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.