Blogs

rigor (2)

AFL in Higher-Level Courses

Posted by Scott Habeeb on February 9, 2012 at 5:09pm

Over the past several years, I have had the opportunity to talk with educators from schools across the country about the philosophy of AFL.  In doing so I have noticed several common reactions from educators to the idea of incorporating AFL-based strategies into their classrooms.  One of those common reactions is the one that SOME (not all) teachers of higher-level students and more rigorous courses OFTEN (not always) have.  That reaction goes something like this:

I see how AFL could work and don't necessarily disagree with it as a philosophy; however, I don't think it really applies to me or my classroom since I am teaching the most advanced students in college-level courses.  AFL strategies might make earning high grades in my classes too easy.  In a class like mine I need to make sure that a lot is required of my students, and I'm afraid that AFL will take too much responsibility away from them.  I'm teaching the way college professors teach, which is something these students need to experience prior to college.  Besides, the methods I use worked for me when I was a student, and most of my students get pretty good grades in my class - so why make changes.

If you are a teacher of higher-level courses and advanced students whose view toward AFL is at least somewhat consistent to the one I describe above, I would invite you to take another look at AFL and to reconsider your reasons for not adopting more AFL-based strategies in your classroom.  (That is, IF you are someone who has been reluctant to adopt AFL-based strategies)  In the following paragraphs I will examine each of the points of view described above and attempt to show why AFL does apply to higher-level courses.

1. I see how AFL could work and don't necessarily disagree with it as a philosophy; however, I don't think it really applies to me or my classroom since I am teaching the most advanced students in college-level courses.


 AFL is definitely a philosophy as opposed to a specific set of practices.  It is a teaching philosophy based on the reality of how people learn.  People need feedback and opportunities to learn from mistakes.  This applies to all students - from our weakest and most unmotivated to our strongest and most talented. Applying an AFL philosophy to a classroom simply means assessing more frequently (not necessarily testing), providing regular feedback,and grading in a manner that allows students to learn from mistakes and, therefore, master content better. (see The Heart of AFL)   With that being the case, how would AFL's usefulness change based on the level of rigor associated with the course?  Do smarter kids not need feedback?  Do highly motivated students not learn better when they receive regular feedback?  Do college-bound students not need opportunities to learn from mistakes?  Of course not.  AFL-based strategies will help ALL students learn and should, therefore, be used in classrooms of ALL levels. 

2. AFL strategies might make earning high grades in my classes too easy.

I have actually heard this exact statement made, and honestly, it baffles me.  While I believe it to be imperative that teachers require students to work hard, I also believe that our primary job is to make difficult content relatively easy to learn.  Both situations can coexist - hard work and content made easy to understand.  That's our purpose - to take content and skills that students cannot learn on their own and make them learn-able.  We are called to communicate in a manner that enables young people to do more than they ever thought possible and more than they could ever do on their own.  We make the hard, easy.  Along the way, students will be asked to work very hard, but our goal is to not make the content hard to learn - it's already hard to learn.  Our goal is to make it easy to understand.  

The rigor of a course should come from the inherent rigor of the content and NOT from the way we teach the course.  I repeat, the rigor of a course should come from the inherent rigor of the content and NOT from the way we teach the course.

Therefore, if the grade we assign a student TRULY reflects learning and mastery, then making a good grade really shouldn't be all that difficult.  Some students may CHOOSE to not earn a good grade, but that should be their choice not a result of our teaching.  And while some students may occasionally be in a class that's over their head, that is the exception not the rule.  Therefore, if applying AFL strategies to a classroom leads to a increase in learning which in turn leads to an increase in the level of grades earned, why is that a problem?  (For more, see an earlier post entitled Does AFL lead to grade inflation?)   

3.  In a class like mine I need to make sure that a lot is required of my students, and I'm afraid that AFL will take too much responsibility away from them. 

Thinking along these lines represents a fundamental misunderstanding of AFL.  In discussions related to AFL it is common to talk about how AFL-based strategies will result in students learning more.  To me, this should excite teachers since our job is to find strategies to help students learn.  However, for some educators, this idea gets turned into, "Since students are not doing what it takes to learn, I now need to do these new and additional things for them."  There is a fundamental flaw with thinking that way: It presumes that the way you have been teaching is perfect, and that any problems that exist are student-centered.  

There is no doubt whatsoever that students and their choices play a huge role - perhaps the major role - in student learning.  Absolutely no doubt at all.  However, there is also no doubt whatsoever that teacher choices play a huge role - perhaps the major role - in student learning, as well.  (I realize there cannot be 2 majority roles, thus the word "perhaps".)  Just as doctors must continually hone their skills and gain new ones to meet the medical needs of their patients, teachers should seek continuous improvement to meet their students' needs.  So if your students aren't doing all that they should, but you could change something that you're doing that would result in increased learning, why would you not do so?  Why would a teacher stubbornly cling to, "I'm not going to do that, because students aren't doing their part"?  Our goal is to get all students to learn, not just the ones who do all that they should.

The other fundamental flaw with that line of thinking is that is presumes incorrectly that somehow AFL-based strategies require less of students.  I think what happens is that some people confuse talk of wanting to help students do better with making school too easy or not rigorous enough.  When it comes to AFL, that is an erroneous conclusion.  In fact, the exact opposite is true.  In a classroom where the teacher is using sound AFL-based strategies, the students are being trained to take ownership of and responsibility for their own progress.  By its very nature, AFL should place more responsibility on students.  (For more on that topic, read It's About Students Taking Ownership of Learning and/or Which Parent Do You Most Want to Please?)

4. I'm teaching the way college professors teach, which is something these students need to experience prior to college.

I'm going to be brutally honest here even though it might offend some of the college professors who read this blog.  While college professors are true experts in their field, and while many of them are skilled lecturers, and while I"m sure most are passionate about educating, my opinion is that the worst TEACHING in all of the educational world occurs in college classrooms.  The typical college classroom - as I have experienced it now at 3 universities - consists of the professor lecturing and the students taking notes.  Then, 2 or 3 times per semester, a test/exam is given on the notes.  While many of us have learned a lot content in this format, I would contend that our level of learning is not a result of how well we have been taught as much as a result of how much we have chosen to learn on our own.

Think about it for a moment.  If a teacher provides students with notes on a topic, has them read about it in a book, DOESN'T give them opportunities to practice the content and learn from their mistakes, and then tests them, what is that teacher actually assessing?  I believe that the teacher is assessing how well students can learn on their own from the content provided them.  If a student gets an A in that class is it a result of wonderful teaching?  No - it's a result of the student's wonderful studying.  This must be true because this sort of teacher strongly defends the opposite situation - when a student fails such a class few teachers would say that it was a result of terrible teaching but rather terrible study habits.  You can't have one without the other. 

So here's where that leads us:  College-style teaching is not - in general - the best teaching.  To teach in that style - even remotely like that style - is to adopt poor teaching strategies.  We should find it ludicrous to even consider doing anything less than the best job possible for our students.  Why would we let bad teaching at the next level cause us to be less than stellar at our current level?  HOWEVER, AFL STRATEGIES COULD PREPARE STUDENTS FOR DEALING WITH POOR TEACHING.  If we train our students to seek and use feedback to guide their own learning - in other words, to take control of their education - then they will be more likely to succeed in any type of future classroom situation.  AFL-based strategies are the very skills that our college-bound students need us to teach them.   

5. Besides, the methods I use worked for me when I was a student, and most of my students get pretty good grades in my class - so why make changes.

The fact that the way you teach is the way you liked being taught is in no way an indication that the way you are teaching is the best way to teach - unless, of course, everyone is just like you!  This would be a terrible reason to not try AFL-based strategies.  So would the fact that most of your students are finding success.  In every high school there are some students who are easier to teach than others.  They are the students who behave, have good attitudes, do what is asked of them, and want to be successful.  Let's face it, those students tend to be found in our higher-level more rigorous classes.  Please do not hear me wrong - I fully understand that teaching these students - any students - is not without its challenges, but the truth of the matter is that strong students can really make a teacher look good.  In my lifetime I have run into teachers whose teaching strategies work in their classrooms more because of WHO they are teaching than because of HOW they are teaching.  Bottom line, we must never allow ourselves to grow complacent with our professional growth.  So having success teaching strong students should never be a reason to not explore new ideas and strategies.  

My main point is this: AFL is a philosophy that, when used properly, improves learning.  Since ALL teachers of ALL students should want to improve learning, there really is NO teacher who could not benefit from adding a little AFL to the classroom. 


Thoughts?

Read more…

How do you really know if you taught "it"?

Posted by Scott Habeeb on November 11, 2010 at 10:00pm
Note to teachers from Salem High School: This is a post about teaching, teachers, and students in general as opposed to a post about specific situations at Salem High School.
So after all the lesson plans have been created, all the class time has been spent, and all the papers have been graded, how do you really know if you've taught your content well?
I might get under some people's skin with this post, but I want to get us to really think about our profession and WHY we teach.
So what's the answer to the question of how we know if we have taught our content well? If we're really going to live up to our calling, we must answer it this way: We know we have taught our content well if all our students have learned it and their grades reflect this.
Let's clear up one misconception before it has a chance to grow - our job is not to make sure all students get good grades. Our job is, however, to make sure that all students learn our content. That's the whole point of being a teacher - to get students to learn. It's also our responsibility to grade in a way that reflects the amount of learning. So while good grades are not our focus, learning is. And when learning occurs, if we grade properly, good grades will follow.
Ok, let's clear up another misconception before we proceed - saying that it's our job to make sure that all our students have learned does not absolve students of their role in the learning process. Obviously poor decisions by our students will end up impacting the amount of learning that occurs. However, we cannot control their decision making. We can, though, control how we teach and how we grade. Therefore, if what we are doing is not leading to the mastery of content, and if our grades are not accurately reflecting the level of mastery reached by our students, then it is incumbent upon us to do something about it. There is no room in education for complacency. Our attitude must be that IF THEY HAVEN'T LEARNED IT, THEN WE HAVEN'T TAUGHT IT.
I remember taking Macro-economics in college. Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that while the professor may have "known his stuff", he was an absolutely lousy teacher. There must have been about 400 students in the class. I was only taking the class Pass/Fail. I really felt bad for my classmates as I looked at the posted grades after each test we took. I remember earning a 60 on the mid-term and having it curved to a B+. I really didn't care since it was Pass/Fail, but I remember thinking what a joke it was to say that this person was teaching. Obviously many of the students - myself included - were not putting the amount of effort into the class that we should, but how could that professor be satisfied with himself knowing that almost none of his 400 students were mastering the content in his course?
I envisioned this professor sitting with his colleagues in the departmental office complaining about "college students these days". While I wasn't around in his day, I really doubt there ever was a time when college students enjoyed boring lectures, no descriptive feedback, and undecipherable tests. We didn't learn it, and he didn't teach it.
So what is an appropriate level of failure for your students? Should you be satisfied if 70% master your content? 80%? 90%? While it's important to keep a certain level of reality mixed in with your idealism so that you don't go crazy, WE MUST HAVE THE ATTITUDE THAT WE ARE GOING TO STRIVE FOR 100% MASTERY. Notice I said strive. This means we will not be complacent. We will continue to tweak, change, try, experiment, etc. to always try and bring more students to mastery level.
This is where Assessment FOR Learning has it's greatest power. To some degree, it saddens me when teachers have difficulty incorporating - or worse, don't try to incorporate - an AFL philosophy into their teaching. The reason is because an AFL philosophy will lead to greater content mastery. To not incorporate AFL strategies into one's teaching is to be satisfied with the fact that you're not doing the best that you can to teach your students. Let me give an example of what I mean:
If you "teach" content and then give a summative assessment (a traditional test, for example) without lots of assessment along the way, you know what will happen. The students who are very dedicated workers and/or the students who can sit in class and "get it" will do very well on the test. The students who do little to no work outside of class or who can't just sit in class and "get it" will do very poorly. Another group of students will score somewhere in between. For years, teachers have satisfied themselves with this outcome by "blaming students". In other words, because some students almost always do well, the teacher convinces himself or herself that all students could have done well if they had either worked harder, paid more attention, or were more academically gifted. The teacher "knows" he or she taught the content because SOME students have mastered the content. This is a convenient defense strategy for teachers as it absolves teachers of the responsibility of making sure that students learn. YES, students have a role in it (as stated earlier), but we can't control all of their decisions. We CAN control how we teach, though.

The scenario in the above paragraph is very common in schools. Essentially, it is being satisfied with the bell curve of life. As educators, we have the privilege of smashing the bell curve. We have the opportunity to be the "difference-maker" in a kid's life. Too often this opportunity is squandered as we sell short our ability to alter the outcome of a student's learning. AFL - formative assessment - can be a powerful tool in our attempt to maximize that opportunity. And it really doesn't require much additional work on our part.
Take the example from 2 paragraphs above. If instead of "teaching" and then giving a summative assessment, the teacher would instead assess EVERYDAY, then an incredible difference could be made in the typical bell curve outcome. For example:
  • If everyday the students left class knowing what they know and being aware of what they have not yet mastered - this happens because of specific classroom assessment activities led by the teacher - then students will perform better on the summative assessment. Have you ever experienced a situation as a student where you thought you knew what was going on until you took the test? You studied, and you thought you understood the content. Then you took the test and realized you didn't know it at all. This is all too common - but it shouldn't be. If this is happening to students in your class then you need to apply more AFL strategies. This is a clear sign that you need to provide activities that require your students to assess themselves throughout the learning process so that they are acutely aware of how well they're doing and what they need to do to prepare for the summative test.
  • If students were quizzed/tested/assessed repeatedly leading up to the summative assessment, then the summative assessment would not catch them by surprise. Do you ever hear your students complain that they understood the content but were surprised by the types of questions on the summative test? Unfortunately, this is a common occurrence as well. It's a clear sign that a teacher has not employed an AFL philosophy. AFL is about using assessment FOR learning. Teaching and then giving a summative assessment only is AFG - Assessment FOR Grading. It's using assessment to find out how much people know. While this has to happen eventually - there is nothing wrong with a summative assessment - it does little to help the learning process. If students are assessed regularly - DAILY - then the feedback from the assessments will actually help them learn - thus the name, Assessment FOR Learning.
Let's clear up 2 more misconceptions:
  1. But what about students who still refuse to work? They could still come into class completely unprepared and fail the assessment? Of course. But they are also the outliers. Let's focus on the majority of students - the ones who do what we ask. Let's not lose a good strategy just because a few students continue to make bad decisions. HOWEVER, I would contend that those poor decision-making students would learn more if they were assessed daily and provided with opportunities to assess themselves - even if they didn't work hard outside of class.
  2. But what about rigor? Shouldn't a rigorous class by its very nature lead to a bell curve of sorts? The rigor in a class should not be demonstrated by the student grades that result. The rigor of the class is inherent in the difficulty of the content. However, assuming that the students who are in the class have been properly prepared and have academic strengths on par for the class, then there is no reason that students shouldn't enjoy great success in a rigorous course. Our job as teachers is to get students to learn. That is no less true in a rigorous class than it is in a "general level" course. Unfortunately, it is common for teachers in rigorous classes to feel that the rigor of the course justifies the lack of success of some students. Again - grades aren't the goal. Learning is. But if AFL strategies can lead to students in rigorous courses getting higher grades that are reflective of increased learning, then how could we not employ those strategies?
So, how do you know if you've taught your content? You know it if your students have learned it. And AFL strategies will help increase that learning - which is, after all, WHY we teach.
Read more…

Latest Blog Posts

Most Popular Blog Posts

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives