Louisiana Student Learning Objective Visual Arts (Grades 9-10)

Transcription

1 Louisiana Student Learning Objective Visual Arts (Grades 9-10) May 2013

2 Table of Contents Introduction...3 What Is an SLO?... 3 What Is an Annotated SLO?... 3 How to Use This Document... 3 Louisiana Contextual Information...4 Student Learning Objective: Visual Arts (Grades 9-10)...5 Element List... 5 Rationale for SLT... 6 Student Learning Target... 7 Baseline Data... 8 Scoring Plan... 9 Overview of Louisiana Visual Arts (Grades 9-10)... 9 Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions

3 Introduction What is an SLO? As States and school districts implement educator evaluation systems that include measures of student growth, one of the challenges they face is identifying measures for non-tested grades and subjects. The use of student learning objectives (SLOs) is one promising approach to addressing this challenge. Structurally, an SLO consists of several elements that describe a specific learning objective for a particular student population as well as a specific, systematic process for how an educator can identify and implement strategies to track progress toward that goal and achieve it. What is an Annotated SLO? The Reform Support Network (RSN) has developed a series of annotated SLOs to orient readers around their structure, provide analysis and suggest specific actions to strengthen the SLO s quality. Each annotated SLO, such as the one in this document, provides analysis and suggestions for improvement for each individual element within the SLO as well as the SLO as a whole. States, school districts, colleges, universities and others can use the RSN s collection of annotated SLOs, the SLO Library, to prepare teachers and administrators to develop highquality SLOs or to improve SLOs that they have already developed. The SLO Library is not a collection of exemplary SLOs. The RSN designed the library as a teaching tool, so most of the jurisdictions intentionally provided the library with SLOs that vary in quality. They also vary in their subject areas and grade levels. Each SLO review identifies and discusses both strengths and areas for improvement. It is up to the reader, then, not to mimic the SLOs found in the library but to extrapolate lessons learned from them to produce new, original and high quality SLOs. How to Use This Document The RSN intends for the SLO Library to support any stakeholder actively engaged in learning about or implementing SLOs: State departments of education, school districts and schools, teachers implementing SLOs, administrators leading an SLO process and colleges of education interested in adding SLO coursework to their teacher or administrator preparation programs. Each annotated SLO begins with contextual information for the jurisdiction that produced the SLO and then presents each element of the SLO in sequence. Each element begins with the jurisdiction s actual description of it, which is followed by the text of an author from the jurisdiction. Think of the author as the teacher(s) or school district administrator(s) who actually wrote the SLO. The language from the jurisdiction s description comes from the jurisdiction s SLO template or other guidance materials. The author s text comes from the SLO provided by the jurisdiction. Both sections are unedited. The subsequent section, Review of the Author s Text and Potential Improvements, is the focus of the library and should be of greatest interest to the reader. This section analyzes the text written by the author from the jurisdiction and provides considerations for improving the quality of the individual element. An overall summary of the entire SLO follows the presentation of the elements and concludes the review of the SLO. The appendix contains what the RSN calls an element comparison tool, which links the name of the element used by this jurisdiction to the standardized term used in the SLO Library. The comparison table intends to provide readers with the means to compare elements across SLOs, even if they are called by different names. 3

4 Louisiana Contextual Information SLO Implementation Timeline School year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs without stakes for teachers 1 School year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs with stakes for teachers 2 School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation SLO Development and Approval Who develops SLOs? Individual teachers, grade- or content-level teams of teachers, school and district administrators Are collectively developed SLOs permitted (for example, by Yes teams of teachers and administrators)? Who approves SLOs? School administrators SLO Use in Evaluation Are SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required Are SLOs the sole measure of student growth in the evaluation system? If not, what other measure(s) does the jurisdiction use? Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation? What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for teachers in the jurisdiction s evaluation system? What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for administrators in the jurisdiction s evaluation system? SLO Implementation How many SLOs are required for most teachers? How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? No, they are one of multiple measures in the system. Other measures include observations and value-added data, where available. Beginning in the school year, school districts will base their compensation schedules in part on effectiveness, as determined by the Compass evaluation system, which incorporates SLOs. 50 percent for teachers of non-tested subjects 50 percent for school administrators 2 SLOs per year 2 SLOs per year Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? SLO Assessment Who selects which assessments are used for SLOs? Are there standards or required development processes for assessments created by teachers, schools, or districts? If so, what are they? What types of assessments are permitted? Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs? Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Teachers of non-tested subjects, teachers of tested subjects, and all administrators Teachers, school and district administrators Yes, the State recommends that teachers and school administrators use a clear rubric creating and judging assessments for non-tested grades and subjects. Teacher-developed, school-developed, district-developed, State-developed and national models Yes Teachers, school and district administrators 1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations 2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations 4

5 Student Learning Objective: Visual Arts (Grades 9-10) Element List Rationale for SLT...6 Student Learning Target...7 Baseline Data...8 Scoring Plan...9 5

6 Rationale for SLT JURISDICTION S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT Standardized Name Rationale Please include targeted content standards and/or explanation of assessment method, as applicable. AUTHOR S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT Student portfolios consisting of one preliminary, three mid-semester, and one final drawing are scored on the Drawing from Observation rubric created by district visual art teachers. Scoring levels range from below standard (1) to advanced (4) with five categories covering aspects of creativity, design, and technical execution in the five key principles of observational drawing (lines, spaces and shapes, relationship, lighting and shading, and composition). These categories were determined by our district art team after referencing standards and exemplars from other states as well as the Louisiana Creative Arts Benchmarks. The rubric for Drawing from Observation is based on the extent to which a student s portfolio demonstrates proficiency in these five categories. Each drawing will be scored and returned with feedback for improvement. The final drawing will be scored and used for student growth data. LA Benchmarks: CE3, CE5, CE7 REVIEW OF AUTHOR S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS The author suggests that the rationale for the student learning target (SLT) is that its content aligns with standards from other states as well as the Louisiana Creative Arts Benchmarks. The SLT also includes a scoring achievement range, as well as information on the data reviewers will use to determine student growth over the instructional interval. The author notes that the school district s visual art teachers developed the rubric that reviewers will use to score student progress. The collaborative development of assessment tools is a practice that should help ensure greater consistency of scoring across classrooms. Teachers will use the rubric to evaluate multiple interim drawings, allowing students the opportunity to learn from the feedback and to improve their output. Notably, the author explains precisely which drawings or measures reviewers will use to assess growth, which is particularly important in an SLT that includes both formative and summative assessments. To strengthen this element, the author could include the rubric for Drawing from Observation. Including the rubric would make it possible for a reviewer of the SLT to determine if the criteria measured by the rubric align with the standards supposedly addressed here. When using a performance-based assessment, jurisdictions should consider providing a scoring guide along with the rubric to promote consistency across scorers. 6

7 Student Learning Target JURISDICTION S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT Standardized Name Student Growth Targets The student learning targets set goals for student academic growth and are used to determine the Student Growth component score. AUTHOR S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT 65 out of 84 art students will demonstrate proficiency on four out of five principles of drawing, (lines, spaces and shapes, relationship, lighting and shading, and composition,) in their final observational drawings, as measured by a district-created rubric. Proficiency is defined by a score of at least 3 out of 4 on the rubric.) REVIEW OF AUTHOR S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS The author sets a target that requires 77 percent of students (65 total) to demonstrate proficiency in 80 percent of the principles of drawing. Baseline and other achievement data should tell implementers and reviewers of the SLT if the targets are rigorous and achievable. The author also might want to consider setting tiered targets for the SLT, so that it addresses the growth of all students not just 65 of them. Tiered targeting allows teachers to set growth expectations for groups or students categorized by initial performance levels. For instance, students whose pre-assessment results are in the two bottom quartiles might have one final target (in this case, perhaps mastery of three out of five principles). But the final target for students whose pre-assessment results are in the top two quartiles might be different (in this case, mastery of four out of five principles). 7

8 Baseline Data JURISDICTION S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT Standardized Name Baseline Please include what you know about the targeted students performance/skills/achievement levels at the beginning of the year, as well as any additional student data or background info used in setting your target. AUTHOR S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT Based on students preliminary drawings, 32 out of 84 students were able to demonstrate proficiency (3 out of 4) in one out of five principles of observational drawing. 38 students demonstrated proficiency in two of five principles. The remaining 14 students did not demonstrate proficiency. Based on these data, and given that students will have multiple opportunities for feedback on this same rubric throughout the year, I estimate that at least 65 out of 84 students will score proficiency (3 out of 4) or above on the rubric for at least four out of the five principles of the observational drawing rubric on the final portfolio drawing. REVIEW OF AUTHOR S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS The data from the preliminary drawing indicate a need for the specific focus on the identified content, with fewer than half of the students demonstrating proficiency in two of the five principles. The author could strengthen this SLT by providing more specific information about the range of scores on the pre-assessment. Are there any students scoring near proficient in the various principles? Which principles are more difficult for students? Answers to important questions like these could alter the SLT s target. Given the variability in student performance on the preliminary drawing, the author should consider setting tiered targets for performance as explained in the Student Learning Target section. Gathering and analyzing performance data such as that provided by portfolios in previous visual arts courses would enrich the analysis of student baselines and help teachers set performance targets. If no prior visual arts course data are available, information about student experiences and interests would help as well. 8

9 Scoring Plan JURISDICTION S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT Standardized Name Scoring Scoring Plan: Insufficient Attainment of Target (1): Partial Attainment of Target (2): Full Attainment of Target (3): Exceptional Attainment of Target (4): The teacher has demonstrated an insufficient impact on student learning by falling far short of the target. The teacher has demonstrated some impact on student learning, but did not meet the target. The teacher has demonstrated a considerable impact on student learning by meeting the target. The teacher has demonstrated an outstanding impact on student learning by surpassing the target by a meaningful margin. AUTHOR S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range: Achievement range: 54 students or fewer students students students REVIEW OF AUTHOR S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS The scoring plan establishes a link between student performance and teacher effectiveness. The number of students meeting their target determines the outcome of the SLT. The scoring plan establishes clear, numeric thresholds for teacher effectiveness. Successful administration of the scoring plan ultimately depends on how accurately reviewers apply the rubric to final student work products. Overview of Louisiana Visual Arts (Grades 9-10) This Visual Arts SLT covers the fundamental standards for drawing in the jurisdiction. The SLT requires each student to submit a final drawing. Reviewers will use a district-developed rubric to measure performance on the task. The author notes that teachers will provide students with formative assessments throughout the course, ensuring that students and teachers alike can monitor their progress and adjust instructional and learning strategies as necessary. While not required by the jurisdiction, the author could strengthen the SLT by describing the instructional strategies he or she plans to use to achieve the learning target. Identifying and implementing specific strategies and tracking student progress enables teachers to determine the effectiveness of those strategies and adjust them to improve student learning. Finally, providing additional data on how each student performs on each individual principle of drawing could illuminate specific areas of difficulty and allow for more differentiated instruction. 9

10 Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions Louisiana Element Name Rationale for SLT Student Learning Target Baseline Data Scoring Plan Standardized Name Rationale Student Growth Targets Baseline Scoring An earlier version of this document was developed under the auspices of the Reform Support Network, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education under contract #GS-23F-8182H. This publication features information from public and private organizations and links to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products or services offered or views expressed, nor does the Department of Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness. 10