Group A Critical Response
The initial practical assessment seemed to equate the amount of knowledge with task completion. The students were thought to have achieved adequate learning if they completed tasks faster. In order to enhance the qualitative aspect of learning, teachers devised a strategy to show deeper learning. Greater support in terms of extensive resources was identified as the main source of cohesion between research and practice. Professional learning communities provide such platforms for change through experimentation.
Educators eventually make their own teaching style based on experience, how they were taught and through mentorship. Theoretical guidelines during training also mould them. Teachers still face difficulty changing from quantitative to qualitative learning, because the assessment is rigid in favour of one. To handle all the expectations, teachers had to act as co creators with their students so as to encourage life long learning. Changes in the mode of assessment also promised to be a better way of ensuring wholistic learning. (Andrade & Heritage, 2018)
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Group B Critical Response
The group described why it was important for the learners to be aware of their success criteria and learning goals. This was important in developing a sense of progression and purpose. The importance of individual goal setting was also described because it allowed for involvement and collaboration. However, this may not be realistic as there may be no time to facilitate such an arrangement. The institution must fulfill the requirements of the curriculum even while trying to create self efficacy.
Writing goals in student friendly language was emphasised. This was a beneficial and crucial point that would encourage learners to be aware of the expectations. Self regulated classroom experiences were also discussed. The CREATE model and the Play Inquiry based model were useful examples of self regulated models of learning. A combination of instructional methods and practical applications were the best approach.
Group C Critical Response
Setting goals was discussed in the context of the classroom. It was made clear that overall goals were set by the institution. They were to be met as a class unit. However, there was consensus that the teacher could go further and break down the goals for the students to understand why each goal was relevant. The operational system also made it clear that it would be difficult to change set targets in higher education. Examples of learning goals in subjects such as nursing and engineering were quoted for their rigidity.
The use of rubrics was opposed because of the possibility of developing standard and uniform outcomes. However, this was not as convincing because rubrics only give guidelines. What a student does within the confines of the guidelines will not necessarily stifle their creativity. The options of using oral tools of assessment was interesting and note worthy. (Olovsson, 2015) Student collaboration through understanding of learning targets and clarity of the learning process were emphasised as well.
Group D Critical Response
The use of rubrics was discussed further, with suggestions on co creation instead of complete adherence to them. Rubrics were to be used to communicate expectations and to give guidelines for use. Introduction of rubrics should then be done at the beginning and not at the end. Understanding the purpose of the rubric was thought to be important. This made more sense than co-creating a rubric with students who were not aware of the curriculum.
Both approaches were thought to be complementary in meeting learning goals. Time consumption and distractions were some of the reasons why co creation was opposed. This were reasonable concerns that could be overcome through setting mini goals. Overall, co creation of rubrics had mixed outcomes.
Group E Critical Response
The concept of mastering material was discussed, and the education system was found to favour coverage instead. This made it difficult to enhance understanding. The option of limiting material to the essential and applicable units was discounted because of the issue of standardised testing. This was correctly left to curriculum developers to consider. The use of rubrics came up again, and they were said to be a form of post study evaluation. Their role as a guideline was ignored by students until when presenting assignments requiring evaluation.
Many suggested that it would be appropriate for teachers to use exemplars so that the relevance would be felt. Individual goal setting in the classroom was discounted as a time wasting activity because everyone would be on their own level. (Egan, 2011). It was however thought to be more useful for self evaluation and target setting.
Group F Critical Response
This was one of the most important discussions as it provided actionable changes. The participants suggested that the teacher should change the language of the goals and make it student friendly. This would lead to better comprehension of expectations. The use of examples to demonstrate succesful outcomes was also encouraged. Simplifying the curriculum goals and rubric as well as breaking down the time frames was essential. Students found it easier to meet daily and weekly goals instead of larger ones.
Flexibility was also discussed in terms of meeting teacher goals. It was to be embraced in resource allocation, assessment types and in accommodating different learning needs. ( TCDSB 21C, 2015). This encouraged long term success and understanding. Standardised testing was seen as a limiting evaluation for all.
Group G Critical Response
This section focused on teacher collaboration. This was more specific than mentoring or merely adopting the organisational culture in the respective schools. The emphasis was on deliberate engagement with other teachers. This was in order to determine what approaches worked better and which were less effective. The forum can be used to ask for help or to collect feedback that will lead to positive improvement.
The teachers were encouraged to set clear goals so as to help the students with clarity. Checklists were suggested for younger students, while older students were encouraged to make mini goals from the main goals. These were suitable ways of creating self regulation mechanisms and enhancing meta cognitive awareness. (Abdellah, 2015)
Group H Critical Response
This section compared the effectiveness of a rubric versus a checklist. From the discussion, it was clear that both have the role of setting up guidelines. However, the rubric was rightfully found to be too advanced for junior students. The checklist was more simplistic and more easy for the junior students to understand and use. Both approaches were acceptable as long as clarity was maintained in both.
One aspect of the rubric that was over looked was the fact that it clearly brought out strengths and weaknesses. A student could excel in one aspect on the rubric but not in another. For example, the ability to format work according to a specific referencing style could be a weakness. However, the work presented may then be well done and with an impressive academic content, but poorly formatted. The discussion touched on exploiting this as a means of levelling the chances of success and evaluating competence. (Backman et al, 2019). Overall, the GRASPS model was favored.
Final Summary of ALL Groups Critical Response
The groups had exhaustive discussions on teaching methods, evaluation methods and overall methods of impacting knowledge. Group A was realistic in comparing teacher output to resources available and to teacher interactions. Group B emphasised the correlation of goals to the curriculum. Group C considered the possibility of student interactions during goal setting. Group D discussed co creation to supplement rubric use. Group E highlighted the challenge of mastering material versus understanding concepts. Group F encouraged simplifying the goals for students, while Group G encouraged teacher collaboration. Finally, Group H expanded on rubric and checklist relevance.
References
Abdellah, R. (2015). Metacognitive awareness and its relation to academic achievement and teaching performance of pre-service female teachers in Ajman University in UAE. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences , 174 , 560-567.
Andrade, H.L., Heritage, M. (2018). Using formative assessment to enhance learning, achievement, and academic self regulation. New York: Routledge – Chapter 3.
Backman, M., Pitt, H., Marsden, T., Mehmood, A., " Mathijs, E. (2019). Experiential approaches to sustainability education: Towards learning landscapes. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education , 20 (1), 139-156.
Egan, R. (2011). Adjusting curricular design to “CREATE” a culture of self-regulation. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning . 2(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2011.2.
Olovsson, T.G. (2015). The assessment process in a Swedish year five classroom: ‘Reach page 52!’. Education . pp. 3-13
TCDSB 21C. (2015, February 18). Educagains video - Connecting to Learning Goals and Success Criteria [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHt_6wp0x6s&list=LL41ywzLAVHHjC5Y83svps4A&index=2
