Step-by-step Development of a Learning Progression

This week I worked with a professor from NJCU, in order to develop her practices and learning progressions. For the sake of transparency, this professor happens to be my mother, who has been teaching graduate level courses in their Special Education program for 20 some-odd years. Dr. Friedland, who also proofread our book, wants to teach her students how to develop their own practices and learning progressions. Therefore, she needed to be able to do it herself. So one evening, I went over for a work session (and dinner, of course).

She decided to focus on one particular assessment that is central to a course she is teaching in the summer session. We began by talking about her values. She described what she thought an ideal student would demonstrate by the end of the course; I played secretary, and jotted down notes on her thoughts. Then we examined the mandatory rubric that is supplied by the department, and must be used. We read it through and pulled out all of the items that the department wanted to see students produce, what I would call external expectations. There was a lot of repetition and mushy language in there, and we pulled out the essentials, writing them in our own words that made a lot more sense to us than the language of the “standards” as written. Lastly, she opened up one or two student samples from a past semester of the class. She paged through them, looking for what caught her attention as exemplars (both positive and negative). What did they get points for? What did they lose points for? By the end of this conversation, we had a page and a half of hand-written notes. This took about 45 minutes.

In the next step, we went through these notes and turned them into “I can” statements. As we did this, we eliminated repetition, combining or grouping similar items. When writing these statements, we reworded them as concrete, measurable actions. For example, when looking at the desired “I can communicate sensitively to student needs and strengths,” how does one measure “sensitively”? We couldn’t come up with what that would look like, so we omitted that word.

This process resulted in 21 statements. Very quickly, it was clear that there were themes running through these, and naturally, wee grouped them, creating 6 “buckets”. When we were done, it was fairly easy to come up with general names for each group. Our practices were created.

This entire time, we did not worry about the writing. We will perfect the writing and language later.

At this point we had spent about 90 minutes. This probably was streamlined because I have experience doing this; I could ask questions that kept us on track and focused on the task. I would imagine that, working with an inexperienced partner, it would take longer. Working alone is possible, but not recommended. The conversation is useful, and having someone play secretary frees you up to brainstorm without the distraction of recording your thoughts.

 

After a break, we began creating the learning progression. We used the 5-step scale that I prefer, although it can certainly be modified:

  • Beginning (there is evidence of trying)
  • Developing (the information is relevant but may not be complete or accurate)
  • Proficient (there is a lot of material that explicitly uses theories, strategies and taught stuff)
  • Advanced (the former is also complete and accurate)
  • Expert (there is complexity and flexibility of application).

 

She chose one practice, which she is currently calling Evaluation and Adjustment. This had the following 6 “I can” statements.

  • I can conduct initial evaluations to assess needs, strengths, and classroom environment
  • I can adjust teaching as needed using appropriate formative assessment.
  • I can conduct daily monitoring
  • I can analyze and explain what success and failure look like in terms of implementation of teaching strategies.
  • I can use data, create rubrics, and other measures of outcome to define what success looks like.
  • I can interpret assessment results in order to adjust teaching and to give feedback.

 

We began with the first one, “I can conduct initial evaluations to assess needs, strengths, and classroom environment” and decided that, at the most basic level, this would be “I can describe the needs and strengths of the student, and/or the classroom environment.” It may not be complete. And it is implied that some assessment was done, but it isn’t clear how it was done. Next level: “I can describe the initial evaluations that were used to assess needs, strengths, and/or classroom environment. I can describe the needs and strengths of the student, and the classroom environment.” Note the differences between this level vs. the previous:  here they describe some of these evaluations, and all of what was found out, compared to only some of what was found out. Next level: “I can fully describe the needs and strengths of the student, and the classroom environment, as well as the assessments used to evaluate them.” Notice now they describe all of both evaluations and findings. See the progression? At this point, Dr. Friedland decided there was no further development of this particular skill. The more advanced levels would apply this information to analyze results and adjust teaching.

So the process is: choose a statement, decide what “trying” to accomplish it would look like. Then imagine the next level, where you can tell that students are actually applying some of what you taught them, even if it isn’t fully fleshed out; I call that Developing. Proficient is when they overtly apply and explain the content of the course, but perhaps there is an error or omission. Advanced would be everything listed in Proficient with no errors or omissions; it would be complete and correct. After repeating this process for the remaining 5 statements, she ended up with the following:

 

Beginning Level (Try):

I can describe the needs and strengths of the student, and/or the classroom environment. I monitor student performance. I choose an alternate approach to improve student outcomes, when needed.

 

Developing Level (Relevant):

I can describe the initial evaluations that were used to assess needs, strengths, and/or classroom environment. I can describe the needs and strengths of the student, and the classroom environment. I periodically monitor student performance. I can use data, rubrics, and other measures of outcomes to define what student success looks like.

 

Proficient Level (Explicit):

I can describe the initial evaluations that were used to assess needs, strengths, and classroom environment. I can fully describe the needs and strengths of the student, and the classroom environment. I can schedule and follow through on frequent monitoring. I can interpret assessment results (data, rubrics, and other measures) in order to adjust teaching and to give feedback. I can use formative assessment.

 

Advanced Level (Accurate):

I can correctly interpret assessment results in order to adjust teaching. I can reflect on my successes and failures. I can conduct daily monitoring, when appropriate. I can use appropriate formative assessment.

 

Expert Level (Complex):

I can give useful feedback based on assessment results that is comprehensible to both the student and parent. I can reflect on my successes and failures, as tied to student outcomes. I monitor student continuously, making adjustments on the spot as needed.

 

This took about 75 minutes.

 

This is only a rough draft. The language needs to be refined and the sequence rechecked to be sure it aligns with the key words with which we label each level.

 

Next, she needs to do the same thing for the other 5 practices. Then we will see how it works, by scoring a few samples. It is much easier to find the flaws and inconsistencies when trying to actually score authentic work! This is a living document and will never be perfect, but you need something that is both useful and practical. It shouldn’t make you hem and haw; the strengths and weaknesses of the work should be clear, at least most of the time. From my point of view, a rubric designed in this way should be easy to implement once you start using it to score work.

 

A few last thoughts for today:

  • It is okay if you find that some skills “end” at a lower level, such as we did with the example above.
  • I would also be careful about boxing yourself in with too much specificity. The term “and/or” is very helpful to give you some wiggle room.
  • I imagine that this as a ladder: it is implied that all descriptors in previous levels must be complete before moving to the next level. Therefore, if the product is missing something required to earn “Developing”, then the student will earn “Beginning”, regardless if he/she completes all other requirements at the “Advanced” level. (This happens in my classes a lot. Students will draw a graph, make a scale, put on a title, draw the correct trendlines, etc., but they omit the units on the axis labels. Units on the axis labels is a “Developing” level requirement, and therefore they will earn “Beginning.” It may seem harsh, but this is where your values come in. If it’s not important, then don’t put it in the rubric! To math and science people, communicating units is absolutely crucial to understanding.)

 

Dr. Friedland said that, already, this rubric, such as it is, was much clearer than the one she has been forced to use for years. She is eager to work on the remainder. As we iron out the rest of this, I will update you on the process.