WOW, did my students ever respond to my request for a good review activity. I needed a good review activity to wrap up a semester of work in an education course for undergraduates at St. Lawrence University. However, this activity would probably work, as is, for most high school students. With more structure (scaffolding and coaching), it could be used with kindergarten students or any grade level or discipline.

You may want to consider this strategy, in January, as part of a review of what has been learned thus far into the year. Here’s how it worked at the university level, then I’ll suggest adaptations for younger grades or other disciplines.

1. I put a class of 24 into six groups of four. Each group had a different task that would result in a presentation to the class at a future time. However, a requirement was that each group create a process for involving the class, not simply plan a lecture where they replaced the teacher as the speaker. One of the groups was assigned the task of designing a review activity. (Creating six groups and giving each group a task served my purposes. It is NOT necessary to have six teams or to give every team an assignment. You could simply select four students and assign them this task for extra credit or as a way of challenging some of your more advanced students.)

2. The “review activity” assignment for one of the groups was to create a process for eliciting from the entire class what the students had learned during the semester. I gave them 30 minutes of planning time, in class. The day of their presentation, I allowed them 15 minutes to finalize their plans. I had asked them to plan a 30 to 40 minute process for review. It actually lasted an hour and ten minutes. While I could have ended it much sooner, without damage to what had already been accomplished, it was going so well, and the students were so enthused, that I let it continue, sat back, and learned from what I observed and heard.

The students invented a game of “Jeopardy.” They designed a poster board with ten categories across the top (five on the front of the poster board and five on the back), representing topics we had addressed in class.

Under each of these ten categories (topics) were five 3x5 cards, each with a point value written and visible to the whole class. On the back of each card was a question.

Two chairs were placed in the center of the room and the class was divided into two groups, each group lined up on a different side of the room. One person from each team would take the two seats in the center of the room, and one of them would select a category – for example “Class Guests.” After a point value was selected, the moderator would take the 3x5 card with that point value and read the question on the back. In other words, in preparing this activity, the four students had written a question on the backs of each of the 50 3x5 cards.

As the instructor, I was receiving an invaluable assessment of what had “stuck” with my students. Initially, it was instructive for me to see which topics the planning team had selected.

Then I was able to hear all 50 questions asked, and answered. If the student from one team couldn’t answer the question, the student from the other team was given an opportunity. If neither student could respond, the question was set aside until the end of the game at which time, the unanswered questions were asked, and all members of both teams huddled to see which team could come up with the answer first. What a cooperative learning activity.

As students correctly answered questions, the point value was added to the running score kept at the blackboard for all to see. Students cheered and encouraged their team mates. They really got into it. Students were motivated to engage in this activity by the fun of the activity – even though no grade was given.

Is there any reason students at any grade level, or discipline couldn’t be put in a group and asked to devise an activity to review the entire class? In fact, if you created four, five, or six groups, and hand-picked the group most likely to succeed to go first, you could have a different group go every few weeks, or at the end of every unit. Once one group had modelled the process, it would be easier for the groups that followed.

I was available to the students as they planned their work, but they really didn’t need me after I gave them the written and verbal directions and responded to a few clarifying questions during the first ten minutes of their planning. If this were a kindergarten class and I were asking four students to do this, I would be part of their group almost the entire time and I would help them design a very simple activity to elicit some information from their peers. Maybe I would suggest the game (it could be “Jeopardy,”) and lead them by asking what categories (types of things”) we had studied.

Part of the value for me, as the instructor, was seeing what topics the students selected because that told me what they thought was important to learn. The older the group, the less time I would have to spend helping them plan. As the grade level gets higher and approaches middle school, I might be able to get away with giving the group some concrete examples and staying close enough to them to intervene if they got off topic or didn’t seem to grasp their task. This is a powerful activity. Try it. Let me know how it goes – the good, the bad, and the ugly!

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

I was recently privileged to be part of a collaboration between a high school, a middle school, and university students. I urge you to consider utilizing university students as presenters on any of a variety of topics for K-12 students. It can be part of the university students’ training as future teachers; it can enhance your ability to achieve your learning objectives for students anywhere, K-12.

This article, also, focuses on the importance of modeling. When the students in my class at St. Lawrence University were the teachers at Alexandria Bay, they utilized many teaching strategies that had been modeled for them in class.

Here’s what took place:

In November, Alexandria Bay High School Principal Ron Hockmuth asked me if I had any university students who might want to visit his school and give three presentations:

1. one hour to 15 juniors in the Honor Society

2. one hour to 13 seniors in the Honor Society

3. 42 minutes to 51 middle school students (chosen for academic excellence)

Ron further explained that, each year, he brings in presenters (one year it was an executive of Texas Instruments) and that he thought the chance to speak with college students might be worthwhile for his high school students and might be a nice reward for his better performing middle school students.

I entered my Tuesday morning class at St.Lawrence University, and announced that I would waive one paper in exchange for a visit to Alexandria Bay by a student. Three hands shot up – they were among the most conscientious, and able, students in the class. They met with me after class, were briefed on the task and, by the following week, had already taken it upon themselves to put together two possible presentations. They had one 30-minute dialogue with Ron, and met with me for 15 minutes, and that was the extent of the coaching they received from either of us. The only criteria I set was that their presentation must model the constructivist strategies we had experienced in class – ie. no presenter-directed speeches with the Alexandria Bay students as passive recipients of knowledge.

On Friday, November 30, at 9 am, I met the students in a parking lot at the university, handed them a package of nametags (which they had requested) a box of magic markers, and three sets of evaluation forms (each set a different color – blue, white, yellow). I also brought them a box of doughnuts for the ride.

At 9:10 am, the students departed St. Lawrence University for the 70-minute drive to Alexandria Bay.

At approximately 11:30 am, I received this e-mail from Ron:

As we speak, your students are doing their icebreaker. It is going very well. They are organized, creative and willing to work through the process to reach their objectives.

From my observation, and feedback, the high school students are enjoying the opportunity to hear from them. Your students remind me of Don Mesibov and the way he conducts workshops and university classes.

I have a theory that teachers emulate, imitate or otherwise mimic those professors that most influenced them through their teaching style.... and you have obviously impacted these young ladies. Therefore, I think it should only be creative, constructivist professors who should be in the education classes at Universities!!!!!!

I immediately wrote back to Ron:

I appreciate the compliment and am even more delighted to hear how well it appears to be going. Interestingly, while I had never suggested to them, or anyone in class, that they should use nametags, I have always used nametags when guests were presenting. One of the students called me at 7:45 this morning to ask if I could bring nametags when I was to meet them in the parking lot at 9 am. It was their idea.

As you are indicating in your e-mail, "modeling" is the strongest form of teaching.

On Saturday, I received these e-mails – one from one of the three students and then one from the principal, Ron Hockmuth:

Dear Instructor Mesibov,

“I think it went better than any of us (and Mr. Hochmuth) could have expected. He told me that we had surpassed his expectations for the day. The first lesson was with the juniors of the National Honor Society. For an icebreaker, we had them count off by threes and get into groups with one of us. They then had to interview us and introduce us to their classmates. We asked them questions and told them about us. They REALLY liked this activity and most everyone wrote about it in the assessment at the end of the session. We spent the rest of the time just answering questions. Mr. Hochmuth was full of questions. The group was really responsive. They seemed comfortable and I thought they got a lot out of it.

“We then had the group of junior high students. We were in a gym-like area for this part. The students were praised for being smart by the principal and then we took over. Overall, we felt this was the best part of our day....and to tell you the truth we didn't have a plan for this one when we walked in, so we were definitely winging it.

“The theme of the activity was ‘It’s cool to be smart.’ The three of us stood in front of the class with a ball. We asked the group to stand up if they were smart. Everyone stood. We then asked for anyone who had ever been called a geek to sit down...a nerd....or if they had ever put themselves down for being smart. With one term or another, the whole group ended up sitting.

“We then told the class our experiences....I was this, this, and this in high school so I guess I could have been a geek, but I was also voted prom queen so I must have been popular too....just an example.

“We then went into my activity. I told the class that I loved myself and because I was happy with myself I was not afraid to make a fool of myself. I introduced myself by saying: My name is Nicole and I like the farm. Then I started skipping around like a little farm girl. I said a positive adjective to describe myself. The other two girls did the same thing, eliciting much laughter from the students. We then each took a ball and threw it to a student and had them do the same thing about themselves. We had three balls going at once so there was less embarrassment and hesitation.

“Once this activity was done we returned to the front of the room and talked a little more about being smart. Time was almost up, but we didn't hit all the kids so I asked the ones who had not been picked on yet to stand up. I went around the room and stood in front of each student and asked them to tell me one thing that was positive about being smart so that everyone got a chance to participate. We then asked them to fill out the assessment form. We got rave reviews in that class also.

“Then back to the library for the Honor Society seniors where we did the same ice breaker as before. They seemed to really like this too. Then we went back to the round table discussion. It is important to note, that we did not stand up and walk around the room, or sit away from the students, but sat at the table with them so that they all could see us. There was no hesitation with questions from this group. They all had a lot to ask. And I began by telling them that NOTHING was off limits. There was no question that could not be asked during this session. I also made clear that we were going to be totally honest and not sugar coat difficult issues. They found this to be true when we discussed some issues.

“After reading the assessments, I found that was the best thing we did. We were honest.

They also liked the fact that we spoke about SLU because that was our experience, but did NOT try to sell them the school. They said they wished they could have more talks about just college without listening to how wonderful one school is or another. We even hung out with a couple of the girls after the last one where we talked a little more.

“VERY REWARDING day! I am very glad I went. Mr. Hochmuth then took us out to lunch before we left. We all had a great time and would LOVE to do this again. Please keep us in mind next semester when you have things like this going on. Even though we won't be in the class, we’d love to have the experience.”

Then, I received this e-mail from the principal:

Dear Don

“It went very well. My students were impressed with their presentations and the information they shared and with their personalities. The students were organized and well prepared. They were comfortable and poised. The icebreaker was great; they didn't bird walk in the Q & A; rather, they made sure the questions were consistent with their objectives; it was definitely student centered. They were also excellent with the junior high group....their psychology course work came shining through on that.... the students enjoyed it and want to come back.... consider something like this for your students. It was an important lesson delivered by the people who have a unique perspective on the topic; therefore, better than any counselor or teacher or principal could have delivered.”

Thanks,

Ron Hockmuth, principal

Here is some feedback from Alexandria Bay students who were asked to complete a written assessment form at the end of the presentation:

SENIOR National Honor Society students:

"I enjoyed the ice breaker. I felt that it gave me a good opportunity to know the speakers better."

"I got a chance to ask important questions and they made me feel very comfortable."

"Being able to be completely open and learning about the real life aspects, not just from an admission officer’s point of view is what made the biggest impression on me."

"The presenters were very down to earth and easy to talk to. I think they eased my fears about making friends."

JUNIOR National Honor Society students:

"It was a very comfortable environment and I felt comfortable asking questions. It was very useful."

"We got to know each other first, which really made us more comfortable."

MIDDLE SCHOOL students:

"I liked that everyone was called on during the activity."

"I learned that you should be proud of yourself if you are smart."

”The most valuable part was when the college students talked about themselves"

"I learned that I'm smart and that’s good."

"As a result of this presentation, I am going to think about myself differently."

"They made me feel better about myself."

"They acted nerdy (intentionally) and that made the biggest impression on me."

Observation by the instructor, Don Mesibov:

While Nicole said that, part of the time, they “winged it,” I took note that most of the strategies my students integrated into their presentations were strategies in which they have been immersed throughout the semester in our university course: group work, ice breakers, eliciting individual responses from everyone in the group, candor from the instructor, developing rapport with audience, assessing student learning.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

TOPIC: WHY THE LAG BETWEEN IMPEMENTATION OF AN INITIATIVE AND AN IMPACT ON TEST SCORES

Volume #3, Edition #3__________Date: January 21, 2002

Why does it take three years, at least (six years at the secondary level), before student achievement can be accurately assessed as a reflection of whether a change in school practice is really working?

"When you introduce something new, there is often a drop in productivity, not an improvement," Larry Martinez, who was then the Director of Technology for the Niagara Falls Schools, told me in 1992. He was referring to technology, but research indicates that Larry's comments apply to any major innovation, not just technology. Larry said that it takes time for any change to work its way through an organization. Why does it take this long?

1. People need to be trained in effective use of the new program or process.

2. Everyone in the organization needs time to adjust to a new way of doing things.

3. Wrinkles have to be worked out.

4. In a school system, the students and parents, also, need to adjust to the change.

Therefore, a drop in student achievement, within the first few years of a major reform initiative, may simply be due to the time required for orientation to the change.

On the other hand, sometimes you can expect an immediate upward spurt in student achievement right after you implement a new program or initiative regardless of whether the initiative has merit. Did you ever wonder why every "model" program (including those that are philosophical opposites) can cite research demonstrating that standardized test scores went up in districts where the program has been implemented? Ever wonder how this can be? (Let's ignore, for the moment, that these publicized results are almost always within a few years of the implementation of the new program or process, and research indicates that any correlation of a new program to student achievement, in less than three years, may be useless.) But I digress.

How can "model" programs, philosophically different from each other, all show higher student achievement? How can proponents of direct instruction, constructivism, traditional teaching, heterogeneous grouping, homogeneous grouping, etc., etc. all find research to support their claims of higher student achievement?

Consider that many school districts have functioned, for years, with little coordination among grade level and subject area teachers, with new programs being implemented and dropped as rapidly as administrators change jobs, and with teachers, administrators, parents, and board members working in isolation from each other (if not at cross purposes). A new program or long range plan, any program or plan, often brings improvement in the short run, simply because it is generating a structured, coordinated effort where none existed before.

Even a program with little long term potential may result in a short term increase in student achievement, on test scores, simply because the program focuses everyone on the same objectives and affords students more care and attention then they have received in the past. Will the short-term success, resulting from a degree of structure not previously seen in the district, be sustainable? Does the program (or long range plan), itself, have value, or would any program that was structured and provided an increased focus on student achievement have worked as well?

Please think about this: it explains why and how we set ourselves up for failure, or success, that may have little correlation to whether our initiatives are truly succeeding. Sometimes we throw out a good program because we don't see an immediate increase in student achievement. This is ridiculous. The best of programs cannot be responsible for an immediate increase in student achievement; sometimes they may cause a decrease (see Larry Martinez' example of an immediate drop in productivity). Sometimes, there may be an increase in student achievement (as measured on standardized tests) when a new program is introduced, but it may be more because students are responding to increased attention due to the program, rather than to the program itself. In this case, there will be short-term euphoria, but in a few years we'll discredit the program that caused our initial elation, and we'll bring in another new program and begin the cycle all over again.

In school districts, the question has to be asked, is it ever possible, even after three years, to attribute the rise or fall of student achievement (as measured by standardized test scores) to a particular program or plan? If we are assessing the value of a drug, we can create a control group and an experimental group and limit or eliminate the variables that might affect the results of the experimental group.

In public education, how often can we create a control group and an experimental group where the composition is essentially the same and will remain the same for three or more years? Can we isolate a program or process sufficiently so that if test scores rise or fall we can be certain it is due to the program or process we have implemented and not some other factor?

If test scores go up, how do we know it is because of, not in spite of, the program or process that was implemented a year or two, or three before? If test scores go down, how do we know it was because of the innovation that they went down, not budget cuts, or changes in the student population, or some other change? How do we know the test scores might not have declined even more without the innovation whose impact we are measuring?

When we use standardized test scores as short-term targets, we set ourselves up for either defeat or a false sense of security (depending on the results).

As I indicated in an article December 3, research does inform us of the conditions that must be present in a school in order to raise student achievement. These conditions are measurable. We should be focusing our efforts on measuring a school's mastery of the conditions that research tells us lead to higher student achievement.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Foreign language teachers have long recognized the value of immersion as a learning strategy. With this in mind, it occurred to me that if I could encourage teachers to create a 45 minute entirely student-run classroom, it might help them to see the types of strategies they could integrate into their daily lessons.

It is not my suggestion that every classroom be entirely student run. I just want each teacher to experience an entirely student-run classroom, at least once. Just as students immersed in foreign language for a weekend are not expected to use that language exclusively when the weekend is over, I don’t expect teachers to conduct entirely student-run classes on a regular basis. My hope is that, through immersion in one entirely student-run classroom, teachers will see that occasional student-run activities can increase motivation through ownership, increase student learning, and increase student empathy for the difficult role of the teacher.

Two months ago, I offered to waive some major course requirements for any of my St.Lawrence University students who agreed to:

Team up with a classroom teacher and create and teach a lesson in which a 45-minute class is entirely student-run.

To complete the assignment, my student’s responsibility was to see that such a lesson was taught. The criterion was that my student and the teacher must be able to remain in the back of the room for 45 minutes while the lesson proceeded.

I suggested it would require planning time, at least one period with the students, to set up the day and then 45 minutes on the day of the lesson. As an example of how to create a student-run lesson, I suggested dividing a class into small groups and giving each group a specific task to accomplish. Using kindergarten as an example, I said: “You could create seven groups of three. Each group could be read a story or shown a tape (ie. about Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, etc.) and could be asked to prepare a six minute explanation to the class of what their story was about and what they learned from it. I’ve worked with five year olds. I know they can be coached until capable of presenting for six minutes.

Ten of my students volunteered, teaming up with teachers from second grade in Gouverneur to middle school ELA in Malone and high school biology in Lisbon.

Marc Spicer, the ELA middle school teacher in Malone, reported how pleased he was with the results. While I only required one such lesson, Marc and my student Rhianna Cohen had collaborated to design lessons for five classes. Here is what Marc reported to me:

1. Marc chose conjunctions and aspects of grammatical usage as his learning objectives.

2. Having Rhianna as a collaborator was of enormous value to him – she made major contributions and suggestions in the planning phase.

3. It was an advantage for Marc to be able to observe as Rhianna prepared the students for the lesson.

4. The students reacted really well to the lesson. They have asked Marc to run more classes like this, and he will.

5. Marc indicated that most of the group presentations were made in the traditional “direct” approach. This was to be expected. This is the model the students have seen. However, Marc said that several of his students indicated that the next time they would put the class in groups as part of their own presentation. In other words, without the need for Marc to prompt them, they had picked up on the model he was using and want to use it themselves.

6. As part of the student-run class, each group contributed questions to the teacher that could be used on a test. Marc combined the questions, administered the test, and said the grades were higher than students usually achieved with this subject matter. Not only that, but he indicated the student designed test was more difficult than the one he would have given.

This is the EVIDENCE of student achievement using the constructivist strategy of having students run a class. However, keep in mind, this student-run class was more tightly structured by the teacher than the usual traditional classroom. It’s just a different kind of structure.

Further evidence of success came from one of Marc’s colleagues who overheard him describing this lesson. She said “I had some of your students in my homeroom. They were so excited about designing their lesson plans for their presentations to the rest of the class. They would ask my advice and would work on their plans in homeroom.”

Upon hearing this, Marc added, “After the lesson, some of my students asked me ‘Do you have to write a lesson plan every day?’ When I said that I did, the student expressed amazement. Then I added, ‘I have four different courses each day so I have to do four lesson plans a day.’

“‘WOW,’ responded the student.”

Marc indicated that since the day of the student-run classes, he’s needed a substitute once or twice and, the substitute’s report on student behavior has been better than in the past. He attributes this, possibly, to increased sensitivity of students to the difficult role of the teacher.

This is a professional development strategy that you could be using in your own classroom or school right now. While it is enhanced when university students are involved, it can be done without a university connection. If you are a teacher, try it. If you are an administrator, try to encourage one or two teachers to try it. If you are a staff developer, it makes a heck of a good staff development day to coach teachers in preparing for a 45-minute student-run class.

The value is not so much in what you will learn about conducting entirely student-run classes. The value is in the group work techniques you will experience that you can apply in the context of a more traditional classroom - techniques you can apply for ten minutes, or twenty minutes occasionally.

Next week, I’ll describe the results of the student-run biology class conducted by Becky Buckingham in Lisbon. Becky went me one better. She handed out three pieces of paper the day before the student-run class, then sat back as the students ran the class during which they prepared for the student-run lesson on “Water Quality.”

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

In my opinion, the concept of the student-run classroom offers more bang for the buck (to a staff developer, administrator and/or teacher) than anything I’ve been involved with since the inception of the summer constructivist conference. (I use “buck” as a metaphor, there is little or no financial cost involved.)

In a moment I will describe how Ms. Becky Buckingham of Lisbon not only conducted an entirely student-run class, but how she went me one better on that task. But, first:

I originally designed the student-run classroom activity to be a collaboration between my education class students at St. Lawrence University and classroom teachers. It had great value for my students and can be used to the mutual benefit of university students and teachers. But it doesn’t require university collaboration – it can be done with teachers in any district. Its advantages:

It requires little explanation for teachers to grasp what they need to do

Every teacher who has tried this has been excited about the results, has found evidence of student success, and has indicated he/she will try it again. More importantly, the teachers who have tried this are now integrating some of the strategies they devised for the 40 minute student-run class into their daily work.

Teachers can be prepared to undertake this task in less than 90 minutes. Most teachers have needed nothing more than the written explanation you will find at the end of this article.

This is one hundred percent professional development in the classroom. Teachers focus on learning-objectives they need to accomplish to meet their own goals or to prepare students for standardized tests. In other words, teachers use the student-run classroom to address learning objectives they need to address. It is not an add-on to a teacher’s heavy work load.

Since October, twelve teachers, in ten different school districts, have conducted a student-run class. Another fourteen, in two more districts, are in the process of planning their student-run classes. I will work with additional teachers this Friday (at a workshop sponsored by the teacher center, SLVTLC) to generate more student-run lessons. Student-run classes have been done in second and fourth grades, in middle school ELA, and high school biology and business. A student-run kindergarten class will be conducted within the next few weeks.

The criterion for the student-run class is that the teacher has to remain in the back of the room while the students run the 40-minute class. The teacher can, of course, coach, as needed. In fact, one of the beauties of this activity is that it generates “teachable moments.”

When I launched this training activity, last fall, one of my SLU students, Nikki Freeman, a sophomore, asked Ms. Buckingham if they could try this in Ms. Buckingham’s class. But Becky and Nikki went one better than what I had asked. I had expected that teachers would conduct a teacher-directed class, a day or more prior to the student-run class, for the purpose of preparing the students to direct their own activities. I envisioned that, to prepare the students, the teacher might say, “Let’s divide into four groups, here’s what each group is responsible for, etc.”).

Not only did Ms. Buckingham and Nikki create a student-run class (on a Friday), but they had the students run the class on the day of preparation (Thursday) as well as the Friday that had been set aside for the student-run class. Then they sent me a tape of both classes. Here is what I saw:

At the start of the first class (a Thursday), Ms. Buckingham distributed a half page of instructions (see below) and a two page list of “Nine Water Quality Indicators.” The only words she spoke were “Read the directions and follow them. Does anyone have any questions?” Then she sat down.

For a few minutes the students read the directions, made comments (some relevant, some not), and then one student observed “Each of us really needs to know all nine indicators in order to do this right.” Then there was another minute or two of reading, occasional comments, until one student assumed a leadership role and the next minute the students were counting off, then separating into small groups and tackling different assignments in each group according to the suggestions of the student who took a leadership role.

From then on the students were in control. They prepared their work and, the following day, made their presentations to the class. They used overheads and other artistically designed visuals, covered the nine water quality indicators in depth and, it was apparent, held the attention of their peers to a far greater degree than most teacher- directed activities would accomplish.

It was also apparent that the students learned far more about what they presented than if they had not been through the process of designing a lesson to teach it; they learned at least as much about the “indicators” presented by their peers as if the teacher had discussed them. Think about the skills these students also honed, far beyond what they learned about water quality indicators – public speaking, artistic design, teamwork, and on and on.

Becky Buckingham is a consummate professional. In addition to teaching her classes at Lisbon, she facilitates training for the local BOCES and teacher’s center, and has pioneered creative teaching strategies, some of which have been featured in previous articles. I would not expect the average teacher (experienced and expert though he/she might be) to try a student-run preparation session. It’s too ambitious. It is a major accomplishment to conduct a student-run lesson, following a period of teacher-directed preparation.

Viewing the tape of Ms. Buckingham’s class, one can see that these students are experienced in cooperative learning. In fact, I asked Ms. Buckingham, “At the time you had your students prepare for the student-run class, you must already have done extensive group work with them, hadn’t you?”

She told me that not only had these students done a lot of group work this fall, prior to the student-run class, but that she had many of these students in seventh grade science and had done group work with them then, three years ago.

If you are a teacher, I urge you to plan and conduct one student-run class. If you want assistance, I’ll be glad to coach via e-mail. If you do it, please share your reactions with me.

If you are a staff developer, I urge you to conduct a session: begin with some discussion on research about the value of nurturing independent learners and having students teach each other. Follow the discussion with work time for teachers to design a student-run class; then conduct a follow-up hour (a few weeks later) to discuss teacher reactions to their student-run class, and to share evidence of student success.

If you are an administrator, you can encourage teachers to try this and probably won’t even need much staff development time to successfully launch this concept. The value to the teachers who try this are:

1. the thought process in preparing it

2. seeing how it motivates students to learn

3. experience and reinforcement with learner centered teaching strategies

4. the dialogue that can occur afterward with skillful facilitation

Here is the half page handout that Ms. Buckingham distributed to her students, on a Thursday, along with two pages that listed the “Nine Water Quality Indicators”:

Class Project on Water Quality

As a class, you will develop a way to show me that you understand the nine water quality indicators on the handout. You need to be able to explain each, their sources, how humans influence that indicator, and how that indicator influences the aquatic life without reading from the sheet. You can choose any means that you want, but remember that everyone in the class must contribute. The more you contribute, and understand, the higher your individual grade.

This must be totally completed by the end of class on Friday.

STUDENT-RUN CLASS ASSIGNMENT

Here is the outline I give to teachers when I outline expectations for a student-run class:

1. Design and teach a 45-minute lesson in which students run the entire class.

2. The students must actually run each activity and the entire class. The teacher is to be a coach and an observer. It is not enough for the students to simply be actively engaged in activity - they must be teaching each other and they must be giving the instructions for each activity.

3. The best way to organize might be to divide the class into groups of three or four and give each group an assignment to teach a certain amount of content. They might need a textbook, tape, or other resource to find the information they will teach. They need coaching so they don’t simply lecture. You might want to assign one of the groups to run the class instead of having them teach a section. In other words, their task would be to introduce each group and act as the teacher.

4. Example:

Kindergarten: Students are divided into seven groups of three. Each group is read a different story and then asked to put on a six-minute play in which they retell the story. Listening skills and verbal skills are the learning objectives.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.

Recently, I shared with my St. Lawrence University classes, the concept of “multiple assessments” and the fact that relatively few teachers have had much training or experience with the design and use of assessments that go beyond paper and pencil short-answer/essay tests.

There is a need for teachers to assess portfolios, journals, and student performance – with precision and reliability - and to draw upon their professional expertise to use teacher observation as a legitimate form of assessment. This is evident to me as I analyze the work of my students this semester. Like anyone who is human, I reach quick conclusions about people based on initial impressions. I try not to lock-in on my initial stereotypes and, hopefully, I allow myself to accumulate evidence of student performance and understanding from as many diverse sources as possible.

As with many teachers, my initial impressions are usually based on student attentiveness and verbal ability in class. However, sometimes, as I read student papers or journal entries, I realize that a student I had stereotyped as average or below average has unique abilities. On the other hand, sometimes a student whose written work is so-so takes a leadership role in group work, or reveals superior analytical ability when we meet personally or when I overhear his/her observations to class mates..

Sometimes, the neatness and organizational ability reflected in a student’s journal entries, or portfolio, convey a totally different impression to me of that student’s effort and abilities than I had gleaned from classroom observation.

The icebreakers and closures I conduct in every class reveal information to me about what “sticks” and what is ignored in a lesson. The group interaction when groups of students design and implement a presentation tells me a great deal about which students are natural leaders, which students are more responsible, and which students know how to integrate the facts they have memorized into productive uses of information.

I also take notice of which students will e-mail me questions, seek me out for appointments, pursue their questions in class or immediately after, in contrast to some students who will submit what they initially think I am requesting and not be concerned with clarifying any doubts they may have about what is required.

Most of the assessments I do are for the purpose of improving instruction, not putting a grade on a paper. However, I find that the consequence of using multiple assessments for the purpose of improving assessment is that, by the end of the semester, I have a pretty good picture of each student for grading purposes.

Yes, I use a rubric for determining student grades, I advertise the rubric throughout the semester and I involve the students in negotiating parts of the rubric that will determine their final grade. Yes, my rubric relies on multiple forms of assessment. But if my observations and other forms of assessment convince me a student is performing better, or more poorly, than an assessment based on my rubric would indicate, I know the rubric may need revision.

As a trainer, I used to suggest to administrators who were evaluating teachers that they should focus on improving performance and not worry about building a case against a teacher they might feel the need to dismiss. If they did everything possible to help a teacher improve, assessed the progress of the teacher strictly from the standpoint of supporting the teacher’s effort to improve, and the teacher did not ultimately meet a high enough standard, the case for dismissal would be built simply from records of the effort to help the teacher improve.

I believe the same to be true of teacher assessment of students. Focus on assessing student progress for the purpose of improvement of instruction. The information you need to assign a grade will be a byproduct of your assessment for the purpose of improving instruction.

If we think clearly of what we want students to learn, we usually reach the conclusion we cannot truly assess whether they have met our learning objectives unless we use multiple forms of assessment. We also need multiple forms of assessment to help us understand whether and/or how we must adjust our instructional strategies in order to help students meet our learning objectives.

Don’t most good parents have a reasonably good assessment of what their children do well and what needs to be improved? Where do good parents gain an assessment of what their children understand, can do, and are competent to undertake? Do we give our children short answer tests and/or ask them to write essays when we want to see what they know? Yes, sometimes we will ask questions that lend themselves to one-word or phrase responses. But how many other forms of assessment do we use, including parent observation, when we are engaged in the on-going process of assessing our children’s understanding, performance, application, and competence?

Parents use multiple forms of assessment and teachers need to do the same. Teacher observation is often overlooked as a valid measure of student achievement. Teachers are professionals and their observations require the expertise for which they were trained. Teacher observation, when combined with a variety of other assessments, can enable teachers and parents to have a clear picture of student performance that can guide instructional strategies.

The author welcomes comments, feedback, reactions of any kind to the thoughts expressed (above).

Please feel free to forward this message to a friend or colleague. If
you know someone who would like to be put on the list, please send a
message to Don Mesibov at dmesibov@twcny.rr.com.

Copyright (c) 2002, Institute for Learning Centered Education. All
rights reserved.