Assessment capable students
From HookED Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→What are assessment capable teachers?) |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = What are | + | == '''What are assessment capable teachers?'''== |
| + | <blockquote>''Able and motivated to access, interpret and use information from quality assessments in ways that affirm or further learning."''</blockquote><blockquote>Absolum, M. Flockton, L., Hattie,J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009)</blockquote> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== '''What is formative assessment?''' == | == '''What is formative assessment?''' == | ||
| − | <blockquote>"An assessment functions formatively to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted and used by teachers, learners, or their peers to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions, they would have made in the absence of that evidence."</blockquote><p style="text-align: right">Wiliam, D. (2011 p43)</p> | + | <blockquote>''"An assessment functions formatively to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted and used by teachers, learners, or their peers to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions, they would have made in the absence of that evidence."''</blockquote><p style="text-align: right">Wiliam, D. (2011 p43)</p> |
| + | |||
| + | == '''What are the key attributes of assessment capable students?''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| style="width: 500px" border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! scope="col" | An Assessment Capable Student ... | ||
| + | ! scope="col" | Develop capability by ... | ||
| + | ! scope="col" | Use SOLO Taxonomy to ... | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Knows what '''quality''' work looks like. ''Wiliam 20011 p46'' | ||
| + | | Examining quality work - examples and models. | ||
| + | | Share a common model of differentiated learning outcomes. SOLO Taxonomy Levels | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Knows '''criteria''' for quality work. ''Wiliam 2011 p46.'' | ||
| + | | Participate in the development of WALT and IALT statements and success criteria. | ||
| + | | Share a common model of discriminators for differentiated levels of learning outcomes - SOLO levels for functioning and declarative knowledge | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Knows how to '''compare and evaluate''' their own work against such criteria. ''Wiliam 2011 p46'' | ||
| + | | Peer and self assessment | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | Share a common model of discriminators for differentiated levels of learning outcomes - SOLO levels for functioning and declarative knowledge. e.g. HOT SOLO Learning Verb Maps and self assessment rubrics. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Provides '''better information''' to teachers. ''Wiliam 2011 p46'' | ||
| + | | Effective class discussions | ||
| + | | Explicit /specific common language of learning. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Holds a concept of '''quality''' roughly similar to that held by the teacher. ''Sadler 1989'' | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | | SOLO Taxonomy differentiated levels. SOLO HOT Maps and self assessment rubrics. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Is continuously able to '''monitor the quality '''of what is being produced during the act of production itself. ''Sadler 1989'' | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | | SOLO differentiated success criteria for declarative and functioning knowledge. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Has a repertoire of '''alternative moves or strategies '''from which to draw at any given point. ''Sadler 1989'' | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | | SOLO differentiated HOT Maps and self assessment rubrics.SOLO differentiated thinking skills and strategies. SOLO differentiated e-learning applications and strategies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == '''Developing assessment capable students using SOLO Taxonomy''' == | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Using SOLO to differentiate learning intentions and success criteria:''' so that students know what quality work looks like, know the criteria for quality work and know how to compare and evaluate their own work against such criteria. See Wiliam 2011 p46 | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Step 1: Identify the type of knowledge involved''' – Functioning Knowledge (FK) or Declarative Knowledge (DK) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Functioning Knowledge – actions, performance or doing things – | ||
| + | Example functioning knowledge verbs: ''plan, design, select, interview, question, collaborate, reflect, apply, listen, solve, use, mix, measure, observe, throw, share, etc.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Declarative Knowledge – descriptive (written or oral) – writing about or telling about things - | ||
| + | Example declarative knowledge verbs: ''define, describe, sequence, classify, compare and contrast, explain causes, explain consequences, analyse, predict, generalise, evaluate'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Step 2: Identify the learning intention involved.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Every learning intention has a similar structure [verb (FK or DK)] [content] [context] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Step 3: Identify the SOLO level of the learning intention.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Each learning verb can be loosely aligned to the SOLO level of the intended learning outcome. For example a verb used to bring in ideas sits at the multistructural level. A verb used to connect or relate ideas sits at the relational level. A verb used to extend ideas or look at the ideas in a new way sits at the extended abstract level. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some examples of this alignment can be seen in the [http://pamhook.com/solo-apps/learning-intention-generator/|HookED Constructive alignment tool – Learning intention generator.] | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Step 4: Identify the success criteria needed.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Choose the most appropriate success criteria for the learning task. Not all tasks require multiple differentiated success criteria. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example, does your task require: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *One learning intention with one success criterion. | ||
| + | *One learning intention with different success criteria that are addressed as the lesson progresses – these success criteria can be differentiated against SOLO outcomes | ||
| + | *One learning intention broken down into several subsidiary learning intentions - each subsidiary learning intention with its own single or multiple success criteria. | ||
| + | *Several unrelated learning intentions for different groups within a class each with single or multiple success criteria | ||
| + | |||
| + | For examples of this process download the HookED SOLO Learning Intentions and Success Criteria Resource [[File:HookED_SOLO_learningintentions_successcriteria.pdf]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | == '''Using SOLO to make "next step" decisions - Newmarket Primary School''' == | ||
| + | {{#widget:YouTube|id=dV6Dmm7X4Eg}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{HookEDwiki navbar}} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:28, 30 June 2013
Contents |
What are assessment capable teachers?
Able and motivated to access, interpret and use information from quality assessments in ways that affirm or further learning."
Absolum, M. Flockton, L., Hattie,J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009)
What is formative assessment?
"An assessment functions formatively to the extent that evidence about student achievement is elicited, interpreted and used by teachers, learners, or their peers to make decisions about the next steps in instruction that are likely to be better, or better founded, than the decisions, they would have made in the absence of that evidence."
Wiliam, D. (2011 p43)
What are the key attributes of assessment capable students?
| An Assessment Capable Student ... | Develop capability by ... | Use SOLO Taxonomy to ... |
|---|---|---|
| Knows what quality work looks like. Wiliam 20011 p46 | Examining quality work - examples and models. | Share a common model of differentiated learning outcomes. SOLO Taxonomy Levels |
| Knows criteria for quality work. Wiliam 2011 p46. | Participate in the development of WALT and IALT statements and success criteria. | Share a common model of discriminators for differentiated levels of learning outcomes - SOLO levels for functioning and declarative knowledge |
| Knows how to compare and evaluate their own work against such criteria. Wiliam 2011 p46 | Peer and self assessment |
Share a common model of discriminators for differentiated levels of learning outcomes - SOLO levels for functioning and declarative knowledge. e.g. HOT SOLO Learning Verb Maps and self assessment rubrics. |
| Provides better information to teachers. Wiliam 2011 p46 | Effective class discussions | Explicit /specific common language of learning. |
| Holds a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher. Sadler 1989 | SOLO Taxonomy differentiated levels. SOLO HOT Maps and self assessment rubrics. | |
| Is continuously able to monitor the quality of what is being produced during the act of production itself. Sadler 1989 | SOLO differentiated success criteria for declarative and functioning knowledge. | |
| Has a repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw at any given point. Sadler 1989 | SOLO differentiated HOT Maps and self assessment rubrics.SOLO differentiated thinking skills and strategies. SOLO differentiated e-learning applications and strategies. |
Developing assessment capable students using SOLO Taxonomy
Using SOLO to differentiate learning intentions and success criteria: so that students know what quality work looks like, know the criteria for quality work and know how to compare and evaluate their own work against such criteria. See Wiliam 2011 p46
Step 1: Identify the type of knowledge involved – Functioning Knowledge (FK) or Declarative Knowledge (DK)
Functioning Knowledge – actions, performance or doing things – Example functioning knowledge verbs: plan, design, select, interview, question, collaborate, reflect, apply, listen, solve, use, mix, measure, observe, throw, share, etc.
Declarative Knowledge – descriptive (written or oral) – writing about or telling about things - Example declarative knowledge verbs: define, describe, sequence, classify, compare and contrast, explain causes, explain consequences, analyse, predict, generalise, evaluate
Step 2: Identify the learning intention involved.
Every learning intention has a similar structure [verb (FK or DK)] [content] [context]
Step 3: Identify the SOLO level of the learning intention.
Each learning verb can be loosely aligned to the SOLO level of the intended learning outcome. For example a verb used to bring in ideas sits at the multistructural level. A verb used to connect or relate ideas sits at the relational level. A verb used to extend ideas or look at the ideas in a new way sits at the extended abstract level.
Some examples of this alignment can be seen in the Constructive alignment tool – Learning intention generator.
Step 4: Identify the success criteria needed.
Choose the most appropriate success criteria for the learning task. Not all tasks require multiple differentiated success criteria.
For example, does your task require:
- One learning intention with one success criterion.
- One learning intention with different success criteria that are addressed as the lesson progresses – these success criteria can be differentiated against SOLO outcomes
- One learning intention broken down into several subsidiary learning intentions - each subsidiary learning intention with its own single or multiple success criteria.
- Several unrelated learning intentions for different groups within a class each with single or multiple success criteria
For examples of this process download the HookED SOLO Learning Intentions and Success Criteria Resource File:HookED SOLO learningintentions successcriteria.pdf
Using SOLO to make "next step" decisions - Newmarket Primary School
| ||||||||||||||
