I’ve been really happy since joining the SBG fan club a few years ago.
As I’ve gained experience, I’ve been able to hone my definitions of what it means to be a six, eight, or ten. Much of what happens when students sign up to do a reassessment is based on applying my experience to evaluating individual students against these definitions. I give a student a problem or two, ask him or her to talk to me about it, and based on the overall interaction, I decide where students are on that scale.
And yet, with all of that experience, I still sometimes fear that I might not be as consistent as I think I am. I’ve wondered if my mood, fatigue level, the time of day affect my assessment of that level. From a more cynical perspective, I also really really hope that past experiences with a given student, gender, nationality, and other characteristics don’t enter into the process. I don’t know how I would measure the effect of all of these to confirm these are not significant effects, if they exist at all. I don’t think I fully trust myself to be truly unbiased, as well intentioned and unbiased as I might try to be or think I am.
Before the winter break, I came up with a new way to look at the problem. If I can define what demonstrated characteristics should matter for assessing a student’s level, and test myself to decide how I would respond to different arrangements of those characteristics, I might have a way to better define this for myself, and more importantly, communicate those to my students.
I determined the following to be the parameters I use to decide where a student is on my scale based on a given reassessment session:
- A student’s previously assessed level. This is an indicator of past performance. With measurement error and a whole host of other factors affecting the connection between this level and where a student actually is at any given time, I don’t think this is necessarily the most important. It is, in reality, information that I use to decide what type of question to give a student, and as such, is usually my starting point.
- The difficulty of the question(s). A student that really struggled on the first assessment is not going to get a high level synthesis question. A student at the upper end of the scale is going to get a question that requires transfer and understanding. I think this is probably the most obvious out of the factors I’m listing here.
- Conceptual errors made by the student during the reassessment. In the context of the previous two, this is key in whether a student should (or should not) advance. Is a conceptual error in the context of basic skills the same as one of application of those skills? These apply differently at a level six versus a level eight. I know this effect when I see it and feel pretty confident in my ability to identify one or more of these errors.
- Arithmetic/Sign errors and Algebraic errors. I consider these separately when I look at a student’s work. Using a calculator appropriately to check arithmetic is something students should be able to do. Deciding to do this when calculations don’t make sense is a sign of a more skilled student in comparison to one that does not. Observing these errors is routinely something I identify as a barrier to advancement, but not necessarily in decreasing a student’s level.
There are, of course, other factors to consider. I decided to settle on the ones mentioned above for the next steps of my winter break project.
I’ll share how I moved forward on this in my next post in the series.