(Vol. 2, No. 1 - Winter 1998)
Back to index
by John Norton
JCPS middle school principals are sharpening their skills as instructional
leaders through regular workshops and other professional
development experiences. In early December, a group of principals gathered
at Gheens Academy to explore the examination of student work as a technique
to improve teaching in their schools.
When teachers examine their assignments and the products of those assignments
(student work) together, they begin to probe more deeply into what they
expect students to learn and how well they assess what students know and
can do. By looking critically at student work, teachers can make judgments
about the quality of their own lessons and think about how they make their
grading decisions.
"How do we make sure that when we score the same quality work in two
different classrooms or two different schools, we're going to apply the
same standards?" asked Sherry DeMarsh, a former principal who helps
direct the middle school reform effort. "How do we develop criteria
that is so clearcut that it doesn't matter where we are in the school system,
the expectations about quality are going to be the same?" Looking at
student work together can begin to get at those questions, she said.
Here's an excerpt of a conversation among five principals and
a master teacher when they looked at an assignment
about ancient Greece. The conversation has been edited and shortened
for space reasons.
Principal #1 (facilitator): What did you see in this work?
Principal #2: I thought in both papers the students seemed
to know a lot of information about ancient Greece. They had knowledge in
their heads to pull on to answer the question.
Principal #3: They have the knowledge to answer the questions
but if you look at the rubric, they have to have an explanation to earn
a 3 or a 4, and I don't think either paper does a real good job of explaining
what they have listed. The first paper seems to be a little more detailed
but doesn't really give an explanation. It just kind of repeats the information.
The second paper really just lists (some facts). They have the knowledge
and probably could do a real good job, but didn't take the time to.
Principal #4: I think they have a knowledge base of ancient
Greece but don't make the connections with our culture today. They list
some things but they don't show much understanding of the connections.
Master Teacher: The second one, although it's shorter,
did a little more with connections. "They had a stage with chairs rising
up into the air and so do we."
Principal #5: I don't think the student is the problem.
The "explain" part is confusing. I don't see enough specifics
about what is wanted on this explanation. If something about the connectedness
was in the directions, like "how could you tie things in their civilization
to ours," that might help.
P #4: Maybe the problem is with the word "influences."
They may be OK with "explain" but maybe they don't have a good
grasp of what it means to "influence."
P #5: And when I look at the rubric, which I assume the
kids got before they started, to get a 4 you have to give three examples,
which both of these kids did. But then you say "thoroughly explaining."
What does that mean? We're talking about a kid, here. Do they know how much
"thoroughly" is? To me, this first person probably thought they
were thoroughly explaining it. I think the rubric just has to be more specific
about what the kids will be judged on. "What do you want me to do?"
The kids are spitting back information they learned about ancient Greece.
They're trying to tell us how those things are the same as we have today.
If I think like a 6th or 7th grader, I probably think I've done what I was
asked to do.
P #2: Do you see the problem here is that the level of
the question is too high for our kids, or do you believe our teaching isn't
high enough?
P #1: I am thinking it's more of the latter. The students
would have to know a lot to be able to answer this well.
MT: Do you think this is a open-response question (used
on KIRIS tests)- which would mean that it takes it to the level of synthesizing
information and using and applying knowledge-or just another essay question
asking students to repeat back information?
P #2: Is that basically the difference between an open-response
and an essay question? An open-response moves you to application or synthesis?
That's interesting.
MT: One of the state accountability people told me that
as he went around Jefferson County, one of the biggest problems he saw was
that most teachers were still asking essay questions instead of open-response.
And I've been thinking about that a great deal. If open-response is supposed
to be a form of assessment, then I would say that it requires the student
to do some kind of application. It's a little easier in math because it's
easier to incorporate application in a math question. If you're going to
ask students to analyze and synthesize in social studies, you're going to
have to be teaching at a high level.
P #5: How would you take this and make it into more of
an application assignment? Would it be more of a simulation-type thing?
I don't know exactly how you would do it.
MT: I think you would have had to have kids doing the kinds
of activities where they were examining modern and ancient culture and making
those connections in their lessons. I think the other thing that the question
raises is whether the instruction matched the assessment. Although she says
that ancient Greece "produced many great philosophers, scientists,
mathematicians, artists, writers and achitects," neither of the students
mentioned geometry, or columns, or democracy. If this seemed to be true
across most of the papers, it raises questions about whether you assessed
what you taught, or whether you taught what you intended to teach.
P #2: Maybe the question did match the instruction. Maybe
this is the way she taught. And that is the crux of KERA, I think. We're
still teaching memorize, and list, and explain. And we have to go deeper
than that.
P #5: It seems to me that when you're doing an open-response
question, isn't it supposed to be a problem kids solved based on what they
learned in class? There really isn't a problem presented here. It's just
kind of list some things. I think words like "analyze," "compare,"
"connect," "contrast" would have been better than "explain."
P #4: If the question was more specific in what it was
asking, would that have helped focus the kids? It's very general. For example,
suppose you had said, "compare present day movie theaters to ancient
Greek theaters." Narrow it down so they can go more in depth.
MT: It would have required that the students have done
some pretty in-depth research on ancient Greek theatre. But maybe that would
have been more meaningful to them as opposed to feeding back all the facts
listed in the textbook.
P #1: This question makes me wonder if teachers know exactly
how to write an open-response question. I don't know that we've had enough
'how to.'
P #2: We always come back to the same thing - professional
development. We always come back to that.
MT: This work really raises two issues: First, is the teacher
asking the right question. And, more importantly perhaps, are we also instructing
students in a way that makes it possible for them to answer questions that
require them to solve problems. For that to happen, the student would have
to have some time in class to do some serious indepth study so that their
knowledge is not all superficial. And then the assessment might need to
be more in-depth also; perhaps an oral presentation or performance of some
sort.
P #5: I think you raise the right issues. So how do we
help teachers develop in-depth questions without making them feel intimidated
or threatened when we critique their work?
MT: The key issue is planning. How are teachers planning?
Are they planning by time - "I'm going to study ancient Greece for
six weeks, and we're going to do these activities" rather than to say,
"at the end of six weeks I want students to be able to solve a problem
I pose to them about analyzing the influence of an ancient civilization
on current times." So what do I need to have them do between now and
the end of six weeks so they will be able to do that. And it's likely that
you would spend the six weeks period differently than you would if you just
filled up the time with activities.
P #2: Can see you how this process might really generate
interest among teachers? If you thought, "I've got to bring in one
of my assignments next month to talk about, which would one I bring? What
am I looking for from my students?" It could really be thought-provoking
for teachers.
P #4: I think the biggest question is, could you pull it
off? Can you build enough trust for them to have this kind of conversation
about their own work?
P #5: I think that's the question. We have tried this,
we've just barely gotten off the ground with it, but I find that the defensive
wall is up. And also, it's not focused on whether we asked the question
the way we really wanted to, or taught what we asked for when we assessed.
It's all about the kid. "He's not a very good writer. He can't do this
kind of work." And they can't seem to get off of that.
MT: That's why a good facilitator is essential. A good
facilitator can eventually help build that trust. You're not just laying
yourself open for criticism-there are rules to follow so it doesn't get
personal.
P #2: That's why it might be good to start off with some
work from outside the group, so you can practice the process without anyone
feeling too threatened. (Several principals agree.) When you're doing this,
you'd almost better start with a strong teacher who says "I'll try
it." Let it go that way. And if no one volunteers, stick with an outside
sample of work.
P #3: This kind of process can also demonstrate the importance
of teachers planning together. If you plan together, you can decide in advance
what you want kids to know and do, and you can look at what you get from
kids and talk together about how well your planning worked, without anyone
feeling singled out.
MT: Teachers are tired of hearing "you don't have
to work harder, you have to work smarter." But the secret to working
smarter is to work together and share the load. That's the answer that has
alluded us. But it's very hard to change the individualistic, competitive
culture in our schools.
P #5: If we could just create that extra team planning
time, time that's apart from their individual time, then you'd almost be
forced to plan collaboratively. That's what we're campaigning for-creating
that time.
MT (summing up): If I had been the presenting teacher,
after I heard this conversation, I think I might have been disturbed by
the fact that you didn't think this was a higher level question. And I think
I would have questioned that, but I think you would have persuaded me.
##
"Principal leadership drives middle school
reform agenda"
Eavesdrop on a group of Louisville teachers talking
about student work
ALSO: A group of history teachers in Long
Beach, CA have the courage to talk tough