Assessing for Learning Workshop

September 13, 2006

            The day began with a nod to best practice as Angela Whetstone offered the day’s first read-aloud.  Ellen James then gave an overview of the project.  She explained that the focus areas were determined by deficiencies in student performance on 2005-06 Benchmarks.  She went on to describe the structure of the project: four regional day-long seminars throughout the year, each a continuation of the previous session, plus six site visits per qualified school.  The first site visit will be dedicated to needs assessment, while successive ones will feature a demonstration lesson to be observed by several faculty members and administrators, individual and small group meetings to design targeted lessons and assessments, and a debriefing session after school to analyze the model lesson, share general ideas gleaned from consultations and observations, and plan the next site visit.

            Ellen described two more important elements of WIN’s outreach efforts.  She announced that in January, participants will receive a support document in the form of a notebook containing detailed overviews of each regional seminar, assessment items, a glossary, and a bibliography.  Also, the “Literacy Initiative Award” (LIA) is a new opportunity to applaud the hard work and successes achieved among participating schools, all of which have been designated “under-performing.” 

            Beverly Jackson then proceeded with an immersion lesson on figures of speech, particularly irony.  She explained that we would be simulating a tenth grade English class using twelfth grade texts.  The idea here is that strategies can be adapted for use with all grade levels, using age-appropriate texts.  It soon became clear that participants relished the chance to analyze and reflect on text that appealed to them as adults.

            The first text was the Dylan Thomas poem “Do Not Go Gently Into That Good Night.”  Beverly first provided a shared reading and than asked us to reread it, jotting down what we noticed.  She used the discovery method in that she didn’t specify what we should look for but gave us freedom of response.  Next, we had the chance to share our findings within small groups and finally, we could share our “noticings” which were then recorded on chart paper for future reference.

            Beverly broke away from the scenario long enough to show an overhead of the ELA standards for figurative language grades k-12 (noting how early such skills appear), a chart of Bloom’s Taxonomy (noting how high students should be asked to reach), and definitions of verbal, situational, and dramatic irony.  She explained that providing such scaffolding for students is essential.

            We then moved to a silent reading of our paired text, the “Prologue” to Pat Conroy’s PRINCE OF TIDES.  She asked us to reread the text (a valuable practice) while she read it aloud.  As we did so, we were to mark text that spoke to us, but only small chunks rather than large pieces.  These selections were then the basis for a “waterfall” activity in which one by one we read aloud our chosen words and phrases.  She cautioned us to not be alarmed if our words were chosen by others, as that was part of experiencing the text in a new way.  Next, we were invited to share our selections again, this time to be recorded on chart paper.

            Following this step, we discussed and had recorded parallels and contrasts between the two texts, such as how each writer used his father as the topic.  Beverly urged us to use chart paper in a similar fashion in our classrooms since, “It always helps to have a record of your smart thinking.”

            After a break, we returned to the same two texts, this time to evaluate the authors’ use of irony.  Beverly gave us the challenge to decide which of the two used irony most effectively and to write a passage explaining our choice.  Afterwards, in true writer’s workshop fashion, we were encouraged to share our writing within our groups.  It was clear from the insightful responses that “writing to learn” is an effective tool for clarification and elaboration.

            For more writing practice we were then asked to write a passage about a person who had had a major impact on our lives, just as Thomas and Conroy had done.  Using a personal topic led to enthusiastic, meaningful passages, such as the one Betsy Smith shared about her aunt.  We also saw that having the chance to share our writing with each other was a powerful, community-building exercise.

            To debrief, Beverly directed us to locate our particular grade bands in the ELA standards and tally how many were involved in the morning’s lesson.  No fewer than a dozen were noted, and it was said that many more were possible such as researching the poet or novelist.  Beverly also reviewed the steps of the lesson and explained why she had structured it that way.  This led to an overhead listing “Instructional Implications”: practices that we should strive to follow regularly.  Those include building community, maintaining high expectations, active participation, partners and teams, freedom of response (“What did you notice?”), varied tasks, lots of choice, rereading text, formative assessment such as anecdotal records, multiple texts, and using cold text for summative evaluation (just as is done on statewide tests.)

            After lunch, Angela again took the helm and stressed the value of read-alouds:  that hearing the same text levels the playing field for students and provides common texts for future reference.  She then held us spellbound with her reading of a Rick Reilly tribute to retired UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.  We then happily moved into her “energizer” activity, the machine.  Watching our groups miming everything from a popcorn popper to a vacuum cleaner was both entertaining and educationally sound practice.  She noted the value of such activities for building community and confidence.

            She then displayed an overhead listing the six areas of need to be addressed during the project:  figurative language, point of view, main idea, elements of style, inference, and vocabulary.  To move from theory into practice, she challenged us to work in teams of three to develop lessons addressing two of those areas, using an excerpt from a Henry Winkler children’s book (grade level four) as our text.  She also reminded us of the value of “reading like a writer,” noticing techniques writers use effectively and implementing those same tools in our own writing.  Before letting us set to work on our lessons, she also acknowledged the difficulty of remediating and accelerating within the same lesson, but encouraged us to have confidence that we could.

            Midway through our twenty minutes Angela showed an overhead of considerations for our lessons:  how could we differentiate instruction, scaffold, use evidence of smart learning, provide summative and formative assessments, and move back and forth within the standards?  As each team presented its lesson to the entire group afterwards, we were impressed by how effectively those challenges had been met in a variety of creative ways by teachers of all grade levels.

            When debriefing, Angela stressed that the grade level was not the key factor, but rather the skills to be addressed are what matter most.  She reiterated the value of purposeful rereading, the power of collaboration, the importance of modeling and displaying excellence, the need to provide thoughtful pre-, during-, and post-reading activities, and the joy of revision.

            Beverly then began the final segment of the day’s activities by stating that the most important thing is how successfully we relay today’s learning to our own classrooms.  To that end, she gave overviews of the two professional texts to be used during the project:  SIX TRAITS and WHEN KIDS CAN’T READ.  She also gave us our assigned readings in those books and explained how our “homework” would lend continuity to each session.  She also showed us the “Try Its” template and urged us to use it with activities we had experienced today or would read about in the texts.   This, she explained, is a metacognitive approach to teaching.

            Ellen ended the day with a reading of the picture book, IF YOU’RE RIDING A HORSE AND IT DIES.  It was a great source of “sad but true” laughter.  After asking us to compose exit slips, Ellen brought the first of the series of September sessions to a close.  Participants left with new friends, new ideas, and new determination to succeed.