http://www.jigsaw.com
Jigsaw in 10 Easy Steps
The jigsaw classrom is very simple to use. If you're a teacher, just follow these steps:
Divide students into 5- or 6-person jigsaw groups. The groups should be diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, race, and ability.
Appoint one student from each group as the leader. Initially, this person should be the most mature student in the group.
Divide the day's lesson into 5-6 segments. For example, if you want history students to learn about Eleanor Roosevelt, you might divide a short biography of her into stand-alone segments on: (1) Her childhood, (2) Her family life with Franklin and their children, (3) Her life after Franklin contracted polio, (4) Her work in the White House as First Lady, and (5) Her life and work after Franklin's death.
Assign each student to learn one segment, making sure students have direct access only to their own segment.
Give students time to read over their segment at least twice and become familiar with it. There is no need for them to memorize it.
Form temporary "expert groups" by having one student from each jigsaw group join other students assigned to the same segment. Give students in these expert groups time to discuss the main points of their segment and to rehearse the presentations they will make to their jigsaw group.
Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups.
Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group. Encourage others in the group to ask questions for clarification.
Float from group to group, observing the process. If any group is having trouble (e.g., a member is dominating or disruptive), make an appropriate intervention. Eventually, it's best for the group leader to handle this task. Leaders can be trained by whispering an instruction on how to intervene, until the leader gets the hang of it.
At the end of the session, give a quiz on the material so that students quickly come to realize that these sessions are not just fun and games but really count.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Jigsaw Approaches - Topics
a > Gagne's events of instruction
b > Merrills first principles of instruction
c > specifying intentions for a lesson - ausubel
d > taxonomies - Bloom , SOLO
e > objectives using gronlunds approach
f > catering for diversity - gardner
b > Merrills first principles of instruction
c > specifying intentions for a lesson - ausubel
d > taxonomies - Bloom , SOLO
e > objectives using gronlunds approach
f > catering for diversity - gardner
http://web.bsu.edu/IRAA/AA/WB/chapter2.htm
Types of Learning Outcomes to Consider
Gronlund (1981) provided the following list of types of outcomes. The list delineates many of the major areas in which instructional objectives might be produced. The specific categories were intended to be suggestive, not exclusive.
Knowledge
terminology
specific facts
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
Understanding
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
written material, graphs, maps, and numerical data
problem situations
Application
factual information
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
problem-solving skills
Thinking skills
critical thinking
scientific thinking
General skills
laboratory skills
performance skills
communications skills
computational skills
social skills
Attitudes
social attitudes
scientific attitudes
Interests
personal interests
educational interests
vocational interests
Appreciation
literature, art, and music
social and scientific achievements
Adjustments
social adjustments
emotional adjustments
Definitions
Goals and objectives are similar in that they serve to direct teaching and learning. They describe the intended purposes and expected results of teaching activities and establish the foundation for assessment.
Goals are statements about general aims or purposes of education that are broad, long-range intended outcomes. Goals are used primarily in policy making and general program planning.
Objectives are brief, clear statements that describe the desired learning outcomes of instruction. Attention is focused on the specific types of performances that students are expected to demonstrate at the end of instruction.
Questions and Answers
Q) What are the differences between goals and objectives?
A) Because the two terms are often used interchangeably, confusion sometimes arises. Although both goals and objectives use the language of outcomes, the characteristic that distinguishes goals from objectives is the level of specificity. Goals express intended outcomes in general terms and objectives express them in specific terms. Goals are written in broad, global, and sometimes vague, language. Objectives are statements that describe the intended results of instruction in terms of specific student behaviors.
Q) What are the differences between objectives and outcomes?
A) Objectives are intended results or consequences of instruction, curricula, programs, or activities. Outcomes are achieved results or consequences of what was learned–evidence that some learning took place. Objectives specify what is expected and describe what should be assessed; outcomes are behaviors and products generated by students after instruction and are the objects of assessment.
Q) What is the relationship between objectives and assessment?
A) Erwin (1991) states it well, "One must know what is to be assessed before one knows how to assess it" (p. 35). A statement of objectives should, in the best of all possible worlds, precede assessment. Stated in a stronger way, objectives should drive the assessment methods and instruments and not the other way around.
Q) Before assessment, what is needed?
A) Objectives are needed before appropriate assessment tools and procedures can be selected or designed. At a minimum, objectives should describe student behaviors and products that faculty would accept as evidence that the learning outcomes were achieved. Goal statements are helpful, but are sometimes too general, broad, or vague for developing specific assessment tools. Information about how objectives are linked to goals is useful when reporting and using assessment results.
Q) Are there different types of objectives?
A) Yes, objectives may be classified as cognitive, affective, or skill/performance dimensions. Cognitive objectives are descriptions of thinking skills. Affective objectives refer to attitudinal, personal, and social dimensions of outcomes. Skill objectives such as writing, computer use, speaking, and physical skills are distinctive from cognitive (knowledge) objectives. Skills are the means by which knowledge is acquired. Subject matter objectives are a subset of cognitive objectives that are specific to knowledge of subject matter.
Q) Are there different styles of objectives?
A) Yes, objectives can be classified and written in various styles. The material in this workbook is written with an orientation toward behavioral objectives. However, other styles of objectives are preferred and emphasized within some disciplines. For example, expressive objectives (Eisner, 1985) are commonly used in the visual arts. In contrast to behavioral objectives which are prescriptive, expressive objectives are evocative. Expressive objectives describe educational encounters and are expected to result in diverse student responses.
Q) Are objectives readily available in the department?
A) Often they are. However, they may need to be put into written form, revised, or updated. Many instructional decisions are made informally and then communicated orally. Because teaching has dynamic qualities, written objectives may not be available or may need to be updated. Further, as faculty are generally actively engaged in revising their materials and practices, there may be a tendency to write objectives that describe instructional activities rather than student outcomes.
Exercise 1
Getting Started
Before writing or revising departmental goals/objectives,you might try a few of the following.
Have some open discussion sessions on one of the following topics or something similar.
Describe the ideal student in your program at various phases throughout your program. Be concrete and focus on those strengths, skills, and values that you feel are the result of, or at least supported and nurtured by, the program experience. Then ask:
What does this student know?
What can this student do?
What does this student care about?
List and briefly describe the program experiences that contribute most to the development of the ideal student.
List the achievements you implicitly expect of graduates in each major field?
Describe your alumni in terms of such achievements as career accomplishments, lifestyles, citizenship activities, and aesthetic and intellectual involvement?
Collect and review instructional materials. Try sorting materials into 3 broad categories: recognition/recall, comprehension/simple application, critical thinking/problem-solving. Use any of the following:
syllabi and course outlines
course assignments and tests
textbooks (especially the tables of contents, introductions, and summaries)
Collect and review documents that describe your department and its programs:
brochures and catalogue descriptions
accreditation reports
curriculum committee reports
mission statements
Review and react to goals and objectives from another unit that is similar but external (ex. another department or college in the Mid-American Conference). Try grouping the statements into broad categories of student outcomes (i.e., knowledge, attitudinal, behavioral).
Use the 25 percent problem to refine or reduce a set of goal statements. Imagine that you want to reduce program or course material by 25 percent. What goals would you keep and which would you discard?
Administer a goals inventory or conduct an interview study. Involve a variety of groups (or "stakeholders") when possible.
Use a Delphi technique or a modification. This involves administering a series of related questionnaires in which information from the initial form is provided so that respondents can use it to revise their responses on subsequent forms. The objective is to develop consensus before writing goals or objectives.
Mastery versus Developmental Objectives
Objectives written for mastery of simple knowledge and skills and those written for advanced or higher levels of learning are very distinctive.
What is unique to each type is explained below.
Mastery objectives are typically concerned with the minimum performance essentials–those learning tasks that must be mastered by all students for success at the next level of instruction. These objectives tend to be limited enough in scope that all, or nearly all, intended outcomes can be specified.
Examples
Solve quadratic equations.
Identify symbols used on weather maps.
Identify parts of the microscope.
Developmental objectives are concerned with more complex learning outcomes–those learning tasks toward which students can be expected to show varying degrees of progress. Developmental objectives are often written in a two-step process in which a general objective is stated along with a sample of specific learning outcomes.
Example
Understand basic scientific principles.
State the principle in his/her own words.
Give an example of the principle.
Distinguish between correct and incorrect applications of the principle.
Identify predictions that are in harmony with the principle.
Components of Objectives
The essential and optional components of objectives are described below. The essential elements are listed first. After a component is defined, the phrase that illustrates it will be extracted from the following objective.
After analyzing and interpreting information from public opinion polls, the graduating journalism major will be able to communicate the results to at least three different groups in written, oral, and graphic forms.
Essential components
Behavior: specify actions or behaviors that follow instruction and could serve as evidence that the objective has been achieved; use active verbs that describe observable behavior
example: communicate results
Object: identify the focus of learning–content, concept(s), skill, or attitude
example: public opinion polls
Optional components
Target groups: specify subgroups when objective applies differentially
example: graduating journalism major
Conditions: give information about situations in which the student will be required to demonstrate the behavior–how, when, or where
example: after analyzing and interpreting information
Performance Criteria: state any minimum level of performance
example: in written, oral, and graphic forms
Performance Stability: give information about how often the student behavior must be observed to be a true indication that the behavior is a stable part of the student's achievement repertoire
example: at least three different groups
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Checklist for Evaluating Written Objectives:
The Objective. . .
uses action verbs that specify definite, observable behaviors.
uses simple language.
describes student rather than teacher behaviors.
describes a learning outcome rather than a learning process.
focuses on end-of-instruction behavior rather than subject matter coverage.
indicates a single outcome per objective.
can be assessed by one or more indicators (methods).
is clearly linked to a goal.
is realistic and attainable.
is not simple when complexity is needed.
is clear to people outside the discipline.
is validated by departmental colleagues.
Types of Learning Outcomes to Consider
Gronlund (1981) provided the following list of types of outcomes. The list delineates many of the major areas in which instructional objectives might be produced. The specific categories were intended to be suggestive, not exclusive.
Knowledge
terminology
specific facts
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
Understanding
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
written material, graphs, maps, and numerical data
problem situations
Application
factual information
concepts and principles
methods and procedures
problem-solving skills
Thinking skills
critical thinking
scientific thinking
General skills
laboratory skills
performance skills
communications skills
computational skills
social skills
Attitudes
social attitudes
scientific attitudes
Interests
personal interests
educational interests
vocational interests
Appreciation
literature, art, and music
social and scientific achievements
Adjustments
social adjustments
emotional adjustments
Definitions
Goals and objectives are similar in that they serve to direct teaching and learning. They describe the intended purposes and expected results of teaching activities and establish the foundation for assessment.
Goals are statements about general aims or purposes of education that are broad, long-range intended outcomes. Goals are used primarily in policy making and general program planning.
Objectives are brief, clear statements that describe the desired learning outcomes of instruction. Attention is focused on the specific types of performances that students are expected to demonstrate at the end of instruction.
Questions and Answers
Q) What are the differences between goals and objectives?
A) Because the two terms are often used interchangeably, confusion sometimes arises. Although both goals and objectives use the language of outcomes, the characteristic that distinguishes goals from objectives is the level of specificity. Goals express intended outcomes in general terms and objectives express them in specific terms. Goals are written in broad, global, and sometimes vague, language. Objectives are statements that describe the intended results of instruction in terms of specific student behaviors.
Q) What are the differences between objectives and outcomes?
A) Objectives are intended results or consequences of instruction, curricula, programs, or activities. Outcomes are achieved results or consequences of what was learned–evidence that some learning took place. Objectives specify what is expected and describe what should be assessed; outcomes are behaviors and products generated by students after instruction and are the objects of assessment.
Q) What is the relationship between objectives and assessment?
A) Erwin (1991) states it well, "One must know what is to be assessed before one knows how to assess it" (p. 35). A statement of objectives should, in the best of all possible worlds, precede assessment. Stated in a stronger way, objectives should drive the assessment methods and instruments and not the other way around.
Q) Before assessment, what is needed?
A) Objectives are needed before appropriate assessment tools and procedures can be selected or designed. At a minimum, objectives should describe student behaviors and products that faculty would accept as evidence that the learning outcomes were achieved. Goal statements are helpful, but are sometimes too general, broad, or vague for developing specific assessment tools. Information about how objectives are linked to goals is useful when reporting and using assessment results.
Q) Are there different types of objectives?
A) Yes, objectives may be classified as cognitive, affective, or skill/performance dimensions. Cognitive objectives are descriptions of thinking skills. Affective objectives refer to attitudinal, personal, and social dimensions of outcomes. Skill objectives such as writing, computer use, speaking, and physical skills are distinctive from cognitive (knowledge) objectives. Skills are the means by which knowledge is acquired. Subject matter objectives are a subset of cognitive objectives that are specific to knowledge of subject matter.
Q) Are there different styles of objectives?
A) Yes, objectives can be classified and written in various styles. The material in this workbook is written with an orientation toward behavioral objectives. However, other styles of objectives are preferred and emphasized within some disciplines. For example, expressive objectives (Eisner, 1985) are commonly used in the visual arts. In contrast to behavioral objectives which are prescriptive, expressive objectives are evocative. Expressive objectives describe educational encounters and are expected to result in diverse student responses.
Q) Are objectives readily available in the department?
A) Often they are. However, they may need to be put into written form, revised, or updated. Many instructional decisions are made informally and then communicated orally. Because teaching has dynamic qualities, written objectives may not be available or may need to be updated. Further, as faculty are generally actively engaged in revising their materials and practices, there may be a tendency to write objectives that describe instructional activities rather than student outcomes.
Exercise 1
Getting Started
Before writing or revising departmental goals/objectives,you might try a few of the following.
Have some open discussion sessions on one of the following topics or something similar.
Describe the ideal student in your program at various phases throughout your program. Be concrete and focus on those strengths, skills, and values that you feel are the result of, or at least supported and nurtured by, the program experience. Then ask:
What does this student know?
What can this student do?
What does this student care about?
List and briefly describe the program experiences that contribute most to the development of the ideal student.
List the achievements you implicitly expect of graduates in each major field?
Describe your alumni in terms of such achievements as career accomplishments, lifestyles, citizenship activities, and aesthetic and intellectual involvement?
Collect and review instructional materials. Try sorting materials into 3 broad categories: recognition/recall, comprehension/simple application, critical thinking/problem-solving. Use any of the following:
syllabi and course outlines
course assignments and tests
textbooks (especially the tables of contents, introductions, and summaries)
Collect and review documents that describe your department and its programs:
brochures and catalogue descriptions
accreditation reports
curriculum committee reports
mission statements
Review and react to goals and objectives from another unit that is similar but external (ex. another department or college in the Mid-American Conference). Try grouping the statements into broad categories of student outcomes (i.e., knowledge, attitudinal, behavioral).
Use the 25 percent problem to refine or reduce a set of goal statements. Imagine that you want to reduce program or course material by 25 percent. What goals would you keep and which would you discard?
Administer a goals inventory or conduct an interview study. Involve a variety of groups (or "stakeholders") when possible.
Use a Delphi technique or a modification. This involves administering a series of related questionnaires in which information from the initial form is provided so that respondents can use it to revise their responses on subsequent forms. The objective is to develop consensus before writing goals or objectives.
Mastery versus Developmental Objectives
Objectives written for mastery of simple knowledge and skills and those written for advanced or higher levels of learning are very distinctive.
What is unique to each type is explained below.
Mastery objectives are typically concerned with the minimum performance essentials–those learning tasks that must be mastered by all students for success at the next level of instruction. These objectives tend to be limited enough in scope that all, or nearly all, intended outcomes can be specified.
Examples
Solve quadratic equations.
Identify symbols used on weather maps.
Identify parts of the microscope.
Developmental objectives are concerned with more complex learning outcomes–those learning tasks toward which students can be expected to show varying degrees of progress. Developmental objectives are often written in a two-step process in which a general objective is stated along with a sample of specific learning outcomes.
Example
Understand basic scientific principles.
State the principle in his/her own words.
Give an example of the principle.
Distinguish between correct and incorrect applications of the principle.
Identify predictions that are in harmony with the principle.
Components of Objectives
The essential and optional components of objectives are described below. The essential elements are listed first. After a component is defined, the phrase that illustrates it will be extracted from the following objective.
After analyzing and interpreting information from public opinion polls, the graduating journalism major will be able to communicate the results to at least three different groups in written, oral, and graphic forms.
Essential components
Behavior: specify actions or behaviors that follow instruction and could serve as evidence that the objective has been achieved; use active verbs that describe observable behavior
example: communicate results
Object: identify the focus of learning–content, concept(s), skill, or attitude
example: public opinion polls
Optional components
Target groups: specify subgroups when objective applies differentially
example: graduating journalism major
Conditions: give information about situations in which the student will be required to demonstrate the behavior–how, when, or where
example: after analyzing and interpreting information
Performance Criteria: state any minimum level of performance
example: in written, oral, and graphic forms
Performance Stability: give information about how often the student behavior must be observed to be a true indication that the behavior is a stable part of the student's achievement repertoire
example: at least three different groups
Exercise 2
Exercise 3
Checklist for Evaluating Written Objectives:
The Objective. . .
uses action verbs that specify definite, observable behaviors.
uses simple language.
describes student rather than teacher behaviors.
describes a learning outcome rather than a learning process.
focuses on end-of-instruction behavior rather than subject matter coverage.
indicates a single outcome per objective.
can be assessed by one or more indicators (methods).
is clearly linked to a goal.
is realistic and attainable.
is not simple when complexity is needed.
is clear to people outside the discipline.
is validated by departmental colleagues.
What is a good lesson - 3 - Gronlund
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/plan/plan.html
Major Questions and Issues
What is it I want to accomplish?
Goals--Long-term outcomes generally presented in broad, general terms (e.g., become a responsible citizen; become a professional educator)
Objectives--Specific, short- and medium-term statements related to tasks that students should master after instruction; a clear, unambiguous description of educational intentions for students (e.g., state the advantages of a democratic system of government; compare and contrast goals and objectives)
Who are my students?
How will I accomplish my goal and objectives?
How will I know if my goals and objectives have been accomplished?
Timing of the Planning Process
Long-term (School Year)
a. Content overlap--do the objectives I intend to cover with students overlap with
the objectives that will be tested on the standardized test at the end of the year?
the prerequisite skills needed for the curriculum taught in the next grade?
expectations of important stakeholders in the educational process?
b. Task analysis
c. Models of instruction
d. Instructional methods and techniques
Medium-term (Quarter, Semester)
a. Themes
b. Units
Short-term (Lesson)
a. Lesson objectives
b. Activities
c. Materials
Steps in the Planning Process
Frudden and Stow (1986) identified 8 steps in the planning process:
Establish goals and objectives
Establish allocated time
Identify strategies and models of teaching
Determine methods of evaluating of student outcomes
Select instructional methods and techniques
Design student activities
Provide for variety and individual differences
Of course, it is necessary to properly implement the plan and to properly evaluate results in order to determine if the plan was a success.
Writing Instructional Objectives
Instructional objectives are statements of educational expectations for students. Although research has not demonstrated a strong link between writing objectives and student achievement (perhaps because well-written objectives are not always properly implemented or taught), it is still considered good educational practice to have written objectives in order to facilitate communication to students about expected outcomes.
There are a number of approaches to writing instructional objectives. Mager (1997) proposes writing very specific statements about observable outcomes (called behavioral objectives) that can be built up to become a curriculum (an inductive approach). An example of a Mager objective is: Given 3 minutes of classtime, the student will solve 9 out of 10 multiplication problems of the type: 5 X 4 = _____.
Gronlund (1999) proposes starting with a general statement and then providing specific examples of topics to be covered or behaviors to be observed (a deductive approach). An example of a Gronlund objective is:
The student can perform simple multiplication.
a. can define what multiplication means, in his our her own words
b. can define relevant terms such as "multiplier" and "product"
c. can solve problems of the type 5 X 4 = ______.
Eisner (1997) proposes that not all instructional objectives should focus on outcome; some should focus on the learning process itself (expressive objectives). Two examples are:
a. Students will attend a live symphony performance.
b. Students will use multiplication in everyday activities.
While there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, we will focus on Mager's approach, since it is the most widely used and perhaps the most inclusive.
Lesson Plans:
Lesson plans developed on a variety of topics (PreK-6)
Lesson plans developed on a variety of topics (Middle and High School)
References
Eisner, E. (1997). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Merrill Publishing Company.
Gronlund, N. E. (1999). How to write and use instructional objectives (6th ed.). Bellevue, WA: Merril Press.
Frudden, S., & Stow, S. (1986). Eight elements of effective preinstructional planning. Education, 106(2), 218-222.
Mager, R. (1997). Measuring instructional results. Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.
Major Questions and Issues
What is it I want to accomplish?
Goals--Long-term outcomes generally presented in broad, general terms (e.g., become a responsible citizen; become a professional educator)
Objectives--Specific, short- and medium-term statements related to tasks that students should master after instruction; a clear, unambiguous description of educational intentions for students (e.g., state the advantages of a democratic system of government; compare and contrast goals and objectives)
Who are my students?
How will I accomplish my goal and objectives?
How will I know if my goals and objectives have been accomplished?
Timing of the Planning Process
Long-term (School Year)
a. Content overlap--do the objectives I intend to cover with students overlap with
the objectives that will be tested on the standardized test at the end of the year?
the prerequisite skills needed for the curriculum taught in the next grade?
expectations of important stakeholders in the educational process?
b. Task analysis
c. Models of instruction
d. Instructional methods and techniques
Medium-term (Quarter, Semester)
a. Themes
b. Units
Short-term (Lesson)
a. Lesson objectives
b. Activities
c. Materials
Steps in the Planning Process
Frudden and Stow (1986) identified 8 steps in the planning process:
Establish goals and objectives
Establish allocated time
Identify strategies and models of teaching
Determine methods of evaluating of student outcomes
Select instructional methods and techniques
Design student activities
Provide for variety and individual differences
Of course, it is necessary to properly implement the plan and to properly evaluate results in order to determine if the plan was a success.
Writing Instructional Objectives
Instructional objectives are statements of educational expectations for students. Although research has not demonstrated a strong link between writing objectives and student achievement (perhaps because well-written objectives are not always properly implemented or taught), it is still considered good educational practice to have written objectives in order to facilitate communication to students about expected outcomes.
There are a number of approaches to writing instructional objectives. Mager (1997) proposes writing very specific statements about observable outcomes (called behavioral objectives) that can be built up to become a curriculum (an inductive approach). An example of a Mager objective is: Given 3 minutes of classtime, the student will solve 9 out of 10 multiplication problems of the type: 5 X 4 = _____.
Gronlund (1999) proposes starting with a general statement and then providing specific examples of topics to be covered or behaviors to be observed (a deductive approach). An example of a Gronlund objective is:
The student can perform simple multiplication.
a. can define what multiplication means, in his our her own words
b. can define relevant terms such as "multiplier" and "product"
c. can solve problems of the type 5 X 4 = ______.
Eisner (1997) proposes that not all instructional objectives should focus on outcome; some should focus on the learning process itself (expressive objectives). Two examples are:
a. Students will attend a live symphony performance.
b. Students will use multiplication in everyday activities.
While there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, we will focus on Mager's approach, since it is the most widely used and perhaps the most inclusive.
Lesson Plans:
Lesson plans developed on a variety of topics (PreK-6)
Lesson plans developed on a variety of topics (Middle and High School)
References
Eisner, E. (1997). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Merrill Publishing Company.
Gronlund, N. E. (1999). How to write and use instructional objectives (6th ed.). Bellevue, WA: Merril Press.
Frudden, S., & Stow, S. (1986). Eight elements of effective preinstructional planning. Education, 106(2), 218-222.
Mager, R. (1997). Measuring instructional results. Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.
What is a good lesson - 2 - Gronlund
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Quick+Links/Publications/Magazine/Volume+87/Number+2/Articles/Assessment++A+Personal+Classroom+Management+Approach.htm
Assessment: A Personal Classroom Management Approach
Mary Liz Hinton
Teachers use classroom management to mould the learning environment into a safe, productive and effective place. Classroom management entails all the behaviours a teacher does—consciously or unconsciously—to elicit desired behaviours from students. “The teacher possesses a repertoire of procedures to ensure optimal learning for all students” (Levin, Nolan, Kerr and Elliot 2005), including assessment procedures that have implications for student motivation, misbehaviour, and the learning process. In the past, classroom management and assessment procedures have been viewed as separate from one another; however, current trends view both as synergistic partners in achieving effective instruction.
Gronlund (2003) defines assessment as “the various methods used to determine the extent to which students are achieving the intended learning outcomes of instruction” (p. 14). The current education system, however, “assess[es] student learning … much as we did in 1986, 1966, or 1946, without meaningful reference to what students should demonstrably know and be able to do.” (Angelo 1996, 3). Often assessment is not properly designed or appropriately used, often yielding invalid or unreliable results (Gronlund 2003). The effect of poor assessment practices can be devastating to students and can lead to classroom management issues, such as low motivation levels, behavioural problems and frustration.
To curb potential classroom management problems that are directly related to assessment procedures, the teacher ought to ensure that the procedures used report valuable and accurate information about student learning. The assessment procedures that are used should have a high correlation to the instruction that is given throughout the term (Stiggins 2004). The assessments and instruction ought to be directly linked to the intended learner outcomes (Angelo 1996; Gronlund 2003; Rust 2002; Stiggins 2004), and those outcomes should be taken directly from the outcomes provided by Alberta Learning (2000). In addition to being properly linked to instruction and objective and measurable outcomes, the assessment results must be valid and reliable (Gronlund 2003). If the assessment is not testing what it is intended to test, and not providing an accurate reflection of student learning and performance, there is no point in conducting assessments because they don’t show what the student actually knows and can do. Finally, it is imperative that students be provided with a supportive learning environment that makes it possible for them to achieve the intended outcomes. Formative and summative assessments should be balanced in this learning environment (McMillan 1997) to provide the student with initial feedback that is directed at improving student learning, followed by final feedback about the end results of the formative learning process (Gronlund 2003).
The Need for Correlation between Instruction and Assessment
Good teaching systems align teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives so that all aspects of this system support student learning (Biggs 1999, 11).
It is critical when considering the use of assessment as a classroom management tool that instruction and assessment be aligned, because if you don’t know where you’re going, you may end up somewhere else. The potential problem is accentuated if that somewhere else turns out to be undesirable and counterproductive to the effective learning and social development of learners (Martin, Sugarman and McNamara 2000).
To avoid improperly linking instruction and assessment, Biggs (1999) suggests that the course’s design follow a three-stage model:
Identify clear learning outcomes.
Design appropriate assessment tasks that directly assess whether each learning outcome has been met.
Design appropriate learning opportunities to get students to the point where they can successfully undertake the assessment tasks.
I have witnessed both productive and counterproductive linking of instruction and assessment, as well as students’ frustration when they are assessed on criteria that were not explicit. I have also seen the reduced motivation to study for exams or take part in learning activities when students realize they are not tested on half of what they are instructed on. This frustration is often emotionally disruptive to students, and students can react by trying to change the assessment, or if that fails, withdrawing from the learning environment. For example, during my one-week observation for the IPT placement, I saw a student become frustrated when the teacher refused to tell him what the intended outcome was for the class essay assignment. The student asked a specific question about which direction his paper should take, but the teacher supplied only vague instructions. It was clear that he did not actually understand what he was going to be assessed on. In the end, he failed to meet the criteria, and his frustration led to an emotional outburst toward the teacher. The student felt unfairly treated because he had not received specific instruction about which skills he was expected to demonstrate.
Conversely, I have also observed teachers communicate the intended outcomes, methods of assessment, planned instructional techniques and purpose of learning activities directly to students before and during the completion of an assignment or instructional unit. In these cases, students are usually able to make a whole-hearted attempt to achieve the intended outcomes. In one situation that I observed during my IPT observation week, when a student failed to meet the acceptable standard for the outcomes, her reaction was to identify what went wrong and what could be improved; she did not withdraw out of frustration. In this case, the student’s intrinsic motivation to learn from her mistakes was heightened by an appropriate assessment procedure and expected outcomes that were properly linked to instruction and assessment. Instead of causing a classroom management issue, this approach to linking instruction and assessment, and communicating the same to the student, actually fostered positive results that encouraged further learning.
In my approach to assessment, I link outcomes, instruction and assessment—this link is the foundation for a sound assessment system. In addition to building a sound system based on empirical research, I also ensure that students need to receive as much communication about the correlation as possible. By telling students what the outcomes are, how their achievement of the outcomes will be assessed and how they can achieve the outcomes, I believe that students are set up for success, otherwise they will fail. Good assessment promotes learning and decreases classroom management issues.
The Need for Validity and Reliability
“Two of the most important characteristics of a well-designed assessment procedure are validity and reliability” (Gronlund 2003, 23). Validity refers to the degree to which the assessment tool measures what it is supposed to measure, while reliability refers to how consistently the assessment yields the same results.
When results are not valid or reliable, teachers find it difficult to provide students with relevant and appropriate feedback. “If the results are not communicated effectively, they may be misused or not used” (Gronlund 2003, 12). When results are misused or not used because they are inaccurate, student learning may be affected by inappropriate instructional practices, inappropriate learner outcomes or inappropriate student placement. When teachers do not know what students know, they, teachers, find it difficult to practice effective instruction, and may teach skills that are either too easy or too difficult for the student. The teacher may also select intended learner outcomes that have already been attained by the student, or that are unattainable. Doing these will complicate placement and lead to a student being placed in an inappropriate class, which will lead to frustration and decreased motivation.
I have experienced the negative effects of invalid or unreliable test results mostly as a student. I have not observed assessments during my IPT practicum, so I will comment on the use of invalid and unreliable results from a student’s perspective. As a student, I sometimes felt frustrated when test results were invalid. For example, I once took an exam that tested a basic level of understanding of a given topic. Because I had taken a number of courses on the topic and have a deep understanding of the concepts involved, I wrote the exam with a profound level of interpretation of the questions. However, the exam had multiple correct answers. When the test results came back, I ended up scoring lower than some students who had only a vague understanding of the material. After discussing the rationale for my answers with the professor, she suspected that I had in fact demonstrated a much more detailed understanding of the topic. She added that it was unfortunate that the test wasn’t long answer (instead of multiple choice), because I would have been more fairly graded, but since my answers were keyed according to an introductory level of knowledge, I was penalized.
In my teaching practice, I plan to create assessments that yield reliable and valid results. I see no logic in using assessment if it does not provide valid conclusions that will further guide and improve learning. The whole basis for conducting assessment is lost if the results are unreliable.
To ensure that I am creating and properly using valid and reliable assessments, I will first ensure that the assessment is aligned with instruction and outcomes. There is no point in assessing something that has not been taught or is not part of the objectives for the learning activity. Second, I will conduct an R2D2 item analysis (Armstrong 2005) of assessment tools used to establish what levels of relevance, representativeness, difficulty and discrimination are present. This analysis uses mathematical equations to determine the validity and reliability of individual written test questions, entire written tests, as well as the validity and reliability of more abstract assessment procedures such as performance assessments. I believe that by using tools to ensure the validity and reliability of my assessments, I will be better able to measure student learning and encourage learning. Proper measurements and interpretations of assessment will lead to reduced classroom management issues, because students will be exposed to fewer negative impacts related to improper assessment techniques.
Types of Assessment
“The major purposes of assessment are often described as assessment for learning (diagnostic and formative) and assessment of learning (summative). Both kinds of assessment play an important role in a balanced assessment program (Alberta Assessment Consortium 2005).
Formative assessment “monitor[s] student progress during instruction” (Gronlund 2003, 6). It places high emphasis on “measuring all of the intended outcomes of the unit of instruction … using the results to improve learning (rather than to assign grades)” (Gronlund 2003, 6). The purpose of formative assessment is to guide the student through the learning process while constantly checking for understanding and adapting instruction to benefit the learner as much as possible.
Summative assessment is done at “the end of instruction for the purpose of certifying mastery or assigning grades” and is “concerned primarily with the extent to which the students have achieved the intended outcomes of the instruction” (Gronlund 2003, 8). However, summative assessment is not the end of the process.
Although this summative assessment is a final judgment for that particular [segment of the learning process], it is also the beginning of a new cycle of diagnostic and formative assessment; the [student] will self-assess, and with the assistance of his or her [teacher], set new goals for [learning] to improve performance [during] the next [segment of the learning process]. (Alberta Assessment Consortium 2005)
Through my own teaching experience, I have seen the positive effects of formative assessment on learning. When formative assessment is used, student engagement in learning usually increases. The student is able to find supports within the learning environment, and this increases his or her motivation to achieve. Formative assessment provides checks and balances throughout the learning process that help the teacher to adapt instruction, processes and products according to student strengths and needs, and by doing so, the teacher ensures that the student is appropriately challenged. This leads to increased student motivation and positive attitudes about learning. I believe that by increasing motivation and promoting positive attitudes about learning, students will be more likely to engage in productive behaviours and less likely to disengage from the learning environment. By employing a balanced approach to assessment, teachers can teach in a supportive learning environment that enhances overall classroom management while reporting student learning.
A Balanced Assessment System, Classroom Management and Student Learning
“If teachers assess accurately and use the results effectively, then students prosper. If they do it poorly, student learning suffers” (Stiggins 2004). When student learning suffers, there is no question that classroom management practices are affected. Improper assessment techniques, including inconsistent connections between instruction and assessment, invalid or unreliable interpretations of assessment results, or a learning environment that fails to provide appropriate and supportive assessment procedures, undoubtedly lead to decreased student learning (Gronlund 2003; Stiggins 2004). Students become frustrated and unmotivated, and are unable to see the connection between their behaviour and their achievement (Guskey 2004; Rust 2002). The result is a decrease in the student’s intrinsic motivation to take part in the learning process, often leading to off-task and disruptive behaviours and even complete disengagement from the learning activity (Levin, et. al. 2005).
The implications of creating a personal teaching philosophy that encompasses a balanced assessment system goes beyond the contributions it makes toward classroom management. Sound assessment procedures ensure that the underlying goal of classroom management—student learning—is facilitated. Valid and reliable assessment provides a basis for effective teaching, which is further reinforced by the creation of a supportive learning environment through the use of formative and summative assessment practices. In this system, the student becomes the central focus of everything that is done in the classroom; classroom management and assessment are redefined with the student in mind.
In my approach to classroom management, I intend to use a proper assessment system as an integral part of the foundation of classroom management. I believe that empirical research and my personal observations support the idea that setting students up for success from the start will increase student learning and result in fewer off-task behaviours.
I believe teachers can ensure successful assessment procedures through linking assessment to instruction and intended outcomes; ensuring that assessments yield valid and reliable results that further student learning; and creating a supportive learning environment through the use of balanced formative and summative assessments. Each of these aspects of assessment works to ensure that students have information about what is expected, how they can succeed and what their current level of performance is. This prepares students to take part in learning, and allows students to identify goals and to achieve them.
References
Alberta Assessment Consortium. 2005. About Classroom Assessment. Retrieved October 28, 2005, www.aac.ab.ca
———. 2005. A Framework for Student Assessment. Retrieved October 28, 2005, www.aac.ab.ca
Alberta Learning. 2000. Kindergarten to Grade Twelve Program of Study: Alberta, Canada. Retrieved October 28, 2005.
Angelo, T. 1996. “Transforming Assessment: High Standards for Higher Learning.” AAHE Bulletin, April 3–4.
Armstrong, D. 2005. Unit 6: Activity. Course content for EDPY 303 Section D1, offered at the University of Alberta, fall term.
Biggs. J. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall and D. William. 2004. “Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 1, 9–22.
Brown, G., J. Bull and M. Pendlebury. 1997. Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Brown, S., C. Rust and G. Gibbs. 1994. Strategies for Diversifying Assessment in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Gronlund, N.E. 2003. Assessment of Student Achievement. 7th ed. Custom edition for the University of Alberta.
Guskey, T. and R. Thomas. 2004. “0 Alternatives.” Principal Leadership 5, no. 2: 49–53.
Levin, J., J.F. Nolan, J.W. Kerr and A.E. Elliot. 2005. Principles of Classroom Management: A Professional Decision-Making Model. Toronto, Ont.: Pearson Education.
Martin, J., J. Sugarman and J. McNamara. 2000. Models of Classroom Management: Principles, Practices, and Critical Considerations. Calgary, Alta.: Detselig.
McMillan, J.H. 1997. Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Instruction. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Rust, C. 2002. “The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning.” Active Learning in Higher Education 3, no. 2, 145–158.
Sabornie, J. and L. deBettencourt. 2004. Teaching Students with Mild and High-Incidence
Disabilities at the Secondary Level. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R. 2004. “New Assessment Beliefs for a New School Mission.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no.1, 22–27. Retrieved from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID: 694211911).
Veal, M. L. 1995. “Assessment as an Instructional Tool.” Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators 8, no. 6, 10–15.
Assessment: A Personal Classroom Management Approach
Mary Liz Hinton
Teachers use classroom management to mould the learning environment into a safe, productive and effective place. Classroom management entails all the behaviours a teacher does—consciously or unconsciously—to elicit desired behaviours from students. “The teacher possesses a repertoire of procedures to ensure optimal learning for all students” (Levin, Nolan, Kerr and Elliot 2005), including assessment procedures that have implications for student motivation, misbehaviour, and the learning process. In the past, classroom management and assessment procedures have been viewed as separate from one another; however, current trends view both as synergistic partners in achieving effective instruction.
Gronlund (2003) defines assessment as “the various methods used to determine the extent to which students are achieving the intended learning outcomes of instruction” (p. 14). The current education system, however, “assess[es] student learning … much as we did in 1986, 1966, or 1946, without meaningful reference to what students should demonstrably know and be able to do.” (Angelo 1996, 3). Often assessment is not properly designed or appropriately used, often yielding invalid or unreliable results (Gronlund 2003). The effect of poor assessment practices can be devastating to students and can lead to classroom management issues, such as low motivation levels, behavioural problems and frustration.
To curb potential classroom management problems that are directly related to assessment procedures, the teacher ought to ensure that the procedures used report valuable and accurate information about student learning. The assessment procedures that are used should have a high correlation to the instruction that is given throughout the term (Stiggins 2004). The assessments and instruction ought to be directly linked to the intended learner outcomes (Angelo 1996; Gronlund 2003; Rust 2002; Stiggins 2004), and those outcomes should be taken directly from the outcomes provided by Alberta Learning (2000). In addition to being properly linked to instruction and objective and measurable outcomes, the assessment results must be valid and reliable (Gronlund 2003). If the assessment is not testing what it is intended to test, and not providing an accurate reflection of student learning and performance, there is no point in conducting assessments because they don’t show what the student actually knows and can do. Finally, it is imperative that students be provided with a supportive learning environment that makes it possible for them to achieve the intended outcomes. Formative and summative assessments should be balanced in this learning environment (McMillan 1997) to provide the student with initial feedback that is directed at improving student learning, followed by final feedback about the end results of the formative learning process (Gronlund 2003).
The Need for Correlation between Instruction and Assessment
Good teaching systems align teaching method and assessment to the learning activities stated in the objectives so that all aspects of this system support student learning (Biggs 1999, 11).
It is critical when considering the use of assessment as a classroom management tool that instruction and assessment be aligned, because if you don’t know where you’re going, you may end up somewhere else. The potential problem is accentuated if that somewhere else turns out to be undesirable and counterproductive to the effective learning and social development of learners (Martin, Sugarman and McNamara 2000).
To avoid improperly linking instruction and assessment, Biggs (1999) suggests that the course’s design follow a three-stage model:
Identify clear learning outcomes.
Design appropriate assessment tasks that directly assess whether each learning outcome has been met.
Design appropriate learning opportunities to get students to the point where they can successfully undertake the assessment tasks.
I have witnessed both productive and counterproductive linking of instruction and assessment, as well as students’ frustration when they are assessed on criteria that were not explicit. I have also seen the reduced motivation to study for exams or take part in learning activities when students realize they are not tested on half of what they are instructed on. This frustration is often emotionally disruptive to students, and students can react by trying to change the assessment, or if that fails, withdrawing from the learning environment. For example, during my one-week observation for the IPT placement, I saw a student become frustrated when the teacher refused to tell him what the intended outcome was for the class essay assignment. The student asked a specific question about which direction his paper should take, but the teacher supplied only vague instructions. It was clear that he did not actually understand what he was going to be assessed on. In the end, he failed to meet the criteria, and his frustration led to an emotional outburst toward the teacher. The student felt unfairly treated because he had not received specific instruction about which skills he was expected to demonstrate.
Conversely, I have also observed teachers communicate the intended outcomes, methods of assessment, planned instructional techniques and purpose of learning activities directly to students before and during the completion of an assignment or instructional unit. In these cases, students are usually able to make a whole-hearted attempt to achieve the intended outcomes. In one situation that I observed during my IPT observation week, when a student failed to meet the acceptable standard for the outcomes, her reaction was to identify what went wrong and what could be improved; she did not withdraw out of frustration. In this case, the student’s intrinsic motivation to learn from her mistakes was heightened by an appropriate assessment procedure and expected outcomes that were properly linked to instruction and assessment. Instead of causing a classroom management issue, this approach to linking instruction and assessment, and communicating the same to the student, actually fostered positive results that encouraged further learning.
In my approach to assessment, I link outcomes, instruction and assessment—this link is the foundation for a sound assessment system. In addition to building a sound system based on empirical research, I also ensure that students need to receive as much communication about the correlation as possible. By telling students what the outcomes are, how their achievement of the outcomes will be assessed and how they can achieve the outcomes, I believe that students are set up for success, otherwise they will fail. Good assessment promotes learning and decreases classroom management issues.
The Need for Validity and Reliability
“Two of the most important characteristics of a well-designed assessment procedure are validity and reliability” (Gronlund 2003, 23). Validity refers to the degree to which the assessment tool measures what it is supposed to measure, while reliability refers to how consistently the assessment yields the same results.
When results are not valid or reliable, teachers find it difficult to provide students with relevant and appropriate feedback. “If the results are not communicated effectively, they may be misused or not used” (Gronlund 2003, 12). When results are misused or not used because they are inaccurate, student learning may be affected by inappropriate instructional practices, inappropriate learner outcomes or inappropriate student placement. When teachers do not know what students know, they, teachers, find it difficult to practice effective instruction, and may teach skills that are either too easy or too difficult for the student. The teacher may also select intended learner outcomes that have already been attained by the student, or that are unattainable. Doing these will complicate placement and lead to a student being placed in an inappropriate class, which will lead to frustration and decreased motivation.
I have experienced the negative effects of invalid or unreliable test results mostly as a student. I have not observed assessments during my IPT practicum, so I will comment on the use of invalid and unreliable results from a student’s perspective. As a student, I sometimes felt frustrated when test results were invalid. For example, I once took an exam that tested a basic level of understanding of a given topic. Because I had taken a number of courses on the topic and have a deep understanding of the concepts involved, I wrote the exam with a profound level of interpretation of the questions. However, the exam had multiple correct answers. When the test results came back, I ended up scoring lower than some students who had only a vague understanding of the material. After discussing the rationale for my answers with the professor, she suspected that I had in fact demonstrated a much more detailed understanding of the topic. She added that it was unfortunate that the test wasn’t long answer (instead of multiple choice), because I would have been more fairly graded, but since my answers were keyed according to an introductory level of knowledge, I was penalized.
In my teaching practice, I plan to create assessments that yield reliable and valid results. I see no logic in using assessment if it does not provide valid conclusions that will further guide and improve learning. The whole basis for conducting assessment is lost if the results are unreliable.
To ensure that I am creating and properly using valid and reliable assessments, I will first ensure that the assessment is aligned with instruction and outcomes. There is no point in assessing something that has not been taught or is not part of the objectives for the learning activity. Second, I will conduct an R2D2 item analysis (Armstrong 2005) of assessment tools used to establish what levels of relevance, representativeness, difficulty and discrimination are present. This analysis uses mathematical equations to determine the validity and reliability of individual written test questions, entire written tests, as well as the validity and reliability of more abstract assessment procedures such as performance assessments. I believe that by using tools to ensure the validity and reliability of my assessments, I will be better able to measure student learning and encourage learning. Proper measurements and interpretations of assessment will lead to reduced classroom management issues, because students will be exposed to fewer negative impacts related to improper assessment techniques.
Types of Assessment
“The major purposes of assessment are often described as assessment for learning (diagnostic and formative) and assessment of learning (summative). Both kinds of assessment play an important role in a balanced assessment program (Alberta Assessment Consortium 2005).
Formative assessment “monitor[s] student progress during instruction” (Gronlund 2003, 6). It places high emphasis on “measuring all of the intended outcomes of the unit of instruction … using the results to improve learning (rather than to assign grades)” (Gronlund 2003, 6). The purpose of formative assessment is to guide the student through the learning process while constantly checking for understanding and adapting instruction to benefit the learner as much as possible.
Summative assessment is done at “the end of instruction for the purpose of certifying mastery or assigning grades” and is “concerned primarily with the extent to which the students have achieved the intended outcomes of the instruction” (Gronlund 2003, 8). However, summative assessment is not the end of the process.
Although this summative assessment is a final judgment for that particular [segment of the learning process], it is also the beginning of a new cycle of diagnostic and formative assessment; the [student] will self-assess, and with the assistance of his or her [teacher], set new goals for [learning] to improve performance [during] the next [segment of the learning process]. (Alberta Assessment Consortium 2005)
Through my own teaching experience, I have seen the positive effects of formative assessment on learning. When formative assessment is used, student engagement in learning usually increases. The student is able to find supports within the learning environment, and this increases his or her motivation to achieve. Formative assessment provides checks and balances throughout the learning process that help the teacher to adapt instruction, processes and products according to student strengths and needs, and by doing so, the teacher ensures that the student is appropriately challenged. This leads to increased student motivation and positive attitudes about learning. I believe that by increasing motivation and promoting positive attitudes about learning, students will be more likely to engage in productive behaviours and less likely to disengage from the learning environment. By employing a balanced approach to assessment, teachers can teach in a supportive learning environment that enhances overall classroom management while reporting student learning.
A Balanced Assessment System, Classroom Management and Student Learning
“If teachers assess accurately and use the results effectively, then students prosper. If they do it poorly, student learning suffers” (Stiggins 2004). When student learning suffers, there is no question that classroom management practices are affected. Improper assessment techniques, including inconsistent connections between instruction and assessment, invalid or unreliable interpretations of assessment results, or a learning environment that fails to provide appropriate and supportive assessment procedures, undoubtedly lead to decreased student learning (Gronlund 2003; Stiggins 2004). Students become frustrated and unmotivated, and are unable to see the connection between their behaviour and their achievement (Guskey 2004; Rust 2002). The result is a decrease in the student’s intrinsic motivation to take part in the learning process, often leading to off-task and disruptive behaviours and even complete disengagement from the learning activity (Levin, et. al. 2005).
The implications of creating a personal teaching philosophy that encompasses a balanced assessment system goes beyond the contributions it makes toward classroom management. Sound assessment procedures ensure that the underlying goal of classroom management—student learning—is facilitated. Valid and reliable assessment provides a basis for effective teaching, which is further reinforced by the creation of a supportive learning environment through the use of formative and summative assessment practices. In this system, the student becomes the central focus of everything that is done in the classroom; classroom management and assessment are redefined with the student in mind.
In my approach to classroom management, I intend to use a proper assessment system as an integral part of the foundation of classroom management. I believe that empirical research and my personal observations support the idea that setting students up for success from the start will increase student learning and result in fewer off-task behaviours.
I believe teachers can ensure successful assessment procedures through linking assessment to instruction and intended outcomes; ensuring that assessments yield valid and reliable results that further student learning; and creating a supportive learning environment through the use of balanced formative and summative assessments. Each of these aspects of assessment works to ensure that students have information about what is expected, how they can succeed and what their current level of performance is. This prepares students to take part in learning, and allows students to identify goals and to achieve them.
References
Alberta Assessment Consortium. 2005. About Classroom Assessment. Retrieved October 28, 2005, www.aac.ab.ca
———. 2005. A Framework for Student Assessment. Retrieved October 28, 2005, www.aac.ab.ca
Alberta Learning. 2000. Kindergarten to Grade Twelve Program of Study: Alberta, Canada. Retrieved October 28, 2005.
Angelo, T. 1996. “Transforming Assessment: High Standards for Higher Learning.” AAHE Bulletin, April 3–4.
Armstrong, D. 2005. Unit 6: Activity. Course content for EDPY 303 Section D1, offered at the University of Alberta, fall term.
Biggs. J. 1999. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. The Society for Research into Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Black, P., C. Harrison, C. Lee, B. Marshall and D. William. 2004. “Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no. 1, 9–22.
Brown, G., J. Bull and M. Pendlebury. 1997. Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Brown, S., C. Rust and G. Gibbs. 1994. Strategies for Diversifying Assessment in Higher Education. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Gronlund, N.E. 2003. Assessment of Student Achievement. 7th ed. Custom edition for the University of Alberta.
Guskey, T. and R. Thomas. 2004. “0 Alternatives.” Principal Leadership 5, no. 2: 49–53.
Levin, J., J.F. Nolan, J.W. Kerr and A.E. Elliot. 2005. Principles of Classroom Management: A Professional Decision-Making Model. Toronto, Ont.: Pearson Education.
Martin, J., J. Sugarman and J. McNamara. 2000. Models of Classroom Management: Principles, Practices, and Critical Considerations. Calgary, Alta.: Detselig.
McMillan, J.H. 1997. Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Instruction. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
Rust, C. 2002. “The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning.” Active Learning in Higher Education 3, no. 2, 145–158.
Sabornie, J. and L. deBettencourt. 2004. Teaching Students with Mild and High-Incidence
Disabilities at the Secondary Level. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Stiggins, R. 2004. “New Assessment Beliefs for a New School Mission.” Phi Delta Kappan 86, no.1, 22–27. Retrieved from Wilson Education Abstracts database. (Document ID: 694211911).
Veal, M. L. 1995. “Assessment as an Instructional Tool.” Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators 8, no. 6, 10–15.
What is a good lesson - 1 - gronlund
http://www.clarion.edu/academic/wc/handoutedgoals.htm
What is a goal?
A goal identifies the general outcome(s) of a lesson.
What is an objective?
An objective identifies the specifics of what the learner should know, understand, and/or able to do at the end of the lesson. The objective must be a measurable or observable outcome.
Two Important Questions to Ask Yourself When Writing a Goal or Objective:
1. What do I want my students to know, understand, or be able to do after the lesson or unit is completed? (goal)
2. How will I determine or measure what the students know, understand, or can do? (objective).
The language used when writing goals needs to be general. Below are a few examples of possible verbs that could be used in general statements.
Example of a Goal:
The students will understand the process of photosynthesis.
Two Approaches to Writing Goals and Objectives
Mager's Behavioral Approach:
Mager's approach is one of the most common techniques used when writing objectives for lesson plans.
A=A udience (learners)
B=B ehavior (learning task)
C=C ontent (content knowledge for the objective)
C=C ondition (restriction-What will the students be given? Materials?)
D=D egree (criterion)
Example:
The students will write a complete sentence given a subject, verb, and direct
object with no mistakes
Gronlund's Approach:
Gronlund's approach to writing objectives is somewhat different than those used in Mager's Approach. Instead of using the word “objective,” Gronlund refers to the objective as specific behavior (what the learner should know, understand, and/or be able to do at the end of the lesson).
Example:
Goal: Know the fifty states in the United States and their capitals.
Specific Behaviors 1. Label each of the fifty states on a map.
or Objectives: 2. Name each state capital.
There is no Audience, Criterion, or Degree required in Gronlund's Approach!!!
What is a goal?
A goal identifies the general outcome(s) of a lesson.
What is an objective?
An objective identifies the specifics of what the learner should know, understand, and/or able to do at the end of the lesson. The objective must be a measurable or observable outcome.
Two Important Questions to Ask Yourself When Writing a Goal or Objective:
1. What do I want my students to know, understand, or be able to do after the lesson or unit is completed? (goal)
2. How will I determine or measure what the students know, understand, or can do? (objective).
The language used when writing goals needs to be general. Below are a few examples of possible verbs that could be used in general statements.
Example of a Goal:
The students will understand the process of photosynthesis.
Two Approaches to Writing Goals and Objectives
Mager's Behavioral Approach:
Mager's approach is one of the most common techniques used when writing objectives for lesson plans.
A=A udience (learners)
B=B ehavior (learning task)
C=C ontent (content knowledge for the objective)
C=C ondition (restriction-What will the students be given? Materials?)
D=D egree (criterion)
Example:
The students will write a complete sentence given a subject, verb, and direct
object with no mistakes
Gronlund's Approach:
Gronlund's approach to writing objectives is somewhat different than those used in Mager's Approach. Instead of using the word “objective,” Gronlund refers to the objective as specific behavior (what the learner should know, understand, and/or be able to do at the end of the lesson).
Example:
Goal: Know the fifty states in the United States and their capitals.
Specific Behaviors 1. Label each of the fifty states on a map.
or Objectives: 2. Name each state capital.
There is no Audience, Criterion, or Degree required in Gronlund's Approach!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)