Learning Goals and Success Criteria

Assessment is a key component for the school system. How would we know if students were learning anything otherwise? Assessment plays a critical role in teaching and learning and should have the goal of developing independent, autonomous, and confident learners (Growing Success, 2010). Unfortunately assessment in most schools has been focused on assessment of learning. This type of assessment only measures student’s performance after it has happened and often compares to other children’s work. This can be detrimental because it doesn’t allow for opportunities to be independent and improve learning. This is why schools are beginning to focus on assessment for learning and assessment as learning. Assessment for learning involves finding evidence for use by learners and their teachers to decide where the learners are in their learning, where they need to go, and how best to get there (Growing Success, 2010). Assessment as learning allows students to foster their capacity over time to be their own best assessors but teachers start by modelling opportunities for students to assess themselves (Growing Success, 2010). These last two forms of assessment are much more beneficial because they allow students to guide their own learning and have some say in the process. A key part of this process is creating learning goals and success criteria in the classroom for everyone to follow.

Retrieved from: http://blackdeer.edublogs.org/2012/11/05/learning-goals-and-success-criteria/

     Learning goals and success criteria go together like peanut butter and jelly so they're essential to each other. Learning goals are short statements that address the KDB of the lesson or unit of study (Drake, Reid, and Kolohon, 2014). A learning goal should address the simple question “what are we learning?” and derive from curriculum expectations. However, they are not simply copy and pasted statements but rather thoughtful statements that divide the unit into learnable chunks where each child can reach the goal at their own pace. Success criteria are the skills needed to complete the learning goal and answer the question “what am I looking for?” (Drake et al., 2014). So for example, a learning goal could be “learning to write a scary short story” and the success criteria could be things like “having cliff hangers, using scary verbs and adjectives, having characters, etc.” To avoid any power imbalances between teacher and student (which is usually avoided through assessment of learning and assessment as learning), the learning the goals and criteria need to be written in student friendly language and make learning attainable and reasonable (Drake et al., 2014). Students can take charge of their own learning by offering ideas of what they deem successful, collaborating with peers and teachers to form a plan, and have the ability to change the criteria as the unit progresses (Drake et al., 2014). The learning goals and success criteria are on a kind of continuum where knowledge is co-constructed by teachers and students and eventually leads to students creating individual goal setting (Drake et al., 2014). This way students are making real connections with what they are learning and  can understand the assessment process. Often what happens in schools is that students don’t know how to be successful because they are not included in the discussion of how to assess. When students are involved in the process they are more likely to strive for success because it is partly based on what they think success is (which is a relative term anyway right?).

Retrieved from: http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/03/28/5-simple-ways-adjuncts-can-help-each-other/

     A great way to assess progress in relation to the learning goal is through exit cards. When students have a clear understanding of what they are supposed to learn they are able to track their progress toward achieving the goal (Learning Goals & Success Criteria, 2010). By asking students to submit exit cards they are able to reflect on the progress they have made towards their goals and what they can do to continue on the right path (Learning Goals & Success Criteria, 2010). I would personally use this kind of assessment in my classroom because it is a great way to track their learning. Sometimes when setting goals people forget things along the way or their thoughts change on what their goal should be. By creating exit cards it can help students further internalize and personalize their learning goal, making it more likely to be achieved (Learning Goals & Success Criteria, 2010).

In my own personal experience I have rarely been in a classroom that allows students to be part of the assessment process. It was always about having the teachers teach at us which left us excluded in this part of education. I think learning goals, success criteria and the co-construction that goes along with it allows for great repoire between teachers and students. Furthermore, it gives students a sense of empowerment and independence in their learning experience which is something they rarely get but it can affect how seriously they take their education. Finally, the feedback would be much accurate through this method because the teacher and the student are on the same page about what success means and how they can accomplish it.

       Retrieved from:: http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesAER/VideoLibrary/LearningGoalsSuccessCriteria/LearningGoalsSuccessCriteriaViewingGuide2011.pdf

Finally, if you’re ever unsure about when to implement this kind of assessment, just ask yourself these three questions (Davis & Herbst, 2013):

1.      When could I co-construct criteria? How can I use examples to support an understanding of success so the criteria are better?

2.      How can I involve students in using criteria as a guide for self-assessment, peer assessment, and as a way to monitor the progress of their learning?

3.      How can learners show proof of learning from the co-constructed criteria?

If you would like to understand more about learning goals and success criteria, check this out!

References

Davis, A., & Herbst, S. (2013). Co-constructing success criteria: Assessment in the service of

learning. Retrieved from http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/co-constructing-success-criteria

Drake, S. M., Reid, J. L., & Kolohon, W. (2014). Interweaving Curriculum and Classroom

Assessment: Engaging the 21^st Century Learner. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University

Press.

Exit Card (2010). Retrieved

from http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesAER/VideoLibrary/LearningGoalsSuccessCriteria

/LearningGoalsSuccessCriteriaViewingGuide2011.pdf

GROWING SUCCESS: Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools. First

           

 Edition, Covering Grades 1–12, 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growSuccess.pdf

Helping Hands (2012). Retrieved  from: http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2012/03/28/5-

simple-ways-adjuncts-can-help-each-other/

Learning Goals & Success Criteria (2010) Assessment for learning video series. Retrieved from

http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesAER/VideoLibrary/LearningGoalsSuccessCriteria/Lea

rningGoalsSuccessCriteriaViewingGuide2011.pdf

Success Criteria (2012). Retrieved from http://blackdeer.edublogs.org/2012/11/05/learning-

goals-and-success-criteria/

Grading, grading, grading, when does it ever stop? While it can get tiring, it is an essential component to teaching as it gives a good indication of how your students are performing in your classes. But with every concept comes a model or a theory and I’ve been thinking a lot about two very different types of grade distribution.

Bell Curves

Retrieved from: http://aweekinthelifeofaredhead.com/a-bell-curve/

While it is not necessarily essential in high schools and elementary schools this model is prominent in many post-secondary institutes. The bell curve works as a “normal distribution” model which means it presents the standard deviations of the scores at the bottom (the average between different sets of scores).  The “0” or the middle of the graph is the mean and average of the scores (top of the bell) and the two halves are the other 50% of the scores. If that is too complicated for you non-stat majors imagine it like this: 100 students take a test and their scores are put on a bell curve model. A few but equal number of students receive As and Fs a small but equal number of students receive Bs and Ds and the majority fall in the C range. This is considered grading on the curve (Yount, 2011).

While this system seem good in theory, with the highest percentile receiving As and lowest percentile receiving Fs (such scientific grading tools are supposedly far superior to any form of bias that can arise in other forms of grading) I argue that it is not a good form of grading. The biggest fault of the bell curve model is that for every score in the positive percentile there must be an equal score in the negative percentile for a “normal” distribution to be formed (Yount, 2011). This gives students no guidance on how to do well in school, they are only marked on their final place on the curve in relation to fellow peers (Yount, 2011). I have personally been in courses where this type of grading system is used and it is detrimental to the learning environment. For instance, in one of my first year university classes this grading system was implemented to decide our final grade. Throughout the year I witnessed a lot of students have anxiety about their mark in this class as well as hostility towards their peers because it became a sort of “competition”. What was so frustrating was that all the teacher instruction, group interaction, and individual growth that happened in the class didn’t even matter because your marks only mattered in relation to the average. I received a decent grade on the final exam but finished the class with a low mark because the average of the class was higher than my exam mark. This made me feel like my successes throughout the semester were irrelevant because this one assessment stifled my growth. There is no chance for success at the individual level as this form of assessment only benefits a certain number of people, there is no chance for everyone to be successful.

J- Curves

Retrieved from http://rube.asq.org/edu/2009/11/problem-solving/apply-a-j-curve-to-achieve-success-not-perpetuate-excuses-.pdf

This is what brings me to a new innovative model that I think is much more effective in distributing grades. The J curve is a distribution model that shows a dip in grades for some students but an increase for most (Drake, Joanee, & Koholon, 2014). The philosophy behind this model is that while some students may be unsuccessful at the task, most will reach the learning goals. This model was built on the premise that with proper instruction and a healthy learning environment anyone can be successful (Mikels & Sartori, 2009). What I appreciate about this model is that every student has the opportunity to work at their own pace and reach their level of achievement without the added pressure of meeting or beating the average. Students are able to focus on individual growth (Mikels & Sartori, 2009)

            While both of these are grading distribution models, I believe the philosophies that influenced them also have a strong hold in schools. So while bell curve and j curve models are not necessarily used as assessment tools in elementary schools and high schools, the ideas behind these models influence assessment. For example, assessment of learning (AoL) is a still a prominent form of assessment in schooling. Similar to the bell curve model, AoL reports on achieved learning through things like tests and quizzes (Drake et al.., 2014). Furthermore, forms of AoL can also be standardized and compared to ministry standards (Drake et al., 2014). A similar philosophy is present here because the education system is assessing each student in the same way and seeing if they meet the “requirements” of the ministry, which is a far cry from how learning actually works. In contrast the J curve philosophy has similar principles to assessment for learning (AfL). In AfL assessment is continuous through the learning process, with feedback about performance (strengths, things to improve on) consistent (Drake et al., 2014). What is important about this is that comparison to other students is irrelevant; the sole focus is on student growth.

What is unfortunate is that AoL and the “bell curve mentality” is still the prominent form of assessment used in schools today. I have asked a few teachers over the years what were normal averages for their class and they would say things like “60-75%”. Why are some many schools focused on sameness and what students in the “normal range” should be receiving? This limits the abilities of all students because they already have a predestined position on a scale. As future teachers we should push for the J curve mentality and help students define their own learning experiences and be successful in their own right. And hopefully get a few 100s along the way J If you want to learn more about the J curve, heres a link to a brief completed by a low income school that implemented the j-curve with great results!!

Finally, here's an article I feel summarizes the importance of switching from the "bell curve mentality" to the "j curve mentality" 

References

Bell Curve (Online Image) (2005). Retrieved from http://aweekinthelifeofaredhead.com/a-bell-curve/

Drake, S., Joanee, R.L., & Kolohon, W. (2014). Interweaving curriculum and classroom assessment: Engaging the 21^st century learner. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

J Curve (Online Image) (2009). Retrieved from http://rube.asq.org/edu/2009/11/problem-solving/apply-a-j-curve-to-achieve-success-not-perpetuate-excuses-.pdf

Mikels, L., & Sartori, T. (2009, November). ASQ- Apply a J-Curve to Achieve Success, Not Perpetuate Excuses. Retrieved from http://rube.asq.org/edu/2009/11/problem-solving/apply-a-j-curve-to-achieve-success-not-perpetuate-excuses-.pdf

Yount, R. (2011, June 30). The Bell Curve and Assigning Grades. Retrieved from: http://www.drrickyount.com/2011/06/jason-norris-and-the-bell-curve/