|
|
| Continued
Keystone Colloquium, November 16, 2000 "Connecting Assessment with Instruction," featuring Bud Alder. |
| Participants share classification systems, and grade themselves on their work. Most feel they did fairly well. |
| Bud asks the participants to score student "anchor papers," evaluating them on their own, giving each of the four papers a one through four rating. They find that they have a high level of agreement on which paper is exemplary and which shows that understanding is emerging but still needs further attention. |
| They also agree that their criteria for the highest score included the amount of detail provided, use of scientific terms and descriptive words, and evidence of using background knowledge. Bud explains that 90% agreement indicates a reliable rubricone that enables judges (including parents and administrators!) and performers to make effective discriminations between levels of performance. |
| Bud shares the rubric for evaluating the classification activity. Prior to seeing the rubric, most participants had thought that they did a good job on classifying their creatures. Most would now rate their own work lower on the scale, but realize that "if we'd known the criteria beforehand, we'd have done a lot better!" |
| Using the rubric, Bud asks everyone to examine another set of anchor papers: records of data collected over a period of time as students observed animal behavior. |
| Moving from the workshop to the Unisys Teacher Technology Center, Shelby expands the assessment theme. Shelby asks the teachers to consider the content, source, and relative merit of two websites, using a rubric for website evaluation. |
| Jo and Michelle consider and compare the sites. The rubric includes detailed criteria for evaluating format, content, and learner process. |
| Shelby and Peggy discuss the sites; and participants leave with new tools for evaluating web materials as well as for assessing their students' learning. |
|