Providing Choice in Student Learning Goals

I recently started my training to get my license as a teacher.  In the orientation we were asked to write about our favorite teacher and why they were our favorite.  I chose my sixth grade teacher Mr. Walsh mostly because he was a teacher that gave us choices in his class.  For one project he asked us to research one of the lyrics in his favorite song We Didn’t Start the Fire by Billy Joel.  If you have never heard the song before, it basically lists important historical events in a catchy succession.  Looking back now, he had the foresight to let us choose, within a reasonable framework, what to research to reach our learning goal of writing a research paper.  This choice not only was one I remember to this very day, but set his place as one of my favorite teachers.

Choice is a powerful tool in the classroom and can help us overcome two major challenges in setting learning goals.  In his book Learning to Choose, Choosing to Learn Mike Anderson (2016) lays out those two major challenges: differentiation and apathy.  Let’s take a look at setting learning goals through these two lenses with the idea that students can and should set their own.

First let’s talk about differentiation when setting learning goals.  I think that we can all agree that as a teacher, the idea of sitting and writing a specific learning goal for each student in our classes accounting for differentiation is literally a nightmare.  Like actually a nightmare. I envision me sitting at a desk in a dark room, writing and writing and never getting to see my students.  Then I wake in a cold sweat wondering if I will ever see the kids again.  Of course that is hyperbole, but it has some parts that definitely ring true.  So why not let the students take on some of the responsibility?  One of the main reasons to use choice in your class is to provide options and  have students self-differentiate (Anderson, 2016).  They need to find their Goldilocks zone for their goals; not too hard as to be frustrating and not too easy as to be boring.  This zone is also called the zone of proximal development.  When students find this “just right” zone for their goals, it makes the process of achieving that goal more enjoyable, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation and engagement (Anderson, 2016).  You can see a great visual of this in the figure borrowed from Anderson's book below.

Note. Zone of Proximal Development and Engagement reprinted from Anderson, M. (2016). Chapter 1. The Key Benefits of Choice. In Learning to Choose, Choosing to Learn. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/116015/chapters/The-Key-Benefits-of-Choice.aspx

Teaching students how to find this zone is one of our most important jobs.  The first thing we have to do is to provide students with choices in the first place.  Most good choice making comes from practice (Brenner, 2015), so we need to provide opportunities for practice in class.  Dr. Abigail Brenner (2015) also suggests five steps to teach good decision making:

• Define the decision, including the reasons to make it.

• Brainstorm the possible outcomes.

• Discuss the options and narrow them down to no more than three.

• Pick one of the three, formulate the goal and make a plan.

• Evaluate the outcome.

We can also teach the SMART Goal system by breaking it down and teaching about each step as Genia Connell (2016) suggests.  By working on each part of the goal students will be able to get in the habit of making informed choices about their own learning goals.

Let’s take a look at that second challenge, apathy.  We can see from above that when students get to choose their goals, they have a more joyful experience of learning.  The brain is more available to learning when learning is joyful and we can avoid the fight, flight, or freeze response from students when goals are boring or frustrating (Anderson, 2016).  If students make their own goals they are more likely to take ownership for them and take on the responsibility of achieving them.  Just like Mr. Walsh and his memorable research project those positive emotions associated with choice are long lasting.  Giving students opportunities to make choices about their learning goals is a great way to help them feel good about their work and thereby stay motivated in the face of apathy (Anderson, 2016).

By teaching students that they have the ability to make their own choice of goals, we are empowering them.  Empowering them not only in our classroom, but in the wider world where they will make choices everyday.  Perhaps if we provide good teaching around decision-making and goal creation, someday our students will look back at us as one of their favorite teachers.  Or much more importantly be successful in continued learning and choice making.

References

Anderson, M. (2016). Chapter 1. The Key Benefits of Choice. In Learning to Choose, Choosing to Learn. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/116015/chapters/The-Key-Benefits-of-Choice.aspx

Brenner, A., M.D. (2015, May 30). The Importance of Learning How to Make Decisions. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-flux/201505/the-importance-learning-how-make-decisions

Connell, G. (2016).  Setting (almost) SMART goals with my students. Scholastic. Retrieved from https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/blog-posts/genia-connell/setting-almost-smart-goals-my-students/

The Philosophical Battle of Creating Assessments

Who should be in charge of creating assessments for Student Learning Objectives (SLO)?  Assessments are at the heart of the SLO process and are the main gauge of student performance evaluated by educators (RSN, 2014).  Therefore, this question is of the utmost importance. There are two main schools of thought on the answer.  One is that standard assessments that have been pre approved should be used by teachers and districts to streamline validity.  The other, a more flexible approach, is that an assessment can be “...any measure that allows students to effectively demonstrate what they know and can do…” (RSN, 2014, p. 14) and can be created by teacher teams and include standardized assessments.  

Let’s look at both of these options in the framework of three important criteria for assessment as laid out by the Ohio Department of Education (2016).  These criteria are (a) Alignment to Standards, (b) Stretch, and (c) Validity and Reliability.  

First, how well do these two schools of thought fit into the need of assessments to align to standards?  This alignment to standards in an assessment would mean that items on the assessment would cover all the standards for that grade or subject, not cover standards outside of the scope of the course or grade, and distribute questions relative to the time spent on each standard (ODOE, 2016).  Pre approved or commercially constructed assessments may have the advantage here as they are inherently based on standards and have content directly based on standards either common core or state level.  However, these pre-created tests may break the last caveat in assessment selection noted above.  Since these tests are produced at a national or state level, they may include or be missing questions pertaining to standards not covered in a course or grade, thereby detracting from the validity of the test itself.

Teacher team or educator created assessments may lack the streamline connection to subject or grade as provided by pre approved tests.  In addition, if teacher teams from different districts and schools all create assessments it will be more complex to measure student growth on the macro scale at a district or state level since there will be no standardized format or list of questions.  This could also be seen as an advantage, however.  Especially in the current landscape of pandemic reconstruction, teachers will know what standards have been prioritized at district and school levels and may be able to create assessments that will better represent the actual standards that have been addressed.  Even without the facet of a pandemic this would be true.

How do these approaches align with the idea of stretch?  Stretch refers to the ability of an assessment to show the growth of the lowest and highest achieving students (ODOE, 2016).  Although many pre approved tests have this in mind, they may be less flexible in this area.  Since they are by definition standard, they may not have the questions that will show the achievement of both the highest and lowest learners.  Another consideration is that often content is not changed for students with different needs, but rather accommodations are created for those students to take the same test.  

In contrast, a teacher team built assessment may have input from teachers of those high and low students, giving the opportunity to create sections and questions that will rigorously examine growth of both groups.  The downfall to avoid here is to create a test specifically geared toward low or high learners as it skews the validity and reliability of the data collected.  Teachers input can also create an assessment that is not simply loaded with accommodations for students, but created with students in mind.

Finally, how do these models stand up to the criteria of reliability and validity?  In other terms, assessments should create consistent results and measure what they are intended to measure (ODOE, 2016).  Assessments can be evaluated for their validity and reliability on four important guideposts.  

• The assessment should not have overly complicated vocabulary, unless testing reading skills, or have overly complicated language.

• Test items should be written clearly and concisely.  Performance assessments must have clear steps.

• Clear rubrics and scoring guides should be provided, especially for performance assessments.

• Testing conditions should be consistent across classes. (ODOE, 2016).

Pre approved assessments may or may not follow these guideposts.  Many times these assessments have been created by teams that think through the wording of questions endlessly.  This does not mean that there have not been many examples of questions that were not understandable to students because of wording or even the choice of activity listed in a story problem.  Standardized assessments are often created based on majority groups that can leave some minority groups confused by wording or topic (Kim & Zabelina, 2015).  These tests can also have confusing scoring guides or may not even have rubrics since the use of standardized performance assessment is still relatively young.  They do have the distinct advantage of consistency in conditions and instructions since those are often strictly laid out.

Teacher created assessments may solve some of these problems.  Since teachers know their students, they may be able to create assessments that are manageable for students as well as avoiding culturally biased pitfalls of topics.  Rubrics can be created by teacher teams for specific performance assessment when those assessments are created.  However, the problems that may arise are lack of validity and reliability from poorly constructed tests or rubrics and guides.  Consistency of test conditions would be on the shoulders of teachers, schools, and districts to ensure that they were as standardized as possible.  Avoiding large incongruities would definitely be more work for the educators on the ground.

Overall, there are both pros and cons to each system.  A basic philosophical difference lies in the two different schools of thought on assessing for SLOs.  In the corner of pre approved assessments the philosophy is one of consistency and uniformity to gather data.  Its logic and practicality are obvious.  In the other corner, the philosophy is that of shifting power to the teachers and educators that work with students every day. Trading uniformity for the hope of deeper understanding.  John R. Troutman McCrann (2018) sums up this philosophy in one pithy comment. He says, “...it starts and ends with a very simple idea: I, the students' teacher, have expert knowledge about my students and...content standards, so I ought to have the power to assess those students' growth on those standards” (para. 5).  The issue is a complex one, but one that demands debate to ensure the students that represent that “S” in SLO achieve the most that they can.

References

Kim, K. H., & Zabelina, D. (2015). Cultural Bias in Assessment: Can Creativity Assessment Help? International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6, 129–147. Retrieved from http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/301/856#:~:text=Standardized tests intend to measure,language backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and

Ohio Department of Education (ODOE). (2016). A Guide to Using SLOs as a Locally-Determined Measure of Student Growth (Rep. No. Guidebook). Retrieved from https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System/Student-Growth-Measures/Student-Learning-Objective-Examples/SLO-Guidebook-041516.pdf.aspx

Reform Support Network (RSN). (2014). A toolkit for implementing high-quality student learning objectives 2.0. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/toolkit-implementing-learning-objectives-2-0.pdf

Troutman McCrann, J. R. (2018). Putting Assessment Back in the Hands of Teachers. Educational Leadership, 75(5), 41-45. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb18/vol75/num05/Putting-Assessment-Back-in-the-Hands-of-Teachers.aspx