Upload
nicole-glass
View
221
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
MMann/SAS
Taxonomic LevelsAnd Rubrics
MMann/SAS
Desired Outcomes •An awareness of taxonomic levels and its purpose•An awareness of the relationship of HCPS III benchmarks and taxonomic levels•An opportunity to match benchmarks and tasks to the taxonomic levels•An awareness of various types of performance assessment rubrics
MMann/SAS
Why do I need to know the taxonomic levels?
Aligning our instruction and assessment to the targets.
MMann/SAS
Alignment – congruence or match between curriculum, instruction and assessment
CurriculumBased on GLOs & HCPS III
InstructionImplementation of the
curriculum
AssessmentMultiple measures of
proficiency of the curriculum
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
MMann/SAS
curriculum with standards and
assessment shows a strong relationship
to student achievement.
(Prince-Baugh, 1997; Mitchell, 1998; Wishnick, 1989)
Research on Aligning
MMann/SAS
Identify relevant content standards
Determine acceptable evidence and criteria
Determine learning experiences that will enable students to learn what they need to
know and to do
Teach and collect evidence of student learning
Assess student work to inform instruction or use data to provide feedback
Evaluate student work and make judgment on learning results and
communicate findings
Reteach, or repeat the process with the next set of relevant standards
Teach
er c
olla
bora
tion
thro
ug
hou
t the
pro
cess.
Stu
den
t in
volv
em
en
t th
rou
gh
ou
t th
e
pro
cess.
Adapted from WestEd’s Learning from Assessment
MMann/SAS
All targets, curriculum, instruction, activities and assessments involve some
level of thinking.
• Definition = the science or
technique of classification
MMann/SAS
Cognition Type• or “cognitive demand” - generally
refers to a taxonomy and reflects a classification of thinking rather than a sequential hierarchy.
(understanding prior to application and analysis)
• Cognitive demand is determined by analyzing the context of the lesson.(What support is provided and what are the students being asked to do?)
MMann/SAS
Adapt or adopt a systematic method for assigning performance
expectations. McREL
Taxonomy of objectives = a system for identifying distinct levels of difficulty.
• Bloom’s• Guilford’s • Three-Story Intellect• Marzano’s
MMann/SAS
Marzano’s Taxonomic Levels
• Level 1: Retrieval - recall, execution
• Level 2: Comprehension - integrating, representation, symbolizing
• Level 3: Analysis - matching, classifying, error analysis, generalizing, specifying
• Level 4: Utilization - decision making, problem solving,experimental inquiry, investigation
MMann/SAS
Not used with performance standards, but part of
taxonomy• Level 5: Metacognitive System - goal
setting, process monitoring, monitoring clarity, monitoring accuracy
• Level 6: Self System - examining importance, examining efficacy, examining emotional response, examining motivation.
Adapted from Marzano (2001). “Designing A New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”.
From Marzano (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
The Three Systems and KnowledgeSelf-System
– Decides to engage
Metacognitive System– Sets goals and
strategies
Cognitive System– Processes relevant
information
Knowledge
Continue current behavior
New Task
MMann/SAS
Marzano’s Taxonomic Levels (Cognitive System)
Level IV Level III Level II Level IKnowledge Utilization
Analysis ComprehensionKnowledge Retrieval
Use ___ to determine ___
Judge the validity of ___
Use___ to solve Generate/Test
hypotheses Analyze using
evidence Investigate
Compare/ contrast Differentiate Categorize Find what is
common among Categorize Determine
reasonableness of information
Predict Determine what
comes next/later
Describe and explain
Explain the concept
Demonstrate and explain
Diagram Illustrate/ describe
how ___ is related to ___
Represent
Recognize Select from a list Recall Give/Provide
examples List Name Read Perform
mathematical operation (by following a set algorithm)
MMann/SAS
MarzanoÕs Taxonomic Levels of Understanding (CognitiveDomain)
LEVEL 1: RETRIEVAL
RecognizingThe student can identify or recognize features of information, butdoes not necessarily understand the structure of knowledge or isable to differentiate critical from non-critical components.
RecallingThe student can recall information, but does not necessarilyunderstand the structure of knowledge or is able to differentiatecritical from non-critical components.
ExecutingThe student can perform a procedure without significant error butdoes not necessarily understand how and why the procedureworks.
LEVEL 2: COMPREHENS ION
IntegratingThe student can identify the basic structure of knowledge and thecritical as opposed to non-critical characteristics of that structure.
SymbolizingThe student can construct an accurate symbolic representat ion ofknowledge, differentiating critical from non-critical elements.
LEVEL 3: ANALYSIS
MatchingThe student can identify important similarities and differences inknowledge or skill.
ClassifyingThe student can identify superordinate and subordinate categoriesrelated to knowledge or skill.
Analyzing ErrorThe student can identify errors in presentat ion or use ofknowledge.
GeneralizingThe student can construct new generalizations or principles basedon knowledge.
SpecifyingThe student can identify specific applications or logicalconsequences of knowledge.
LEVEL 4: UTILIZATION
Decision MakingThe student can use the knowledge to make decisions or thestudent is able to make decisions about the use of the knowledge.
Problem SolvingThe student can use the knowledge to solve problems or to solveproblems about the knowledge.
InquiringExperimentally
The student can use the knowledge to generate and testhypotheses or to generate and test hypotheses about theknowledge.
InvestigatingThe student can use the knowledge to conduct investigations or toconduct investigations about the knowledge.
MMann/SAS
Standards Implementation Process Model
Identify Relevant Standards
Determine Acceptable Evidence and Criteria
Determine Learning Experiences that will Enable Students to Learn what they need to Know & Do
Teach and Collect Evidence of Student learning
Assess Student Work to Inform Instruction or Use Data to Provide Feedback
Evaluate Student Work and Make Judgment on Learning Results and Communicate Findings
Congru
ence
of
Conte
nt,
Conte
xt
& C
ognit
ive D
em
and
MMann/SAS
Let’s Identify Taxonomic Levels1. Retrieve (Marzano)
Recognize, Recall, Execute
2. Comprehension Integrate, Symbolize
3. Analysis Match, Classify, Analyze,
Generalize, Specify
4. Knowledge Utilization Decision Making, Problem
Solving, Inquire Experimentally, Investigate
MMann/SAS
Topic The Universe
Benchmark ES.8.10
Compare different theories concerning the formation of the universe.
Topic Cells, Tissues, Organs, and Organ Systems
Benchmark BS.4.1
Describe different cell parts and their functions.
Level 1 - Knowledge Retrieval
Level 3 - Analysis
MMann/SAS
Drill and Practice
• Work with your table group
• Read each card
• Group by taxonomic level
MMann/SAS
Level of thinking helps determine the appropriate
assessment method
MMann/SAS
Analyze plot, setting, characterization, or conflict to interpret theme in a literary text.
• Describe the setting of the story.• Explain how the author uses his
characters to convey a message.• Compare the plot of this story to
the plot of the previous story.• Chooses a literary element (e.g.,
conflict). Describes how the author treats this element in the story. Assess how this element relates to the theme.
MMann/SAS
Knowing a taxonomy also helps in…
scaffolding instruction.
Identify
Explain
Compare
Create
MMann/SAS
Three Tiers of Skill and Assessment Work
• Drill & Practice
• Rehearsal &
Scrimmage
• Authentic
Performance
Thanks to Heidi Hayes Jacobs
MMann/SAS
The level of thinking in the
benchmark is the level of
thinking required to meet
proficiency.
MMann/SAS
Balanced Assessment Model
MMann/SAS
Performance Assessment is • an assessment (product or performance) based on
observation and judgment about its quality.
• the activities, problems, projects, and assignments students are asked to perform.
• anything from a special task at the end of instruction as in a culminating event, or naturally occurring events during regular instruction.
MMann/SAS
The Importance of Criteria
“Teachers [frequently] ask the wrong question first … “What do we do?” - putting the focus immediately on designing tasks - when they need to ask, “What do we want kids to know and be able to do? How well? What does quality look like? [We} need to ask these questions very clearly first.”
Mike Hibbard, Education Update, 38(4). p.5, ASCD, June, 1996.
MMann/SAS
To Know Criteria Requires ...
• Being exposed to the criteria from the beginning of instruction.
• Having terms defined. (lots of details)• Samples of strong and weak performances.• Practice with feedback using the vocabulary of the
criteria.• Focused revision of work.• Practice articulating the vocabulary for quality and
applying it to many situations.• Instruction consciously focused on subparts of the
criteria. Judy Arter, ATI
MMann/SAS
What is a Rubric?
• A scoring guide designed to provide constructive feedback to students
• Designed to show how important elements of a task would look in a progression from less well developed to exceptional along a continuum (Tomlinson, 2003).
• A Latin word that means “red.”
MMann/SAS
A Rubric =
Dimensions (essential qualities) +Continuum (Scale) +Descriptors of points on the scale +Work samples illustrating
those points.
MMann/SAS
Holistic Rubrics• Holistic rubrics have one performance
expectation description at each numerical level on the rubric.
• The product or performance is evaluated as a whole, and given a single score.
• Used “to obtain the overall impression of the quality of a performance or product.” (Wiggins and McTighe, 1999)
MMann/SAS
Holistic Rubrics
• Quicker to write and to use.– Summative because they evaluate work at
the end of the process.
• Fails to communicate to students, especially low performing students, what their shortcomings are
MMann/SAS
Holistic Rubric Example Fiction Writing Content Rubric
5 The plot, setting, and characters are developed fully and organized well. The who, what, where, when, and why are explained using interesting language and sufficient detail.
4 Most parts of the story mentioned in a score of 5 above are developed and organized well. A couple of aspects may need to be more fully or more interestingly developed.
3 Some aspects of the story are developed and organized well, but not as much detail or organization is expressed as in a score of 4.
2 A few parts of the story are developed somewhat. Organization and language usage need improvement.
1 Parts of the story are addressed without attention to detail or organization.
MMann/SAS
Analytical Rubrics• Use multiple descriptors for each
criterion evaluated.• Type of “task analysis” where teachers
award points on a criterion-by-criterion basis.
• Described as teaching rubrics because their design helps students improve their own performance.
MMann/SAS
Analytic Rubric Example
Fiction Writing Content Rubric
Criteria 4 3 2 1
PLOT: "What" and "Why"
Both plot parts are fully developed.
One of the plot parts is fully developed and the less developed part is at least addressed.
Both plot parts are addressed but not fully developed.
Neither plot parts are fully developed.
SETTING: "When" and "Where"
Both setting parts are fully developed.
One of the setting parts is fully developed and the less developed part is at least addressed.
Both setting parts of the story are addressed but not fully developed.
Neither setting parts are developed.
CHARACTERS: "Who" described by behavior, appearance, personality, and character traits
The main characters are fully developed with much descriptive detail. The reader has a vivid image of the characters.
The main characters are developed with some descriptive detail. The reader has a vague idea of the characters.
The main characters are identified by name only
None of the characters are developed or named.
MMann/SAS
Holistic or Analytical TraitHolistic
Use :• Quick snapshot of overall
status• When speed of scoring is
important• Simple products or
performances
Disadvantages:• 2 students can get same
score for different reasons• Can’t identify strengths &
weaknesses• Not useful for students
AnalyticalUse:• Planning instruction - show
relative strengths & weaknesses
• Details to teach student quality
• Detailed feedback• Precision more important that
speed:Disadvantages:• Scoring is slower• Takes longer to learn
MMann/SAS
Descriptive Terms for Differences in Degree
• Degrees of Understanding
• Degrees of Frequency
• Degrees of Effectiveness
• Degrees of Independence
• Degrees of Accuracy
• Degrees of Clarity
MMann/SAS
Descriptive Terms for Differences in Degrees
Understanding Frequency Accuracy Clarity
thorough/complete
consistently completely accurate
exceptionally clear
substantial generally generally accurate
generally clear
partial/ incomplete
sometimes inaccurate lacks clarity
misunder-standing
rarely major inaccuracies
unclear
MMann/SAS
Options for Selecting Rubrics
• Create your own - build from scratch
• Adopt - use an existing rubric
• Adapt - Modify or combine existing rubrics– Reword parts– Drop or change one or more scales– Omit irrelevant criteria– “Mix” and Match” rubrics– Change a holistic rubric into an analytic rubric– Modify for different grade levels
MMann/SAS
Guidelines for RubricsRubrics are effective when teachers utilize the
following criteria:– Use specific numbers like “2” or “3 or more” rather
than vague words like “some,” “many,” or “few.”– Use specific descriptors, rather than general
descriptors like “good” or “excellent.”– Use the vocabulary of the standards and
benchmarks.– State clear expectations for work so that all
teachers, students, and parents know the criteria for quality and the requirements for earning a grade.
Burke, 2006
MMann/SAS
Resources• Anderson, L.,Krathwohl, D. et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching and Assessing. New York: Longman.
• Curriculum Associates:Assessing Levels of Comprehension.
• Lewin, L. & Shoemaker, B.J. (1998). Great Performances. Virginia: ASCD.
• Marzano, R.J. (2001). Designing a New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
• Popham, W. J. (2002). Classroom Assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Stiggins, R.J. et al. (2004). Classroom Assessment for Student Learning. Portland: ATI.
• Wahlstrom, D. (2002). Designing & Using High- Quality Paper-and-Pencil Tests. Virginia: Successline.
• www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/ pubdocs/WERA/WERA2005_Webversion.pp
• http://www.stedwards.edu/cte/content/view/1536/49/