Evidence-Based Grades
By Dean Bradshaw, Communication Arts
In many districts across the country, standards based grading or evidence-based reporting (EBR) has become the new standard (forgive the pun) in student assessment. Not surprisingly, the standards many teachers are being asked to use in this new assessment model are the CCSS.
Teachers in departments and districts across the country as well as Stevenson may bemoan this change as they are required to redesign curricula and retool their feedback. While not pain-free, the transition to an EBR class can go smoothly if we set our terms and try to connect with the valuable and authentic parts of these sets of curriculum standards - whether CCSS or others.
I recently transitioned my three journalism classes (basic writing, advanced journalism, and production) to an EBR model based on the CCSS. While there were a few bumps, I feel it’s an authentic way to assess my students as they progress in journalism. While every classroom is unique and each teacher has her or his own pedagogy, I hope the model of how I transitioned and the examples of how I have integrated the CCSS into my journalism classroom are helpful.
The first hurdle to be addressed is identifying your course’s existing targets and understanding the standards you will be asked to use. Basically it comes down to time spent looking at your existing course objectives and rubrics and then closely studying the district’s standards. I based my EBR on the three strands of literacy in CCSS: reading, writing, and speaking/listening.
SPEAKING/LISTENING
Starting with the last strand first due to its ease of adoption, we all know that speaking and listening are the cornerstones within any working classroom environment. From discussions to formal presentations, from group work during design nights to debates, our classrooms crackle with energetic speaking and listening. EBR requires us to assess it and provide feedback to our students. It may seem like a time-consuming additional responsibility or an artificial assessment, but I don’t think it needs to be.
Our work within the speaking/listening standards can vary from basic classwork to more advanced projects or assignments. In my basic course, students have weekly current event discussions where I can (using tally marks) quickly assess their preparation (CCSS.SL.1.a-b). It is quite simple to move a whole-class discussion on some news item to a small group presentation of a news article they found compelling (CCSS.SL.1a and 3-4). This can allow for greater feedback related to their command of language or their ability to collaborate during discussion. These presentations can then become a research-based project or presentation about a specific topic or a historical journalism figure or trend. I can now assess students’ ability to use researched material in their discussions (CCSS.SL.4).
Speaking/listening can be assessed in more complex or ambitious projects as well. With my advanced class, I assess student speaking and listening during editorial meetings as the staff shares their ideas in constructing staff editorials (CCSS.SL.1-4). I can also assess their work based notes or audio of their interviews as reporters. Identifying missed opportunities for follow-up questions is valuable information for any young reporter; it is also directly connected to CCSS.SL.1.c: “posing and responding to questions that probe.”
While the assessing and record-keeping of this trait adds to our workload, I find that it more closely focuses both my planning and instruction. Speaking and listening are no longer tacked on aspects to a project; they are now explicit learning outcomes to be assessed. Similarly, I have identified more quickly and efficiently any deficits in individual students as well as the class as a whole in these skills.
WRITING
Writing as both a skill and a strand to be assessed has a more complex relationship to CCSS because the connections may not be as clear. With a bit of flexibility in our thinking, we can connect our writing rubrics to the CCSS and maintain integrity of both - as well as keeping them valuable to our students.
In many courses across the school, writing resides in the informative/explanatory writing standards (CCSS.W.2). The editing and revising process in our classrooms connects to CCSS standards 4 and 5. With a more creative outlook, students can work on blogs and social media news (CCSS.W.6). Student writing is a product of their reporting/research and this can be seen in standards 7 and 8 that relate to research projects and the use of multiple sources. As my journalistic writing students move through the different sections of a paper - writing news, features, opinion, and sport, I can focus my feedback on their ability to write in different styles for different audiences (CCSS.W.10). This kind of variety in writing formats and for different audiences is suitable for almost any course.
Writing feedback in this case can be confused if too much CCSS language is used on a rubric versus the vocabulary
used in instruction. Particular attention must be paid to connecting these somewhat complex, education-speak standards with what that skill looks like in course-specific writing. I will address this more explicitly later in this article.
READING
In most disciplines, the ability to assess reading progress can be determined through reading quizzes or similar assessments. Though these kind of assessments can be valuable, I think we can find valuable and authentic connections that are even more instructive.
Of course just reading and discussing most content meets the Information Text standard 10. I try to focus their reading into a written response. My beginning journalists are required to read and respond to a news story each week. They start by identifying the different components of news writing (CCSS.RI.1-2, 5). After several weeks, they begin to deconstruct the story and actually critique the reporter (CCSS.RI.3-9). Similar tasks that scaffold skills and reflect growing complexity of text or task would be a great addition to any course.
As I looked at my more advanced journalism students and newspaper staff, a second and less obvious journalism skill connected to the reading strand is our editing process. From staff editing for publication to peer editing for class work, students are reading informational texts with a critical eye. I ask my students to keep careful notes which are given to me after the reporter makes the edits. These editing notes serve as another way for me to give feedback to my editors as well as monitor their progress towards the CCSS standards for reading. Peer editing each other’s work or annotating course readings could give us another way to measure the reading strand.
SUMMARY
Though this may sound simple, it actually took about a year of work to complete the transition. Like many course, journalism education connects to a multitude of standards under the writing, reading, and speaking/listening Common Core targets; however, it would be impossible to try to evaluate every student on them. I had to take the time to determine what were the most important standards for me, my classroom, and my program. In my courses, I have powered CCSS Speaking and Listening standards 1, 2, and 6. In writing, my focus is on CCSS Writing standards 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. In reading, the standards are CCSS Reading standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9.
The rubrics I have created for these EBR journalism classes took some trial and error, but I think they are working very well currently. Many EBR courses use the CCSS language and the revised language from above within the student rubric. This language can be confusing to a student (and me) in terms of how that trait and level looks in journalistic writing. Using my former non-EBR rubrics, I have combined the CCSS language with journalistic writing targets to help students understand what success or mastery is. For example, CCSS Writing standard 8 states, “gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.” My rubric contains that language and adds as journalistic writing descriptors, “objectivity/opinion appropriately established; transitions lead through direct and indirect quotes; quotes are relevant, important, and accurate.” I feel I serve both masters (CCSS and journalism) by using both in my student rubrics.
Weekly, my students have several opportunities to demonstrate their progress towards mastery in different CCSS standards. This is the definition of an EBR course. More importantly, they also understand what those standards look like in the journalism we write, read, and discuss. And most importantly, they are given chances to practice, revise, and edit in their pursuit of the highest standards of my course.
What else can any teacher hope for?
Teachers in departments and districts across the country as well as Stevenson may bemoan this change as they are required to redesign curricula and retool their feedback. While not pain-free, the transition to an EBR class can go smoothly if we set our terms and try to connect with the valuable and authentic parts of these sets of curriculum standards - whether CCSS or others.
I recently transitioned my three journalism classes (basic writing, advanced journalism, and production) to an EBR model based on the CCSS. While there were a few bumps, I feel it’s an authentic way to assess my students as they progress in journalism. While every classroom is unique and each teacher has her or his own pedagogy, I hope the model of how I transitioned and the examples of how I have integrated the CCSS into my journalism classroom are helpful.
The first hurdle to be addressed is identifying your course’s existing targets and understanding the standards you will be asked to use. Basically it comes down to time spent looking at your existing course objectives and rubrics and then closely studying the district’s standards. I based my EBR on the three strands of literacy in CCSS: reading, writing, and speaking/listening.
SPEAKING/LISTENING
Starting with the last strand first due to its ease of adoption, we all know that speaking and listening are the cornerstones within any working classroom environment. From discussions to formal presentations, from group work during design nights to debates, our classrooms crackle with energetic speaking and listening. EBR requires us to assess it and provide feedback to our students. It may seem like a time-consuming additional responsibility or an artificial assessment, but I don’t think it needs to be.
Our work within the speaking/listening standards can vary from basic classwork to more advanced projects or assignments. In my basic course, students have weekly current event discussions where I can (using tally marks) quickly assess their preparation (CCSS.SL.1.a-b). It is quite simple to move a whole-class discussion on some news item to a small group presentation of a news article they found compelling (CCSS.SL.1a and 3-4). This can allow for greater feedback related to their command of language or their ability to collaborate during discussion. These presentations can then become a research-based project or presentation about a specific topic or a historical journalism figure or trend. I can now assess students’ ability to use researched material in their discussions (CCSS.SL.4).
Speaking/listening can be assessed in more complex or ambitious projects as well. With my advanced class, I assess student speaking and listening during editorial meetings as the staff shares their ideas in constructing staff editorials (CCSS.SL.1-4). I can also assess their work based notes or audio of their interviews as reporters. Identifying missed opportunities for follow-up questions is valuable information for any young reporter; it is also directly connected to CCSS.SL.1.c: “posing and responding to questions that probe.”
While the assessing and record-keeping of this trait adds to our workload, I find that it more closely focuses both my planning and instruction. Speaking and listening are no longer tacked on aspects to a project; they are now explicit learning outcomes to be assessed. Similarly, I have identified more quickly and efficiently any deficits in individual students as well as the class as a whole in these skills.
WRITING
Writing as both a skill and a strand to be assessed has a more complex relationship to CCSS because the connections may not be as clear. With a bit of flexibility in our thinking, we can connect our writing rubrics to the CCSS and maintain integrity of both - as well as keeping them valuable to our students.
In many courses across the school, writing resides in the informative/explanatory writing standards (CCSS.W.2). The editing and revising process in our classrooms connects to CCSS standards 4 and 5. With a more creative outlook, students can work on blogs and social media news (CCSS.W.6). Student writing is a product of their reporting/research and this can be seen in standards 7 and 8 that relate to research projects and the use of multiple sources. As my journalistic writing students move through the different sections of a paper - writing news, features, opinion, and sport, I can focus my feedback on their ability to write in different styles for different audiences (CCSS.W.10). This kind of variety in writing formats and for different audiences is suitable for almost any course.
Writing feedback in this case can be confused if too much CCSS language is used on a rubric versus the vocabulary
used in instruction. Particular attention must be paid to connecting these somewhat complex, education-speak standards with what that skill looks like in course-specific writing. I will address this more explicitly later in this article.
READING
In most disciplines, the ability to assess reading progress can be determined through reading quizzes or similar assessments. Though these kind of assessments can be valuable, I think we can find valuable and authentic connections that are even more instructive.
Of course just reading and discussing most content meets the Information Text standard 10. I try to focus their reading into a written response. My beginning journalists are required to read and respond to a news story each week. They start by identifying the different components of news writing (CCSS.RI.1-2, 5). After several weeks, they begin to deconstruct the story and actually critique the reporter (CCSS.RI.3-9). Similar tasks that scaffold skills and reflect growing complexity of text or task would be a great addition to any course.
As I looked at my more advanced journalism students and newspaper staff, a second and less obvious journalism skill connected to the reading strand is our editing process. From staff editing for publication to peer editing for class work, students are reading informational texts with a critical eye. I ask my students to keep careful notes which are given to me after the reporter makes the edits. These editing notes serve as another way for me to give feedback to my editors as well as monitor their progress towards the CCSS standards for reading. Peer editing each other’s work or annotating course readings could give us another way to measure the reading strand.
SUMMARY
Though this may sound simple, it actually took about a year of work to complete the transition. Like many course, journalism education connects to a multitude of standards under the writing, reading, and speaking/listening Common Core targets; however, it would be impossible to try to evaluate every student on them. I had to take the time to determine what were the most important standards for me, my classroom, and my program. In my courses, I have powered CCSS Speaking and Listening standards 1, 2, and 6. In writing, my focus is on CCSS Writing standards 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8. In reading, the standards are CCSS Reading standards 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9.
The rubrics I have created for these EBR journalism classes took some trial and error, but I think they are working very well currently. Many EBR courses use the CCSS language and the revised language from above within the student rubric. This language can be confusing to a student (and me) in terms of how that trait and level looks in journalistic writing. Using my former non-EBR rubrics, I have combined the CCSS language with journalistic writing targets to help students understand what success or mastery is. For example, CCSS Writing standard 8 states, “gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding plagiarism.” My rubric contains that language and adds as journalistic writing descriptors, “objectivity/opinion appropriately established; transitions lead through direct and indirect quotes; quotes are relevant, important, and accurate.” I feel I serve both masters (CCSS and journalism) by using both in my student rubrics.
Weekly, my students have several opportunities to demonstrate their progress towards mastery in different CCSS standards. This is the definition of an EBR course. More importantly, they also understand what those standards look like in the journalism we write, read, and discuss. And most importantly, they are given chances to practice, revise, and edit in their pursuit of the highest standards of my course.
What else can any teacher hope for?