Home Resources Standards Inspiration About the Author
Literature Review Problem Analysis Community
Focus/Community
The impetus for this study was the convening of an expert blended team within the Napa Valley Unified School District (a small group of practitioners made up of a mix of elementary, middle and high school administrators and teacher-leaders, and different content areas) who were charged with developing student-friendly versions of the grades 4-5, 7-8, and 11-12 EdLeader 21 rubrics and supporting materials that encourage the use of those rubrics. The initial draft form of the critical thinking rubric developed by this 4 Cs Rollout team was used in this research project.
Eight fourth and fifth grade teachers who have all been trained in and have experience integrating project-based learning were invited to share their reactions to draft rubrics for grades three through five, which was developed by a district-level blended assessment team consisting of both educators and administrators.
To begin the study, I first needed to participate in two of the Napa Valley Unified School District’s “4 Cs Rollout Team” collaboration days in the fall. This The task of this “expert team” for the first two days of collaborative work was to answer the question: What are we measuring?
Our assignment was to create user-friendly 4Cs measurement tools (refined from the Ed Leader21 rubrics) using matching “I can” targets, so that all our schools would have a similar understanding, of what each “C” looks like at each level of proficiency and the system to implement and account for mastery of these skills at each grade level. The expert team worked first as whole team aligning the work purpose and product goals, then we divided into four separate teams (one1 for each “C”). Finally, we reconvened as a whole group and engaged in a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of each team’s work. The expert team used Google Docs, Edmodo, and structured templates and tools, sharing on-line to increase productivity and model effective uses of web 2.0 tools.
Several considerations and stipulations were addressed during these two collaborative days, including: 1) the tool must be both formative (show growth within a year) and summative (show progress from year to year), 2) the tool must allow for students to show evidence of their growth towards learning targets, 3) the tool must support educators’ ability to provide targeted feedback and intervention as needed, 4) the tool must provide opportunities for student self-reflection and goal-setting, 5) the tool must be able to be used interactively inside a technology-based platform, and finally6), the tool needed to include performance indicators on a scale of 4 to “Not Yet”, which would simply imply that the student at the “Not Yet” performance level was striving to demonstrate that particular skill, but had not yet demonstrated it.
Future supporting products developed by this team when collaborative work resumes in January 2013 will seek to answer the questions: How can students use this tool? How do teachers use this tool to drive instruction? Specifically, the projected work products are as follows:
Community Contexts
Sociocultural: The unit trial was completed with 4th and 5th grade teachers at Canyon Oaks Elementary School. The school is in American Canyon, a diverse bedroom community made up of Filipino, African American, Chinese, Indian and White families. Fewer than 15% of the students in these grade levels are designated as EL.
Technical: Students have classroom access to computers on a limited basis. Neither school has a designated computer lab, but Donaldson Way teachers have iPads. Students are fairly well-versed in PowerPoint and Prezi, but not as familiar with Web 2.0 tools.
Informational: Students are moderately proficient at searching for information using technology.
Eight fourth and fifth grade teachers who have all been trained in and have experience integrating project-based learning were invited to share their reactions to draft rubrics for grades three through five, which was developed by a district-level blended assessment team consisting of both educators and administrators.
To begin the study, I first needed to participate in two of the Napa Valley Unified School District’s “4 Cs Rollout Team” collaboration days in the fall. This The task of this “expert team” for the first two days of collaborative work was to answer the question: What are we measuring?
Our assignment was to create user-friendly 4Cs measurement tools (refined from the Ed Leader21 rubrics) using matching “I can” targets, so that all our schools would have a similar understanding, of what each “C” looks like at each level of proficiency and the system to implement and account for mastery of these skills at each grade level. The expert team worked first as whole team aligning the work purpose and product goals, then we divided into four separate teams (one1 for each “C”). Finally, we reconvened as a whole group and engaged in a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) of each team’s work. The expert team used Google Docs, Edmodo, and structured templates and tools, sharing on-line to increase productivity and model effective uses of web 2.0 tools.
Several considerations and stipulations were addressed during these two collaborative days, including: 1) the tool must be both formative (show growth within a year) and summative (show progress from year to year), 2) the tool must allow for students to show evidence of their growth towards learning targets, 3) the tool must support educators’ ability to provide targeted feedback and intervention as needed, 4) the tool must provide opportunities for student self-reflection and goal-setting, 5) the tool must be able to be used interactively inside a technology-based platform, and finally6), the tool needed to include performance indicators on a scale of 4 to “Not Yet”, which would simply imply that the student at the “Not Yet” performance level was striving to demonstrate that particular skill, but had not yet demonstrated it.
Future supporting products developed by this team when collaborative work resumes in January 2013 will seek to answer the questions: How can students use this tool? How do teachers use this tool to drive instruction? Specifically, the projected work products are as follows:
- sample(s) of the rubrics as student progress charts embedded in Echo (an online grading platform used in the Napa Valley Unified School District that is specifically designed to support the grading of project-based learning assignments)
- sample(s) of formative performance tasks and feedback using the rubrics
- example(s) of rubric use and evidence/artifacts within content area learning experiences
- idea list/tip sheet for rollout at individual sites and conversations in PLCs around essential learning outcomes and assessments
Community Contexts
Sociocultural: The unit trial was completed with 4th and 5th grade teachers at Canyon Oaks Elementary School. The school is in American Canyon, a diverse bedroom community made up of Filipino, African American, Chinese, Indian and White families. Fewer than 15% of the students in these grade levels are designated as EL.
Technical: Students have classroom access to computers on a limited basis. Neither school has a designated computer lab, but Donaldson Way teachers have iPads. Students are fairly well-versed in PowerPoint and Prezi, but not as familiar with Web 2.0 tools.
Informational: Students are moderately proficient at searching for information using technology.