Project Learning
description
Transcript of Project Learning
PROJECT LEARNINGNo longer scissors, glue and dioramas…
Spaghetti and Marshmallows Astrological signs Spaghetti and marshmallows Terri Steimer – Marshmallow
commissioner… 18 minutes!!! Why This Activity?
What is Project Learning?What it is NOT!!!
An additional demand
Scissors and glue Dioramas Necessarily long,
drawn out activities
What it is A strategy for
application An approach – a
way of thinking about instruction
Integrated instructional method
Project Based Learning is a teaching and learning model (curriculum development and instructional
approach) that emphasizes student-centered instruction by assigning
projects. It allows students to work more autonomously to construct their
own learning, and culminates in realistic, student-generated products.
What is project learning?
The Homework “Project” Quadratic Equations Comma splices Table of Elements Civil War Reconstruction 4/4 vs. Cut Time Portrait drawing “Where’s the restroom” in four different
languages
From the Simple to the Extraordinary
Resources: http://www.hightechhigh.org http://www.edutopia.org/project-based-
learning http://pbl-online.org http://www.bie.org http://21centuryedtech.wordpress.com/2010/
01/16/free-project-based-learning-resources-that-will-place-students-at-the-center-of-learning
http://lone-eagles.com/pbl.htm http://cell.uindy.edu/NTHS/PBLresources.php
EPIC – Generation iY Experiential Participatory Image Rich Collaborative
BREAK TIME…Ticket to break – 2 sentences on the Marshmallow Challenge
Standards Grading Paper Airplane Challenge
Does it Fly 1 – little or no sustained flight – “crash & burn” 2 – flies but not on a predictable path, or makes
an immediate turn 3 – sustained flight on some throws,
unpredictable performance, above average reliability
4 – flies straight and true for distance and speed
Standards vs. Traditional Grading??????????
The Elementary Report Card Learner Objectives Defined standards Separates effort and behavior from
mastery Can it work at the high school level?
STANDARDS-BASED GRADING (SBG)
A Case Study…Kinda
@MR_ABUD #TEAMPHYSICS
MOTIVATION FOR THE SHIFTMeaning of a grade
What you did vs. what you knowStudents motivated (by meaning of the
grade) to do assignments/tasksLike finishing the weekend chores checklistFocus on learning and mastery is lost
Students “make up” missing work at the end of a marking period for credit to help their grade
Without focus on learning for mastery, taking learning risks can be too costly
THE PROBLEMHow might we make a grade better represent what students know rather than what they did?
THE SOLUTIO
NAt least, it was an attempt at one…
THIS PLAN WAS DEVELOPED OVER CHRISTMAS BREAK & IMPLEMENTED AT THE START OF 2ND SEMESTER
Stopped checking in homework all together Previously was checked for “completion” (approach to assess student
attempt) Wrote standards for each unit (adapted from curriculum map
and state HSCEs) Written in student-centered “I statements”
Developed assessments that generated ostensible evidence of student learning on standards Linked individual assessments (and even individual questions) to one or
more standards Kept record of student scores on assessments Reported student assessment scores according to standards
Used an average of all assessment scores for a given standards Managed Scores in Microsoft Excel Created “Standards” in Pinnacle instead of assignments Input standards scores in Pinnacle
Calculated summative score & reported all standards and ratings to students separately from their report card
Actions Taken:
TRACKING PROGRESS WITH GRAPHS
TRACKING PROGRESS WITH TABLES
From: Frank Noschese’s blog post, “The Tower” (7/27/11)
GRADEBOOK BEFORETask Grade
Homework 1 10/10Homework 2 10/10Homework 3 10/10Quiz 2/10Homework 4 10/10Homework 5 10/10Test 15/50Homework 6 10/10Quiz 2 5/10Homework 7 10/10Project 95/100Test 2 30/50Overall Grade 227/290
( 78% | C+ | 8 )
THE SBG SCALE
Traditional (%)
14-Point Range
Letter SBG Rating
Proficiency Level with Standard
90-100 12-14 A 4 Exceeds proficiency80-89 9-11 B 3 Demonstrates proficiency70-79 6-8 C 2 Approaches proficiency60-69 3-5 D 1 Falls well below
proficiency<60 1-2 E 0 Lacks all proficiency
0 0 Z 0 No attempt made
Inspired by the 4.0 grade point average system, the rating system used in SBG simply assigns a numeric value to a level of proficiency.
Here is how it looks in comparison to how we are used to grading:
GRA
DEB
OO
KAF
TER
FINDINGS Students:
Agreed with SBG as a means to more accurately reflect what they know
Used the feedback from their SBG report to improve their understanding and strived for mastery (completed reassessments)
Stopped copying just to get assignments completed so they would “get [their] points” toward a grade
Shifted their focus from doing to learning Struggled with the adjustment to a different
grading approach that Did not readily see how to use SBG feedback, or
did not choose to use the SBG feedback Still asked, “what assignments am I missing that
my grade is so low?” Wished it had been implemented from day 1
COMPLAINTS & CRITICISMS OF SBG
Students: Cognitive dissonance with
regard to grading“What the formula” (WTF) moments occurred when students could not figure the calculation of their gradeSOLUTION: MORE TRANSPARENT PROCESS
Forces them to have to know itMany are used to being able to “fake it to make it” (the game of school)SOLUTION: START FROM DAY 1 & INTRODUCE PROCESS WITH AN INVITING EXPERIENCE
Mr. Abud, I was wondering what my grade is; it
says “approaching proficiency” a
bunch of times.
COMPLAINTS & CRITICISMS OF SBG
Parents: Not possible with Pinnacle to
see why their student has the grades on the standards that they doSearching for a missing “checklist” that
their student did not completeSOLUTION: STUDENTS KEEP TRACK
OF THEIR PROGRESSGrade lower than expected,
yet student “does their work”Parents used to having completion
accountability for students’ gradesSOLUTION: LETTERS HOME
EXPLAINING PROCESS
Perhaps my grade was artificially
inflated by all that copying I
did on my homework for completion…
CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS
Focus on learning, not just doing
Opportunity for improvement
Removes pressure of academic risk-taking
Connects grade to learning
Makes assessment and grading more transparent/relevant
Standards in gradebook instead of tasks
Starts from day 1 Students track their
own progress More formative
assessment Obtrusive Unobtrusive Student-generated
Rubrics Letter home to
explain process
Strengths (+) Changes (∆)
NEXT STEPS…FOR INTERESTED PARTIES
Consider How you ALREADY use rubrics to assess students What your performance objectives look like To what extent your assessments connect to your objectives The function of homework in your class (practice or chore)
Reflect on How often you have students wanting to make up missing
work for points but gain nothing from doing that work The extent to which a grade in your class truly reflects
learning Whether your students are motivated to learn or do What opportunities exist for students to recover from early
mistakes
ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE TO TRY SBGThe following actions can be part of a small action research project
in your own classroom: Consider for an upcoming unit/chapter/lesson/project
Writing objectives in “I statement” language that connect to your content standards
Developing assessments (formative and summative) that make it easy to observe proficiency with the objectives
Adding a rubric to that assessment if it doesn’t already have one (omit components unrelated to objectives, e.g., 1” margins)
Creating proficiency rankings with explanations of each ranking level
Assessing students according to the rubric components Reporting students’ scores on the rubric and generating a
summative score as well Providing students a means to track their own
performance Debriefing the grading approach with your class
FINAL THOUGHTS SBG is not a replacement for a summative grade
It just gives more substantive meaning to that grade It is completely possible to implement with any
number of students in any content area It is best for teaching and learning It promotes formative assessment, feedback, and
student ownership over learning It can be done in a low-tech (paper grids / graphs)
or a high-tech way (Excel, Pinnacle, cloud-based apps)
It is more “fun” when you do it with others
RESOURCES
Always Formative Blog: http://bit.ly/ksFvZk
ActiveGrade – a cloud-based web app for SBG http://activegrade.com
Sample Classroom SBG Policy Handout http://bit.ly/nnAGly
SBG w/Voice http://t.co/MBvlgNM
US Dept. of Ed. SBG Resources http://1.usa.gov/lOgtWu
Frank Noschese’s Action-Reaction Blog http://fnoschese.wordpress.com/
GPPSS FORMAT FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATIONA guide to the new GPPSS teacher evaluation process
The Process Representatives from teachers’ union, building
administrators, and central office began meeting in winter of 2011
Established parameters and philosophies Examined various models and tools, with significant
focus on Marzano and Danielson teacher evaluation models
Developed a framework Developed an instrument to fit the framework Agreed on rubric Agreed on rating system based on rubric Implementation for 2011-2012
The Team Teachers:
Ranae Beyerlein – GPEA President
Dan Quinn – GPEA Executive Board
Chris Geerer Peter Signorello Nancy Nihem
Administrators Tom Harwood – Asst.
Supt. for HR Monique Beels –
Asst. Supt. for C & I Tim Bearden – North
Principal Mary Macdonald –
Barrett – Richard Principal
Mark Mulholland – Parcells Principal
Foundational Beliefs The committee established the following beliefs as
the basis for the new process: The goal of the instrument is collaboration to improve
instruction with the intent of improving student learning The instrument / rubric must define good instruction Multiple rating categories Adaptable Instrument Focus Observation Areas Locally established growth and measurement models Establish clear standards for effective performance Focus on evidence of planning & Preparation Focus on a variety of instructional methodologies
The Basis - Danielson Committee agreed upon Charlotte Danielson
domains and rubric as a basis for the process. Danielson’s Framework for Enhancing Professional Practice was published in the mid 90’s as a guide for improving instruction, and has been a standard ever since.
“A framework for professional practice can be used for a wide range of purposes, from meeting novices’ needs to enhancing veterans’ skills.” – Charlotte Danielson
Michigan Law – New Requirements
Among other things, key features of Michigan’s new legislation relative to teacher evaluation include: Mandate that all teachers and
administrators must be evaluated annually Evaluation must include measurement data
relative to student achievement Ratings must use the categories of
Ineffective, Effective, and Highly Effective
GPPSS New Format - Features Same process for on-cycle tenured
teachers and probationary teachers except for the # of required observations
Teachers and administrators reach mutual agreement on measurement tools
For some observations, walk-through visits can be substituted for longer formal visits
Clearly defined categories of effectiveness based on an established rubric
Process Initial meeting with all teachers being
evaluated to review process Email or personal notification to set goal-
setting meeting Teacher and evaluator agree on three
goals: an instructional goal from Danielson rubric Domain 1 or 3, Achievement Goal, A classroom environment / affective goal from Danielson Domain 2
Process (cont.) Teacher and Evaluator agree on
measurement tools for each goal. A variety of options are outlined in the instrument, and allowance is made for the teacher and evaluator to agree on a tool not listed as an option.
Classroom Observations Written Evaluation Completed
Process – Classroom Observation Requirements Probationary Teacher Minimum of 1 pre-scheduled
observation of 30 minutes or more in the teacher’s first month of teaching
Minimum of 1 un-announced observation of 30 minutes or more to occur in an agreed upon one week window within the teacher’s first four months of teaching and approx. 60 days after the first observation
1 additional un-announced observation of 30 minutes or more, OR 3 or more walk-through visits of ten minutes or more each
Tenured On-Cycle Teacher
Minimum of 1 pre-scheduled observation of 30 minutes or more
Minimum of 1 un-announced observation of 30 minutes or more to occur in an agreed upon one week window, OR 6 or more walk-through visits of a minimum of 5 minutes each
Evaluation Tool - Handout Focus Areas:
Admins will evaluate in at least ten total categories with a minimum of two per domain
Administrators will provide comments in the expandable table for each domain component used for evaluation
There is an opportunity for teacher comment within each domain
Administrators will comment on progress towards identified goals in the provided narrative space
Evaluation Tool - Rating Probationary Year 1 Effective = 100% of ratings in Rubric
columns 2-4 Probationary Year 2 Effective = 100% of ratings in
columns 2-4, 75% or more in columns 3 & 4 Probationary Year 3 Effective = 100% of ratings in
columns 2-4, 90% in columns 3 & 4 Probationary Year 4 Effective = 100% of rankings in
columns 3 & 4 Tenured Teacher Effective = 100% of rankings in 3 or
4. Any rankings in columns 1 or 2 result in an IDP For a rating of “Effective” or “Highly Effective”, a
teacher must have made measurable progress towards identified goals.
Interim Annual Evaluation Process for Off-Cycle Tenured Teachers Michigan law requires annual evaluation of
teachers and administrators. In GP tenured teachers will continue to be on a 3 year evaluation cycle. In interim years, the following process will be used: Email notification of assigned evaluator. Minimum of one un-announced classroom
observation of 30 minutes or more, OR 3 walk-through observations of 5-10 minutes each.
Teacher self-reflection on the year. Evaluator narrative summary of observations in
writing by May 31st.
Handouts Include: GPPSS Format for Effective Teacher
Evaluation Definition of Terms Teacher Evaluation Report Probationary and Tenured Checklists Domain rubric
Goal
The goal is effective, dynamic instruction that leads to growth in
student achievement. This is intended to be a collaborative
process built on a researched model to enhance professional practice.