s job to make sure that what is being expressed relates to the learning target being taught.
Another point that Nitko and Brookhart make is that students should be able to understand the results of assessment techniques and be able to make connections to the focus of the learning target being assessed (87). This is also quite true. When students have to ask the question “Why are we learning this,” it should be an indication to the teacher that they have been unclear in their direction. It is the students’ right to know the importance and relevance of what they are learning and teachers should be wary of this fact. Another point found in Educational Assessment of Students that was brought up is the fact that teachers need to work alongside school administrators as well as other teachers to ensure the success of each student. Every student is different. Therefore it is the responsibility of the school district as a whole to reach out to each student providing “reasonable accommodations for classroom assessment activities” and further for the teacher to “seek the help of the appropriate school personnel” (89). Resources are available in almost every school district. The abundance of special needs that each teacher will encounter is undeniable. Therefore, I agree that assessments should be made, altered and perfected to reach the needs of all of these students. Further, I agree that collaboration between teachers can only help students to reach their fullest potential. For example, I currently work alongside another teacher, co-teaching and English 10 class. My “co-teacher” and I have worked at modifying tests and activities to be sure that his students as well as mine are able to understand the learning targets we have prescribed for each unit. Working together undoubtedly changes the success rate within the classroom. If teachers are reluctant to work together, it only hinders a student’s progress and personal growth as an intellectual human being. While working together is a good thing, I also agree with Nitko and Brookhart when they say “It is irresponsible for authorities to create a situation that pressures teachers into reporting high scores” (91). Low scores do not necessarily mean that a student is “dumb” or “stupid.” They should serve as an indication to teachers what should be changed and refined. Administrators and supporting teachers should understand this aspect of teaching and that teaching should be an ongoing learning experience for both the students as well as the teachers. Finally, there is one aspect that Nitko and Brookhart discuss that I feel may not necessarily be true. This is in the area of privacy and confidentiality. I do agree that students should not be “flagged’ when evaluating assessments or using assessments as a way of research among other teachers. However, within my own classroom, I sometimes use teaching techniques that do not keep student assessments confidential from other students. For example, I use peer-review of essays, correcting test responses and displays of student work on my walls. Nitko and Brookhart do not totally admonish these practices. In fact, they say “These practices raise the question of whether the evaluations should be confidential” (96). I do not think that these practices should be confidential. Quite on the contrary, I believe that activities such as these help students to achieve higher. It has been shown that one of the highest levels of learning is achieved when students actually teach other students what they know, while the teacher facilitates such activities. If we want students to strive to do their best within classrooms, I think there should be constant communication between the students in order for them to achieve at a higher level.
For the most part, Nitko’s and Brookhart’s ideas reiterate some of my own beliefs. I believe that teachers should strive to provide the best forms of activities and assessments for their students, allowing them to grow both emotionally and intellectually from being in the classroom. I do understand that the implications provided in Educational Assessment of Students may have a different meaning based on each teacher’s content area, the rules and guidelines are can be following within any subject. In all teaching situations, teachers should be aware of the responsibilities they have, be able to uphold those responsibilities and reach out to each individual that walks through their doors to learn.
As far as assessments are concerned, teachers should, once again focus on reaching the students. Classrooms should be student based rather than teacher oriented. This type of classroom format and philosophy most definitely encourages teachers to continue to modify, strengthen and perfect assessments in order to get the best result from each student. I personally feel that assessments have more value to the students when they appeal to their emotions, allow for creativity and the expressing of opinions. Of course, this tends to be my philosophy because of my content, English Language Arts. This may be different for other content areas, but the same sort of empathetic view can undoubtedly be administered within all classrooms. Nitko and Brookhart state that teachers should “craft assessments that are free from characteristics irrelevant to assessing the learning target” (87). Within the English Language Arts content area there seems to be a lot more freedom when it comes to this well-informed guideline. Learning targets tend to be more expansive ranging from lower level learning taxonomies (Blooms), as in vocabulary acquisition and plot summaries, to higher level thinking activities that draw upon student experiences and personal creativity. Still, I agree that keeping learning targets in mind while crafting assessments is critical. Students should be able to express themselves freely within a classroom, while it is the teacher’s job to make sure that what is being expressed relates to the learning target being taught.
Another point that Nitko and Brookhart make is that students should be able to understand the results of assessment techniques and be able to make connections to the focus of the learning target being assessed (87). This is also quite true. When students have to ask the question “Why are we learning this,” it should be an indication to the teacher that they have been unclear in their direction. It is the students’ right to know the importance and relevance of what they are learning and teachers should be wary of this fact. Another point found in Educational Assessment of Students that was brought up is the fact that teachers need to work alongside school administrators as well as other teachers to ensure the success of each student. Every student is different. Therefore it is the responsibility of the school district as a whole to reach out to each student providing “reasonable accommodations for classroom assessment activities” and further for the teacher to “seek the help of the appropriate school personnel” (89). Resources are available in almost every school district. The abundance of special needs that each teacher will encounter is undeniable. Therefore, I agree that assessments should be made, altered and perfected to reach the needs of all of these students. Further, I agree that collaboration between teachers can only help students to reach their fullest potential. For example, I currently work alongside another teacher, co-teaching and English 10 class. My “co-teacher” and I have worked at modifying tests and activities to be sure that his students as well as mine are able to understand the learning targets we have prescribed for each unit. Working together undoubtedly changes the success rate within the classroom. If teachers are reluctant to work together, it only hinders a student’s progress and personal growth as an intellectual human being. While working together is a good thing, I also agree with Nitko and Brookhart when they say “It is irresponsible for authorities to create a situation that pressures teachers into reporting high scores” (91). Low scores do not necessarily mean that a student is “dumb” or “stupid.” They should serve as an indication to teachers what should be changed and refined. Administrators and supporting teachers should understand this aspect of teaching and that teaching should be an ongoing learning experience for both the students as well as the teachers. Finally, there is one aspect that Nitko and Brookhart discuss that I feel may not necessarily be true. This is in the area of privacy and confidentiality. I do agree that students should not be “flagged’ when evaluating assessments or using assessments as a way of research among other teachers. However, within my own classroom, I sometimes use teaching techniques that do not keep student assessments confidential from other students. For example, I use peer-review of essays, correcting test responses and displays of student work on my walls. Nitko and Brookhart do not totally admonish these practices. In fact, they say “These practices raise the question of whether the evaluations should be confidential” (96). I do not think that these practices should be confidential. Quite on the contrary, I believe that activities such as these help students to achieve higher. It has been shown that one of the highest levels of learning is achieved when students actually teach other students what they know, while the teacher facilitates such activities. If we want students to strive to do their best within classrooms, I think there should be constant communication between the students in order for them to achieve at a higher level.
For the most part, Nitko’s and Brookhart’s ideas reiterate some of my own beliefs. I believe that teachers should strive to provide the best forms of activities and assessments for their students, allowing them to grow both emotionally and intellectually from being in the classroom. I do understand that the implications provided in Educational Assessment of Students may have a different meaning based on each teacher’s content area, the rules and guidelines are can be following within any subject. In all teaching situations, teachers should be aware of the responsibilities they have, be able to uphold those responsibilities and reach out to each individual that walks through their doors to learn.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Whirligig Literary Elements - Pre-Test
One of my learning targets for this unit is focused on the students’ ability to demonstrate knowledge of literary elements and their use in literature.
This pre-test would be used as a way to analyze a sophomore English Language Arts student’s prior knowledge of the literary elements that will be focused on during the Whirligig unit. (Character – Protagonist/Antagonist, Conflict – Internal/External, Symbolism, Theme)
Directions: Do your best to fill in the blanks for each of the following statements with one word answers. This test will assess your background knowledge of the literary elements we will be discussing during the Whirligig Unit.
1. The people in a story, novel, play or poem are known as ___________________.
2. The main person in a story is known as the ___________________.
3. The person, being, or force that goes against the main person in a story is known as the ___________________.
4. Each person is made up of many ___________________ traits that make us all unique and interesting individuals.
5. Any problem that arises in the story, novel, play or poem is known as a(n) ___________________.
6. When a problem arises within a subject’s mind or inner person, it is known as a(n) ___________________ ___________________.
7. When a problem arises outside of a subject’s person, it is known as a(n) ___________________ ___________________.
8. An object, word, color, or person that represents something larger is known as a(n) When a problem arises within a subject’s mind or inner person, it is known as a(n) ___________________.
9. Another word for the “main idea” is the ___________________.
10. The ___________________ is the lesson that the author is trying to get across to his/her readers.
*This is a very basic test to access prior knowledge of literary elements. Students may not even realize that these basic parts to a story are literary elements. This test will also serve as a way of informing them how easy literary elements are to locate, write about and use.
This pre-test would be used as a way to analyze a sophomore English Language Arts student’s prior knowledge of the literary elements that will be focused on during the Whirligig unit. (Character – Protagonist/Antagonist, Conflict – Internal/External, Symbolism, Theme)
Literary Elements Pre-Test
Directions: Do your best to fill in the blanks for each of the following statements with one word answers. This test will assess your background knowledge of the literary elements we will be discussing during the Whirligig Unit.
1. The people in a story, novel, play or poem are known as ___________________.
2. The main person in a story is known as the ___________________.
3. The person, being, or force that goes against the main person in a story is known as the ___________________.
4. Each person is made up of many ___________________ traits that make us all unique and interesting individuals.
5. Any problem that arises in the story, novel, play or poem is known as a(n) ___________________.
6. When a problem arises within a subject’s mind or inner person, it is known as a(n) ___________________ ___________________.
7. When a problem arises outside of a subject’s person, it is known as a(n) ___________________ ___________________.
8. An object, word, color, or person that represents something larger is known as a(n) When a problem arises within a subject’s mind or inner person, it is known as a(n) ___________________.
9. Another word for the “main idea” is the ___________________.
10. The ___________________ is the lesson that the author is trying to get across to his/her readers.
*This is a very basic test to access prior knowledge of literary elements. Students may not even realize that these basic parts to a story are literary elements. This test will also serve as a way of informing them how easy literary elements are to locate, write about and use.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)