Determining Mastery For Instructional Strategies

In a study regarding beliefs about learning, students in New Zealand “were more governed by the tasks and examinations set by teachers and schools, so, despite claims by teachers, the students were very strategic in concentrating on acquiring sufficient surface and whatever deeper understanding was needed to complete assignments and examinations” (Hattie, 2008, p. 28). Many school systems have used testing that claims to effectively gauge student success but falls short of challenging students to further their learning. Teachers are susceptible to evaluating students for surface knowledge rather than the more complex deeper orders of thinking, and in turn, these testing procedures attempt to evaluate the effective influence teachers have on their students (e.g. evaluating exemplary teaching). Exemplary teaching is when a teacher examines a student's learning progress, not by test scores alone, but by varying methods of assessment, providing feedback, and furthering knowledge to be used for future learning experiences; exemplary teaching is difficult to achieve because school systems rely too heavily on student test scores to measure student achievement, which parallels expectations and requirements for teachers to ensure a regulatory, quantifiable, deceptive student success rate. In this essay, I will elaborate on what exemplary teaching is, what it is not, and why it is difficult to achieve.

With standard grading processes on the school level, motivation for sufficient learning is advancement and graduation from that educational branch. Except in cases of completely deteriorated motivation from the student, typically culminating in said student dropping out on their own accord, this incentive to complete the curriculum typically maintains student motivation. The shortsightedness of such testing is the assumption of a unified degree of student motivation, especially at the high school level (Forte, 2010). Standardized tests administered to student at this age group are frequently low pressure and low stake. Because the tests pose far less consequence to the student, and motivation for students can occur on such a wide spectrum, test results become far less uniform than expected (Ryan, Ryan, Arbuthnot, & Samuels, 2007). When applied to a common, realistic scenario, the model begins to break down. For example, an unmotivated student would characteristically perform poorly on a test. When the scores are returned, however, the school is still expected to facilitate this student’s learning in order to resolve the previous score, following the trend of school culpability. Due to differing degrees of motivation, the test results therefore possess a significant potential for ambiguous validity, which subsequently requires filtering of test results to stabilize the statistics (Wise, Wise, & Bhola, 2006). To filter

accurately measure a student’s knowledge and that these tests fail to assess the full potential of the student (Evans, Ashman).

I have looked at various theorists ideas and would agree with Bloom’s mastery- learning strategies as every learner learns at a different pace. I had not before understood quite how difficult assessment can be, especially formative and how many methods can be used when assessing learners. I had not used peer assessment at all and had to explore this in depth and although I would like to use this assessment I feel that my learners are too self conscious to enable this to happen.

Department of Education, 2013). Students are provided interventions and projects in the secondary level for testing, only if they pass three out of five tests and have completed course work, then the student will become eligible for graduation (U.S. Department of Education, et al., 2013). Students on the other hand are retained and fails to meet mastery are labeled as over-age learners (U.S. Department of Education, et al., 2013).

Some students may be bad at taking multiple-choice tests, but have a clear understanding of the material learned. A student may get nervous before tests, and their mind may go blank. A single testing style should not determine the quality of a student. Similarly, test scores should be one of the factors examined, not the sole deciding factor of a school’s success because “schools are dynamic and complex, and to determine the quality of a school, one must look beyond the test scores” (Gentry). If we are to keep standardized government testing, it should be conducted in a variety of ways—not just multiple-choice tests.

When I ponder what the term mastery means to me, the conclusion is the knowledge and capabilities to be an all-knowing expert in a particular area. Surprisingly, in education mastery is the minimum technical ability that an individual must possess in order to effectively perform the criterion-referenced common core standards. The common core standards are designed to outline the basic proficiencies, the minimum standards, in which we desire our students to achieve. The intended goal is not just achieving these objectives, but learning how to apply the knowledge and strategies we have obtained to various situations. Once students have reached the basic “mastery” level, we encourage them to move forward and develop additional concepts, but

An anonymous author once stated, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” The same idea holds true when it comes to standardized testing. A student with testing anxiety, dyslexia, poor comprehension, or slow paced thinking skills should not be tested on his or her ability to take a limited subject, timed test. Upon receiving test results, only two outcomes are possible; instead of believing in improvement, students will either become discouraged or set in cruise control (Jouriles, 2014). Along with that, a majority of students will not look to expand their knowledge on the subjects after the tests conclude, being as the tests do not coincide with any of Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Howard Gardner, a Harvard professor believed that humans were comprised of eight distinct intelligences, which allowed them to be stronger and spark interest in some areas over others (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2010). Gardner believed in Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Spatial, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal, and Naturalist Intelligences, but out of the reading, writing, science, and mathematics that the MCA’s test students on, only one subject area coincides with Gardner’s discovery (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2010). How are students expected to contribute their hard work and effort, when they are being tested on their weaknesses rather than their strengths? Gardner was able to realize the differences between individuals; he saw how much more there was to a human. Unfortunately, test makers have not come to that realization, for they fail to include subjects such as music, art, language, social studies, history, mechanics, and environmental studies. Until standardized test creators make an attempt to obtain a well rounded evaluation of the individual

When the majority of students achieve or don’t achieve on homework, projects or tests, it brings up an alarming truth. This truth being, the assigned task was either not taught correctly, or it was created with a difficulty harder than the standards. The Every Student Succeeds Act, signed in 2015, “requires—for the first time—that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers” (Every). What this means is, students must be taught academic standards well enough where they actively succeed on tests and assignments. The process to ensure the access to these high standards is the deliverance of “vital information [...] to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students' progress toward those high standards” (Every). This provides an instructional outline for teachers, which is meant to conclusively enhance student understanding for annual standardized testing. When teachers fail to accurately build understanding for students, the children are the ones who suffer; they lose the chance to thoroughly learn the curriculum. In A Repair Kit for Grading: 15 Fixes for Broken Grades, by Ken O’Connor, he claims, “Grades are broken when the evidence used is from poor-quality

If someone was to ask you “how do you define student achievement?” what would your answer be? Would you say student achievement is measured by state achievement tests? Or would you say that student achievement is too complex a subject to be objectively measured? There are many important skills students must be taught, and we need a way to effectively measure if they are in fact learning those skills. However, standardized tests cannot effectively show the learning of all students, especially those that are not good test takers. And of those skills that are tested, there are an endless number of arguably more important skills that aren’t being valued because they cannot be calculated. Furthermore,

“How do you know if your students are achieving your specific learning goals for a course?” (Commons pg.1) This is a very important question raised by the Stanford University Teaching Commons in their article Assessing Student Learning. The teaching commons is from Stanford University’s center for teaching and learning that was created in 2015. The content editor in charge of everything is Joan Passarelli as well as the undergrad web group leads. If a teacher takes a look at their assessment methods and then makes some changes, they could ultimately be more effective when it comes to teaching content.

The learning goals in this instructional plan were developed based on Louis’s readiness for learning with reference to relevant curriculum and learning domain of a progression. In relation to Abilities Based Learning and Education Support (ABLES) (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2011) and AusVELS (VCAA, 2015), Louis was identified as operating on Level D within the Victorian Curriculum (VCAA, 2015). In review of his previous school report and observation notes from his classroom teacher, Louis is struggling with his literacy skills. After careful consideration as well as thorough discussion with both Louis and his parents, we finally all came to an agreement

After being challenged to compare my scores on two summaries, I noticed that, for the most part, my scores improved. The most noticeable improvements were from the “summary mastery” and “style” categories, where I scored higher on Summary 2 than Summary 1. Applying for the Osprey Writing Badge has made me aware and has confirmed that my writing in this course thus far has improved.

Female’s mastery level was represented by cylinders in Graph 9. They obtained higher comprehension percentile than their male counterpart’s learning goals with the exception of learning goal 2b. Question 4 dealt with learning goal 2b they were required to divide the polynomial (21n^2+70n^3+2)by the binomial (10n+3) for this question. The difference however between male and female percentages was of seven percent for learning goal 2b. Interestingly this is less than any of the differences between female and male comprehension percentages for any of the other learning goals. If we compare how many male students achieved a passing score on the post-assessment forty-six percent male

Assessments provide learners opportunities to develop mastery of their ideas, skills and competencies, whilst educators use assessment tasks as both teaching and learning tools (Spiller, 2009:6 & 7).