Socratic Seminars: A Better Final Exam

So what do you give for a final exam when you've gotten rid of tests and quizzes completely? When your goal in class is to get out of kids' way and let them shine? When the best part of your day is when students get a chance to show how smart they are?

What about a Socratic seminar? Give students a week to prep - all in class - and get ready.  Then kids get two hours to bat around big ideas? Yes please!

A little context: we are finishing up the World War II and the Holocaust unit in my class. In English the kids are reading Lord of the Flies (LOTF). This unit houses the last of the epic Humanities experiences that my kids will have: we do a mock trial of William Golding for libel for the beliefs that he expresses in LOTF that humans are born innately evil and this innate evil is the cause of violence and evil in our society.

This trial is a spectacular thing. Kids play all the roles: witnesses, attorneys, the judge - you name it they do it. The jury is made up of former students who come watch the trial for a day and provide the verdict and choices for the 'best of' awards for the participants.

At the heart of the trial is the following false dichotomy that arises out of the question why does violence and evil occur in our world? Are violence and evil innate in all of us or are these behaviors learned from our surroundings? To boil it down further, are violence and evil a result of nature or nurture?

Well, after the trial, we jump into prep for the Socratic seminar. Taking the thinking the students have done in the trial - why violence and evil occur - we take the Socratic a step further: what can we do to prevent or minimize acts of violence and evil in society? We look at what we can learn from the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. We take a deep dive into Philip Zimbardo's ideas of all humans being situationally capable of committing horrifying acts of violence and evil.

Next, we look at the rates of crime within different countries. These rates are then compared across other statistics in these more violent and evil - and less violent and evil - countries. Gun ownership. Rates of happiness. Wealth distribution. Basically, what characteristics of countries lead to more violence and evil? What characteristics lead to less violence and evil?

Finally, we jump into prison systems. After looking at rates of recidivism, the kids take a look at the different mindsets and practices of prisons in the US, Sweden, and Japan. Then, they get a chance to see and prepare responses to the questions that are the backbone of the Socratic. Student-generated questions are obviously welcomed in the Socratic but there are questions that are central to the discussion that I generate and give kids time to prep responses and evidence to.

So what's going to go down next week? I have no idea. Some class will talk for two straight hours and it will be glorious because I'll ask the first question then say nothing for two hours. When I did this Socratic two years ago (I teach a two year curricular loop and keep the same students for two years), one class riffed on ideas for 90 straight minutes and I didn't have to say anything. Which was absolute teacher heaven!

Regardless of how the Socratic goes down - and it'll go well in all classes I think - it's a great final exam. Definitely way more in line with my classroom philosophy than a test!

Interested? Want to see the prep documents we used? The backbone questions of the Socratic? They're all linked in this shared folder here. The folder has subfolders that are divided generally by the day things occurred in my class. In each subfolder there is a brief description of what the general outline looked like each day.

Please use the heck out of this stuff: it's a great way to end the semester, and a spectacular way to watch kids think and say wildly intelligent things!

#RavitchStanford

Last night I had the opportunity to go hear Diane Ravitch give a talk about her new book Reign of Error. So what’s the deal with the title of this post? It’s the Twitter hashtag for the event. After the talk, there was a panel discussion with Ravitch, Eric Hanushek, and Linda Darling-Hammond (hereafter known as LDH). It was, well, interesting.

First, the good parts. I love, love, love listening to LDH talk about assessment. Not about assessment data, but about assessment. Her points about the importance of the new Common Core assessments being used to learn from and improve practice and NOT as another measure used to punish teachers and schools really resonated with me. Assessment for learning, not assessment of learning. Additionally, LDH’s push to have more higher order thinking skills on standardized tests is something I’d love to see. Why are we asking kids to bubble in answers that they could Google? (LDH’s line, not mine. But she’s right.)

Basically what this comes down to is that I’d love to have an external accountability measure that I actually cared about the results of. STAR? Please. Ridiculousness. This two pronged sea change proposed by LDH would be awesome. More higher order, open-ended questions on standardized tests? Yes please. Using these test results to inform my teaching, not judge me or my school punitively? Even better. But those are two ENORMOUS changes in the way standardized testing is done. I absolutely agree with LDH. And I’m hopeful these changes happen. Man, imagine if she had been named secretary of education...

Both Ravitch and LDH talked extensively about solving societal ills - particularly children living under the poverty line. Yes. That. Needs. To. Happen. Like 30 years ago. LDH made the point that we are the only economically powerful country that allows this sort of inequality to not only persist but grow. Yes. Agree 1,000 times over.

But now the bad. The first 25 minutes of the panel discussion was spent parsing standardized test scores. Does being an educational policy leader and researcher really involve being able to explain why Texas NAEP scores are inflated because of an unrepresentative sample who took the test? Or being able to, from the tip of your tongue, toss out the latest minutiae on why Shanghai test scores are so high? Look, I get that test scores are the language that education is spoken in. BUT FOR REALZ. I don’t need to listen to smart people dissect test scores THAT THEY DON’T EVEN BELIEVE IN THE AUTHENTICITY OF!

Was the conversation interesting? In parts. Is that a shot at Ravitch or LDH? Absolutely not. That’s the game that they are forced to play. They are fighting the battle to make my classroom and classrooms across the US better places. Unfortunately they can’t choose the battlefield.

My biggest takeaway from the evening: when is the context of the conversation about education going to change in this country?

Better question: what am I doing to change the context of the conversation about education in this country?

The Wire and Education

Yes, I’m finally getting around to watching The Wire. Yes, I’m a little behind on that. And I’ve only watched the first three seasons, so what I’m about to say may be less relevant after I watch season four, which is about education. With all the caveats done now…

I was struck by the backwardness of the higher-ups in the police department and mayor’s office and Boston. I know that this portrayal was intentional, but it was interesting to me nonetheless. What the higher-ups want - consistently, across the three seasons I watched - was arrests. Drugs seized. Low level players taken off the street.

All of these desires went against the work that McNulty and everyone else was doing. Busting these low-level criminals always put the ‘on the street’ police in a bad spot: wires would be revealed, larger cases against bigger offenders would be comprised, etc. Essentially, the desires of the higher-ups would ruin weeks of work against bigger drug targets that McNulty was working on.

And this sounds so much like education. I got an email from my superintendent this past week congratulating the district on our API score going up. No mention of anything else - just an ‘atta boy, scores up’ email. We’ve got the higher-ups in education pushing test scores while classroom teachers know better: teaching to the test dumbs down school and is bad for students.

But no one asked us. At least in The Wire, McNulty and Daniels can go in and talk to the powers that be - Burrell and Rawls - and explain why it’s a bad idea to make arrests. I’m not sure I have that power.

But I do have an advantage that McNulty and Daniels don’t have: I can do what is best for my students in my classroom, standardized test scores be damned.

High (and Low) Stakes Testing

DEEP BREATH.

This will not become a rant. This will not become a rant. This will not become a rant.

DEEP BREATH.

Okay, I’ve got this.

I got into a conversation on Twitter this morning with John Stevens and Katie Regan (if you’re not following them you should be - they both Know Things and like to share). The conversation centered around state testing. Then, I got a folder of district-mandated common assessments for my ninth grade world history students this afternoon. Based on these two things, I wanted to get a few thoughts out.

It is high stakes testing season across the US right now. In California, STAR testing rules the day at most schools. Seven weeks before the school year is over students are tested on bloated state standards. Multiple choice tests. #FoDayz as the kids like to say.

Let’s look at the stakes of these tests. For my school and district, STAR tests are high stakes. They determine our AYP and all those other acronyms I often get confused about. Imagine being a math or English teacher in California: the way our state formula works, math and English are disproportionately represented in in a school and district’s AYP. I’m lucky - I teach world history (only 14% of a school’s AYP), which is only tested in tenth grade. That means no STAR tests for my ninth graders this year. Which is, you know, nice.

For my students, the STAR tests are low stakes. The tests mean nothing to them. Their future doesn’t depend on it. There is no audience, authentic or otherwise, for STAR tests. These tests literally mean NOTHING to my students - no impact on their grades, graduation, or future.

Result: STAR tests are the lowest of low stakes for my students and, given the ass-backwards, myopic and incomplete way we are currently choosing to measure education in America, the highest of high stakes for my school and district. This juxtaposition of stakes is not lost on me.

Fast forward to this afternoon. Waiting in my mailbox were the multiple choice answer forms for my district’s ninth grade common assessment. This is a test I am required (maybe? I’m working on that) to give. I didn’t help write the test. In my six years in my district, I have yet to actually see the results of this test. If I’ve never seen the results of the test, you can guess whether or not my students have ever seen their results...

Again, to the stakes of this common assessment. For my students, the stakes for this test are low: it means nothing to them at all. No audience, authentic or inauthentic. No impact on their future. For me the stakes are low: it means nothing to me at all. As I said, I’ve never even seen the results this common assessment. And yet. And yet. I’m asked/required to give up a day of my class so my students can complete this test. Result: this test is huge waste of my time face to face time with my students.

I’m left with several thoughts. First, both tests rob me of the ability to allow my classroom to be student interest-driven. If it weren’t for bloated state standards and high stakes testing, I could teach some world history. Real world history, not the ‘world’ history that the California content standards ask me to teach, which is essentially European history. And I would teach some world history. But there would be some awesome 40% time (no, not 20% time - 40% time) for students to learn about what they wanted to learn about. Yes, all students should be exposed to some world history. But all students should have the right to come to school and be excited about learning and creating things they are passionate about. Without overbearing standards and poorly conceived standardized tests, my students would have this 40% time to explore their passions.

A second thought I had was which test was a bigger waste of time. Neither test means anything to my students; the stakes are only high on STAR tests for my district and school. Because of the dramatic difference in the stakes of STAR tests, does that make them a bigger or smaller waste of time? Or is it the test I’m mandated to give by my district but have never looked at the results of that is a bigger waste of time? I’m not sure what the right answer is here. I am sure, though, that neither answer is right.

***

I’m not a super jaded, job-hating teacher. Quite the opposite, actually. I’ve got a PLN that pushes my thinking on just about everything on a daily basis. I’m taking a hammer to my classroom and trying to figure out what a world history class can really be. I’m excited about the changes I’ve made this year in my classroom. I’m more excited about the changes I want to make next year (PBL? 20% time that is really 20% of the time my students are in my class?).  I love my job. I love my students. But high stakes testing, how we measure what students know and learn, and how we evaluate schools (and teachers if value added metrics become part of teacher evaluation) frustrate me.

There is a way forward. A collective schoolwide vision about what is most important for our students is a start. Yes, this vision needs to be a cornerstone of your planning and classtime, not just a thing that people pay lip service to. Department wide vision on what a history class can be and what should be emphasized in it. A portfolio system that focuses on subject mastery, growth, creation, and authentic assessment is another part of the answer. Emphasizing soft skills in the classroom over content memorization will help. Innovation Day/genius hour/20% time - ways to base more of a student’s time at school around their passions - will also help.

But man, high stakes testing just has to go. It is ruining education.

An Assessment Cycle in a Flipped-Mastery(ish) History Class

As I see it right now, my 9^th grade modern world history class next year will be self-paced and mastery(ish) based. I’d love to say that I will have time to go through all of my curriculum this summer and map it onto California state content and analysis standards and provide students multiple opportunities to meet each content and analysis standard I am focusing on in a unit, but I’m not going to get there. I’m nervous about trying to do too much this summer: all my flipped classroom thinking, collaboration, and work has been incredibly rewarding but I’m going to need to let next year be a part of the evolution of what I want my class to eventually look like. I’m okay with that. Plus, I’ll enjoy my vacation a lot more! But back to the point: what does assessment in a self-paced, mastery(ish) history class look like?

At the beginning of each unit, students will be given a list of assignment that they are expected to show mastery on as they move through the unit. Students will also receive the short answer questions they must show mastery on at the end of the unit. They will work through these assignments at their own pace and must show mastery of a given topic in order to move on to the next assignment. I will be creating checklists with suggested completion dates on them so that their progress can be tracked throughout the unit.

Upon demonstrating mastery on the classwork for each unit, students will receive an 85% for their classwork grade for that unit. (More about getting that missing 15% in the last paragraph.) If students complete the classwork in a unit early, they may work on the extension activities that are outlined below (that final 15% in their classwork grade) or they may choose to work on homework for other classes.

Once students demonstrate mastery on their classwork for a unit, they are ready to take the short answer section of their unit test. They may take this short answer portion of the test whenever they are ready, and may retake the test as many times as they want. All students must demonstrate mastery (score 75% or higher) on the short answer section of a test before they are allowed to move on to the content of the next unit.

Additionally, all students will take a multiple-choice test covering the content of a unit. This test will be administered on the same day for all students in an attempt to keep the results for this portion of the test as fair as possible. Two things about this: yes, I know that Moodle does some crazy cool stuff with randomizing multiple choice questions for tests, so theoretically I could have thousands of versions of the same multiple choice tests. (Again, I’m worried about biting off more than I can chew next year.) And yes, multiple-choice tests are less than awesome for numerous reasons that I won’t go into. However, given the fact that my students need to pass the CAHSEE (California state high school exit exam) and if I could keep my STAR scores somewhat respectable, well, I’m going to bow to the man on this one. Yes, I never take multiple-choice tests in the real world. It isn’t a life skill. Sorry – no teacher is perfect. I’m working to minimize the impact these multiple-choice tests will have on my students’ grades.

Retakes will not be allowed on the multiple-choice test (again, I don’t want to bite off too much next year). However, multiple-choice questions will only account for 1/3 of the points on any given test. Students will have to show mastery on the short answer section (2/3 of the unit test grade) before they move on to the next unit of a test. Plus, I want students to focus on the short answer questions as they move through the unit: this is why they receive these questions at the beginning of the unit.

All students will complete test corrections on their multiple-choice test. In an attempt to have students evaluate their study habits, they will also reflect on each test (both the short answer and multiple choice section). I got some great ideas from Jen Gray about this at FlipCon12. I will ask students to predict whether they think they got a given question correct before they hand their tests in. Upon receiving the test back, they will classify why they got a question wrong. They will also reflect on which of their study strategies seem to be working and which seem to be less effective through this process by looking at what helped them get answers correct – or partially correct. This will become a blog post, and hopefully over the course of the two years that I have my students, they will become more metacognitive about what test strategies work for them.

Finally, what about that final 15% students will not get credit for when they demonstrate mastery on their assigned classwork for a unit? For some, getting a solid B on their classwork will be satisfactory and they will choose to do no more work. For others, they may have been intrigued by the big ideas from the unit or just want to get more than a B on their classwork. To make up this last 15%, students can do several things, all of which revolve around choice and their interests:

• dig deeper into the historical content of a unit and create a product to show the understanding they have gained from this work,
• look into where the big ideas from the unit are currently still appearing in the world today and create a product to show the understanding they have gained from this work,
• or they work on answering a question from the collaborative Blank White Paper project (outline of the BWP project is located here).

That’s how I see assessment looking in my flipped-mastery(ish) class next year. What am I missing? What should I rethink? Thanks in advance for pushing my thinking on this.

#FlipCon12, Day 2: Leaving Motivated and Energized

So any sort of huge reflective piece out of #FlipCon12 is an absolute impossibility at the moment. A couple pieces will come as I have more time to digest what happened these last three days in Chicago. To ruin any chance of a surprise coming out of any of those posts, I’ll let you in on a little secret: a whole lot of awesomeness happened. I’m going to focus on my immediate experiences and reflections today at #FlipCon12. Assessment was the theme today for me – Jen Gray and Marc Seigel led great sessions about what assessment can (and should?) look like in a flipped classroom. Also, a second consecutive working lunch, with history flippers this time, happened. Networking – love it!

My view of Bergmann/Sams keynote

One aspect of today that I’m not going to write about is Aaron Sams and Jon Bergmann’s keynote – I have a feeling this post will run a little long on assessment as it is, and there was just so much in their keynote. All I’ll say about it is once it goes up online, watch it – it is really an incredible speech. I love the cutting board analogy!

I started today hanging out with Jen Gray. I loved some of the organizational and metacognitive strategies she shared. The charts she uses in her classroom include learning targets – in student friendly language – and show multiple ways student could show proficiency in a certain learning target. Additionally, these charts also included columns that had a suggested completion date for this learning target, as well as a place for the actual completion date. Her daily goals sheet – what do you want to accomplish today and what did you accomplish today – are great accountability pieces for students as well. Both sound so simple, right? I love stealing things like this from smart people! Saves me from having to do the thinking later…

Jen also emphasized metacognition around tests for students. She pushed the idea of creating a place on tests for students to say whether they are confident or unsure of the answer they gave on a test question before they turn the test in to be graded: yup, love it. I also really like the test corrections structure in her class: test corrections earn you the ability to be able to retake a test. I am moving to written short answer questions, which students will receive at the beginning of a unit, as the majority of each summative unit assessment next year (with a couple multiple choice questions sprinkled in – darn state test prep). I am hopeful that I can do a few tweaks to her idea (which included classifying why you got a question wrong – simple mistake, wording of the question, just didn’t know it), like maybe test corrections on the multiple choice section of the test earning you a verbal retake of the short answer questions.  In addition to conventional test corrections of errors, Jen also has her students reflect on what helped them master content they got correct – whether students mastered the content because they taught a friend/family member, made a flow chart/concept map, rewatched a video, or an in-class assignment for example. 

After my history flippers lunch and Aaron and Jon slaying their keynote, Marc Seigel finished up my #FlipCon12 experience. His early words about our classrooms being vehicles for critical thinking, not content regurgitators immediately struck a chord with me, for this is how I view my history classroom. Marc also asked us to think about what we would name our class based on how we assign grades in our class – should your class be called ‘history test taking’ or ‘history writing and research’? He also encouraged us to consider if our assessments allowed for creativity and/or choice, and pushed us to consider problem- or inquiry-based assessments. Clearly, lots of great things to ponder.

But, in my mind, Marc’s most important message dealt with the intersection of assessments and learning standards: in any classroom, but particularly in a flipped classroom, we must design our assessments around learning standards and be sure not to force already existing assessments onto learning standards. Coming on the heels of Aaron Sams’ question on the end of his keynote asking us what we would do with all our classtime in a flipped classroom, Marc’s point about learning standards being the basis for assessments and not vice versa is an extremely important one for me to look at this summer as I give assessment in my classroom a serious rethink.

Keynote stylized in Snapseed

In summary, wow. I can’t believe the face-to-face part of #FlipCon12 is over – what a spectacular experience. So much thinking (and collaborating) to do!