Classroom
Management Resource Page – Shindler – School Climate – PLSI – Teaching - Workshops JVS
Chapter 21: Comparing
Behavioral Assessment Systems and why Descending Levels Models (Checkmarks on
the Board and Colored Cards) are not Effective.
From Transformative Classroom Management. By John Shindler. ©Allyn Bacon
Pub.
Reproduction is unlawful without
permission
In this
Chapter
·
What is a Shame-Based Behavioral Assessment System?
·
Comparison of Shame-Based and Behavioral Quality
Assessment Systems
·
Separating the Intended from the Actual Results of
Shame-Based Behavioral Assessment Systems
·
Introduction to the Alternative: the Ascending
Levels Behavioral Assessment Rubrics
·
Behavioral Assessment Systems in the 1-Style
Classroom
Ms. Sanchez
is teaching the lesson and she looks over to see that Fede is talking to a
neighbor for the second time in the last few minutes. She stops what she is
doing and says to him publically, “Fede, you know the rule about talking, I
want you to go to the chart and move your card from green to yellow.”
Whereupon, Fede with a look of shame, walks over to the chart and moves his
card.
Mr. Reynolds
is lecturing in his class. He observes Raena talking to the student next to
her. Mr. Reynolds says to her, “Raena, I have warned you once not to talk while
I am talking.” He then walks over to the board and writes Raena’s name on it.
The scenarios above are depictions of two
common uses of public shaming behavioral systems – names on the board and
colored cards. The intention of the shame-based behavior systems is to create a
disincentive for both the student and the rest of the class by making the
offending behavior public Figure 21-A
depicts some of the common applications of shame-based or descending levels
model behavioral assessment systems.
Figure
21.A Common examples of Shame-Based Behavioral Assessment System Formats
|
Type of System |
Primary |
Colored Cards |
Names on Board |
|
Less Acceptable
- Acceptable |
|
Green Card = Okay/Acceptable Yellow Card = Minor problem/1st offense Red Card = Major problem/or 2nd offense |
No name on board = Okay/Acceptable Name on board = 1st offense ü
2nd offense = Check by name ü
more offenses = More checks |
Chapter Reflection 21-A: After reading
the scenarios at the start of the chapter, reflect on how you would feel if you
were the students in each of these situations. How would you feel immediately
after seeing your card moved or your name placed on the board? Thoughtful and
reflective about your behavior? Accountable and responsible? How about
resentful and ready to get back at the teacher?
Examining Shame-Based or “Descending Levels” Classroom
Behavior Assessment Systems
In these descending level model (e.g., public shame-based) behavioral
assessment systems, all students start with essentially a clean slate.
Symbolically this is represented by all students being placed at the top or
“acceptable” classification indicated by the green level, or the smiley face
level, or without their name appearing on the board (see Figure 21.A). This top
level represents behavior free of violations of rules or expectations. However,
when a student’s behavior violates a rule sufficiently, they drop down a level.
This lowering of their level can take the form of their name card being moved
from the green to the yellow level or their names being placed on the board, or
something similar, depending on the system’s specific features. Then, if the
behavior continues to be a problem, the prescription is for more checks to be
added beside the name on the board, or for the cards to be dropped to lower
levels (e.g., from yellow to red, or from the straight face to the frowning
face). While the appearance of each application of this type of system may
vary, they will operate in much the same way – that is with the public display
of each student’s behavioral status being represented by a level, with the
purpose of being an incentive to show appropriate behavior and a deterrent to
misbehave.
Public shame as a form of disincentive has been in
existence in some form for centuries. Societies throughout the ages have used
it in various fashions. One notable example would be the use of public stocks
in the town squares of Colonial America, where the offending party would be
placed with head and hands locked into the wooden stocks, to be mocked by
passers-by. The convict’s crime would be posted so that others would know what
he or she had done and could therefore better express their shame and
disappointment in the person’s behavior. While placing a student’s name on
board is not quite as physically painful or dramatic as the use of stocks, the
purpose and the effect of it are essentially the same.
Chapter Reflection 21-b Stocks of Colonial America are often depicted in the media. Typically
the person in the stocks is depicted as a chronic law breaker or the “town
fool.” Would you guess that this is an accurate representation of those who did
find their way into these stocks? What does this imply about the use of shame-based
systems in schools? Would you expect to see the same kind of perpetual offender
when these systems are used in the classroom?
Examining the Effectiveness of Shame as a Behavioral Modifier
Public shaming or shaming of any kind would best be
classified as a punishment rather than a consequence (see Chapter 10). It is an
extrinsic and pain-based strategy that is intended to give discomfort to the
rule breaker. As with any punishment, shame can potentially have a short-term
effect of discouraging a person from behaving in a certain way. However, as
with any punishment, it will have at best a very weak long-term impact on
reducing unwanted behavior, and more likely a negative long-term effect in
terms of bringing about behavior change (
Alternatives to Descending Levels Models
Many teachers are drawn to behavioral assessment
systems or encouraged to use them by others in their school. This is
understandable; there are many compelling reasons why behavioral assessment
systems are attractive, including the following:
Ø
They can help clarify
expectations in a very concrete manner.
Ø
They can provide feedback to students
as to the level of quality of their behavior, relative to an ideal.
Ø
They can provide a mechanism for
whole class reflection related to the quality of behavior being demonstrated
(e.g., “how would we assess ourselves right now?”).
The shame-based descending levels types of systems
are only one of the possible types of behavioral assessment system. There are
more effective alternatives. One such alternative system will be explored
briefly in this chapter, and then later in more detail in Chapter 22. It uses
an “ascending levels of quality” rubric to assess behavior. The behavioral
focus of these systems can be defined generally or focused more specifically on
a particular area (e.g., participation, process investment, cooperation, lab
work, effort, etc.). This system is different in that it is posted publically,
but the assessment information related to the level of each student’s behavior
is communicated privately. As one examines the sample rubric for individual
cooperation during group work, depicted in Figure 21.B, one of the system’s
defining characteristics should be apparent -- each of the levels within its
rubric are clearly defined in specific behavioral language.
Figure 21.B: Sample Ascending Levels Assessment System
Rubric for Cooperation as Part of an Overall Assessment of Participation During
Group Work
|
|
Cooperation |
Level 3
|
Cooperates
consistently with the other group members. Shares ideas and materials. Takes her/his
turn talking. Listens to others and expects to be listened to. Performs
his/her role in the group. |
|
Level 2 |
Cooperates with the
other group members. Usually takes her/his turn talking. Usually performs
his/her role in the group |
|
Level 1 |
Cooperates with the
other group members. Usually takes her/his turn talking. |
|
Level 0 |
Did not make the
effort to be cooperative this day. |
Comparison of the Two Behavioral Assessment System Designs
When we compare typical public descending levels
behavioral assessment systems to an ascending levels of quality
behavioral assessment system we find a great number of areas in which they
differ, including their: a) structure, b) function, c) intention and d) the
effects each will produce with students. The differences in the two kinds of
systems will become more profound as we examine each of these areas
independently.
Structural Difference
The structural design of these two kinds of
behavioral systems are 180 degrees from one another. They are both conceptually
depicted as behavioral rubrics, however, where the ascending levels rubric
progresses upward, the descending levels rubric progresses downward. The
conceptual design of the rubric for each system is contrasted in Figure 21.C
below.
Figure 21.C: Descending Levels Model Rubric Structure – Used in Public Shame-based Behavioral Systems.
Ascending Levels of Behavior Rubric – Used in Behavioral Quality Assessment Systems
So what difference does it make which direction the rubric
faces? It makes a great deal of difference. One of the defining characteristics
of a rubric is that it encourages behavior to develop toward its open end.
Therefore, when we use an ascending levels of behavior rubric to assess student
performance, we find that the quality of work improves over time as it
increasingly moves to the most clearly defined end (Shindler, 2002). In the
ascending levels rubric, the open and most clearly defined level is at the top,
whereas the open and most clearly defined end of the descending levels
conceptual design used in public behavioral assessment systems is at the
bottom. In each case, we find a great deal of practical and psychological
incentive to exhibit behavior that is defined by the level at the open end of
the rubric.
Chapter Reflection 21-c: If the examination of rubric
structures seems somewhat abstract or academic, it may be useful to do a simple
exercise. Look closely at each of the two rubric designs in Figure 21.C for 15
or 20 seconds. Where do you find your eyes going when you looked at each
rubric? What direction do you read each? What does this imply about what is
emphasized in each type of behavioral assessment system?
Functional
Difference
When we compare each rubric structure we can see
that “adequate level” behavior is located in distinctly different places. In
the descending levels systems, it is at the pinnacle, whereas in the ascending
levels assessment system it is near the bottom. Therefore the conceptual as
well as practical the upper levels of the rubric are defined by purposeful and
intentional behavior, not by simply avoiding being a problem. The implication
of this feature is that “doing okay” is not the goal. It is the minimum. On
principle, the ascending levels system assumes that any behavioral assessment
system should contribute to progressively better behavior over time, rather
than simply representing levels of behavior symbolically.
Another significant difference between the two
types of systems is how they function to correct misbehavior. In the
shame-based descending levels system, the public act of being shamed and the
symbolic act of having to move one’s card, acts as the primary punishment for
the misbehavior. Actual meaningful consequences for the misbehavior may or may
not be involved. Contrastingly, in the ascending levels system, consequences
are separate from the assessment of behavior. Often the student who performs at
the “0 level” will earn a consequence, but the assessment and the delivery of
the consequence are separate. Misbehavior is not given a public (symbolic)
punishment, but is given a meaningful, logical and related consequence in
private.
Differences
in Intention: Examining the Use of the Public and the Private
Another significant difference between each type of system
relates to how it incorporates the public and the private display of
information. The intention of the public shame-based behavioral system is to
create a public disincentive to misbehave. Therefore it requires all assessment
of behavior to be made publically. In the ascending levels of quality
behavioral assessment system, all assessment is done privately. However, in the
ascending level of quality systems, the information that will lead to higher
quality behavior is made public (e.g., the rubric is posted, discussed, and
reviewed regularly). One of the important features of these systems is their
clear definition of what “quality behavior” looks like. In the descending
levels systems, the definition of quality behavior is usually vague, invisible
and known only to the teacher. So in many cases, the offending student can be
absolutely certain that they did something wrong (they see their card being
moved to a lower level) but they may not be entirely sure as to why, or what
the more desirable behavior would have been and therefore cannot know how to
improve.
Figure 21.D: Comparison of Public Shame-based Deficit Model Behavioral
Assessment Systems vs. Ascending Quality Behavioral Assessment Rubric Systems.
|
|
Public Shame/Deficit
Models Systems |
Behavioral
Assessment/Ascending Quality Model Systems |
|
Public Aspect |
Public display of behavioral
level as a means to publically shame the offending student and deter other
students from misbehavior. |
Rubric depicting levels of
quality behavior or participation as a means of providing information and
concreteness to the concept “quality” participation, behavior, process, etc. |
|
Private Aspect |
Reinforcement of the problem.
Teacher explains that the student has done something to warrant the symbolic
change in their status within the system. Teacher may or may not take action
or attempt to get to the root of the problem. |
Teacher provides the students regular
and unrestricted access to their participation grades, and follows up with
students to explain why specific marks were given, both high and low. |
|
Consequence |
A symbolic action intended to
be a punishment; therefore no real meaningful or logical consequence is
given, however, may potentially be given corresponding to the symbolic act. |
Student’s grade is affected by
the quality of their participation. If there is behavior that violates the
social contract a logical and related consequence is given. |
|
Motivation |
Motivates students to avoid the
teacher, avoid being seen, and to find ways to get back at the teacher,
and/or to save face. |
Motivates students to attempt
ever-higher levels of quality behavior/participation. |
|
Basic Ingredients |
Places focus on the students as
persons rather than on a student’s behavior/misbehavior. Pain-based logic (assumes if we
give the student enough pain in the form of shame and guilt, it will change
behavior). Public embarrassment (assumes
humiliation will lead to behavior change). Assumes the student has the
basic desire to be seen as “good.” |
Places focus on the behaviors
that will lead to higher levels of function rather than the student as a
person. Operationalizes the concepts related
to quality behavior, process investment and participation. Uses numbers and grading to
give student a quantifiable understanding of how they are doing. |
|
Long-term Effects |
Undermines the cause-and-effect
relationship between student’s actions and consequences, by placing a
practically and emotionally confusing symbolic representation between the
student’s choice and any meaningful consequence. |
Clarifies the conceptual terms that
are commonly used to define quality behavior/participation. Helps students
see areas where they could improve. |
|
Locus of Control |
Like any punishment, the locus
of control in these systems is largely with the teacher (i.e., external).
They make the decision when the card needs to change or the name needs to go
on the board. |
Given the clarity of the
definition for “quality behavior” and the fact that all behavior within the
rubric is possible and can be performed by any student, the locus of control
is largely with the student (i.e., internal). |
Much of the attraction of the shame-based behavioral systems
is that on some level they should “work.”
Shame should be a deterrent and
student should not want to have their
cards placed at the lower levels or have their names on the board. As a result,
many teachers are attracted to these kinds of systems. And in a sense, the
systems do work to some degree. It is likely that there are readers who are
thinking to themselves “but (these systems) do work! I have seen them work.”
For these readers, they have observed a teacher use such a system or have used
one themselves and concluded that what they observed was an effective system.
But what may appear on the surface as effectiveness is usually a misperception
or a misattribution of what is working, and very often masks a deeper set of
undesirable consequences.
Take the Challenge: Do your Own Action Research
If you are tempted to incorporate a shame-based system, you
might consider doing some personal action research and challenge yourself to
take a deeper examination of the long-term effects of these systems. Observe a
class over a long period of time in which the teacher uses a deficit system,
and keep track of what you observe as the year progresses. Afterward, given
what you have discovered, answer the following questions:
- Did you observe the overall
sense of motivation to behave well in the class get better or worse over
time (as a result of the system)?
- Did you find that the system
motivated the students who were already inclined to behave well?
- Did you observe the behavior
of the students that had to move their card (or had their name put on the
board) improve fundamentally, or did you see the same names on the board,
or cards on the yellow level throughout the year?
- Did you find that it brought
more positive or negative energy into the class?
As you begin to reflect on these questions you will better
recognize the potential limitations and drawbacks of public shame-based behavioral
assessment systems. When using these systems we may experience an initial sense
on a day-to-day level that something is getting better. We may feel our system
is effective as we watch the students go to the wall and change their card from
green to yellow, and see the repentant looks on their faces and see the
cautionary message that it sends to the other students. Understandably, we
might feel like we are doing something active to repair the behavioral problems
in our class. Moreover, when one has committed to a system there is a tendency
to want it to work and to want to interpret any shift as improvement. But very
often teachers who have committed to the use of shame-based public behavioral
assessment systems lose sight of the long-term trends occurring in their
classes. Like any short-term fix, these strategies may appear effective in the
moment, but the reality is that most often the problems just come back later.
When we use these systems, the reality is that we are slowly getting less
healthy and functional as a class and their use is actually systematically
promoting the unwanted behavior in a way that will inevitably see it increase.
Chapter Reflection 21-d: To better understand how something that
seems to work in the short-term can be counterproductive in the long-term, it
might help to use the analogy from another domain -- physiology. Like other
pain-based strategies, the shame-based behavioral systems work like short-term
acting drugs such as pain killers. If one has a headache, taking a pain killer
will usually work to relieve the pain, but if nothing is done to remedy the
underlying cause of the pain, it will come back, and usually to a worse degree.
If one continues to take pain killers in response to the feeling of a headache,
one will need to take more and more pain killers. Just like using pain killers
to fix a fundamental physical or psychological problem, using shame-based
deficit models will create an addiction to the short-term remedy. Once the
teacher has become dependent on such a system, they continue to use it out of
habit and dependency, and because it has an effect in the short-term, they come
to believe they need to continue to use it, and that it will eventually solve
the problem. In many cases, these teachers lose perspective. Ignoring the
evidence that the behavior in the classroom not getting better (because the
underlying causes of the problem behavior still exist), futilely they continue
to rely on their shame-based systems to get results. Does this analogy (i.e.,
pain drugs as a parallel to colored card systems) seem valid to you? Can you
think of other educational and non-educational examples that illustrate the
same principle?
It is the case that some teachers use shame-based behavioral
assessment systems and correspondingly there is an increase in the level of
responsibility and the quality of behavior. The temptation is for the teacher
and other observers to relate the two – better behavior and the use of the system.
But if we take a closer look at these teachers’ classes we will likely see a
whole series of other factors and concurrently applied effective strategies
that are contributing to the improvement. What may be inaccurately attributed
to the use of the system to (i.e., a more responsible student) is in fact
related to other variables (i.e., the effect of the teacher’s interest in the
students’ behavior, the effect of the teacher’s attention, the student becoming
more mature and less in need to the negative attention, etc.).
Comparing the Intended Effects of the Shame-Based Systems on Students to Actual Effects
To better understand the reasons that shame-based behavioral
systems are less effective at achieving their intended effects, and how they
can actually be counterproductive in many ways, it may be useful to take a
closer examination of how they operate when applied in the classroom. Outlined
below is a series of actions common to shame-based systems, and a comparison of
their intended effects to a predictable result.
Action: Card is Moved from Green to Yellow (or Name Goes on
the Board):
Rationale/Intended Outcome
The student wants to be seen as a well-behaved student.
Therefore, when they misbehave seeing their name being written on the board (or
their card being moved) would therefore be a concrete reminder that they had
made a poor behavioral choice. Consequently, in the future they will avoid such
a behavior because their desire would be to stay off the board (or at the green
level) and so be identified by the other students, the teacher and themselves
as a good student.
The Probable Actuality
Students have many basic human needs including control,
love, and competence (recall Ch. 7). If the student misbehaves and their name
is written on the board, they have just been separated and recognized, which on
one level will meet some of their fundamental needs. Therefore, the overall
experience may initially be confusing for first time offenders. On the one
hand, there is a likely sense of shame. But, on the other hand, to some extent
the student will recognize that they have just being given attention. Moreover,
when they reflect on the situation, they realize that they are largely in
control of obtaining this attention, because they have the power to act in ways
that will get their name on the board (or card changed) any time they feel the
need. This attention likely meets the need for love and belonging as well as
competence, because being “someone” and being recognized feels good. It could
be said that there is neither good attention nor bad attention when it is
processed by the unconscious mind. Most forms of attention feel better than no
attention at all.
For the repeat offender who begins to recognize that when
their name goes on the board, they soon have to merely tolerate a temporary
sense of public embarrassment. As they quickly realize, a name on the board is
not a meaningful consequence. It is purely symbolic. Therefore, with each
offense the student will likely become increasingly immune to the shame or the
symbolic punishment, and may even find an increasing level of satisfaction with
the attention. Simply put, they eventually come to know the score -- they will
pay no meaningful price, and the need for power, love and a sense of competence
will be met and the temporary shame will be found endurable. And as we
discussed in Chapter 16, if the student exhibits a negative identity pattern
(which is very likely if they are repeatedly acting out), then the shame is
actually working to reinforce the negative behavioral cycle and increase the
likelihood of more misbehavior in the future.
Chapter Reflection 21-e: In your experience have you known a
student who seemed to enjoy being singled out for misbehavior? If you were that
student, how would you view the threat of having your name written on the board
or having your card lowered? Would you see it as a punishment or a kind of
reward?
Action: Card is Moved from Yellow to Red (or More Checks are
Placed Next to the Student’s Name)
Rationale/Intended Outcome
As the student sees their card move from Yellow to Red, they
know that they are in serious trouble. This might mean they are close to going
to the Principal’s office, or staying after school. In addition, the level of
public embarrassment increases. The student and the whole class can clearly see
that he/she is at the significant “bad behavior” level.
The Probable Actuality
If a student has become accustomed to having their name on
the board or seeing their card lowered to yellow, the amount of shame that a
student will feel moving down one more level is not going to be significant. It
may look like a meaningful jump, but while the symbolic drop is one whole
additional unit, the experience on the part of the student will not be proportionate.
In fact, if the student has become comfortable with the attention and
recognition that having a card at the yellow level offered, moving to the red
level will likely provide more of the same avenues toward basic need
satisfaction. Viewed within the lens of the negative identity pattern, it is
very likely that if a student continues to have their name on the board or card
at red, they are developing an identity around being the “trouble maker.” For
many students, they reason that if one cannot be the “best,” then it makes
sense to be the “best worst.” In a descending levels structure, only the worst
behavior is rewarded with a prominent display of the names of the students who
accomplished it. Being placed at level red provides the student free advertising
and makes their job easier if they are out to promote their reputation as the
“best worst.”
Event: Students in the Class Observe Another Student’s Cards
Moved (or His/Her Name Put On the Board)
Rationale/Intended Outcome
Given the social/indirect learning mechanism, students can
learn lessons without having to experience them directly (see Chapter 5).
Therefore, when students observe a student whose name is put on the board (or
card moved), they gain a concrete reminder of the kind of behavior that is not
acceptable in the class. In addition, they witness another case of a student
who is being publicly shamed as a result of their actions. This creates a
disincentive to follow in that student’s footsteps, and an incentive not to
misbehave.
The Probable Actuality
First,
while some students may consider the reasoning above and take away a cautionary
message, these are likely the students who seldom consider misbehaving in the
first place. Second, students are in fact learning lessons indirectly without
having to have experienced the fate of the offending student personally. While
lessons are certainly being learned indirectly, they may not be those that are
intended. One powerful observation that students will make is that on a
symbolic level the teacher’s actions are meant to dissuade bad behavior, but on
a practical level they recognize that the teacher is giving public attention to
the student who is misbehaving, and taking time away from them and the other
students who are on task. While few students consciously think, “I want
attention, so therefore I will also misbehave,” the unconscious message is
reinforced – “In this class the attention and the public recognition are given
to the students who misbehave.” One of the principles of behavior modification
states that that which gets reinforced will be repeated. One might question the
reasoning that suggests that getting one’s name on the board is reinforcing.
However, revisit the idea of basic needs. It is certainly not an either/or proposition
in the minds of the students: “Do I try to get attention or do I avoid shame?”
However, both goals will warrant consideration in the students’ decision-making
processes. When one considers the basic needs (e.g., power, fun, competence,
freedom, love/belonging) that can potentially be met by the attention afforded
by getting one’s name on the board versus the basic needs that are met by
staying clear of trouble and off the board, the choice may not be as simple as
the logic of the shame-based behavioral assessment system assumes.
What do Students Learn
about the Teacher from this Event?
Within
the shame-based model, the intended lesson that other students learn from the incidents
in which the teacher has moved another student’s card is that, “If you
misbehave, the teacher will change your card,” because that is their job. This
lesson may be one of those learned, but there are liable to be many other
lessons being learned as well. First, the students learn that the teacher uses
shame to modify behavior. This may seem obvious and implicit. However, when a
student perceives a teacher as an instrument of shame (i.e., pain), they will
tend to fear that person and even assign them hostile traits. If our goal is to
create a sense of belonging and a safe emotional climate, being viewed as an
instrument of shame and pain (even if it is sanctioned by our behavioral
system) will work against this goal. Second, after observing the event and
analyzing its essence, students will conclude on some level that what happens
when someone misbehaves is that a symbolic punishment is given (their card is
moved, and they are publically shamed), but no meaningful consequence occurs.
So while few of our students would ever accuse us of being “passive
aggressive,” when we use public shame, they will probably feel that we have
been. Moreover, our actions send the message that we are too lazy to provide a
meaningful related consequence or take any action that will fundamentally solve
the problem.
Chapter Reflection 21-f: If our goal is to build a
relationship with our students that is defined by faith, loyalty and respect,
what effect would our act of public shaming have on that relationship? Imagine that
you are a student in the class. Maybe your sense of confidence is a bit
fragile. So when you are involved in a task, you are often tempted to act out
instead of being conscious of feeling incompetent. Therefore you rely a great
deal on the teacher to encourage you and make you feel like you can do it. Now
imagine if the teacher had just publically shamed you (or another student for
that matter), do you have the same level of trust and sense of emotional
safety? What did that event do to your relationship with the teacher?
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot be sure what students
are thinking and what thoughts are motivating their actions, but we can observe
behavior. What may seem like a sound rationale for using such deficit model systems such as those
incorporating names on the board and colored cards is exposed when we examine
the actual practical and psychological effects of the use of such systems on
student behavior. Moreover, because the structure and function of these systems
is only designed to dissuade misbehavior they are incapable of promoting
higher-quality behavior. The best one can do in a descending levels system
design is “okay” – or to stay out of trouble. When we contrast the effect of an
ascending levels design, we find that one clear advantage is that it has the
effect of promoting a higher quality of the behavior defined in the rubric.
Chapter Reflection 21-g: Some schools use strategies such as
“Detention cards” and other symbolic indicators that are given to students who
misbehave (e.g., so many detention cards leads eventually to a detention). If
we reflect on the purpose of these systems, we find that they operate much like
descending levels behavioral assessment systems. When a student breaks a rule,
instead of producing an active meaningful consequence that is logically related
to the misbehavior, and intended to help the student learn greater levels of
responsibility, the prescription is for a symbolic, passive public-shaming
device, intended to make the student feel guilty for their actions. As you
reflect on the effectiveness of shame-based systems such as colored cards,
would you expect a system that features detention cards to be any more
effective at reducing misbehavior, or for promoting more functional and
responsible behavior if used?
Examining
Ascending Levels Behavioral Quality Assessment Rubric Systems
In the next chapter, we will examine a step-by-step
procedure for creating a system to assess behavior that is characterized by the
ascending levels rubric structure. One’s system can focus on the quality of
behavior in any area that is most essential to one’s grade level, subject area
and particular needs, including process, behavior, participation, cooperation,
effort, listening, group work, or citizenship. This type of system provides the
visibility of the shame-based systems without the harmful effects. They also
have the capacity to teach as well as assess.
These systems can be tailored to any grade level. Figure
21.E represents an example of a participation assessment rubric for a High
School Science Class.
Figure
21.E Sample Group Lab Work Assessment Rubric for a High School Science Class
|
|
Procedures/Research |
Materials/Preparation |
|
Level 4 Excellent |
Roles are
executed effectively. All members have read and understand lab requirements
and features. Data collection is complete, and shows evidence of certainty in
results. Data analysis shows evidence of all group members collaborative
involvement. Hypothesis is stated when applicable. Data is displayed in an
appropriate form and clearly represented. Group members are careful to
complete one step in the process before going to the next. Group members work
together cooperatively. Each member of the group shows a high level of
investment in the process from the beginning of the period to the end. |
Materials
are treated with care. Group spends a sufficient time setting up their lab
materials before they begin activity. Group members refrain from dangerous or
careless use of the lab materials. Group members take responsibility for
other group member’s treatment of the materials. When the lab is complete all
materials are cleaned and returned to their proper place. Group members wash
their hands before leaving class. |
|
Level 3 Good |
Roles are
executed effectively. All members have read and understand lab requirements
and features. Data collection is complete. A conspicuous and devoted effort
is made at data analysis. Hypothesis is stated when applicable. Data is
displayed. Group members are careful to complete one step in the process
before going to the next. Group members attempt to work together
cooperatively. Each member of the group shows a sincere investment in the
process from the beginning of the period to the end. |
Materials
are treated with care. Group sets up their lab materials before they begin
activity. Group members refrain from dangerous of careless use of the lab
materials. When the lab is complete all materials are cleaned and returned to
their proper place. Group members wash their hands before leaving class. |