Twitter."/> Coach G's Teaching Tips - January 2012 Archives - Education Week Teacher

January 2012 Archives

January 23, 2012

Formative Assessment Efficiency, Summative Assessment Proficiency

Question Mark.jpgI'm often surprised when teachers are surprised when their students perform poorly on tests. Sure there are kids whose scores belie their skills, such as those who have test anxiety or had a bad day or took the test on an empty stomach. For the most part, though, students' performance on tests is predictable based on their day to day performance in class. And that's the problem: teachers who are surprised by students' performance on tests often aren't assessing students' understanding in class as routinely or effectively as they need to be.

Routine, effective assessment means knowing what students know or don't know now. No waiting for the chapter test, much less a year-end standardized test. In fact, no waiting until you grade students' papers after class, since the time for timely formative assessment is during class when you can identify ASAP what students don't get and why they don't get it, and clear up their confusion right away.

One key to such in-the-moment assessment is circulating to see how students are doing as they're working on something in class--whether it's a five-minute "Do Now" or a 45-minute discovery activity. Just be sure when you do this to assess all students before you assist any students.

Another key to immediate, reliable assessment is effective questioning techniques. I've written before about one such technique, cold calling, and here are a few more:

  • Ask, Don't Tell. Ask questions through which you can pull information from students rather than provide it to them. Examples: give students diagrams of insects and arachnids (or, better yet, have them create their own), and ask them to identify similarities and differences rather than doing so for them; draw a few figures with lines of symmetry inserted and ask students what they think a line of symmetry is rather than define it for them up front. Same goes for discussing readings or interpreting graphs, where you'll get a better sense for students' understanding if you solicit their opinions and analysis before sharing yours.
  • Avoid Yes-No Questions. Ask questions that require students to say or show what they do or don't understand rather than if they understand. In other words, lots of what, why, and how questions rather than knee-jerk yes-no questions like "Does everyone understand?" or "Is everyone ready to move on?" or "Does this make sense?" I've noticed even when facilitating workshops that participants are more responsive when I ask, "What questions do you have?" than when I ask, "Any questions?" Similarly, it's better to ask, "What do you remember about...? " rather than "Do you remember...?"
  • Target Conceptual Understanding. Ask questions that assess and facilitate conceptual understanding before asking those aimed at procedural understanding. (Example: "What is perimeter?" rather than "What is the formula for perimeter?")

In my experience, teachers who assess students' understanding using these practices are rarely if ever surprised by their students' performance on tests. And more important, they're pleased with their students' performance on tests, since formative assessment efficiency on the part of teachers is a key to summative assessment proficiency on the part of students.

What questions do you have?


Image provided by Phillip Martin with permission

Join my mailing list for announcements about webinars and the work I do to improve teaching and learning.

January 16, 2012

Stop Disciplining, Start Diagnosing

Doctor with Stethoscope.gifDoctors don't prescribe drugs or reach for a scalpel the moment a patient reports symptoms. Doctors diagnose first, and treat second.

Coaches don't cut players from the team every time they're in a slump. Coaches determine what's wrong with a player's shot or swing or stroke, and then work with that player to fix it.

In myriad other settings, experts similarly identify the sources of problems before deciding how to address those problems. One place, however, where this doesn't always happen is school, especially when it comes to students' misbehavior.

Writing students' names on the board. Moving their seats. Giving them detention. Calling their parents. Suspending them. These and other common punitive responses rarely if ever improve students' behavior. And a big reason for this is that they fail to assess--much less address--the causes of students' behavior.

Martin Haberman spoke to this in his book, Star Teachers, when he wrote, "Star teachers act only in terms of the most appropriate response to a particular child, after they determine his motive. They never respond as if there is a universally correct teacher response to a child's misbehavior without first knowing that child's motivation."

As for what that motivation may be, Haberman cited the work of Rudolph Dreikurs, who identified four goals of children's misbehavior: attention, power, revenge, and avoidance of failure. And based on my experience--as a teacher, sports coach, instructional coach, school leader, and parent--these are indeed main motives of children's misbehavior.

I've provided illustrations in previous posts that can help you identify three of these four motives--attention, power, and avoidance of failure--along with suggestions for addressing them proactively. Still, kids are going to misbehave at times no matter how proactive you are, so be sure to determine why they're misbehaving before you decide what to do about it. To discipline students before diagnosing the causes of their behavior would be like operating on patients before diagnosing the causes of their symptoms.


Image provided by Phillip Martin with permission

Join my mailing list for announcements about webinars and the work I do to improve teaching and learning.

January 02, 2012

Don't Prevent Students' Mistakes, Prepare for Them

Learning From Mistakes.jpgIt's common knowledge that people can learn as much from their mistakes as anything. And yet traditional teaching methods often deny students the chance to learn from their mistakes by preventing them from making mistakes.

In social studies and science, for example, a lot of teachers tell students how to scale and label their axes when plotting data on a line graph. This prevents students from mistakenly assigning the dependent variable to the x-axis and the independent variable to the y-axis, or running out of room on their paper by going with ones or tens for their scales instead of hundreds or thousands.

Setting students up for success like this may seem like the right thing to do. After all, why let kids experience the frustration of botching something when you can prevent it? Here's why: such frustration is a precursor to deep, lasting learning. That's right, students' grasp of new concepts and skills is often better when they struggle through the process of learning those concepts and skills than when teachers error-proof that process.

I first noticed this in the context of graphing when a teacher did not error-proof the process, and many students placed Time on the y-axis of their Time-Distance graphs. But after lively discussion and debate, all students agreed that time belonged on the x-axis. More important, they understood why it belonged there.

The same goes for other skills such as writing. Students are more likely to become better writers when they get specific feedback about their writing than when teachers show them in general terms what good writing looks like. I'm reminded of a student who couldn't get why active voice is more powerful than passive voice until her teacher pointed out examples within that student's own writing.

Helping students troubleshoot their errors like this should be a primary role of every teacher. There's nothing to troubleshoot, though, if kids never run into trouble. Lesson planning should thus be more about anticipating students' errors and preparing to help them learn from those errors than trying to develop presentations that prevent all errors. Provide students activities that involve applying information, and be ready to help them when they get tripped up.

Another way of thinking about this is reflected in the common distinction in recent years between "sage on stage" (i.e., lecturer) and "guide on the side." And with students' ever-increasing fingertip access to information, there's an ever-decreasing need for us to be the source of their information. Still, just because students can get information doesn't mean they'll know what to do with it. The classroom must therefore be a place where students have regular opportunities to learn by using--and yes, misusing--that information.

In other words, a place where they can learn from one of life's greatest teachers: mistaiks.


Image provided by GECC, LLC with permission

Join my mailing list for announcements about webinars and the work I do to improve teaching and learning.

Follow This Blog

Advertisement

Most Viewed On Teacher

Recent Comments

Archives