Just a quick one tonight as I prepare to offer my students the opportunity to differentiate their proof of learning for the first time. I’d love some feedback on this project. The project has been crafted to meet the learning outcomes for both ELA 10-1 and 10-2 and will be completed during class time. It’s also been designed to be (more) authentic with the possibility of being truly authentic depending on student choices, to allow for critical thinking, student choice, and collaboration (by being completed in class where students can ask and answer each other’s questions).
The project comes after quite a bit of background learning, textual study, and personal reflection on achievement thus far. Since my mistakes with the “Theme Song” project, we have been focusing more on purpose and the students are well aware that they will be “fixing” that project based on the content knowledge we have discussed from a proposal from Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. You can read a bit of what we’ve done here. Since then we have done some work with applying the text to our own lives/context and found it interesting that Obama is willing to give schools/boards/states the decisions about how to make their own students safer rather than believing there is a one-size-fits-all solution (sounds like my plea for the structure of education). While his purpose is to keep schools and communities safer, he recognizes that there are some issues where control needs to be given to other organizations and some issues that need to be nation-wide. My students went through Obama’s suggestions for school safety measures as though they were the superintendent of our school board who had to decide which options to accept and which to decline. They worked in groups, had to focus on the given purpose and defend their choices with evidence from what currently happens in our school. Students are learning more about purpose while continuing to see how critical thinking and collaboration can aid the learning and application of content knowledge.
Today I reviewed a draft of the project with students and asked for their input. This wasn’t the plan. the plan was for me to finish the project and give it to their sub tomorrow for them to begin. Then I’d come back and answer questions the next day and get them refocused to continue working. However, a comment on Twitter made me immediately consider my plans for the day. @shellterrell said, “Each Day we walk in the classrm we can tell Ss what is planned & ask how they’d change it up then go fr there” (April 16, 2013). While I was already planning on offering a great deal of choice in the project, I thought I’d offer my students some say in it, and in the marking rubric.
I’m so glad I did! Students had a couple questions; one good one involved ignoring Obama’s text (that we’ve studied) in order to focus on the bombing in Boston yesterday (a series of texts that would need to be studied and analyzed before completing the project). I revised the project to allow students the choice of text(s) to select info from for their project. The caveat was that the marking guide would not change. The marking guide was the learning they were to prove. How they did that could be open for discussion in order for them to be more engaged in the learning that would take place as they completed the project. This project will be used to assess their skills and make further suggestions for improvement before they go back to the Theme Song project, so it’s important they are fully committed to it.
Perhaps the best thing that came from offering this project to students for their opinions before assigning it was the final decision on group work. I figured from the initial write-up (the italicized bit here was added afterward) that students would recognize the importance of completing their own project. As I figured, students questioned the rationale of the drawbacks of group work. I explained that they are all responsible for the entire curriculum and I therefore need to know that they complete the project themselves rather than letting a classmate do it. We discussed the possibility of each member of the group completing a write up of their contributions and ideas, whether the project went a different way in the end or not. Then they asked why they couldn’t use the “specialist” tactic. I explained that if they did that, they wouldn’t learn anything. All they would do is prove to me that they are already competent in that area. I explained that projects were not just about showing learning, but learning more. They wouldn’t have much motivation to learn more if they do what they are already good at.
Yesterday they reviewed the work they’ve done thus far in the term and reflected on what they were doing okay with and where they still needed to improve. (More on this in my next blog post.) I’ve taken the over 135 specific outcomes from our ELA curriculum and categorized them into 4 main outcomes: Decoding the Ideas of others, Presenting Our Own Personal Ideas, Presentation, and “Other.” I try to categorize each rubric criteria into one of these 4 categories. I know sometimes I look back on a choice and wonder if it may have better fit a different category, but I’m trying to make my courses more outcome based and I’m still learning (and doing it all by myself at the high school ELA level in my district). Because of this, students have a pretty good idea where they are at and what they really need to focus on. So, when we got to talking about this specialist idea, we realized that perhaps we could take a reverse specialist approach.
You see, if students are at an 80% right now in Personal Ideas and chose to specialize there while others took their strong categories, then the student will likely continue to do well. This could easily mean another 80%. Thus, they simply reinforced their current assessment, their mark hasn’t improved, and neither have they. However, if students chose their weakest category or two to work on, they could save time by not having to complete the work in the categories they are capable of and instead focus on the categories they need to improve. This way they learn more and improve their grade. It’s differentiated learning designed to help a student learn in the area they most need it.
As I reflect on this now, I can see some potential issues that arise (plus a fallacy in logic–assuming students can’t improve in areas they are already doing well in–My main argument AGAINST grades just snuck up and bit me in the butt–of course they can continue to improve; even if they are already at 100% at a grade 10 level they can improve beyond that. But our recent focus is improving weak areas, so that was my focus.) There are going to be some issues here, but I’m willing to work out the kinks after they have a day to recognize the kinks. In the meantime, there’s no harm in having them work on a project they’ve had a say in. If anything, it could benefit them: Thursday we can critically think through the process and see what kinks did appear. Then we can solve them together.
This is an example of how, even in a grades focused learning system, teachers can still differentiate learning, allow learning to be engaging and meaningful to students, offer more or less choice to students depending on their needs, work to improve 21st century competencies, AND STILL cover the government curriculum.
I’ll see how it goes, reflect and blog about it, and grow from the experience. Feel free to take a look at the project and let me know what you think. Agree? Disagree? See some flaws that need fixed? Let me know!