Foundation For Flexibility

Home foundations are rigid. They're supposed to be. But ironically, solid foundations allow for incredible flexibility. Indeed two homes with similar foundations could look, feel, and function quite differently atop their inflexible support structures.

This, in some ways, mirrors the foundation of our customized approach. (I say "our" as the students really have the final say in what works and what doesn't.) The approach begins with a rather rigid foundation. For now, I use Moodle as a delivery and organizational system for this foundation. Within Moodle, students are presented with a series of Measurement Topics that themselves house a series of specific Learning Targets.

Now, if the approach stopped there, it would remain far too rigid, likely at the expense of student engagement and creativity. Yet, here's where the foundation really does something magical. Once enough of the foundation is in place, students are presented with not just one, but multiple road maps through the Learning Targets. Best of all, they get to choose which adventure to pursue.

Here's an example. Susie is a (fictional) middle school student in our class. She knows that she needs to learn about many things including the following (and more):

• Government: Civics and the Legal System
• Government: Rights and Responsibility
• Geography: Maps and Tools
• Economics: Personal Economics
• Economics: Functional Economics

This content can be presented within Moodle as described in earlier posts. At first glance, our class Moodle course appears to lay out just a single path for students. However, once a critical mass of this content is frontloaded, it suddenly becomes more than just a single path. Instead of an inflexible train track for students to follow, the approach becomes more like a train station with tracks leading out in any number of directions. Even better, once these separate tracks are frontloaded, alternative spurs can then be built by teachers and students.

The result? Even greater engagement, more creativity, and students becoming more and more independent in their learning. What an amazing product from a seemingly inflexible foundation!

Meaningful Meetings - Bringing Students Together With Purpose

One concern some people have about the customized classroom is that students may be too isolated and forced to fly solo all the time. This is a legitimate concern, but it is one that I've found best addressed by bringing students together for meaningful reasons. Here are some examples:

• Table Groups: My classroom features five rectangular tables (usually scattered throughout the classroom space). When students enter the room, they know to look at the board where they will find their initial instructions including the Table Groups for the class. While students are assigned to specific tables, they get to choose their seat at that table. Of course, if students doesn't like their assigned tables, they need not fret because we have several variations of Table Groups (Number Groups, Letter Groups, Tree Groups, Continent Groups, Sport Groups, etc.). The Table Groups for a particular class are based on my goals. Some groups sort the students to prevent distractions, some to join students by reading level, some to provide a mix of students, and even some student generated groups, allowing friends to sit together.

• Project Partnerships: As students work through their Learning Targets, they are periodically required to create a Learning Target Project. I recently reminded students that this is the perfect opportunity to work with a friend as students may temporarily recruit peer assistance on these projects. ("Temporarily" is the key word!) Even better, if both students are on our weekly Wall of Fame (for keeping up with the negotiated/assigned pace), they have the freedom of working in the hallway (a popular place, I'm told).

• Helping Hands: My students are blessed with iPad technology, and they use it very well. However, nobody knows how to do everything. When students are in need, they tend to be very welcoming to 'how to' tips from their peers, often from students whom they would not often choose as a partner for a project. The result is usually that the student in need gets the necessary help, but perhaps equally important is that the helper gets an opportunity to be useful and valued. In short, these are opportunities to bring kids together.

• Low Stress Jigsaws: Periodically, mixed groups of students are brought together in the classroom to share what they've been learning about a common topic. For example, while some of my students have recently been learning about point of view in literature, others have been learning about plot development or character development, or theme, etc. Yet, all of these students have been learning about literature. Putting these kids together at a table to just write down what they've been learning related to literature provides an opportunity for each and every student to have a "right" answer to jot on the paper. Every kid gets a marker, so it's all happening simultaneously. Then, students can move from table to table freely to see what other people wrote. The intended result is for students to gain a better understanding of how what they've been learning fits into a larger chunk of learning...and to create work alongside their peers in a low stress way.

Effective Student Recognition

Let's face it. We all like a little recognition now and then. In response to this, many schools (all that I know of) host traditional awards assemblies. I'm not a big fan of these rather impersonal events, but even I admit that we're doing something right when we let students know they're doing well. This is true in both the traditional and customized classroom. Here are three examples of effective recognition strategies I've been using:

• Pride Points: Several years ago, my middle school had a schoolwide system for student recognition. If a teacher caught a student doing something good/well, that teacher could give the student a Pride Point, a receipt of sorts for being on the ball. While this program faded over the years at the school level, I've noticed that several teams at MMS have their own team level programs that resemble Pride Points. By itself, the giving of Pride Points is a positive thing as it gives students tangible evidence that someone noticed their dogoodedness. Some teams even take it to the next level, hosting auctions where accumulated Pride Points are used as bidding cash on silly or tasty items. Our team has a weekly meeting, featuring drawings from our Pride Point Jar. Students whose names are drawn get a round of applause from their peers and the opportunity to select from a box of trinkets and tasty treats.

• Weekly Wall of Fame: Teachers are asked to make hundreds of decisions each week. Many of these decisions involve judgement calls. I've found that our Weekly Wall of Fame helps make some of those judgements easier. It also provides opportunity for students to take even greater charge of their own learning, all in the context of rewarding kids for doing well. The Weekly Wall of Fame works like this. There is a teacher pace for all work that students are doing in my classes. Now, not every student is following the same pathway through the Learning Targets, nor do they each have the same series of due dates. Students' Learning Targets and due dates are customized for (and sometimes by) them. Each weekend I use this expected progress to make a list of students in each course who are meeting their goals for that week. The best part is the magic that happens when a student asks for a privilege. One example is the freedom to work in the hallway, a prime reward! I intentionally direct these students' attention to the week's Wall of Fame, and if a student is on both lists, it allows me to say, "Yes!" The option of listening to music while working is another popular perk of being on the Wall of Fame. If working in the hallway or listening to music gets in the way of a student's learning, they likely won't meet next week's learning goal, and thus, won't be on next week's Wall of Fame. The result is learning that goes beyond academics.

• Feedback: One of the great features of a customized approach is the opportunity it provides for frequent individual feedback. A job well done is quickly recognized, in context, rather than delayed until a teacher fights through a class set of assignments that all arrived in unison at 10am on Wednesday. Because individual achievements tend to be spread throughout the school day, the teacher is far more available to celebrate with individual students. High fives, words of praise, thumbs up, and written feedback are even more powerful when delivered in a student's moment of triumph.

• Classroom Experts: We all like to be known as someone who can do something well. In the 21st century classroom, there's more need for student expertise than ever before. We use iPads in my classes, and the students have proven to be an excellent resource regarding technology. Students often teach me new features of these great learning tools. However, the real power is generated when I ask a student to help a peer. "Hey, Billy. You really know your way around Garage Band. Sally is trying to use that app for a project. Would you be willing to show her the ropes?" The result? Sally gets the help she needs, I'm available to help another student, and Billy gets to be today's hero.

All three of these recognition approaches are proving effective in my classroom this year which begs the question, "Why?" Here's what I think:

• Recognition is likely to be effective when it targets a specific accomplishment. Recognition for earning an "A" isn't as powerful as recognition for an action that led to that grade, an action I'd like to see repeated. While scoring high is nice, doing what it takes to earn a high score is more important as it leads to greater learning and a wider range of positive results.

• Recognition is likely to be effective when it is both private and public, not just one or the other. Under the radar praise tends to be more personal, but when it is made public, it sets the stage for generalization of positive behaviors to a larger group of students. On the other hand, cranking out a stack of certificates for a public awards assembly doesn't seem to carry much weight for most of my students (and I emphasize most, not all), but following up on those awards with a more personal, "Well done! I want you to know why you received that award." seems to be more meaningful.

• Recognition is likely to be effective is the achievement being recognized is, well, achievable. Potential for success is one of the accepted keys to motivation. This works very well within the customized classroom, where each student is working toward achievable goals that are designed just for them.

Unpacking Standards

Despite the never ending pressures to hurry through the curriculum, it remains important for teachers and students to take the time to unpack standards prior to tackling them. Experts agree that students tend to learn more effectively if they have a clear understanding of what they are trying to learn. I have been repeatedly reminded of this truth during this year's customized learning implementation.

In prior years, my students were presented with a written version of the Learning Target and were asked to check with a teacher if they didn't understand what the Learning Target statement meant. While this plan was a step in the right direction, it was far from adequate. This year, as students encounter new Learning Targets, they are first presented with a video lesson explaining the Learning Target and are then required to successfully explain the basics of the Learning Target in their own words prior to moving on with their learning. This has revealed a flaw in my previous approach. I found that at times students thought they knew what a Learning Target was about when they actually did not.

Here's a recent example. One Learning Target within a government Measurement Topic requires students to understand that the branches of government sometimes work together and other times in opposition to each other, the concept of checks and balances via separation of powers. This was explained in the video lesson, where students were not only introduced to the concept but were also given an example - the process for a bill to become a law. Sounds good, right? Well, as it turned out, many of my students revealed in their first assessment (the unpacking the standard assessment) that they thought this Learning Target was about the law making process, not the concept of checks and balances. Clearly, they had missed the big concept and focused instead on the example.

Fortunately, these unpacking assessments were added this year. As a result, I was able to communicate with these students, in person and/or electronically, to guide them toward the real focus of the Learning Target. This all happened because we took the time to unpack the standard in a way that fit our approach, a very effective use of class time!

Customized Learning 3.0

It's hard to believe that my team's adventure in customized learning is entering its third year. It has been quite a journey. I won't take the time to review the evolution of the approach in this entry as much of the history is documented in earlier entries. Rather, this entry features an introduction to this year's version, which I will call Customized Learning 3.0.

Here are the ELA highlights...

In reading, I have sorted students into Lexile Groups based upon the data from prior assessments. These groups of student will work on their own sets of Learning Targets from a range of Measurement Topics with matching content rigor (both task and reading level). This part of the approach will operate similarly to last year's attempt (checklists, video lessons, Moodle assessments, etc.). The big difference is a greater use of student grouping in order to meet students where they are in their learning progressions. Complementing this approach will be weekly readers meetings in which students in leveled groups, read common selections, prepare for student led discussions, and conduct their own small group meetings.

Writing will be similar to last year with extensive use of Google Docs. One difference, however, will be a move away from the "you have to write TWO narratives, TWO informational essays, and TWO argumentative/opinion essays" requirements. Instead the focus will be on the writing Learning Targets. If a student still needs to meet Learning Targets in a writing Measurement Topic, then the writing pieces continue. This can mean two things - a student revisits a draft with the intent to improve a Learning Target related aspect, or a student creates a brand new draft in an attempt to meet certain Learning Targets.

Language usage will be addressed in three ways. Like last year, grammar will be tackled in a largely independent fashion (checklists, video lessons, quizzes, etc.). However, the other aspects of Language Usage will be taught in a weekly, whole class lesson based on the instructional framework being promoted by the district and augmented by an ongoing Language Usage Booklet project. While the mini lessons will not necessarily be as customized as I would like, the booklet project will allow students to advance at their own pace and have some flexibility in the form the evidence of learning takes. Finally, the vocabulary aspects of the Language Acquisition Measurement Topic will be tackled using two apps that promote customized vocabulary learning. Vocabulary Spelling City is an app that allows me to assign appropriate vocabulary to each lexile group for multimedia exploration. Wordly Wise is an app that allows students to work through a series of vocabulary word groups at their own pace.

This year's research work will be similar to last year's. One major difference, however, will be a shift toward problems in the world. Students have already watched an inspiring short video made by students of a Prince Edward Island college class and have generated an impressive list of issues to research. There will also be more integration of Speaking and Listening content within this year's process.

Well, that's a good start. There's much more, of course. Much of this work has been in a holding pattern while the beginning of the year housekeeping has been sorted out, including the exciting shift to iPads in the classroom (not an easy task for the tech crew). I'm ready, and the students are ready. Let's see what happens!

Does Your Schedule Match Your Priorities?

This spring, I was given the annual challenge of team schedule writing. My task consisted of filling in the blanks that remained on a grid. "Specials" (art, physical education, foreign language, etc.) were already in place; the rest was up to me.

As a teacher of both English and social studies, I used to fill in schedules with separate blocks for each content. Fortunately, those days have long since passed. Now, like some of my colleagues, I enter only hybrid LASS classes onto the grid. I moved toward that approach several years ago in an attempt to have a more integrated approach to learning. In short, my schedule matched my priority.

Thus, a schedule filled with LASS blocks is nothing new. The big difference in recent years is how those LASS blocks are being used by me and by students. The majority of the blocks serve as work sessions, during which students proceed through Learning Targets at their own pace. They even have some choice as to which content to tackle in a given class, sometimes writing, sometimes reading, sometimes working on maps or projects. These blocks are easy to plug in as they really can occur at any point in the school day, though mornings tend to be more productive than afternoons for many kids. The blocks also added considerable flexibility as I could always interject with a whole class or small group mini lesson or redirection if needed. All of these features matched my priorities at the time.

However, this year I'm adding something new to the mix. What I found last year was that I was at times too reluctant to upset the work session apple cart, neglecting opportunities for small and large group instruction in defense of individual engagement. It simply always seemed like there were a different few students on a major roll, and I just didn't want to hinder their progress. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of collaboration going on in the classroom.  Yet, it was more haphazard than a professional approach would seem to require. With this in mind, I am changing the way LASS blocks will be used next year. True, most blocks will remain as work sessions, a requirement for students to freely engage content. Students need plenty of time as they work through content in the ebbs and flows of their development. Yet, next year I  am scheduling a couple mini lessons each week and one student led lit meeting each week. By being up front with students that these activities are built into the regular schedule, there shouldn't be much disruption to student learning. The routine should prove helpful for me as well as I won't have to justify taking the time for these learning activities. Also, I am keeping these blocks to a minimum. There is value in small group literature meetings and whole class direct instruction, but they should not be the dominating features of the customized classroom where most student-teacher interactions of targeted with pinpoint accuracy on the specific needs of individual students.

My priority for next year's program is to make use of a broader range of instructional strategies in an attempt to meet even more of my students' needs. I'm pleased to say that my schedule matches this priority.

Square Pegs In Square Holes (FINALLY!)

The 2013-2014 school year should be a dream come true for me. For the first time in my career, I will be given the freedom, and even the requirement, to actually teach students where they are in their academic development.

I know this seems a bit odd. I mean why wouldn't teachers meet kids where they are and move them forward? Well, unfortunately, teachers have been restrained from doing just that by a system that requires 7th and 8th grade students (grouped by date of birth) to master a set of academic standards that represent what every 7th and 8th grade student would ideally know and be able to do. The problem? In the real world, where human beings develop and learn at different and irregular rates, not every student is ready for 7th and 8th grade content simply because they have been alive for 12-14 years. At the other end of the developmental continuum, there are students who are ready for content far beyond the required 7th and 8th grade standards. For my entire career, I have been required to force these two types of square pegs into the round hole of grade level standards.

However, that is about to change in a big way!

Next fall, for the first time, I will be officially allowed, even encouraged, to meet students where they are in their academic development. The district approved curriculum of the Maine Cohort for Customized Learning requires that students work through the Levels of Learning Targets within Measurement Topics rather than dictating that all students will work on their designated grade level Learning Targets. This means that I will no longer be spending my time helping students survive the grade level standards, adapting the content of those standards in ways that call their rigor into question. Instead, I will be able to teach A to kids who need to learn A, B to kids who need to learn B, and C to students who need to learn C, and so on. This has been a long time coming!

This is a huge shift, and I can't wait! Actually, I'm not waiting as my planning for next year is well underway. Needless to say, with 40+ students headed my way from all over the developmental map, there's going to be a ton of frontloading on my end. The good news is that the customization tools, strategies, and resources that I have been developing and acquiring over the past few years should make the daunting task of implementing greater levels of classroom customization viable.

At long last, I get to do what I've known was right all along. I'm thrilled and eager to see each student dive into content that is specifically designed for him/her!

The Power Of "Yes"

In the customized classroom, flexible timing and leveled content get most of the glory.  However, there are other aspects of customization that are just as valuable.  One of these aspects is means. In our customized classroom, students have learned and shown their learning in the following ways (and more):

• Created a sculpture out of snow
• Made a documentary video
• Made a cube info display
• Took a quiz
• Made a model out of cardboard and construction paper
• Had a conversation with the teacher
• Created a virtual world
• Made a model out of clay
• Read from a textbook
• Created a three panel display
• Made a board game
• Generated an electronic organization web
• Read online content
• Made a CD cover (with track titles)
• Discussed content with other students
• Answered a written constructed response question
• Played on online game
• Made a DVD cover
• Visited an online interactive museum gallery
• Developed a picture book
• Made a brochure
• Created a multimedia game
• Played a live game
• Created a comic strip
• Watched a video lesson
• Made a model out of homemade playdough
• Created a computer presentation
• Engaged in a simulation
• Searched online for related content
• Created an animation
• Wrote a narrative or essay
• Made a poster
• Made a model out of homemade paper mache

That's quite a list, and it's far from complete. One of the great features of the customized classroom is that it allows teachers the freedom to say "Yes" to students with these creative learning ideas. For many students, this instantly opens the door to new ideas and activities. For others, the act of considering and selecting from a wider variety of activities is itself a valuable learning experience. Perhaps best of all, accessing and demonstrating mastery of content in a variety of ways is self perpetuating. For example, when a pair of students worked outside my classroom window on a project made of snow, others began to see the possibilities themselves. When a student made a paper mache sculpture of Maine's Mt. Katahdin, other students were seen soon thereafter creating their own paper mache sculptures of Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Washington. Again and again, creative projects inspired other students to develop projects of their own, projects that often required higher levels of thinking than a typical assessment.

So, the next time a student asks one of those, "Can I...?" questions, consider saying, "Yes!" You and your students will be glad you did!

Lexile Requirements in the Customized Classroom

Lexile requirements are a major part of the Common Core (CCSS). There are expectations built in for each grade level. These expectations come into play as students work within a particular Measurement Topic (e.g. - Reading Informational Text). At some point a student needs to show that he/she can read a particular level of text. This is crystal clear in the wording of Learning Target 10 in each of the CCSS Reading Measurement Topics.

However,  times are changing! One big change is a move from grade level standards (the organization of the CCSS) toward progression levels (using more of a customized approach, meeting students where they are individually). Do lexiles still play a role in this new approach? The answer is, "Yes!"

In a customized approach, students work through levels of Reading Learning Targets.  As students work through the Learning Targets, the level of text complexity that is required increases. This is important because, if they were using very simplistic texts, students could meet all of the Reading Learning Targets very easily and without encountering enough developmental rigor, obviously not the intent of either CCSS or a customized approach. By assigning a required lexile range to each Reading Learning Target, however, a teacher can ensure that students are being held to reading text complexity that is repeatedly referenced in CCSS. (Ideally, the required lexile levels would be common throughout a school/district.)

Another benefit of matching lexile requirements to Reading Learning Targets is that it presents a curriculum sequence to guide instruction and learning. Obviously, an early reader isn't going to work on a Reading Learning Target that has a lexile requirement near 1000 (where CCSS would place a middle school student). Rather, that student is going to work on Reading Learning Targets that fall within his/her current instructional level. It's not an exact science, but a general sequence does present itself.

The hard work is forming a marriage between the Reading Learning Targets and lexiles. Fortunately, some schools are already doing this work, so there are models out there. A good model will present a path of gradual growth, both through the Reading Learning Targets and lexile ranges. As students encounter each pair of Reading Learning Targets / lexile ranges, they should find that both are accessible without being too simplistic. On the other hand, a poor model will result in many students trying to tackle Reading Learning Targets that are beyond their current intellectual levels or encountering too many Reading Learning Targets without a gradual growth in reading development.

And so, lexiles are still in the picture despite a shift toward a more customized approach. In fact, they are more important than ever. We can thank the developers of CCSS for bringing them to the table, and we can thank the promoters of customized learning for putting them to good use!

Time For a GIANT Step!

It must be at once satisfying and discouraging to hike the Appalachian Trail. The trail can be considered a lengthy series of shorter hikes. How satisfying it must be to finish one of those shorter hikes.  Yet, how frustrating it must be to start at square one again on another section.

Teaching can be like that. You work like crazy to accomplish a goal, and just as you begin to celebrate meeting it, you find yourself at the start of a brand new, though somewhat similar, challenge.

That's where I am right now. Over the past few years, my program has shifted significantly toward a more customized approach to teaching and learning. This year has been huge in that regard with the move to Measurement Topics, Learning Targets, and the Common Core State Standards. Great work!  Plenty of success!  Loads of learning! Time to change it! <Gulp.>

Like the hiker who has just reached the end of a trail, it can be hard to leave behind the successes of the past in order to move on to the next part of the journey.  However, that's just what we need to do in a continually evolving world.

What's next?  A GIANT step! Next year, my students and I will make the shift toward an even more customized approach, one that features progressions of Learning Targets as opposed to grade level sets of standards. For the first time, I will have the freedom (and expectation) to meet all of my students where they are and assist them through a group of Learning Targets that become more complex and challenging at each level. In other words, a student who enters my middle school classroom not having met the more basic Learning Targets will meet them in my class.  No skipsies!

This seems a bit daunting when you think about it. Fortunately, like the AT hiker who has finished several sections of trail, I've learned a great deal about how to solve the problems I will likely encounter during this stage of the journey. All of the work related to leveled readings, classroom management software, independent learning methods, and other things I've learned during my customized learning adventure will be put to good use.

I, for one, am so excited that I've been living a dual life of late. One Mr. Davis has been managing this year's approach. The other Mr. Davis has already begun revising and developing plans for next year's approach.

Someday, maybe I'll reach the end of this educational AT (on the summit of Maine's Mt. Katahdin). Of course, I have heard talk about extending the AT into Canada, so I'm not expecting to reach the end any time soon!

Defining the Target - Part 2

By initially focusing on meeting a learning target, it becomes possible to establish criteria for the other parts of the rubric as they are all relative to the score of 3.

As described in part one, the score of 3 is earned for work that accurately represents all of the content within the standard, remembering that in reading there is a required text complexity for each Learning Target built into the standard. In reality, students will at times fall short of that standard, earning a score of 1 or 2, and at times students will exceed that standard, earning a score of 4.

The scores of 1 or 2, indicating partial proficiency, are fairly easy to identify as there is usually a noticeable difference between student work that is far removed from proficiency and student work that is approaching proficiency. If a student is required to correctly make a cake but can barely identify the ingredients, let alone prepare them effectively, that student is likely in the 1 range.  If that same student is able to identify the ingredients and make a cake that doesn't taste quite right, that student is likely in the 2 range. In other words, the score of 1 is for skill/knowledge that is just beginning while the score of 2 is for skill/knowledge that is partially developed but not quite there yet.

That seems simple enough, but a score of 4 can be a bit more tricky to define, in part because of lingering aspects of the traditional education system. If one equates a 4 with an A+ or 100% (as in the traditional system), perfection is required to earn that score. This can lead to tedious, irrelevant proofing requirements that deter students from shooting for the 4. Imagine how deflating it would be for a student to have developed her own programming language only to be sent back to change the font or the way she spelled a few words. This pursuit of perfection misses the whole point of a 4 and education in general.

With this in mind some educators are approaching the 4 from a different angle. To earn a score of 4, students must meet the criteria for a 3 and demonstrate related higher order thinking. If you think about it, this approach makes perfect sense. When students encounter a standard for the first time, they usually begin by becoming acquainted with the basic knowledge that is tied to that standard. That represents a very low order of thinking, though it is an important step in a student's development. As students become more knowledgable and skilled, they begin to rise through the orders of thinking by applying their newly acquired knowledge or examining it via analytical tasks. Eventually, students acquire enough knowledge and skill to meet the Learning Target. However, some students are both willing and able to go beyond that Learning Target via related higher order thinking. Let's go back to our cake baking standard. In order to achieve a 3, students must correctly bake the cake, applying the knowledge and skills that they have acquired along the way. In order to earn a 4, however, students must take that learning to a whole new level. An example of this might be the student who correctly bakes the cake but along the way creates a brand new variation of the recipe. The creation of new content is related higher order thinking, and that is what earns a score of 4.

This represents a change for many students, parents, teachers, and administrators. However, if we truly seek to develop the talents of our students, we need to reach beyond the pursuit of perfection and into the realm of exploration, investigation, and the creation of new content. Education is really about thinking, after all. It's time to unleash students, encouraging them to pursue thinking at its highest levels. The result will be a newly engaged population of pupils, seeking out and developing the next great ideas.

Defining the Target - Part 1

There's been a lot of talk recently in my school about just what it takes to earn a score of "4". Unfortunately, some still cling to the notion that a 4 is an equivalent of 100%, perfection. In the past, this may have made sense, but in the standards referenced/based world, not so much. I have much to say about what makes a 4, but it seems appropriate to first begin with meeting a standard (i.e. - earning a "3").

My initial thinking about meeting the learning target was as follows:

• 3 (response provides all that was asked by the standard)

At first, that seems fairly straightforward. However, clouding the issue a bit is the factor of text complexity in the reading standards. Is it possible for a  middle school student to meet a learning target using a reading selection at a lower grade level? My initial thought was yes because the tenth learning target in each of the reading measurement topics focuses directly on text complexity. This view is changing over time as I have encountered a new approach to text complexity as follows:

• 3 (response provides all that was asked by the standard using text of required complexity for that learning target's level)

This can work, provided levels are agreed upon for each learning target. This requires a reorganization of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) away from grade level groupings and toward standard groupings. The CCSS list all the learning targets for a particular measurement topic by grade levels. Thus, 7th grade students are expected to meet all of the learning targets for 7th grade (not very flexible, really). However, if those same learning targets are organized by the content of the targets themselves, it is easier to see how they actually represent a learning progression for each standard. A student is expected, over time, to grasp a broader understanding of central idea of informational text. By assigning levels to each of these increasing depths of understanding, it is possible to link a text complexity requirement to each level. In short, a 3 is only a 3 if text of an adequate text complexity level is used.

This approach fits nicely with the concept of two dimensional scoring (diagramed below) which I will revisit in my next entry as a means of defining scores that are higher and lower than 3.

On the other hand...

"People who know it all have a lot to learn," is a quote I picked up (or made up) a while back. If I had a dollar for every time I thought I had something completely figured out only to find I was in error, I wouldn't be as concerned about the gradual erosion of my retirement fund.

I had such an experience yesterday during a staff meeting. In the past couple years, I have struggled with the the notion of assessing reading at the middle level. The Common Core Standards require assessments of content far beyond a student's reading level, encompassing everything from comparisons of similar texts in different forms to evaluating an author's choices of evidence. Reading level is not directly referenced until the tenth Learning Target of both Reading Measurement Topics (Reading Informational Text and Reading Literature). To date, my approach has been to ignore text complexity until I assessed that tenth Learning Target. This has worked well, giving what I perceived as a clearer picture of just what a student can and can not do related to reading (rather than just a student's ability to read).

I noticed the first credible signal that my approach to reading assessments could be in error during a meeting in which staff were shown the latest Educate public releases from the Maine Cohort for Customized Learning. This latest release included the text complexity requirements of the tenth reading Learning Target within each of the earlier Learning Targets. This was obviously a departure from my prior thinking.

In a follow up conversation with a colleague, she suggested that including the text complexity requirement within each assessment would provide a clearer picture of each student's current skill and knowledge level. This becomes clearer when you look at correlating Learning Targets over levels. The Learning Targets are remarkably similar as they progress through the levels (previously grades, but ultimately levels of student skill and knowledge). Adding a text complexity component to each of those Learning Targets provides more information. With text complexity in the mix it is possible to identify and share not just if a student can, for example, compare similar texts in different forms but also the complexity of text with which a student can still successfully perform that task.

This makes sense. Of course, it is still important to provide each student with readings at their instructional and independent reading levels. Yet, text complexity probably has a greater role to play in assessment than simply the tenth Learning Target.  (More on this in a future entry.)

This idea requires greater thought on my part and is a good reminder to constantly be on the lookout for the complacency that can come with having figured something out. In short, none of us knows it all, and we all have a lot to learn.

The Power of Reflection - LTP

I recently read a summary of John Medina's Brain Rules. The author makes many good points, but my favorite is that intentional reflection is important to real, long term knowledge acquisition. This point resonated with me because I've seen the value of reflection up close and personal in my students' Learning Target Projects (LTPs).

As I explained in an earlier entry, my students work through the Learning Targets independently. Periodically, students are required to reflect on prior Learning Targets and to create an LTP. This project can be just a review of the taught and learned content, or it can go beyond that learning into related content and/or result in a unique representation of the content.  Here are some examples of LTPs students have created:

• A video explanation of the difference between stated and implied information
• A hyperlink immigration educator (think interactive info kiosk)
• A 3D model of a sandwich with attached info representing the organization of text
• A flowchart poster showing the history of changes to American government
• An Alaskan volcano recreated in a Minecraft virtual environment
• A picture book of a student-authored narrative
• A conversation with a teacher about U.S. citizenship
• A homemade playdough sculpture/map of an archipelago
• A board game about the U.S. Constitution
• A preprogramming (Scratch) animation explaining how the stock market works
• An electronic concept web showing the causes, turning points, and effects of the Civil War
• A comic describing the immigration experiences of the late 19th and early 20th centuries
• A hyperlink quiz about the branches of U.S. government
• A woven Penobscot basket covered with info about Maine
• A snow sculpture of a fault drop mountain

Some of these projects were stellar.  Others...well...not so much. However, the important part of the LTP is not the product itself. Rather, what is important is the reengagement with and extension of learned content. Pretty projects are nice and usually quite engaging, but the real benefit of an LTP is that students are required to spend time reflecting on the standards they have just met or exceeded. In our hurry up and do the next thing world, reflection is often cast by the wayside. That's a shame because it is that reflection that helps lock content into the long term memories of many students.

The LTP reinforces the point that school is not just about passing assessments; it's about learning, creating, and (hopefully) remembering.