Establishing Clear Learning Targets to Ensure Clarity and ... · Establishing Clear Learning Targets to Ensure Clarity and Learning for ... Outcomes Into Student-Friendly Learning

Establishing Clear Learning Targetsto Ensure Clarity and Learning for All:

From Standards to Targetsto Formative Assessment

Peter Noonan

& Tico Oms

Establishing Clear Targets to Ensure Learning for All

From Standards to Targets to Formative Assessment

Peter Noonan, EdD @peternoonanSuperintendent, City of Fairfax Schools

Treena Casey @treenacExecutive Director of Teaching and Learning, Singapore American School

Tico Oms @ticoomsMiddle School Deputy Principal, International School of Bangkok

Facts• Teachers are hard-working, dedicated

individuals.• Despite all of our hard work, we struggle

to help all students learn at high levels.• The work is never easy and becoming

more difficult every year.

The Question

What is the most important work that will result in high levels of learning for all students?

© Noonan, Kramer, & Oms 2015. solution-tree.comDo not duplicate. 1

“The most promising strategy for sustained, substantive school improvement is building the capacity of school personnel to function as a professional learning community.”

—Milbrey McLaughlin

In Fact …There is now conclusive, compelling research stating that acting as a PLC is the most powerful and effective process to systemically change school culture and improve student learning.

Outcomes for This Session• Understand how a team puts the four

PLC questions into action.• Understand the reasons for unpacking

and deconstructing the essential outcomes.

• Practice developing essential outcomes.• Use data to plan next steps.

© Noonan, Kramer, & Oms 2015. solution-tree.comDo not duplicate.2

Critical Questions for the Team

1. What do we want our students to learn?(essential, guaranteed, and viable curriculum)

2. How will we know they are learning? (frequent, team-developed, common formative assessments)

3. How will we respond when they don’t learn?(timely, directive, systematic intervention)

4. How will we respond when they do learn? (timely enrichment and extension)

Begin with the end in mind.

We have standards.Now what?


What Comes Next?• Clarify standards and agree on what

they mean with team members.• Understand embedded learning targets.• Agree on the depth of knowledge and

thinking levels that students need.• Set the foundation for knowing what to

assess and do next with students.

Deconstructing and Unpacking Essential Outcomes Into Student-Friendly Learning Targets

Deconstructing and Unpacking

• The purpose of this process is to clarify for all what the standard means.

• Teacher teams should agree on which targets are included in the standard and what proficiency looks like.


What Are Learning Targets?

• Learning targets are any achievement expectation for students on the path toward mastering a standard.

• They can be explicit or implied.• They clearly state what we want students to learn

and what teachers and students understand.• Learning targets should be formatively assessed

to monitor progress toward an essential outcome.

What Is a Target?Write an effective research paper which cites appropriate sources and synthesizes the major information they contain.

Understand how to search for and evaluate sources.

Write coherently, with style and voice.

Can understand and summarize information.

Essential Outcomes and Targets

Outcome

Assessment

Curriculum

Instruction(Wiggins & McTighe, 2000)

Target Target Target Target Target Target Target


Standards to Learning Targets

• Circle the verbs (skills). (Students will be able to …)

• Underline the nouns (content). (Students will know …)

• Double underline any prepositional phrases. (In what context …)

• Write each verb and noun combination as a separate learning target.

• Include the prepositional phrase in the target.• Are there any targets that are implied but not

stated?

Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from those that are not.

Standard

Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from those that are not.

Essential Outcome


Standard: Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from those that are not.

Verb Noun Context Thinking Level

Trace The argument and specific claims

In informational text

Evaluate The argument and specific claims

In informational text

DistinguishClaims that are supported from those that aren’t

Describe (Implied) Claims supported by reason

Describe (Implied) Claims supportedby evidence

Vocabulary: claim, argument, reason, evidence

Ask These Questions• What would it look like to teach this target?

• What would it look like if the students could do this at the proficient level?

• Is this skill measureable? What would the assessment look like?

Hint: Sometimes the verb needs to be changed to make it more measureable.

Thinking LevelsBloom’s Revised

TaxonomyMarzano’s Taxonomy Webb’s DOK

Remember,understand Retrieval Recall and

reproduction (DOK 1)

Apply Comprehension Skills and concepts(DOK 2)

Analyze Analysis Strategic thinking(DOK 3)

Evaluate, create Knowledge utilization

Extended thinking (DOK 4)


It’s All About the Verb—Really?• The verb often indicates the level of thinking we expect

from students.• Sometimes verbs are ambiguous and need to be

defined clearly, like understand.• The important questions are: What would this look like

if students could do it? What thinking is required to get there?

• There are many taxonomies: Bloom, Anderson, Marzano, Webb DOK. Choose one.

Depth of KnowledgeIt’s More Than the VerbWhat are levels of thinking that a student must engage in to understand this learning target?


Standard: Trace and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, distinguishing claims that are supported by reasons and evidence from those that are not.


Trace The argument and specific claims

In informational text DOK 2

Evaluate The argument and specific claims

In informational text DOK 3

DistinguishClaims that are supported from those that aren’t

DOK 2

Describe (Implied) Claims supported by reason DOK 1

Describe (Implied) Claims supportedby evidence DOK 1

Vocabulary: claim, argument, reason, evidence

Your Turn

With a partner …• Choose a standard from the sample list.• Deconstruct or unpack it into its

underpinning learning targets.• Use the template provided.


Misconception Alert!

When you deconstruct or unwrap an essential outcome, you analyze what the student should know and do, not how you will assess it.

(Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004)

Teams are clarifying PLC Question 1.

Why Deconstruct or Unpack?

• Clarify what the standard means.

• Identify underpinning learning targets to be assessed.

• Determine what method of assessment is most appropriate.

• Map an assessment plan.

How does a team use learning targets to create common assessments?

Teams are answering PLC question 2.


• Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic.

• Describe the differences in focus and the information provided.

For Example …ELA Grade 4 Standard

For Example …ELA Grade 4 Essential Outcome• Compare and contrast a firsthand

and secondhand account of the same event or topic.

• Describe the differences in focus and the information provided.

Standard: Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic; describe the difference in focus and the information provided.


CompareA firsthand and secondhand account

Of the same event or topic DOK 2

ContrastA firsthand and secondhand account

Of the same event or topic DOK 2

DescribeThe difference in focus each account provided

DOK 3

DescribeThe difference in information each account provided

DOK 3

VocabularyFirsthand account, secondhand account, compare, contrast


Mapping an Assessment• Identify the targets to be assessed. • Determine the level of thinking.• Make the target method match. • Selected response for knowledge,

application, analysis• Constructed response for higher levels


Compare A firsthand and secondhand account

Of the same event or topic

DOK 2 Formative Assessment

Contrast A firsthand and secondhand account



DescribeThe difference in focus each accountprovided


DescribeThe difference in information each account provided


VocabularyFirsthand account, secondhand account, compare, contrast

Standard: Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic; describe the difference in focus and the information provided. Summative Assessment

What Targets Should We Assess?• Targets that are absolutely essential

to know.• Targets that are difficult or are often

identified as misconceptions.• Targets that are prerequisite skills

or concepts.


Assessment Mapping/Planning

Your Turn

With a partner:• Use the standard you just unpacked.• Determine the thinking levels.• Use the template to map and plan the

assessments.

Assessment is an instructional tool.


John Hattie, Visible Learning

After a meta-analysis of thousands of studies:

“A major theme (of excellence in education) is when teachers meet to discuss, evaluate, and plan their teaching in light of the feedback evidence about the success or otherwise of their teaching strategies and conceptions about process and appropriate challenge.”

—Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement (2009)

Use Data to Know What to Do Next.• Plan a differentiated lesson the next day

based on assessment results.

• Students requiring more time and support should be retaught using an instructional strategy different from the first strategy used.

• Students who learned it initially might need additional practice or extension activities.

“Educators can create professional learning communities, but there are no easy shortcuts for doing so. It will require a staff to find common ground and exert a focused, coherent, consistent effort over time.”

—DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 11


Embracing AccountabilityProfessional learning teams embrace accountability and see content mastery as their personal responsibility.• They redesign the way they define their

curriculum.• They engage students in their own learning.• They systematically track progress in their

classrooms.

(Muhammad, Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division, 2009, p. 18)

Thank You!

To schedule professional development at your site, contact

[email protected].


Protocol for Unwrapping Standards Finding the Learning Targets to Teach and Assess

1. Circle the verbs (skills).

2. Underline the nouns (concepts) to be taught.

3. Double underline any prepositional phrase (context).

4. Write separately each verb (skills) and noun (concept) combination as a separate learning target.

5. If a prepositional phrase (the context) is included at the beginning or the end of the standard, include it in the target.

6. Examine each learning target, asking the following questions:

• What are the instructional and assessment implications of this target?

o What would it look like to teach this target in the classroom (setting, materials, strategies)?

o Is the skill measurable?

o What would the assessment look like?

o Do we need to change the verb to make it more measurable?

7. After examining the instructional and assessment implications, are there any targets that are implicit or not directly stated in the standard that should be included?

16© Noonan 2015. solution-tree.com

Do not duplicate.

REPRODUCIBLE

Unpacking and Deconstructing

Focus on Key Words: Standard:

What Will Students Do?

(skills or verbs)

With What Knowledge or Concept?

(nouns or direct instruction)

In What Context? Level of Thinking

Bloom’s (revised) Taxonomy Marzano’s Taxonomy Webb’s DOK

Remembering, understanding Retrieving Recalling and reproducing (DOK 1)

Applying Comprehending Skills and concepts (DOK 2)

Analyzing Analyzing Strategic thinking (DOK 3)

Evaluating, creating Knowing, utilizing Extended thinking (DOK 4)

© Noonan 2015. solution-tree.comReproducible. 17

Sample Standards Grade K Math: Solve addition and subtraction word problems, and add and subtract within ten, e.g., by using objects or drawings to represent the problem. Grade 1 ELA: Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types. Grade 2 ELA: Compare and contrast two or more versions of the same story (e.g., Cinderella stories) by different authors or from different cultures. Grade 3 Math: Solve two-step word problems using the four operations. Represent these problems using equations with a letter standing for the unknown quantity. Assess the reasonableness of answers using mental computation and estimation strategies including rounding. Grade 4 ELA: Describe in depth a character, setting, or event in a story or drama, drawing on specific details in the text (e.g., a character’s thoughts, words or actions). Grade 5 ELA: Analyze multiple accounts of the same event or topic, noting important similarities and differences in the point of view they represent. Grade 7 Math: Locate positive and negative rational numbers on a number line, understand the concept of opposites, and plot pairs of positive and negative rational numbers on a coordinate grid. Grade 8 ELA: Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well inferences drawn from the text. Grade 9 Math: Distinguish between functions and other relations defined symbolically, graphically, or in tabular form. Source: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers (2010).


Do not duplicate.

REPRODUCIBLE

Unwrapping and Deconstructing

Focus on Key Words: Standard: Compare and contrast a firsthand and secondhand account of the same event or topic; describe the difference in focus and the information provided.

What Will Students Do?

(skills or verbs)

With What Knowledge or Concept?

(nouns or direct instruction)

In What Context? Level of Thinking

Compare

Firsthand account, secondhand account


Contrast



(Know)


Describe

The difference in focus each account provided

Describe

The difference in information each account provided

Bloom’s (Revised) Taxonomy Marzano’s Taxonomy Webb’s DOK

Remembering, understanding Retrieving Recalling and reproducing (DOK 1)

Applying Comprehending Skills and concepts (DOK 2)

Analyzing Analyzing Strategic thinking (DOK 3)

Evaluating, creating Utilizing knowledge Extended thinking (DOK 4)


Bloom’s Taxonomy Webb’s DOK (Depth of Knowledge)

Knowledge “The recall of specifics and universals, involving little more than bringing to mind the appropriate material” Recall

Recall of a fact, information, or procedure (e.g., What are three critical skill cues for the overhand throw?)

Comprehension “Ability to process knowledge on a low level such that the knowledge can be reproduced or communicated without a verbatim repetition”

Application “The use of abstractions in concrete situations”

Skill or Concept Use of information, conceptual knowledge, procedures, two or more steps, etc.

Analysis “The breakdown of a situation into its component parts”

Strategic Thinking Requires reasoning, developing a plan or sequence of steps; has some complexity; more than one possible answer

Synthesis and Evaluation “Putting together elements and parts to form a whole, then making value judgments about the method”

Extended Thinking Requires an investigation; time to think and process multiple conditions of the problem or task

Source: Wyoming School Health and Physical Education Network,

Standards, Assessment, and Beyond (2001).


Do not duplicate.

REPRODUCIBLE

Asse

ssm

ent M

appi

ng

Cont

ent

and

Targ

ets

Leve

l of C

ogni

tive

Dem

and

Know

ledg

e Re

trie

val

DOK

1

Com

preh

ensi

on

Appl

icat

ion

DOK

2

Anal

ysis

DO

K 3

Eval

uatio

n,

Know

ledg

e U

tiliz

atio

nDO

K 4

Tota

l


References and Resources Ainsworth, L. (2011). Rigorous curriculum

design: How to create curricular units of study that align standards, instruction, and assessment. Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Bailey, K., & Jakicic, C. (2012). Common formative assessment: A toolkit for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

Brookhart, S. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational leadership, 66(3), 52–57.

Chappuis, S., & Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Classroom assessment for learning. Educational leadership, 60(1), 40–43.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2007). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.) (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for understanding: Formative assessment techniques for your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Little, J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the learning-centered school. Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). Classroom assessment and grading that work. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.


Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Muhammad, A. (2009). Transforming school culture: How to overcome staff division. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

O’Connor, K. (2002). How to grade for learning: Linking grades to standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

O’Connor, K. (2007). The last frontier: Tackling the grading dilemma. In D. Reeves (Ed.), Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning (pp. 127–145). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Olson, L. (2007). ‘Just-in-time’ tests change what classrooms do next. Education week. Accessed at www.edweek.org/ew/ contributors/lynn.olson.html

Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Reeves, D. (Ed). (2007). Ahead of the curve: The power of assessment to transform teaching and learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional science, 18, 119–144.

Stiggins, R. J. (2005a). Assessment for learning: Building a culture of confident learners. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 65–83). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Stiggins, R. J. (2005b). Student-involved assessment for learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Stiggins, R. J. (2008). Assessment for learning, the achievement gap, and truly effective schools. Paper presented at Educational Testing in America: State Assessments, Achievement Gaps, National Policy, and Innovations in Washington, DC. Conference sponsored by Educational Testing Service and College Board.

Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wiliam, D. (2007). Changing classroom practice. Educational leadership, 65(4), 36–41.

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.


Documents

Establishing Clear Learning Targets to Ensure Clarity and ... · Establishing Clear Learning Targets to Ensure Clarity and Learning for ... Outcomes Into Student-Friendly Learning