|
Main Topic(s): Rubrics & Scoring Guides (continued); assessing writing |
|
√
|
(5) Review: Principles of rubrics and scoring guides: common 6-level scale; 4 as "sufficient" (vs. proficient, vs. sufficient sample, vs. efficient rubric, which are all quite something else); to weight or not to weight?
|
|
√
|
(20) Small groups draft rubrics for non-language-related assessments (blank form): properly-tied shoes; hand-made wooden canoe paddles; making a bed (not constructing one - readying it for someone to sleep in); two groups per topic develop their rubrics in two steps, with comparisons after each step: 1) determination of features to be assessed; (intermezzo: function and content/context, and only THEN accuracy); 2) some level descriptors for some features.
|
|
+
|
(20) Now some language-related rubrics / scoring guides (PSU First-Year German): a writing test (K10); a personalized project (introduce family); the first in-take assignment (get in touch with instructor and use some German)
|
|
-
|
(10) If time: Examples of "high-stakes" use of rubrics: Oregon University System standards and descriptors for mathematics; Portland Public Schools World Languages Standards (2006) - wonder how these compare to the new Washington math standards and assessment?
|
|
√
|
(10) More about major projects: We can entertain considerable variety in your ideas, within two large specifications: The projects have to be about language-related assessment, and they cannot be conventional term papers. Narrower specifications: 1) The project needs a focus - what are you aiming to learn / do about assessment? 2) There must be investigation of the secondary literature. 3) There must be a narrative, whether it is about what you plan to do in the way of assessment, or what you did. 4) There must be a reflective element. The project can take various exposition forms, such as: a project proposal; a grant proposal; a skeleton MA thesis proposal. Plan to have an "idea statement" (paragraph) or a request for help with an idea by Tuesday, 5 February. "Language-related assessment" can include program, curriculum, (e)textbook, student attitudes, even testbank assessment as well as straightforward language assessment. You do NOT have to carry out research with learner populations; a proposal for such research would be sufficient.
|
|
|
Coffee-break activity: self-score your Assignment 2 (ACTFL self-rating) using its scoring guide
|
|
(10) Break: Go get your coffee or your snack, but bring it back. We'll start promptly after 10 minutes, with or without you!
|
|
-
|
(20) Synthesis: rubrics and the article about math in Washington state that was the basis of Assignment 1 (newspaper article reflection). First, we debrief the article and assignment: 1) with partner, summarize your reflections (recollection of test experience, what you learned about it from reading the article, application of the article and your testing experience to language learning / teaching / testing); 2) group discussion of the article itself - many different people found (or read into the article) many different things about math curriculum and assessment in Washington state; 3) group discussion about two particularly problematic issues: "standardized test" and "teaching to the test"
|
|
√
|
(30) Now the scoring guide for the assignment, and where we go from here with the assignment:
Prefatory hypothesis: Scoring guides, as opposed to ABCDF grading and minimal feedback, tend to yield extreme reactions: greater acceptance; more complaints.
1) Rubrics / scoring guides are "criterion-referenced", and the goal is to help as many learners reach the standard as possible.
2) The standard for "4 / sufficient" is set at an ambitious but attainable, and then the learners are held to that standard. While many learners will be able to reach the standard, whether quickly or eventually, the learning and assessing are not transformed into "norm-referenced" to yield a bell-curve distribution and then perhaps "dumbed down" to keep the clients happy even though they are not learning and producing much.
3) Rubrics / scoring guides strongly imply revision until the learners reach "the" standard (=4 / sufficient) or the standards which they have met for themselves (5? 6?)
4) Still, we live in a seat-time / credit-unit / ABCDF world. So what does the group think about how to transfer 654321 into ABCDF?
5) Now (link to be added after class) the 654321 = ABCDF conversion for this course (undergraduate registrants get a benefit of +.33 or a "plus" added to their base grades).
6) Specifics of revision, with group input (advisory): When (within what time period) should revision best be done? Suggestion for this revision: Put it away for a couple weeks while you learn more about assessment, and then return to it. Revisions of ANY assignment will be accepted until the FIRST class meeting of the LAST week of classes (Tuesday, 11 March).
A note for the anxious: Assignment 1 is an initial assignment, and it is a small one. It is not going to constitute more than a small part of your grade.
|
|
-
|
(10) If time: More about the FL and AL "cultures": the background and professional pursuits of the course instructors
|