Grading and Proficiency-based Rubric Design

Andrea Stewart

July 29, 2019

​

​

PLC Question #1: What do we want students to know, understand, and be able to do?

​

​

Unwrapping Standards & Writing Learning Targets

​

• The complexity of a standard leaves room for variability
• The depth of rigor must be designed into every part of curriculum, instruction, feedback and assessment for alignment
• A range of learning targets across rigor levels scaffolds learning for all students
• Common processes lead to consistency for students and parents

​

​

PLC Question #2: How will we know when they’ve learned it?

​

​

Using Rubrics to Drive Learning

​

• Roadmap for learning
• Scaffolding for grouping and re-teaching
• Extension for deep cognitive engagement
• Feedback for growth
• Structure for MTSS framework and instructional decisions

PLC Questions #3 and #4: How will we respond when students aren’t learning? How will we respond when they already know it?

​

​

​

Using rubrics and learning targets to reach essential questions and other learning goals

• Backmap how the students will think, what they will know, and/or what they will do to proficiency levels that precede “proficient”/“meets”
• Extend depth of thinking/doing for “exceeds”
• Design grouping, strategies, tasks, formative assessments, and interventions based on cognitive rigor

Taxonomies of Learning

Using Depth/Complexity to Define Proficiency Levels

​

• Rubrics are built to reflect proficiency levels related to standards, not to individual tasks/assignments

​

• Greater levels of proficiency are related to deeper levels of thinking and doing to prepare students to become critical and divergent thinkers

​

Proficiency-Based Rubrics

Tier 1: Universal

Tier 2: Supplemental

Tier 3: Intensive

Sample Rubric from Original AEA ELA Units (RL.5.2)

​

​

​

​

Compare to the previous slide.

• What advantages and disadvantages might each rubric pose in the field?
• What role might learner agency play in each?

Making Learning Visible

​

“Students who can identify what they are learning significantly outscore those who cannot.”

​

~ Robert Marzano

Guiding Questions for Practice

• Does each box on the rubric include a single, measurable description?
• If a box contains sub elements, are they divided so the student receives feedback about the part that is missing?
• What does the student need to know AND how must s/he THINK to demonstrate the cognitive demands of “Meets”?
• Did we describe Tier 2 learning in “Progressing,” including skills and cognitive processes no more than one grade level below the standard? Have we made “bridge” skills and thinking explicit?
• Did we describe Tier 3 learning in “Beginning,” including knowledge, skills, and cognitive processes more than two grade levels below the standard?

Purpose of Proficiency-Based Rubrics

PLC Questions 1 and 2:

• Feedback for students regarding what they CAN DO with regard to demonstrating the standard
• Descriptions of what THINKING and DOING will help them bridge from one level to the next
• Components of learning for grouping and re-grouping during personalized approaches to scaffolding instruction
• Guidance for teachers and students during the process of learning (not just as a SUMMATIVE measure of student learning)

Develop an argument to show how a species has changed over time due to environmental and human factors by investigating multiple sources of evidence about evolution to show that science is founded on evidence but does not, by itself, provide answers and solutions to ethical issues.

​

Canopy (Competency)

Ribs (Standards)

Handle (Transfer)

HS-LS4-1 Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.

HS-LS4-2 Construct an explanation based on evidence that the process of evolution primarily results from four factors: (1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the heritable genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for limited resources, and (4) the proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in the environment

HS-LS4-3 Apply concepts of statistics and probability to support explanations that organisms with an advantageous heritable trait tend to increase in proportion to organisms lacking this trait.

HS-LS4-4 Construct an explanation based on evidence for how natural selection leads to adaptation of populations.

HS-LS4-5 Evaluate the evidence supporting claims that changes in environmental conditions may result in: (1) increases in the number of individuals of some species, (2) the emergence of new species over time, and (3) the extinction of other species.

HS-LS4-6 Create or revise a simulation to test a solution to mitigate adverse impacts of human activity on biodiversity.

HS-LS2-7 Design, evaluate, and refine a solution for reducing the impacts of human activities on the environment and biodiversity

HS-LS4-2

HS-LS4-1

Develop an argument to show how a species has changed over time due to environmental and human factors by investigating multiple sources of evidence about evolution to show that science is founded on evidence but does not, by itself, provide answers and solutions to ethical issues.

Conceptual understanding:

What learners will do

How they will do it

Why it matters

High School Biology Competency

Learning can be used where and when it is necessary

HS-LS4-3

HS-LS4-4

Canopy

Ribs

Handle/Transfer

Demonstrated proficiency of 4 ELA competencies and their nested ELA standards per year

one unit of high school ELA credit

Example Framework: 11th Grade ELA Demonstration of Competency for Course Credit

Competencies ensure:

• student agency
• conceptual understanding
• transfer of learning
• cross-disciplinary connections
• DOK 3 & 4
• college- & career-ready cognitive skills & learning/engagement strategies

​

​

​

Ensure transfer is designed into the criteria for proficiency.

Weigh the advantages of including possible design routes for students and teachers.

​

​

​

Capitalize on connections across disciplines.

​

Provide scaffolding for differentiated supports.

​

Consider advantages at different levels of explicitly aligning skill or disposition frameworks.

​

​

​

​

Build relevance into the scoring guide when possible.

Capitalize on connections across disciplines.

Connect and Launch

​

​

Andrea Stewart, Director

Phone: (563) 344-6371�Cell: (563) 260-5346�astewart@mbaea.org

Twitter @TheCenter_Iowa �#IACompEd

​

bit.ly/TheCenter_Iowa

​

First workshop: October 21 and 22 at Mississippi Bend AEA in Bettendorf, IA