March 5, 2012
Goodness! It’s been far too long since I’ve updated this. Sorry for the long hiatus.
The More the Merrier!
Next year there will be 6 of us! I am so excited. We are all in the process of figuring out where we need to be consistent and where we can fluctuate between the disciplines. We’ll have a chemistry, math, English, music and history person on board. Very exciting. So far, we are discovering that our approaches might overlap more than we thought.
Behavior
This is the greatest sticking point for a lot of teachers who are attempting to make the change to standards based grading in any form. I mentioned before trying to come up with some kind of reward since it was too late in the semester to institute punishments. I have done the push pass for turning in chapter homework and the class pass requires a student to get a 4 or higher on a concept 5 times before it can be redeemed. The students are really excited about the passes but I don’t really see many people using them. Currently they are far more interested in being present for class and asking questions to me. It will be interesting to see how it works in a year long situation. According the theory behind SBG, behavior has to be separated from academic grades. Behavioral issues should have behavioral consequences.
Course Rubrics
Thanks to De Soto school district, we were introduced to the idea of course rubrics to detail how course work would be graded. When several teachers from the De Soto district were kind enough to visit us, they told us about these wonderful things but we had a hard time wrapping our heads around some of the terminology. They mentioned the 4 level scale that we VP folk now agree on as well but then threw in not only DOK levels but amount of teacher assistance as well. We could not comprehend how all this was graded and conveyed. Then a brainwave courtesy of our math person: two rubrics! I was trying to translate from her original idea and came up with the explanation of two rubrics which she promptly fussed at. . . but she was thinking of two rubrics the size of the monstrosities I wrote for astronomy. It is huge and details exactly what you need to do for an A, a B and so on. It is crazy detailed and cumbersome. This new version includes a daily rubric and a concept level rubric. The first is the rubric I will use on a daily basis. If I give you a task, here’s how I will grade it:
· 4: Exceeding Standards; Fully consistent demonstration of knowledge, fully independent, No conceptual errors, solid understanding of content and application of content, synthesis of outside knowledge, use knowledge in problem solving unique situations and justify your answer
· 3: Good Enough: Meeting standards; Can apply knowledge, NO AID, Fully Independent, minimal/occasional conceptual mistakes, justify answers
· 2: Some application, rudimentary application of knowledge; Basic comprehension; Inconsistent/minimal aid used, missing/neglecting some important details
· 1: Minimal Knowledge; Something there; Can do something, substantial aid required; cannot do it independently
· NTY: Not enough information to assess; No relevance to content, Fully inaccurate, inaccurate approach.
Now, not all concepts in a course are the same level of difficulty and thus should be worth the same. . . but how to weight them? This is where the second rubric comes in. It effectively refers to the same 4 level scale but uses the family language of the ABC scale.
A 3.81-4.00
A- 3.61-3.80
B+ 3.41-3.60
B 3.21-3.40
B- 3.00-3.20
C+ 2.68-2.99
C 2.34-2.67
C- 2.00-2.33
D+ 1.68-1.99
D 1.34-1.67
D- 1.00-1.33
F .99-NTY
The A- messes up the scale a bit but overall it is still that 4 level scale.
Take the example below: Kinetic Molecular Theory can be a tricky concept. Being able to use this theory to explain the numerical values calculated using equations is much more difficult than simply defining the theory. Thus, even if you can define it perfectly (a 4), it will never earn you more than a C on a test.
Advanced (A) | Sufficient (B) | Basic (C) | Below Basic (D) | Not There Yet |
· 1.c: Using configs to describe atomic structure and behavior · 2.a: Nuclear reactions · 3.a: explanation of KMT in equations · 4.a,b: Analysis/Synthesis | · 1.b: comparing/ contrasting models · 1.c: exceptions to configs · 2.b: moral/personal implications of nuclear chemistry · 3.c: use basic and ideal gas laws in word problems | · 1.a Subatomics for ions · 1.b: definitions of models, esp Schrodinger · 1.c: typical configs with orbital diagrams · 1.d: 1 step wave equations · 3.a: define KMT · 3.c: use basic and ideal gas laws | · 1.a: Subatomics for atoms · 1.b: definitions of some models · 1.c: basic configurations · 3.b: read basic phase diagram · 3.c: Use basic gas laws | · |
I’m pretty excited about all this because I feel like this a rubric that is a) much more approachable for a new person to try to create and b) something I can regularly use and refer to in my classroom and daily teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment