Classroom Management Main Page - EDEL 414 - EDSE 415 – School
Climate – PLSI
Improving Classroom Climate and
Student
Achievement by Formally Assessing Student Participation
By John Shindler, CSULA 2001
Online Classroom
Climate Survey
Many of us who teach give some
formal grade to the quality of our students’ class participation. It might be called group work, citizenship,
lab, or behavior, but it comes down to essentially the same thing, that is,
assessing the quality of a student’s non-academic performance with a subjective
criteria. Richard Stiggins (1997)
suggests, “In one sense using observations and judgments as the basis for
evaluating student dispositions is a practice as old as humankind. In another sense, it is an idea that has
barely been tried.” It might be said
that few of us approach this practice as thoughtfully and intentionally as it
requires. While, when approached systematically, assessing the process-related
behaviors related to a student’s overall performance can help foster a
psychological orientation toward
success, when used haphazardly, this practice can be just another instrument of
favoritism and bias.
On
the one hand, with a sound, well-defined, systematic, student-driven procedure
that is reliable in the minds of both teacher and students, assessing
“participation” has the capacity to make problem students good students and
good students into leaders. Assessing
100% student-owned behaviors promotes a sense of internal locus control within
our students and consequently more self-esteem (Benham, 1993; Rennie, 1991), as
well as academic motivation (Covington, 1996; Maehr, 1997). This practice can teach students a framework
for effective interaction patterns and emotional intelligence, which too many
of our students do not come to us possessing.
It can give students permission to work hard, be on task and treat each
other cooperatively (and so many need permission. Just look at how they treat
each other on their free time). Yet, on
the other hand, giving a grade for “participation” that is vague, undefined,
and seen as a subjective judgment, has little benefit, and is more likely to
have a harmful effect overall. Used
arbitrarily, it is seen by students as a part of their grade over which they
have little control, and just another tool for the teacher to reward students
they like and punish those they don’t.
For these reasons, I feel that as teachers we should implement
participation assessment thoughtfully or refrain from using it at all.
I offer the
following three step process for developing a participation/process assessment component to one’s classroom
assessment program.
Step 1.
Operationalize what you mean by “good _______.”
Depending
on the concept that you choose, be it participation, group work, labwork, etc.,
your system will work better the more clearly you define it in concrete
operational terms. A teacher can do this
on her or his own, but it may be a good place to get students involved. It works well to use an inductive concept
attainment model to develop your concepts of a “good _____.” Begin by asking yourself, or your students,
whichever the case may be, the following question, “What are those behaviors
that if we did them, would make us better students individually and
collectively?” and give them the following 3 qualifications:
1. All have to be
things that each of us could do if we chose to.
In other words we need to be 100% in control of these outcomes. These are behaviors that anyone could choose
to do. So, for instance, it can not be
about intelligence, popularity, cultural capital, or material resources.
2. None can
penalize people’s personalities, learning styles, or cultures. So, we couldn’t reward people who raised
their hands a lot, or talked the most, for example, that would be bias toward
the extroverts).
3. All need to be
describable in concrete specific language (i.e., instead of something like
“good class members are nice to each other,” be more specific, such as good
class members only say positive things about other classmates and avoid all put
downs.”). That is, we need to be able to
tell pretty reliably that a behavior is or is not being demonstrated. We would
“clearly” know them when we saw them or the absence of them.
Figure 1 shows
an example of what one class did when asked to define the concept of a “good
cooperative learning group member.” (remember this is just one example, these
are by no means the only descriptors that students might suggest. Others might include, listening, staying on
task, being helpful, etc.)
Figure
1: GOOD PARTICIPATION IS:
Being cooperative. Good participants
cooperate with the other group members.
They share ideas and materials. They
take turns talking. They listen to one
another and expect to be listened to.
They perform their role in the group.
Having a positive attitude. Good participants
approach the task with a positive expectation.
They bring others in the group up not down. They say only positive things to their
classmates and themselves. They look for
ways to solve problems cooperatively and do not blame or quit.
Trying your best. Good participants
make their best effort when things are going well and when they are not. They work hard regardless of the situation or
the behavior of the other members of the group.
Their effort is consistent from the beginning of the period until the
end.
After coming up with
your definition, you may want to post it on your classroom, art room, music
room, or gymnasium wall, review it regularly and use it as a behavioral
covenant. That is, use it as a
collective agreement regarding the manner in which “every human being in the
class deserves to be treated.” Do not
let any member of the class accept poor behavior from their peers or themselves
(and its likely that you will have the most difficulty in helping students
refrain from using negative self-talk). Remember, if we have done the first
step correctly, our definition includes only things over which students
have100% control, so if they are not doing them, it was ultimately a result of
choice. Step 2 takes our concept and
puts it into the context of a quantifiable assessment method.
Step 2. Create an assessment instrument
that is soundly constructed and easily interpreted.
The
next step is to put the concept that you have previously cultivated into a
sound rubric that fits the context in which you intend to use it. This
instrument will help you and your students “systematically” put your definition
into everyday classroom practice. When
designing the rubric you will need to make a choice between language in your
scale that is describing either group behavior or individual behavior. So, it should either define what a quality
group does collectively (for assessment of whole groups), or what any
particular student does when making a full investment in the process and/or in
being a quality member of the collective.
You can have a definition and a scale for both, but it does not work to
mix them as you will find later.
The rubric needs to be well
constructed or there will be problems.
Technical problems turn into human problems very quickly. Here are 3 factors to consider when
developing your rubric:
1.
Use clear, concrete, behavior language, avoiding vague
words.
2.
Each ascending level should be inclusive of, but clearly
distinct from, those lower. It will be
reliable to the extent that each level has observable behaviors that are
exclusive from those below (see example in Figure 2). Each performance needs to fit absolutely into
one level or another. Any subjectivity
will significantly undermine confidence in the system.
3.
Try to use only positive language. Avoid such phrases as “the student does not .
. .” For example if you want to address
the issue of students talking when it is not appropriate, include in your
language at your top levels words to the effect that, “students are
consistently attentive to the teacher and classmates when they are speaking,”
as opposed to putting in lower levels something like, “student talks when they
are not supposed to.” Why have students memorize the conceptual language for
what not to do? The idea is to get away
from a deficit model and encourage the development of a positive collective
vision.
Using
the example of the class which was discussed earlier, when they were asked to
come up with what makes a good group member they decided that there were 3 main
components; being cooperative, being positive, and trying. Hence, we would take the traits generated by
the students’ concept development exercise and put them into a soundly
constructed rubric. One might consider creating a single holistic scale, but in
this case, it would seem to work better structurally to make a primary trait or
analytic type rubric using the 3 areas.
When completed it might look something like this:
|
|
Cooperation |
Attitude |
Effort |
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 |
Approaches the task
with a consistently positive expectation.
Brings others in the group up not down. Says only positive things to their
classmates and themselves. Looks for
ways to solve problems cooperatively and does not blame or quit |
Makes their best
effort when things are going well and when they are not. Works hard regardless of the situation or
the behavior of the other members of the group. Effort is consistent from the beginning of
the period until the end. |
|
Level 2 |
Cooperates with the
other group members. Usually takes
her/his turn talking. Usually performs his/her role in the group |
Approaches the task
with a positive expectation. Looks for ways to solve problems cooperatively
and does not blame or quit |
Makes his/her best
effort. Works hard regardless of the
situation or the behavior of the other members of the group. |
|
Level 1 |
Cooperates with the
other group members. Usually takes
her/his turn talking. |
Mostly approaches
the task with a positive expectation. Recognizes need to solve problems
cooperatively. |
Makes a sincere effort
most of the time. |
|
Level 0 |
Did not make the
effort to be cooperative this day. |
Was unable to
refrain from negative language or destructive behavior. |
Did not make a
sincere effort on this day. |
You could
label the levels any way that you felt best fit the class (i.e., 4,3,2,1,0 or
+,v+,v, v-,- or A,B,C,D,E, etc.), and create as many or few levels as seems to
make sense (but 3 or 4 seem to work best generally).
Having
this scale conspicuously displayed on the wall or in a handout gives the
students very specific language explaining how they are being assessed, which
not only promotes reliability and meaningfulness to the grade, it provides a
clearly articulated concept of the qualities that are going to make your
students individually and collectively the best they can be. The human mind can only bring about what it
can conceive. We can not blame our
students for dysfunctional behavior when by definition they are acting on the
best conceptions that they currently possess.
But if a student is making a conscious choice to perform less than his
or her top level behavior on a given day, given that that behavior is 100%
within their control, holding that student responsible sends the message that
we believe that they can do better. And
I have used this system with 1st graders, and even at this age they
are very aware that their behavior is a result of choice. When at the end of
the day these 1st graders collectively state that “We were about a 2
today, but tomorrow we will be a 3,” one can see the cause and effect
relationship between investment and learning outcomes being internalized. The
beauty of this form of assessment is not only that it provides us with a sound
and reliable way to evaluate what is lacking in our students, it is that the
system teaches students to become a class where the expectation for the quality
of interaction is very clear and very high.
As Stiggins (1998) suggests, “if we have targets that are clear and
standing still, students will reach them.” Therefore, given a collectively
established, visible, scale with ascending levels of quality that each student
is capable of achieving, the natural tendency is to shoot for the target at the
top. And they do. Yet, if we have no such targets, what are our
students shooting for?
Step 3.
Develop a system for gathering and/or examining student performances.
If you are going to
formally assess participation in some form, it is critical that you have an
efficient method to observe and collect data from all students so as to obtain
a sufficient and representative sample.
And you need to collect this data in a way that doesn’t lessen your
ability to teach and interact with students. If you are going to use your scale
informally, then it is not critical that you have students self assess each
day. But, during units where there is a
great deal of cooperative work, it is a good idea to have students debrief
often and for you as the teacher to use your scale to help develop the
“language” of high quality cooperative work.
The
more visible the scale is to the students, the more it works to reinforce the
concept of “good participation.” Don’t be afraid to post it, review it, and
even quiz over its contents.
Whether
you decide to assess your “good ____” concept formally or informally, I would
suggest taking two minutes at the end of any group activity and using it to
debrief. This investment of time will
pay for itself many times over with its effect on your classroom climate as
well as management. Ask students
questions such as, “Who can tell me about someone at your table that showed a
positive attitude today” or “Which group solved a problem cooperatively,” or
questions related to any of the traits in your concept. At first, students are a little hesitant, but
after doing this a couple of times, you will have every student’s hand up
begging to brag about one of their peers.
This is a powerful time for two reasons.
Firstly, it feels great for both praiser and praisee. Secondly, it works as a concept development
exercise clarifying examples and non-examples your concept for “good
____.”
If
you try this idea, you need to be patient. If your concept is well defined,
your scale sound, and you have found a way to get a substantive and bias-free
sample, your system will work to the degree that you commit to it. Most of the benefit will come in the
long-term. Yet, since you are assessing
an inherently intimate and intrusive area of student performance, expect critics. Expect students and even parents to challenge
you. It will inevitably be clumsy at
first. You may not see results right away.
But, remember, much of why this works is that it gradually changes each
student’s learning orientation to one that is more self-responsible and
inter-relational. Change is never easy,
so give it time.
We
struggle today to find ways to help our students succeed academically and
develop critical forms of emotional intelligence, while developing as members
of a classroom community and global citizenry.
We know too well that these skills will not be learned from television,
the internet, or watching peers. And in
too few cases are they learned at home. Whether our motivation is our students’
academic success, a more positive classroom climate, or the development of
critical life skills, the cultivation of “good participation skills” are too
important to be left to chance. A system for assessing student-owned process
outcomes can be one very useful tool in the development these crucial skills. I
have seen the effective use of such systems radically transform students,
classrooms and whole schools.
References
Benham,
M.J. 1993. Fostering Self- Motivated
Behavior, Personal Responsibility, and Internal Locus of Control , Eugene, Oregon.. Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 386 621).
Covington
MV, Teel KM. 1996. Overcoming Student
Failure: Changing Motives and Incentives for Learning. Washington, DC:
American. Psychological. Assoc.
Maehr
ML, Meyer HA. 1997. Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been,
where we are, and where we need to go. Educational
Psychology. 9:371-409
Rennie,
L.J. 1991. The Relationship between Affect and Achievement in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
28 (2) 193-09.
Stiggins,
R. (2001) Student Centered Classroom
Assessment. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Classroom Management Main Page - EDEL 414 - EDSE 415