October 18, 2011 Student responses and midterm troubles

October 18, 2011

Classroom changes

I feel like I am barreling through the material.  There isn’t enough time for reflection, improvement and mastery.  I’m currently grading midterms and they are terrible.   It’s incredibly disheartening.  The students aren’t retaining anything. . . I need a better mousetrap.  I’m beginning to think I need to make more changes to the way I teach/the way I structure my day.  Fridays (or whatever the last day I see the students for the week) needs to be some kind of reflection day.  Perhaps, set aside time to reflect on what they’ve learned, have some kind of proof problem to prove they’ve learned it. . . I would like to go back to a system similar to the one I experimented with my first year of teaching.  In that unit, students were given a folder containing all the information for a particular unit.  I gave one, maybe two lectures and then the practice was the responsibility of the student.  There were three quizzes that had to be taken by particular drop dead dates and then a test that was taken.  If I were to do something like that, each concept would have 3 or 4 “proof problems”.  Perhaps they could be kept in a basket or folder on the front table.  Once students believe they are ready for the quiz, they have to complete the “proof problem” and turn it in.  Then they make take the quiz.  The due dates gives students the ability to move more at their own pace but I do not know if general chemistry is mature enough to budget their time appropriately or responsible enough to do the practice they need.  I just feel like one third the class gets the idea and is ready to move on while another third just needs practice and a last bit has no idea.  Why do they seem to make such great progress and then bomb the test? 

I think my next step will be to offer retakes for the benchmark.  Originally, I had said the benchmark grade was permanent but the grades are so awful I don’t feel I have a choice.  Students will be returned their benchmarks and a “retake ticket” form.  It will have three sections.  First, students will have to explain why they achieved the score they did.  If it matches their practice scores or not is one way, or they could explain why they did or did not study or on what concepts they were still unclear.  Secondly, there will be the test itself containing space for the student to explain the correct answer (not why they got it wrong but why the correct answer is the correct one.  Math counts as explanation).  Thirdly will be a space for students to explain how they will better prepare for the retake.  Once this is completed and discussed with me, I will allow them to retake the test.  I like this idea better than the homework proof because it forces them to review and study by making them go back over the test. 

Student Response

Last entry I mentioned how I was going to introduce the idea of artifacts into my physics class since they were not using the AFL system and I could see if it was easier or effective at all.  I immediately noticed the difference in the mindset of students between physics and my AFL chemistries.  My chemistry students, by and large, have stopped asking about points and instead are focusing on learning the material and improvement.  Many of them are redoing assignments simply for the reinforcement and practice as well as asking for even more practice assignments.  Physics immediately saw this as a “get out of homework free” card.  We will see how it goes as time progresses.  I am notorious for testing different homework systems so I do not think tweaking this as time progresses will throw my students for a loop.  As always, the students who practice and do their work will do the homework I request regardless of the rewards or consequences and the students who skimp on homework and practice will skimp no matter what the rewards or consequences. 

Overall I do still feel the student response is positive.  I feel like they are focused on the learning and not the points and can communicate their learning effectively through the mastery levels.  But. . . it does slow down the amount of curriculum I can cover.  Is that ok?  I need a way for the killers and go-getters to move on while the folks who need more reinforcement to practice. . .

Sept 2, 2011 Grading, first thoughts

Overall

I am still pleased with this sytem. The summative tests taken today in honors chemistry match up well with the data gathered so far from formative assessments.  In one case, a student didn’t do as well as the formative assessment suggested he/she should and thus has a case to argue for a retake of that section.  As a mastery-based system, I feel compelled to allow retests, particularly if the formatives support that decision.  I think I will do the retake in sections according to the substandards instead of having the student retake the entire test.  The test was divided that way to begin with.  I still need to come up with a better way to arrange my grade book.  It is difficult to track a student’s progress on a particular piece of a standard when it is all jumbled together by date.  Even in the online grade book, while it is chunked by standard, the sub-standards are all mixed together.  In my paper grade book, I think I will mark off sections for each sub-standard and if I don’t use all column, I will mark them out later.  I need to organize based on sub-standards as well as standards.  It's all about the patterns.  

Tests

Honors chemistry took the first test today.  It had multiple parts.  The first part was regular old pencil and paper.  I chunked it into the sub-standards, so all of the questions pertaining to 1.a were together and all the questions pertaining to 1.b were together and so on.  The number of questions varied.  There were 6 questions for a, 12 questions for b, 5 questions for c and 2 questions for d.  It proved very difficult to come up with equal numbers of questions.  Also, it was difficult to categorize the notes.  So many of my standards are math concepts, configurations, dot structures and the like.  It is providing difficult to categorize vocabulary.  It would seem I will have to add that standard in next year.  I originally had a standard specifically mentioning mastery of pertinent vocabulary but took it out last minute. 

The second part of the test is a considerably more applications based assessment.  It will be given its own score.  It contains tasks that require the student to apply his or her knowledge of the standard instead of simply answering a black and white question.  (Ex: 1.b required students to design an experiment, 1.c asked students to draw a line of 2.54x10¹¹nm in length with a metric ruler)

Grading the Test

Since the first part was a multiple choice test, the answers were either right or wrong.  Before I began grading the test, I decided what score would equal a 5, a 4, and so on.  This kept me from being biased towards students.  Each section was scored independently resulting in four different scores for this part of the test.  I recorded them all separately in my grade book but only the average of the 4 scores will be recorded in the online system as the summative grade for standard 1. 

I intend to create a rubric to grade the second assessment since it is less concrete than the first.  It should make assigning scores easier. 

Communication

 I am concerned about parent understanding of this system.  I explained the system in detail at Parent Night and also sent home a detailed parent letter to be signed and returned.  If it was not returned, I emailed the parents personally explaining the system.  However, it would seem that there is still quite a bit of confusion.  I think the system will be clearer to students after this first test is completed but I still worry about the interpretation from home.  I hope the folks who have difficulty understanding the grading system will email or call me.  Parents are the backbone of the whole education system and without their support, typically my success is hamstrung as well.  So I hope this system will spawn more communication between teacher and parent.  At Parent Night, those parents that were there expressed a great liking towards this new approach to grading and I am hopeful that most parents will agree.  I think, overall, this system will clarify student progress in the course.  It allows me to show quite distinctly though numberical data, which by virtue of being data is unbiased, how a child is doing in the course and what kind of progress he or she is making. 

August 23, 2011 initial observations

Observations thus far: 

·         Students are hardwired to view assignments based on points.  When first introduced to this system, students immediately jumped to the idea of being “exempt” from homework once they proved themselves proficient. 

·         The system does seem to drive students to want to do better.  On the first assignment returned, I heard many remarks that were displeased with their scores.  Several even wanted to correct their mistakes and resubmit their work. 

·         Getting students to turn in work is still an issue.  I have students in both general chemistry classes who did not turn in their work.  I do not believe it would have made a difference if I were to assign points to the assignment.  I need a better way to help students keep track of what they have and have not done. 

·         The folders have become a jumbled mess.  Students remove the folders to get their papers and record their scores but then have no idea where to put the folder back.  I need name tabs on the handing folders as well as the student folders but that seems like a lot of trouble.  Plus, I don’t have that many tabs.  (resolved with sticky tabs)

·         The mastery levels seem to spawn a lot of good conversions about why a student received a particular score and how they could improve it.

·         This system gives me the freedom to say “try” and there really be no lasting penalty for getting the answer wrong.  The students seem to like the idea of being able to improve. 

·         I am expecting lots of bumps after the first assessment on standard 1.  Students are going to take the test and bomb it but not have any proof that they should be offered a retake.  It could get messy.  . . .

Adjustments made: 

·         I need to be careful to remind them on a regular basis that their goal is to get the highest score possible and never to settle. 

·         Daily reminders to turn in assignments.  Need a list on the board or on a cabinet somewhere. . .  

·         A pencil and paper test in addition to the “out of the box” assessment for each standard will be done.  More than one assessment makes better sense anyway.