High-Stakes Testing: A Bad Way to Play Ball - and Evaluate Students and Teachers

Someone once said, "Baseball is an island of activity among a sea of statistics."

The same could also be said about education.

Think about it.  The classroom is the "field" where the "game" - or instruction and assessment - takes place.   The classroom is the "team" that's funded and supported by the school or district - or "organization.  The students are the "players" and the teacher is the "manager" who leads the team to have a successful "season" or year.  

However, unlike baseball - or any sport - the value or worth of a player or team is not defined or judged by their performance in one game during a long season.

There are 162 games in a baseball season.  For 161 games, that baseball player has hit the ball every time they have stepped up to the plate.  They either get on base, hit someone else home, belt the ball out of the park, or at least get a piece of the ball when it's thrown at them.

However, there's one game where the player encounters a pitcher whom he struggles to hit off, and when he does, he grounds out, pops out, or cannot hit his teammates home.  Should that player be labeled as "falling far below" based upon that one game?  Should the manager be labeled "unqualified" because that player could not get on base, knock it out of the park, or send one of his teammates home?  Should the team be labeled "underperforming" based upon the results of that one, single game?

He would be if the player was a student, the game was the standardized assessment he was taking, and the pitches were the questions asked on that one test given one out of the 180 days of the school year.  Everything rides on that one game!  That one game will truly mark and measure whether the coach and the players are skilled players.  It doesn't matter how you the teacher / coach or your class / team performed all season long.  This one day means EVERYTHING!!!

Isn't that ridiculous?

However, this is the reality of education.  It does not matter how our students have been performing or the growth they made over the course of the school year / season - at least, not to the organizations that rate our performance and give us that letter grade or performance designation.

So how can we counter these single-day high stake tests our students take quarterly or annually?

What if we turned the performance objectives of academic standards into good questions they can address and base the depth of their knowledge and understanding on how correctly, clearly, comprehensively, and even creatively they respond? 

What if instead of having the question, problem, or task present to the student drive and determine whether students know, understand, can use the concepts and procedures they are learning we use them as textual evidence and examples to support their responses?

Let me explain.

Typically, we instruct and assess student learning by presenting students with assignments and tests that look like this:

These questions, problems, and tasks and how well the students answer them serve as the criteria for whether students can know and understand place value.  If they can answer these questions correctly, then they must know their stuff, right?

If that's the case, then why isn't that knowledge and understanding transferring to the problems they are presented on their formative benchmark or summative assessments?  If they answered the question incorrectly, is that they do not truly know or understand the concept and procedures for determining place value or were they given a "bad question" that was possibly unclear or worded poorly?

We cannot rely on the questions, problems, and tasks provided by a textbook or a test to serve as the determinant for learning.  They are examples and evidence - or support - that proves students know, understand, can use, and think deeply about the content, concepts, and procedures they are learning.  However, the true measure of depth of knowledge and understanding is whether students can demonstrate AND communicate what they have learned.  Questions, problems, and tasks in a textbook or on a text serve as the context in which students can transfer and use what they have learned, and that varies as indicated by Webb's Depth-of-Knowledge Model.

So how can we truly prove our students know and understand what they are learning deeply?  We need to shift the focus from the questions, problems, and tasks they are assigned to the addressing and responding to a good question that has been rephrased from the performance objective.

Look at the sample worksheet in this blog.  The performance objectives want the students to solve, find the products, and explain how you decided the number of zeros for the products of (a), (b), and (c).  They want students to follow the Nike slogan and Just do it!  In fact, the true graphic representation of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy should look like this.

Out of all those performance objectives, only the cognitive action explain directs students to communicate their learning.  However, what about the other problems?  Why are they not being challenged not only demonstrate but also communicate how and why that they attained their answers?

What if we rephrased those performance objectives into good questions that ask students to demonstrate and communicate this:

 Look at how the instructional focus shifts from solving, finding the product, and explaining to demonstrating and communicating -- or showing and telling -- how the concepts of place value understanding explains the outcome of these problems.  The problems -- or context in which students will demonstrate their learning -- remain the same.  However, the complexity of the assignment deepens when the performance objectives become good questions that ask students to think deeply and express and share how, what impact, and even what would happen. 

That's the true mark and measure of deep learning - not just demonstrate whether they can answer questions correctly but also communicate how and why and consider what else can be done or how else can concepts and procedures be used.  That's also the transferrable knowledge we want students to develop so they can answer any question, address any problem, accomplish any task, or analyze any text or topic presented to them.

We can also use the responses to these questions to counter the results of assessments.  We can challenge the question and contest that question was a "bad question" and truly does not reflect or represent the student's learning.  We should look at the data reports that document how many students answered that question correctly.  We can also prove that student truly knows, understands, and can transfer and use the content, concept, or procedure by having them respond to the good question we rephrase from the performance objective and use different problems they solve correctly as textual evidence to support their responses.  That is authentic assessment - the ability to demonstrate and communicate knowledge, thinking, and how it can be transferred and used in different contexts!

So how can we create these good questions from performance objectives that will serve as authentic assessments?  We need to change the introductory statement from The student will ... to Show and tell ...  We then need to replace the cognitive action of the performance objective with a question them that prompts students to understand, analyze, and evaluate how; why; what is the cause and effect; what is the impact or influence; or  what is the reason, relationship, or result.  Then we paraphrase or transcribe the context in which the student must demonstrate and communicate their learning.  For example instead of saying, The student will recognize that in a multi-digit whole number, a digit in one place represents ten times what it represents in the place to its right.(CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.4.NBT.A.1), rephrase the objective to state, Show and tell how and why does a digit in one place in a multi-digit number represents ten times what it represents in the place to its right and 1/10 what it represents to its place to the left.  Take away the show and tell and you have this good question students will be challenged to address and respond:

How and why does a digit in one place in a multi-digit number represents ten times what it represents in the place to its right and 1/10 what it represents to its place to the left

That's the question students must address, and the problems presented to them will serve as the textual evidence to support their response.  We can even give them the answers to the problems and ask them to think strategically about why is that the answer.

When it comes to cognitive rigor, we want students to demonstrate higher order thinking and communicate depth of knowledge of what they are learning.  One question, problem, or task is not a true measure of higher and deeper thinking.  We need students to explain in detail, in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way how and why concepts and procedures can be applied to answer questions, address problems, accomplish tasks, and analyze tasks.  We also want them to think critically and creatively about what else or how else they can transfer  and use what they are learning in different contexts.  

To go back to the baseball analogy, we want them to demonstrate and communicate how, why, and what else can they do to hit any pitch thrown to them.  That's the mark and measure or authentic learning and performance - be it on the field or in the classroom.

 Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! Questions for Cognitive Rigor will be published by ASCD in 2016.  For more information, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

The A's of Addressing and Responding to Good Questions

When I conduct my professional development on developing good questions that address the cognitive rigor of college and career readiness, I am always asked, "How should students answer these questions?"

My answer to this question is, "It depends on the question and the student."

Questions for assessing learning are meant to be answered, and they are generally evaluated as correct or incorrect based upon the accuracy of the response.  Questions that set the instructional focus of a lesson or unit are meant to be addressed, and how deeply and extensively the student responds depends upon not only the intent and purpose of the question but also the interest of the student.

Good questions that promote cognitive rigor are assessed and evaluated based upon the following criteria:

• Accuracy: Is the response correct or incorrect (i.e. Does the student provide a response that is proven to be absolute, defensible, or irrefutable?).
• Acceptability: Does the response meet certain or specific criteria for addressing the question (i. e. Does the student meet or exceed the expectations for addressing to the question or do they respond to the question incompletely or unacceptably)?  
• Appropriateness: Does the response address the subject or topic in-depth and in detail (i.e.. Does the student support the response with examples, explanations, and evidence or does it just make a blanket statement or provide the result without explaining how or why)?
• Authenticity: Does the response reflect and represent the depth and extent of the student's learning  (i.e. Does the student express and share the depth and extent of their knowledge and thinking insightfully and in their own unique way or do they simply repeat or restate the information they have acquired and gathered as it's presented or provided?)

 These are the criteria for how responses to good questions should be assessed and evaluated -- qualitatively rather than quantitatively.  How good a response is depends upon how deeply or how extensively a student addresses the subject or topic of a question.   Consider the following scenario in which students are expected to determine how the novel The Outsiders and its characters address the theme of stereotyping.

You are teaching a book study on The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton.  Your students will demonstrate and communicate the following:

• Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas. (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.2)
• Analyze how and why individuals, events, or ideas develop and interact over the course of a text. (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.3)
• Analyze the structure of texts, including how specific sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the text (e.g., a section, chapter, scene, or stanza) relate to each other and the whole. (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.5)
• Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence. (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.R.8)
• Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas and information clearly and accurately through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content. (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.CCRA.W.2)

Your students will address and respond to the following good question:

How do each of the characters in The Outsiders reflect, reject, and respond to the social stereotypes of their community and culture?

This is the topical essential question of this book study that sets the instructional focus and serves as the formative and summative assessment.  That one question is so rigorous -- or good -- that it addresses all the performance objectives of these college and career ready standards.  It also not only engages but also encourages students to delve deeper into the central ideas and themes of this novel.  How good a student's response to this question depends on the following: 

• Did the students respond to the question accurately by defining what is a social stereotype, distinguishing between the different social stereotypes in The Outsiders, and describing how the different characters reflected, rejected, and responded to these social stereotypes?
• Did the students respond to the question acceptably by providing specific examples from the text and explaining how and why these examples serve as evidentiary support for their response?
• Did the students respond appropriately by demonstrating and communicating how The Outsiders and its characters address the social stereotypes of their community and culture clearly and comprehensively as well as correctly?
• Did the students respond authentically by expressing and sharing their own ideas, opinions, and perspectives on how the novel The Outsiders and the characters reflect, reject, and respond to the social stereotypes of their community and culture insightfully and in their own unique way?

These guiding questions assess and evaluate students' responses based upon its quality. It’s also not a simple question students can answer with a yes or no or even one or two sentences. Good students expect students to express themselves in-depth, in detail, and insightfully. They also require students to address and respond using some form of oral, written, creative, or technical expression.

With mathematics, the quality of the response is based not only on whether they can solve the problem correctly but explain how and why they used the concepts and procedures they are learning clearly, comprehensively, and even creatively.  Consider the following scenario in which students are learning about equivalent fractions.

You are teaching a unit on fraction equivalence and ordering.  Your students are expected to demonstrate and communicate the following:

• Explain why a fraction a/b is equivalent to a fraction (n × a)/(n × b) by using visual fraction models, with attention to how the number and size of the parts differ even though the two fractions themselves are the same size. Use this principle to recognize and generate equivalent fractions. (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.4.NF.A.1)
• Compare two fractions with different numerators and different denominators, e.g., by creating common denominators or numerators, or by comparing to a benchmark fraction such as 1/2. Recognize that comparisons are valid only when the two fractions refer to the same whole. Record the results of comparisons with symbols >, =, or <, and justify the conclusions, e.g., by using a visual fraction model. (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.4.NF.A.2)

Your students will address and respond to the following good question:

How can you recognize, generate, and explain why fractions are equivalent?

The quality of the student's response to this question depends on the following: 

• Does the student respond to the question accurately by defining what is an equivalent fraction and applying the concept and procedures to make and match the fractions presented to them be equivalent?
• Does the student respond to the question acceptably by completing all the problems and showing their work?
• Does the student respond appropriately by providing the answer and explaining why each of the fractions they make and match are equivalent and how they determined they were equivalent?
• Does the student respond authentically by showing and telling how they personally recognized and generated the equivalent fractions verbally in their own words or visually using fraction models?

The key to promoting cognitive rigor through classroom questioning is communication. Knowing what is the correct answer and showing how can the answer be attained correctly is half the battle. Students should also be expected to tell why this is the answer and think deeply about how could share their knowledge and understanding in detail, in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way.

Here are some ways to encourage students to address and respond to good questions:

1. Show and tell. Set the expectations right from the beginning that students will be required to demonstrate and communicate -- or show and tell -- what they are learning. Let them know that knowing what is the answer and showing how can concepts and procedures be used is half the battle. Students must also be able to tell why is this the answer and think deeply about how else can concepts and procedures be used. That’s what will be expected of them and also how their learning will be assessed and evaluated.
2. Discourage one-word or one-sentence responses. Identifying what is the Earth as a planet or who is Edgar Allan Poe as an author who wrote Gothic tales during the 1800s should not be considered acceptable or appropriate responses. Yes, these responses are accurate, but going into details and depth would be more acceptable and appropriate expressions of deep knowledge.  Encourage students to describe and explain further. Have them use examples from the text as explanations and evidentiary support.    
3. Ask, “What do you mean?” Every time a student gives an answer in the form of a simple statement, ask them, “What do you mean?” This prompts them to explain why is this the answer and elaborate upon how was the answer attained. It also challenges them to defend and justify their responses and even question their own thinking and reasoning. For example, if you ask what is the relationship between fractions and division and the student responds, A fraction is a way to divide numbers, asking what do you mean prompts the student not only to explain their response but also think about how they can phrase their response clearly, correctly, and comprehensively.   You can also ask how do you know to prompt students to justify their knowledge.
4. Paraphrase or transcribe information. Students should also not be permitted to recite, repeat, or restate information explicitly as presented by the text or teacher. They should paraphrase or transcribe the information and cite or credit the source from where they obtained the information. For example, students should define what is volume or describe where and when did World War II take place in their own words instead of just simply copying what the text says.   Having students explain in their own words “encourages a deeper processing of ideas, which can lead to a better understanding of the material” -- especially if the students write the information longhand (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014).
5. Teach like an expert. Teachers generally teach students what is the answer by presenting the question or problem and showing and telling students how to use concepts and procedures to answer the question correctly. Experts, however, pose the question, present their answer, explain how and why they achieved their outcome or result, and show how it can be applied in different contexts. That’s the deep knowledge students need to learn -- how to transfer and use knowledge and thinking. To do this, present students the question or problem with its answer or solution and ask them to examine how and why. You can even show them visually the procedures and prompt them to explain how is the concept and procedure used. Then, once they provide an explanation that is accurate, acceptable, appropriate, and authentic, challenge them to investigate and inquire how else can the concept and procedure be used in a different context.
6. Have students choose their grade. Unfortunately, some students may not go into the detail and depth they should with the responses. They might also feel as if answering the question correctly or the information they provide is “good enough”.   While we want our students to go deeper with their responses, we also don’t want to discourage them or make them feel defensive about their responses. Here’s a dialogue I use with students to encourage them to provide more depth and detail in their responses:

Mr. Francis: Is this your answer?

Student: Yes.

Mr. Francis: Is this your final answer?

Student: Yes.

Mr. Francis: Is that your A answer?

Student: I think it is.

Mr. Francis: Okay. Do you want an A?

Student: Yes (Hopefully, they’ll say yes.)

Mr. Francis: If you want an A, why don’t you look into this and tell me a little more about how you came to this response. However, that’s up to you. What you have here is accurate. However, your grade is based upon whether the response is acceptable, appropriate, and authentic.   So if you want that A, why don’t you look into this or tell me how you came to this response. However, it’s up to you.

Notice what’s happening in this exchange. Instead of telling the student their response is not “good enough”, they are being ask to consider and reflect upon the quality of their response by asking them what they think and what their perception is. You’re validating their response as accurate but challenging and encouraging them to go further so it meets all the criteria for responding to good questions. You’re also suggesting to them what exactly they should examine and investigate further in order to improve their response. However -- and this is key -- you’re allowing the student to choose whether they want to expand upon their answer and earn that higher grade.   Not only are you teaching them how to delve deeper but you’re also teaching them a life lesson about making good choices and the importance of producing quality work (and if they choose not to go further, then they need to accept the grade they earn).

Keep in mind cognitive rigor is qualitative, not quantitative. Promoting cognitive rigor through classroom questioning involves asking good questions that prompt students to think deeply about how they can transfer and use what they are learning. The quality of their responses should be evaluated not only based upon whether they are accurate but also whether they truly express and share the depth of students’ learning in an acceptable, appropriate, and authentic manner.

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! Questions for Cognitive Rigor will be published by ASCD in 2016.  For more information, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

Objective: The Students Will Examine and Explain

The learner will demonstrate -- or TLWD.

It's the statement and acronym typically used to clarify and create learning goals.   This introductory statement was originally used with Bloom's Taxonomy to identify clearly in which cognitive category students were expected to demonstrate their learning - e.g. The learner will demonstrate knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation.  When Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) revised Bloom's Taxonomy by renaming the cognitive categories from noun to verbs, the introductory statement became The student will be able to... followed by the newly named cognitive category - remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, or create .  The push for student-centered objectives written in student friendly language once again changed the introductory statement for learning goals to be more direct and personal (I will...) or collaborative (We will...).  

However, with the instructional shift focusing on college and career readiness, it's time to once again rephrase the introductory phrase that set the learning goals for a lesson or unit.  Why?  Because learning is not only about demonstrating knowledge and thinking anymore.  Students are now also expected to communicate the depth and extent of their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of what they have learned.  In other words, learning by doing is no longer the goal.  Now students must be able to explain how it is done, express why it can be done, and expound upon what else can be done with the concepts and content they are learning.

Interestingly, for the most part, the college and career ready standards as they are written and presented do not foster and promote communication of knowledge and thinking.  While there are some performance objectives that begin with cognitive verbs that are synonymous with communication, such as define, describe, explain, present, represent, summarize, or write,  the majority of the cognitive verbs introducing the standards are more more intrinsic and cerebral than extrinsic and communicative.  Performance objective direct students to demonstrate how they can to analyze, apply, determine, evaluate, integrate, or interpret, but they neither inform nor guide students how to express and share their analyses, applications, determinations, evaluations, integrations, or interpretations.

This is why questions, not performance objectives, are an effective and integral means for demonstrating and communicating learning.  They prompt students to think about what they are about to learn.  They also encourage students to express and share the depth of their learning.

So where do we come up with these questions?  We rephrase the same performance objectives of academic standards as good questions that foster communication of learning using oral, written, creative, or technical expression.

How can we rephrase these performance objectives into questions?  We use the introductory statement The students will examine and explain and convert the cognitive verb of the standard into a question stem.  

The verb examine challenges and engages students to think deeply about what they are learning.  The verb explain prompts and encourages students to express and share the depth or extent of their learning.  These are the cognitive processes that not only address college and career readiness but also foster and promote cognitive rigor -- specifically, the demonstration of higher order thinking and communication of depth of knowledge.  

Now look at what happens when these performance objectives are rephrased as good questions.   They not only foster and promote demonstrating and communicating learning but also increase the cognitive rigor of the learning experience by having students think deeply and express and share the depth of their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of how, why, what influence, and how can you apply.
cess can be made simple by using by taking the following steps:

1. Identify the standard(s) that will be addressed.

1. Use the introductory statement The students will examine and explain...

1. Convert the cognitive verb to the correlating cognitive rigor question (C.R.Q.) stem using the Bloom's Revised Taxonomy Inverted Pyramid. (See the accompanying graphic).

1. Complete the question with the concept or content addressed in the standard.

These good questions not only serve as summative assessments but also set the instructional focus throughout a learning experience.  The phrases and words are the academic vocabulary, subject-specific terminology, and specific details and elements students will need to recognize and understand who, what, where, or when in order to address and respond to these questions and meet these performance objectives with the depth and extent they expect.

Turning performance objectives may seem easy and simple, but is actually difficult and complex - or rather, complicated.  It will take time and thinking to develop a good question that is so open-ended and thought-provoking that they will drive and determine the depth and extent of learning.  However, this pro

Use the formula for creating good questions from academic standards:

The students will examine and explain + C.R.Q. stem + subject / topic

Watch your students demonstrate and communicate deeper learning!

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning will be published by ASCD in Winter 2016. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

Start the Year with Good Questions!

The summer is over, and the first day of school has come in many parts of the country.  It's time to for all us teachers and our students to head back to the classroom for a new year and for a deeper teaching and learning experience.

So how are you going to start and set that deeper teaching and learning experience that experience that first week?

Let's be realistic.  That first week of school is about getting-to-know-you.  You are getting to know your students academically by giving them pre-tests and placement tests. You are getting to know them personally by having them share who they are or what they did this summer using some form of oral, written creative, or technical expression. Your students are also getting to know you by understanding what your expectations are and the procedures and rules in your classroom for behavior and turning in work.

However, along with on getting to know each other and going over routines, what if you asked these good questions?

• What is the relationship between reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language?
• What is math?
• How does science explain our world and ourselves?
• What is history and whose is it?
• Why is it important to learn both the language and culture of a foreign country or society?
• What qualifies as art?
• What is music?
• What is fitness and health?

What if you spent that first day in class having them engage in a dialogue about what they think is the meaning or intent of these academic areas and subjects they are going to learn this year?  How could this serve as a pre-assessment for background knowledge and previous learning?  How could their responses provide you some insight into their their opinions, perspectives, and thoughts about these academic areas?

Instead of assigning an essay that asks who they are or what they did this summer or even completing a personal information sheet, what if you have them compose or create an academic autobiography in which they explain and express the following in a single or multi-paragraph essay:

• What kind of student are you?
• How strong do you think or how successful have you been in this particular academic area?
• What has been your greatest accomplishment or your fondest memory in learning this subject?
• What would encourage you to continue enjoying learning this subject or to enjoy learning this subject more than you have in the past?
• How could learning this subject continue to be or become a better experience for you?

Think about how much information and insight you would obtain about your students!  You will not only know and understand from where they are coming but also what kind of students they are (or perceive themselves to be) and how you could address their needs academically and even socioemotionally.  Have them write their Language Artsography, their Mathography, their Scienceography, their Historyography, or whatever subject they are currently learning and you are currently teaching them.  

If you're going to give a final exam as part of your class, what if you told your students what the questions will be on the final or even have them take the exam during the first week of school?  I learned this technique from Ken Blanchard, author of the One-Minute Manager book series who would give his exam on the first day of class.  It not only informed my students of what would be expected of them but also set the instructional focus for the entire semester.

As you return to your classrooms this year, shift your instructional delivery and focus.  Instead of spending that first week telling students what they need to know, understand, do, and what is expected of them, ask good questions to stimulate their thinking about what they are about to learn.  Then introduce the subjects and topics to which they will be address and responding.  Watch the learning environment shift from one that focuses on teaching and telling to learning through inquiry and interest. 

Let me know how your students react and respond, and have a great first day!

- E.M.F

Are We Teaching for Cognition or Compliance?

When my daughter was in 5th Grade, she brought home a worksheet that featured a series of multiplication problems she had to solve using this graphic.

I am an educator.  My experience has primarily been in teaching English and language arts at the middle and high school level.  However, I did a stint of middle school mathematics during my first year of teaching due to the school needing a math teacher and since I was the last hired ... well, you know how that goes.  While I don't consider myself to be a "math person", I have become skilled and proficient in mathematics mostly out of necessity and my own frustration with the concept.  However, I had never seen this graphic before.

When I showed this to my wife, who is an elementary teacher, she informed me that this is "one of those methods Khan Academy uses".  I went on Khan Academy's website and sure enough, there it was - the Lattice Box, the name of this foreign graphic my daughter brought home and was required to use to multiply multi-digit numbers.  I studied how to use the method and found it to be highly confusing, which surprised me because I am a visual learner but could not figure out how the pieces of this cube fit together.

I asked my daughter if she could just multiply the numbers using more conventional and traditional methods, and she said, "No, I have to do multiplication this way!"

I said, "Wait a minute.  What's more important here - that you understand what is multiplication and how and why it can be used to determine amount or that you use this method?"

She said, "Daddy, this is the way I have to do multiplication now."

That made this assignment much clearer to me - and also why there's such misconception and misinformation about this notion of "Common Core Math" and "Common Core English".

Interestingly, a week later after working on this assignment with my daughter (which we completed using the Lattice Box even though we both disliked the method), this story and the accompanying image was making the rounds on social media.

Perhaps some of you may remember this story about the father whose rant about the "Common Core Math" homework their child brought home became the viral sensation and caught the attention of magazines such as Time Magazine and even a featured spot on an episode of THE GLENN BECK SHOW.  The misinterpreted message became, "This is now how our children need to do math!"  No more could our children just borrow the one, regroup, perform long division, or use algorithmic formulas.  This was now the "New Math" our children needed to learn.

I became curious about what exactly what was this method students were now "required" to learn and use to subtract numbers, and I discovered through research and investigation that this graphic or tool featured in the homework assignment is  the empty number line, which is a model for addition and subtraction by researchers from the Netherlands in the 1980s.  I read about this methodology, how it was developed, and how it should be used, and it was fascinating.  I took one of my wife's elementary level math texts and worksheets and experimented with this methodology.  Sure enough, I attained the same differences I did when I subtracted using the more conventional and traditional method I was taught.  Still, I was fascinated to learn about the history and development of this tool and experience how it could be used.

After this experience, I decided to do some research and investigation into Lattice multiplication, and I found that Asian and European cultures have been using this strategy to multiply numbers as far back as the 13th Century.  I learned the history and development of the Lattice box and experimented with how it could be used to multiply multi-digit numbers.  Personally, I found the method to be confusing and even cumbersome, and I would not choose to use it.  However, again, I was fascinated by its history and development.

Both my daughter's homework and the Facebook father's viral posting piqued my interest to learn about the different methodologies that can be used not only to perform the four operations of arithmetic - addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division - but also help deepen conceptual and procedural understanding about mathematical practices, principles, and processes.  I learned that with math there is usually only one possible answer (which is what I already knew), but I discovered so many different methods and ways that the correct answer can be achieved and attained.  I did not find all of these methods and strategies and methods to be helpful or even useful, but I did enjoy experimenting with these practices and procedures and deciding which method would work best for me.

This experience reminded me of how I much I disliked not only instructing but also evaluating my students on how effectively they can use specific methodologies and strategies in English language arts.  I disliked teaching and grading my students on how to diagram sentences because I did not like using the method.

I also disliked requiring my students to use the Jane Schaeffer Writing Method because that was the writing program and process the district and school where I was working adopted.  While some of my students benefit from these methods, the majority of them did not, and I found myself frustrated teaching them not only because my students were struggling but I also struggled to use these methods and strategies that did not meet my learning style.  It actually caused me to have one of the worst teaching experiences in my career - and this was in an AP English Language class!  These kids hated writing style analyses for me not because they were frustrated in determining the tone and effect of the craft, structure, and language of the texts they were reading but because they had to use THE JANE SCHAEFER METHOD!  In fact, that became the name of the pain they felt from writing.

This is where teaching becomes a miserable experience for both the students and the teacher - when we are FORCED to use a prescriptive method, strategy, or technique to answer questions, address problems, and accomplish tasks.  We have to use THIS READING PROGRAM because that's what the school adopted.  We have to use THIS MATHEMATICAL PROCEDURE because that's what the district or charter has decided to use.  While these methods, strategies, and techniques are proven effective, they're not for everybody, and the mere mention of their names can cause both kids and adults to cringe.  Try it.  Mention Singapore Math or whole language and see the reaction and response you get.

Now we have a new name for our pain in education: Common Core.  "Common Core Math", "Common Core Reading", and "Common Core Writing" - the very name strike dread and disgust in the hears of many!  They are characterized to be as evile and vile as Darth Vader, The Joker, Freddy Krueger, or Hannibal Lecter.  Their names are spoked with a sneer or a tone of disdain and even fear and hatred  The parents and even the kids have said, "Can't we just use the old way to do math or read text?" and they are being told, "NO!  This is the way you must now read, write, and do math!"

According to whom?

I have reviewed the questions on the PARCC and SBAC exams extensively, and I have yet to see anything that resembles the practices and procedures provided in the textbooks, presented on the worksheets, or featured on Khan Academy.  I would presume this is not the intention of the textbook publishers or even Saul Khan.  However, the message has been grossly misinterpreted to state, "This is NOW HOW you must demonstrate and communicate your learning!"

So my question to consider is this - when we teach, are we teaching for cognition or compliance?  

Are we requiring students to answer questions correctly by following directions as explicitly and prescriptively as they are taught or are we encouraging them to think deeply and express and share how and why they can achieve and attain correct answers, desired outcomes, or specific results in different ways?

Are we challenging students students to think deeply and express and share how they could transfer and use what they are learning to answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task, or are we directing them to understand there is only one way to answer a question, solve a problem, and complete a task, and you must do it this certain way just as you were taught?

Perhaps you're saying, "But the curriculum features all these different methods and strategies the students must use to demonstrate and communicate deeper knowledge and thinking." True, but what if we approached these different methodologies, strategies, and techniques not as a mandated assignment they must complete but rather as a hands-on learning experience in which they experiment with using these practices and processes and decide whether they want to use this particular method or another strategy?  Would they not only become familiar with these different processes but also realize there may be more than one way to answer a question, address a problem, and accomplish a task and they have the freedom to choose the method that would work best given the circumstances, the context, or even their own personal preference?

If you truly want to understand how our children are expected to learn math and why they should experiment with these different methodologies, I recommend you watch this video by Dr. Raj Shah, who explains perfectly how we should teach math for cognition, not compliance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_CK1e0Lmxw

I ask you educators to consider when you send your students home with those homework sheets that feature the Lattice Box or the empty number line or require them to identify the parts of a sentence through diagramming or write an essay using the Jane Schaeffer writing method, are you teaching for cognition or compliance?

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning will be published by ASCD in February 2016. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.

How Authentic Are Your Assessments?

As our schools transition from implementing to evaluating instruction that addresses the cognitive rigor of college and career ready standards such as the Common Core State Standards, many states have decided to grant schools and students a reprieve from mandates that measure and monitor overall school performance based upon the results of the new state summative assessments such as the PARCC or SBAC.  Some state education agencies and charter school authority boards are allowing schools to use the site-based assessments they have implemented at their schools from testing corporations such as ATI-Galileo, NWEA, Acuity, and MAP for reporting student performance and progress.

However, how authentic are these assessments?  Are they expecting students to answer questions correctly based upon how effectively they can remember, understand, and use what they have learned or are they engaging students to express and share how they would use the education and experience - or expertise - they have acquired and developed to address and respond to the question?

Authentic assessments resemble reading and writing in the real world and in school (Hiebert, Valencia & Afflerbach, 1994; Wiggins, 1993).  These assessments generally challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate their deeper knowledge, understanding, and awareness using oral, written, creative, or technical expression. They also prompt students read, review, and respond to texts or comment upon and critique the ideas, incidents, individuals, and issues they are learning supported by relevant and sufficient evidence and valid reasoning.  They also encourage students to share and show what can they do or produce with the deeper and broader knowledge and thinking they have acquired and developed.

In other words, they resemble how students will address and respond to circumstances and situations not only academically but also personally, professionally, and socially throughout and beyond their formal K-12 education.  Think about it.  How are we "tested" in life or the depth and extent of our knowledge and thinking evaluated?  The only time we would be given a multiple choice test is for certification or licensure or unless we go on a game show like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (see my other blog entry on Let's Make a D.O.K.!) Our knowledge and thinking is "tested" and evaluated based upon how correctly, clearly, comprehensively, and creatively we can communicate our claims, conclusions, and contentions.

That's how we should be authentically assessing our students - based upon how their ability to communicate the knowledge and thinking they have acquired and developed through their education and experiences.

In education, authentic assessments are typically used in active learning experiences such as project-based and problem-based learning that prompt and encourage students to create, do, or produce something - a plan, a product, or a project - that reflects and represents how deeply and extensively they have learned the subjects and topics they are studying.  The assessment is generally based upon the quality of the project produced or the success of the student to come up with a solution.

However, even though project design and problem solving are active and authentic learning experiences, are the final products and solutions students produce truly or authentically mark and measure the level and depth of their learning?

Don't get me wrong!  Project-based and problem-based learning are excellent instructional methods and strategies that not only challenge but also engage students to demonstrate and communicate their learning in-depth, insightfully, and in their own unique way.  However, when it comes to assessment, most PBL experiences merely scratch the surface, focusing on what can you create, do, or produce without delving into how and why you created, did, or produced the project or solution.

That is true authentic assessment - evaluating not only how correctly but also clearly, comprehensively, and even creatively can students communicate their knowledge and thinking using oral, written, creative, or technical expression.

 It's how we are expected to answer questions, address problems, and accomplish tasks in the real world.  Think about it.  In our professional and personal lives, when we answer a question, address a problem, or accomplish a task, we're not just expected to "just do it".  We're also expected to delve deeper by expressing and sharing how and why we answered, addressed the problem, and and accomplished the task.  We need to defend, explain, justify, and support our actions and decisions.  We are also encouraged to pass on our education and experiences - or expertise - to others.

Authentic assessment is about communication and expression, not just activity, production, and design.   The quality of the response is determined based upon the following:

• Did the student answer the question, address the problem, or accomplish the task correctly, clearly, comprehensively, and even creatively?
• Did the student express and share their claims, conclusions, and contentions in-depth, in detail, insightfully, and inimitably?
• Did the student strengthen and support their responses with textual evidence, personal experience, recorded observations, or scientifically-based research?

So how does this translate into the classroom?  We need to move away from tests that use multiple choice and provide assessments that utilize open-ended questions that provide students the opportunity to express and share the depth and extent of their learning.  We need to refocus our evaluation of student learning from determining whether students can answer the question correctly to whether students to defend and support their response to what the question is addressing using their education and experience - or expertise - as evidentiary support.  

However, this does not involve having students demonstrate and communicate their learning primarily through PBL experiences.  We can convert the performance objectives of college and career ready standards into good overarching and topical essential questions they can address and respond using the texts and topics they are reading and reviewing as evidentiary support.

Good overarching questions are the inquiries students will examine and explore throughout and beyond their K-12 education.  They address the core ideas and enduring understandings of an academic area, discipline, or field of study.  These core ideas are addressed in the disciplinary core standards of the college and career ready standards.  We can use the performance objectives to develop good overarching questions that can serve as the formative and summative assessments for a grade level or subject area.

Take a look at the questions in the accompanying graphic.  These are derived directly from the ELA / Literacy CCSS Anchor Standards for reading.  These are the good questions students will examine and explore throughout and beyond their K-12 experience with reading.  Consider how these good questions can act as the final assessment at a particular grade level or subject area.  They can also serve as benchmark assessments that progressively measure and monitor how deeply and extensively students have learned these concepts and content throughout their K-12 education.   Think about it.  What if students were asked these same questions at the end of every school year starting in Kindergarten and through 12th grade and used the texts and topics they read and review in class that particular as their evidentiary support for their responses?  How could this serve as a true measure of how deeply and extensively students have learned these disciplinary core ideas in a particular subject area?

The performance objectives for grade level academic would serve as the topical essential question for a particular unit or lesson. Take a look at the good questions that are derived from the performance objectives of the following math standards for a 3rd grade unit on multiplication and division. The cluster serves as the topical essential question that sets the instructional focus and serves as the summative assessment for the unit.  The performance objectives listed under the cluster serve as the daily good question that sets the instructional focus and serves as the summative assessment for individual lessons or learning experiences.  The problems students will be presented as part of the unit will serve as the textual evidence that strengthens and supports their responses.  We can provide a learning experience that challenges and prompts students to address and respond to one of these questions and use the problems they are presented to examine and solve as their evidence.  Look at the accompanying graphic that would drive a lesson on understanding and applying the Pythagorean Theorem.  The question students need to address and respond is the one in green at the top of the graphic.  The problems they need to examine and solve will serve as their examples and evidence that will strengthen and support their response to the question at the header of the slide.  However, I would advise not having the students examine and solve all these problems in one setting.  Ask them to address and respond to the good topical question and pick one or two problems to examine and solve to support their response.  The next day, ask them to pick two or three more of these math problems and explain how they can be solved using the Pythagorean Theorem.  At the end of the unit, present that topical essential question as the assessment or "test" question and have them pick the one problem they left remaining to strengthen and support their response.  It's practically a given that the one problem students' chose not to solve is the one they perceived to be the "hardest" one.  Think about how much you would build a student's confidence if they were successfully able to express and share how they could use the math to solve that problem they perceived to be so hard.  Also, consider how you would be able to assess their learning authentically by observing how deeply and successfully they can express and share how they can "use the math" - or rather, think mathematically. 

In English language arts, the overarching essential questions are the grade level performance objectives of the academic standards that will set the instructional focus and serve as the summative assessment for the course.  The topical questions will directly address the text or topic being read in reviewed in class.  Look at the topical essential questions for this book study on Charlotte's Web by E.B. White.  These questions authentically assess how deeply and extensively students understand the ideas and information presented in the text by challenging them to express and share what they have learned using oral, written, creative, or technical expression.  They will use specific evidence from the text to strengthen and support their responses. Similarly, these topical essential questions for a unit on Shakespearean tragic hero also set the instructional focus and serve as the summative authentic assessment that measures and monitors how deeply and extensively the students understand the texts and topics they are reading and reviewing.

To create authentic assessments that measure and monitor the depth and extent of students' understanding of the core ideas of an academic area, discipline, or field of study, look at the performance objectives of the disciplinary anchor standards and practices for a particular subject area.  You can use the ELA/Literacy CCSS Anchor Standards for Reading, the CCSS Standards for Mathematical Practices, the Crosscutting Concepts of the Next Generation Science Standards, or the Historical Thinking Standards, or the conceptual standards of the C3 State Standards for Social Studies.  Convert those performance objectives into good questions that ask students to address and respond how or why.

To create authentic assessments that assess and evaluate deeper and extensive knowledge and thinking about a particular text or topic, look at the performance objectives of the grade level or subject area academic standards that students will address as part of a lesson or unit.  Other than the English language arts college and career ready standards, these performance objectives generally challenge and engage students to demonstrate and communicate deeper and extensive content understanding.  The topical essential question will serve as the single question students will continuously examine and explain over the course of the unit.  It will also be the single question which students will need to address and respond at the end of the unit.  They will need to address and respond to this question by demonstrating and communicating their learning by processing the information they have acquired and gathered into their personal or self-knowledge and use specific evidence from the texts and topics they are reading, reviewing, and responding to as support.

That's authentic learning - expressing and sharing depth and extent of knowledge and thinking supported by examples and evidence - and that's what it means to assess learning authentically. 

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S., is the lead professional education specialist and owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing professional development and consultation on teaching and learning for cognitive rigor. His book Now THAT'S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning will be published by ASCD in February 2016. For more information on this topic or how to receive professional development at your site, please visit www.maverikeducation.com.