Enhancing Student Number Sense

A topnotch WordPress.com site

Okay, I understand the four- point scale but how well can I translate it into the current three-point system on report cards?

on October 7, 2012

Anyone willing to tackle this with me?
SA-4
AA-2/3
BAA-1
?
I find this difficult because it often feels like we cram a lot of learning goals under one heading, i.e. Number and Operations. Two “Number” units may be covered during a particular reporting period and on one they may have done well and on the other, not so much.
To be quite honest, I hate assigning grades, I would rather just provide a progress report and discuss goals that we need to set for that particular child. Thoughts?

Advertisements

8 responses to “Okay, I understand the four- point scale but how well can I translate it into the current three-point system on report cards?

  1. triciamcgraw says:

    I completely agree and would much rather anecdotal comments esp. In early elem yrs

  2. mackay74 says:

    I also have to agree. SA, BA, BAA are just to open ended and leave to much room for misjudgements and misinterpretations especially on the part of the parent. I would much rather just put anecdotal comments on the report cards in the lower grades.:)

  3. brownnmes says:

    I also agree. In Kindergarten, the first report was purely annecdotal comments with areas of strengths and next steps. This gave parents an idea of what their child had mastered, and where they were going next, without the stress of the “not appropriate” label being applied. Don’t we always tell children to compete with themselves? Report card “grades” often don’t allow us to show the progress an individual child might be making, even if the chil hasn’t met the target for their grade yet.

    The AA grade is hard to define. With such a range between low appropriate and near strong, it is easy to have many interpretations.

  4. lorijc says:

    The comparison you’ve made between Marzano 4-ppoint scale and our report card makes sense to me. I also agree that AA is the broadest because it would encompass skills at a 2 and 3 level.
    I think an interesting point I gained from the book is that the skills and knowledge of the outcomes are predetermined by the 1-4 scale. Being clear at the outset of what constitutes 1, 2, 3, and 4 creates a “learning map” of what the next goals are for a child and where they have come from. Where the child is “at” and what are the “next steps” should dominate the conversation but we can’t simply dump the marks we are require to put on the report cards.
    Has anyone thought about reorganizing the MMS learning indicators into the 4 point scale?

    • mmereynolds says:

      I actually have been marking my students learning using the four point scale. In the MMS you can easily use the four point scale according to the indicators. It allows you to clearly make learning goals specific to the child.

  5. brownnmes says:

    Some of the assessment rubrics feature the four pt scale (not yet adequate, adequate, proficient, excellent), but the checklists do not. Maybe we could re-format the checklists to incorporate a scale rather than yes (they’ve got it) or no (they don’t have it yet).

  6. Tanya Smith says:

    I agree that there needs to be a better reporting system for report cards other than the current SA, AA and BAA. It’s too general and often gives parents an unclear view of where exactly their child is in their learning.
    Where I become unsure though is saying a 2 and a 3 on the four-point scale should be labeled the same as AA. After having read Marzano, he suggests in chapter 3 on page 24 and 25 that the score of 3 be used to represent the target learning goal and the score of 2 be used to represent simpler content. Should that ‘simpler content’ be classified as Appropriate Achievement? I’m not sure.
    What I am sure about, however, is that a systematic approach needs to be developed so that we’re all on the same page and we avoid assessment inconsistencies.
    Tanya

  7. Tanya Smith says:

    Just reading from Marzano and came across this from chapter 6 that might help to shed some light on this dilemma-“a score of 3.0 indicates that a student has demonstrated understanding of all content in a target learning goal with no major errors or omissions. 2.5-2.99 implies that a student typically demonstrated mastery of all of the basic content (score 2.0) and high partial mastery of the 3.0 content that was directly taught for the target learning goals” (page 5 of ch 6). This would imply that the target learning goal (what you are expecting your students to learn) would get a score of 3.0 if they have mastered it with no errors. So would the score of 2.0 be the basic content that you already expect your students to have before commencing to teach a particular topic? For example, when you’re teaching how to use a ten frame, you expect that your students already have an understanding of the numbers 1-10 (2.0 content). A student demonstrating that they can use the counting on strategy to count the dots on a ten frame or use the parts of ten to add, would that be 3.0 content?
    Tanya

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: