Transcript developingessentialpowerstandardswithrbt

Developing Essential (Power)
Standards in North Carolina:
Using the
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
(RBT)
Staff Presentation, December 18, 2008
Jerrie W. Brown, Content Lead for Social Studies Assessments
North Carolina State University
Center for Urban & Community Services
Technical Outreach for Public Schools (TOPS)
SBE Mandates
•
•
•
•
•
Essential Standards
RBT Cognitive Framework
Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
21st Century Skills
New State Assessments (Summative,
Benchmark and Formative)
• Multiple Choice, Constructed Response
and Performance Task Item Types
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
2
Essential Standards
Ainsworth’s Criteria for Identifying
Power (Priority) Standards:
E = endurance Will the knowledge and skills to which this
standard relates be used by students for several years
beyond this grade level?
L = leverage Will the knowledge and skills to which this
standard relates help students in other academic areas?
R = readiness Do teachers in the next higher grade
regard this standard as a prerequisite for students to
enter that grade with success and confidence?
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
3
Why objectives?
• We can teach what we want to teach and hope
that our students learn something. If we opt for
this choice, we must recognize that what they
learn will likely depend on the students
themselves and what they bring to the course.
• We can formulate statements of what we intend
for students to learn from our teaching and share
them with our students. In educational jargon,
these “statements of learning intentions” are
called “objectives.”
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
In education, objectives help us
• Decide our emphasis in the course. Of all the
things we could teach, what should we teach?
• Decide how best to teach. Teaching students to
analyze is fundamentally different from teaching
students to memorize.
• Decide how best to determine whether students
learned what we expected them to learn in the
course. Do I need a project or a final exam?
• Most importantly, perhaps, is that objectives
communicate our decisions on these matters to
our students.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
All objectives have a common format!
Subject
Subject
Verb
Verb
SS
VV
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Object
Object
OO
In education, the SUBJECT of a statement
of objectives is the student or the learner.
•
•
•
•
The student will …
Students will …
The student should …
Students should …
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
This is NOT an objective!
Objective: This course emphasizes the
historic, economic, geographic, political,
and social structure of various cultural
regions of the world from the dawn of
civilization to 1900. Special attention is
given to the formation and evolution of
societies into complex political and
economic systems.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
The OBJECT of the statement of
objectives is derived most often from the
course content.
• literary movements in American literature from 1865
to the present.
• mechanical behavior of tissues in the human body
• the development of international adjudication
• the subsurface environment of sedimentary basins
• politics, collective behavior, and social change
• classical Latin prosody
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
1. The study of the metrical structure of verse.
2. A particular system of versification.
Having considered the SUBJECT and
the OBJECT, that leaves us with the
VERB. In simplest terms, the VERB
connects the student to the content.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Connecting students to content
• The student should [VERB] literary movements
in American literature from 1865 to the present.
• The student should [VERB] the development of
international adjudication
• The student should [VERB] mechanical behavior
of tissues in the human body
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
From 1996 – 2001, I [Anderson] worked with 7
educators to rework a very famous classification
system for objectives developed by Benjamin
Bloom and his colleagues more than a halfcentury ago. Known as Bloom’s Taxonomy, this
system contains six categories: Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis,
Synthesis, and Evaluation.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Based on developments in cognitive
psychology and research on teaching and
learning, we changed the category labels
from nouns to verbs.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Remember
Understand
Apply
Analyze
Evaluate
Create
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
By inserting one of these verbs into the
VERB space, we can get the following.
• The student should ANALYZE literary
movements in American literature from 1865 to
the present.
• The student should UNDERSTAND the
development of international adjudication
• The student should APPLY knowledge of the
mechanical behavior of tissues in the human
body to the design of prosthetics.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Why is the verb important?
• The verb represents the cognitive processes that
students should use to learn the content.
• In somewhat oversimplified terms, learning occurs
when the content, which initially is outside the
student, gets inside the student. This movement
from “outside” to “inside” takes place through the
cognitive processes used by the student as
specified in objectives by the verbs.
• If students choose to remember, they will not
necessarily understand. If they understand, that
does not necessarily mean that they can do
anything with that understanding (i.e., apply).
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
In today’s world, learning is too
important to be “hit or miss.”
• Objectives forge a connection between teaching
and learning, between teachers and students.
• Objectives take much of the “guessing” out of
the student’s attempt not only to learn, but to
demonstrate their learning.
• Objectives enable students to “student” better.
The better they “student,” the more likely they
will learn … and learn what you deem important
for them to learn if they are to truly master the
content of the course.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
And so we return to our two choices
• We can teach what we want to teach and hope
that our students learn something. If we opt for
this choice, we must recognize that what they
learn will likely depend on the students
themselves and what they bring to the course.
• We can formulate statements of what we intend
for students to learn from our teaching and share
them with our students. In educational jargon,
these “statements of learning intentions” are
called “objectives.”
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
How will North Carolina
choose?
On Student-Centered Learning Outcomes:
If there was just one thing you would want your students to learn
from your course, what would that be? This single question is the
basis for identifying student-centered learning outcomes.
Learning outcomes describe the measurable skills, abilities,
knowledge or values that students should be able to do or
demonstrate as a result of completing a program of study, a
course or lesson.
Dr. Lorin W. Anderson, Carolina
Distinguished Professor Emeritus,
University of South Carolina
August 28, 2008
A Starter Set of the Rules
• All objectives must be written in SVO form.
• An objective can have ONE AND ONLY ONE
verb.
• Each objective must be an EDUCATIONAL
objective, not a GLOBAL nor an
INSTRUCTIONAL objective (see RBT, p.17).
• Each objective must be written with an “eye to
the future.” What do students need to learn to
be successful at the next level?
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Starter Set, page 2
• Each objective must be assessable. To
ensure assessability, a prototypical
assessment task must be written for each
objective at the same time that the
objective is written.
• As a set, the objectives associated with a
course or grade level must be “teachable”
within the time allocated for teaching that
course or at that grade level.
(Lorin W. Anderson, 2008)
Develop Curriculum Maps
3 minimal requirements (so far):
(1) essential standard
(2) sample assessment task
(3) time needed to teach the standard
Cognitive Transition
Old – One Dimension
New – Two Dimensions
Thinking Skill Levels
(Marzano, 1988)
Cognitive Processes
and Knowledge Types
(Anderson, 2001)
1. Knowing
1. Remember
2. Organizing
2. Understand
A. Factual
B. Conceptual
3. Applying
3. Apply
C. Procedural
4. Analyzing
4. Analyze
5. Generating
5. Evaluate
6. Integrating
6. Create
D. Meta-Cognitive
7. Evaluating
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
23
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) Table
for Civics and Economics, 2009
Knowledge
Dimension
(Lower Order = 0%)
1.
Remember
2.
Understand
Cognitive Process Dimension
3.
Apply
4.
Analyze
(Higher Order = 0%)
5.
Evaluate
6.
Create
A.
Factual
Knowledge
(0%)
B.
Conceptual
Knowledge
(0%)
C.
Procedural
Knowledge
(0%)
D.
MetaCognitive
Knowledge
(0%)
Adapted from Anderson, Lorin W. and David R. Krathwohl, et al., (2001).
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
24
Hybrid Anderson/Bloom/Marzano
Taxonomy Table for Civics and Economics, 2003
Knowledge
Dimension
(Lower Order = 28%)
1.
Knowing
2.
Organizing
Levels of Thinking and Reasoning
3.
Applying
4.
Analyzing
5.
Generating
(Higher Order = 72%)
6.
Integrating
7.
Evaluating
A.
Factual
Knowledge
(4%)
6.04
1.03, 4.03
B.
Conceptual
Knowledge
(58%)
2.01, 2.07
3.01, 3.07
5.02, 6.02
1.06, 1.08
7.03, 7.06
8.01
8.04, 10.04
1.01, 1.02
2.06, 2.08
3.04, 3.05
3.08, 4.01
4.05, 4.06
4.07, 7.01
8.07, 9.02
9.08, 10.05
2.05
1.04, 2.02,
2.03, 3.02
3.03, 8.05
8.06, 10.01
9.06
1.05, 1.07
8.08, 9.04
10.02, 10.03
C.
Procedural
Knowledge
(38%)
6.03, 9.01
6.07
4.04, 4.08
4.09, 6.01
10.06
2.04, 2.09
3.06, 3.09
4.02, 5.03
5.06, 6.06
7.04, 8.02
8.09, 9.07
5.05, 7.02
7.05, 8.03
9.03, 9.05
6.05
5.01, 5.04
6.08
D.
MetaCognitive
Knowledge
Adapted from works by Robert Marzano, et al., (1988) and Anderson, Lorin W. and David R. Krathwohl, et al., (2001).
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
25
Hybrid Anderson/Bloom/Marzano
Taxonomy Table for United States History, 2003
Knowledge
Dimension
Lower Order = 13%)
1.
Knowing
2.
Organizing
A.
Factual
Knowledge
(11%)
6.02
2.03
B.
Conceptual
Knowledge
(80%)
1.01, 2.05
3.03
4.01
C.
Procedural
Knowledge
(9%)
Levels of Thinking and Reasoning
3.
Applying
3.01
4.
Analyzing
5.
Generating
6.01, 6.03
9.04
7.01
1.02, 2.02
3.02, 3.04
4.03, 5.04
7.04, 8.01
8.02, 9.02
9.03, 10.02
10.03, 11.01
11.04, 11.05
10.01, 10.04
2.01, 7.02
5.02, 9.01
(Higher Order = 87%)
6.
Integrating
12.01
7.
Evaluating
1.03, 2.04
2.06, 3.05
4.02, 4.04
5.03, 7.03
8.03, 9.05
10.05, 11.02
11.03, 11.06
12.02, 12.03
12.04, 12.05
12.06
5.01
D.
MetaCognitive
Knowledge
Adapted from works by Robert Marzano, et al., (1988) and Anderson, Lorin W. and David R. Krathwohl, et al., (2001).
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
26
NC Social Studies 2003
Further Information:
Mr. Jerrie W. Brown
North Carolina State University
Center for Urban and Community Services
Technical Outreach for Public Schools
1500 Blue Ridge Road
Raleigh, N. Carolina 27609
Tel: (919) 515-1125
Email: [email protected]
J. Brown, NCSU, 2008
28