Improving Classroom Climate
and
Classroom
Management Resource Page – Shindler – School Climate – PLSI – Teaching -
Student Achievement by Formally Assessing Student Participation
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.
There were
two compelling reasons why, when I taught at the K-12 level, I used
participation assessment so
prominently. First, I realized that we
define that which is important in our classes, in a very real and material way,
by what we grade. I asked myself, how is
it that I could tell my students that it is important to work cooperatively,
apply themselves to the process aspects of the task, and invest in their fellow
classmates and then grade only tests and written end-products? I found that in a very meaningful manner I
could say “how you got there” was also important when I assessed participation
and process outcomes. Second, very simply, I found that I got a better quality
and quantity of that which I assessed. I
hear teachers say to me, “If I could only grade listening I could get so much
more done.” I say to them, “Then do
it!” An interesting thing happens when
one assesses listening - students listen better. Likewise, when one assesses
effort - students try harder. And when
you have a group of students who are investing in the process by listening,
trying their best, cooperating, and coming prepared you can do magical things
with their academic and social growth.
Moreover, students feel better, when they are applying themselves fully
and working together, and over time, the rewarding of these skills leads to
their internalization as long-term habits.
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 collecting data.
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. Here are some of the practical considerations that you will need to include
in developing a system best suited to your situation:
·
Does each group member receive a separate grade, or
should a whole group get a collective grade?
As is the case with
the assessment of group presentations and projects, this is a complex
question. Individual grades may produce
greater individual accountability and less chance that students and parents
will contest either a grade or your decision to assess participation in
general. But if you want to teach real
interdependence, tolerance, and collective problem solving then a collective
grade now and then may be the best means.
·
Should I have the students assess one another and/or
themselves?
It depends. If you
are using participation assessment informally (i.e., not having the assessment
count as part of the grade), then self-assessment is encouraged. It can be a very educational process that
helps reinforce the concept. However, if
you are going to use the assessment as part of a formal judgment about the
quality of a performance that goes into the grade book, then putting students
in the position of assessing each other will likely lead to bias scores and
hurt feelings. The best rule here is to let the students do informal assessment
(e.g., writers workshop), but when it counts it should be done by an impartial,
practiced adult.
·
How much time should I spend assessing? How long do I
need to watch each student?
Try
to give each student at least 2 or 3 good looks during an activity. You will need
some time between each one to get a representative sample, especially if you
are using the word “consistency” in your rubric. Usually 10 - 30 second observations will give
you a decent sense of what is happening.
So in the course of a 40 minute time frame, you would need to be in the
role of assessor for about 10 minutes.
·
When do I record grades?
First of all, this
procedure needs to be pretty unobtrusive if not invisible. Don’t hover over students with your grade
book. The students need to see you in
the role of instructional facilitator first and foremost. Plus, you are looking for authentic behavior
not acting. Secondly, grades need to be
recorded pretty immediately after your second or third glance. Do not rely on your memory. The ideal would
be grades recorded near the end of, or immediately after the activity.
·
How often do I need to assess?
You need to do it
regularly, or your sample will be less representative,
and assessments will be less valuable to the students, and/or lose their impact
and importance. More than once a week is
preferable. What makes your system
effective, in part, is that it provides a source of regular feedback to
students. Having each student’s participation grades open and available for
them and them alone to see at any point is important. There should be nothing covert about this
process. Keep in mind that most likely at
first you will need to explain why you are giving certain less than top level
grades to students. But these
interactions are a chance for you to provide direct feedback to students and
ultimately very educational for both student and teacher. The need for these clarifications will
decrease quickly if your system in sound.
·
How can I be sure that I am being fair?
Pay close attention
to yourself as an assessment instrument.
Are you a bias-free judge? Do you
have expectancies that affect your ability to give each student what they
earned? Would you really give a “3” or a
“0” to any and all of your students if their behavior dictated it? If you want to check your reliability then
have someone else make assessments of your students with the same rubric during
the same period, and then see how your scores match up. The scores should
agree.
·
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.
·
When compiling the scores at the end of a term, a
median central tendency may be more accurate than a mean or average. It seems to work best to have the
participation grade a separate but meaningful component of the unit or quarter
grade. Twenty or 30% of a unit grade that represents student-owned/process
outcomes shows the student that investing along the way is valued in this
class.
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 ,
Maehr ML, Meyer HA. 1997.
Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and
where we need to go. Educ. Psychol. Rev.
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. (1998) Student
Centered Classroom Assessment. Prentice Hall.