#16: Closing Blog Post - UbD Alignment

UbD planning is about alignment. The framework allows teachers to keep their planning, execution and assessment aligned. Teachers are encouraged to check each unit for alignment, before and after teaching the unit.

What do you want students to know, understand and be able to do?
Stage 1 clearly indicates the end in mind. Standards are chosen and broken down into knowledge and skills which should represent what the standard(s) expect. This is the first place to check for alignment. Do the knowledge and skills truly represent the content, skills and the appropriate rigor of the chosen standard(s)?

How will you know your students know, understand are are able to do?
Stage 2 indicates the evidence teachers will collect to help students attain the expected knowledge and skills. Do the assessments under or over access what the learning standard(s) indicates?

What teaching, methodologies and activities will students need, to help them know, understand and be able to do?
Stage 3 indicates all the learning activities necessary to ensure understanding by the students. Are there any activities that bear no relation to the learning standards? Are there insufficient experiences and activities to help students attain the level of proficiency desired? If so, Stage 3 should be adjusted to truly contain only the learning, activities and experiences that relate to the acquisition of the learning objectives.

In summary, there should be proper and full alignment among all the three stages of Understanding by Design.

These short blog posts are meant to give teachers a good overview and working understanding of the UbD model for unit design. Teachers who wish to further their knowledge and understanding of UbD should refer to the book Understanding by Design, written by Jay McTighe and the late Grant Wiggins.

#15: Stage 3 - Learning Activities (Format)

The format used in Stage 3 is not important as long as it gives a clear indication of the learning activities and the approximate dates they will be presented. Here are three examples of formats that are useful to consider. The first one uses a weekly format, the second a daily format, and the third, a lesson format.

(1) The weekly format tends to be more popular and flexible as it is presented in weekly rather than a daily segments. Under each weekly heading (e.g. - Week beginning August 4), topics/concepts, learning activities, classroom experiences, resource use, grouping formats, etc. are briefly described.
The following is an actual TC example of part of a weekly format from a Social Studies unit:

Week of 10/2 - 10/6

• Ch.2 sec. 5 "Roots of Judaism" - p. 57-60
• "The Dead Sea Scrolls", p. 58 and "Psalm 23", p.61
• Complete "Comprehension & Critical Thinking" Questions #3, 4, 5, p.60
• Review "Quick Study Guide,"(charts and timeline) p.62
• Concept Connector- p. 63, Review of EQ - Topics-Technology, Belief Systems, Empire, Cultural Diffusion/ Connections to Today on Economic Systems and Geography's Impact
• Use Chapter Assessments - Terms, People, and Places, Main ideas, Critical Thinking ( Analyze Cartoons, Draw Inferences, Making Comparisons, Predict Consequences, Recognize Cause and Effect) p. 64
• Document-Based Assessment, "War in the Ancient Middle East", p.65
• Summative Assessment on Ch.2 sec.1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 (multiple choice and Biographical Essay)

(2) The daily format has each day indicating the concepts, learning activities and/or experiences. The following is an actual TC example of part of a daily format from an Algebra unit:

10/30 - Define polynomials, degree and terms, end behavior p. 660 #9-31odd

10/31 - Given the zeros - find the polynomial - p. 682 #19-26 all

11/1 - Find the zeros of a polynomial (already factored) & graph p. 682 #13-17odd

11/2 - Find the zeros of a polynomial (already factored) & graph p. 682 #14-18even, 27-33 odd

11/3 - Formative

11/6 - Solve polynomial equations by factoring p. 701 #11-23 odd

11/7 - Solve polynomial equations by factoring p.701 #12-24 even

11/8 - Formative/Find the real solutions of each equation by graphing p. 702 #25-35 odd

11/9 - Find the real solutions of each equation by graphing p. 702 #26-36 even

(3) The lesson format includes the learning activities as part of a lesson. The following is an actual TC example of part a lesson format from an English unit:

Lesson 1 (9/20-9/22)

Students are briefly introduced to the concept of literary genres. The generic forms taught in this survey class and others they will encounter during high school English classes are introduced. Students are also asked to discuss and write about books and films they enjoy in the context of the genres and literary vocabulary they are learning for class. A quiz on terminology is the formative this week (in addition to the postponed formative on Greek/Latin Roots from Unit 1).

Formative: Literary Genres Quiz

Lesson 2 (9/25-9/29) Students begin exploring poetic form and the elements of poetry. By reading and analyzing short poems in group discussions they begin recognizing the differences between traditional verse and modern/organic verse. At the same time, students build vocabulary connected to poetic devices. The shared formative for this week is a Poetry Pocket Packet in which students create their own "glossary" for terminology associated with poetry analysis.

Formative: Poetry Pocket Packet (Student created Poetry Terms glossary)

Formative: Greek and Latin Word Parts (Lesson 2)

To recapitulate, the three formats are examples and does not preclude the teacher from using any other useful format. The key items that should be included in any chosen format are the learning activities and the dates they will be introduced. The activities could be specifically dated or subsumed under a particular week or date range. 

#14: Stage 3 - Learning Activities (Creativity, Autonomy & Relevance)

Once Stage 1 (Desired Results) and Stage 2 (Acceptable Evidence) are completed, we are then able to begin work on Stage 3 (learning Activities).

Stage 3 offers flexibility and autonomy to the teacher to choose those methodologies, activities and classroom experiences that he or she believes is best able to achieve the desired learning results for the unit. In choosing learning activities, the teacher should carefully consider the following within the context of the learning objectives:

• the makeup of the student body and how they best learn
• what the students already know and how that may be connected to the desired learning
• the preferred teaching style and content strengths of the teacher 
• the appropriateness of individual, small and/or large group activities to promote and maintain learning during the unit
• the appropriate choice of delivery methodology and support resources 
• powerful examples, simulations, or models that help cement the desired learning

Stage 3 can be quite different from teacher to teacher, unlike Stages 1 & 2 which need to be very similar. This is because learning standards are quite specific, but methodologies to acquire competency in those standards can be quite different. This creative aspect of Stage 3 offers great potential for peer learning and collaboration. With Ubd and a tool like Atlas, teachers may view how their colleagues are addressing how to teach different standards and learn and borrow from one another. It is the next best thing to visiting the classrooms of colleagues to observe and learn from them.

There is really only one rule to follow in Stage 3 and that is to ensure that all activities and learning experiences directly lead to the acquisition of the learning objectives. This means that those "wonderful" projects that all students and parents loved, but that really have no relevance or connection to any of the learning objectives have no place in Stage 3.

#13: Review of Stage 2

In Stage 2 of Understanding by Design, we looked at assessment methodology and grading scales. Here are the key points to remember about Stage 2.

• The purpose of Stage 2 is to design good assessments that indicate how students are meeting the standards and/or learning objectives set out in Stage 1 of the UbD planning process. 
• Assessments are described as either formative or summative, where formative assessment are "assessments for learning" and summative assessments are "assessments of learning."
• Assessment should clearly align with the standard (s) or learning objective(s) of the unit.
• Grading scales are described as either those that use the "accumulation of points" method or those that determine "levels of achievement" to assign a grade.
• Both the "accumulation of points" and the "Levels of achievement" methods may be aligned to standards and or learning objectives.
• However the "achievement levels" system clearly describes expected learning outcomes that must be met at each level in order to attain the achievement level grade.
• The use of zero's on the 100-point scale unfairly weights failure and results in distorted "averages" to reflect learning.
• A hybrid system using the 50-100 scale better aligns with the practice and philosophy of the 4-point scale.

In designing assessment formats it is recommended that teachers use an A-B section format. In brief the A-B format differentiates between the rigor of questions posed. While all questions deal with the standard or learning objective, questions in section B are more challenging and assess deeper understanding. They would clearly require higher order thinking, problem solving ability, transference, and/or a higher DOK level of rigor. Questions in section A, deal with the basic understanding and skills of the components of the standard or learning objective. These include content  vocabulary, concept definitions and basic skills indicated by the standard or learning objective.

It is recommended that sections A and B be weighted at 80% and 20% respectively.

#12: Stage 2 - Acceptable Evidence (A Rationale for the Hybrid Scale)

For the mathematically inclined, here is a rationale showing how the hybrid system utilizing the percentage scale and 4-point scale works.

First let's understand the three scenarios we'll work with.

1. A percentage scale that recognizes zero as the lowest possible grade.
2. A percentage scale that recognizes 50 as the lowest possible grade.
3. A 4-point scale that recognizes zero as the lowest possible grade.

We'll now look at 3 students who received three grades that are averaged accordingly. 

Student A: Percentage: 80, 70 and 0;   4-point: 3, 2, 0

Student B: Percentage: 90, 80 and 0;   4-point: 4, 3, 0

Student C: Percentage: 60, 80 and 0;   4-point: 1, 3, 0

Under Scenario 1

Student A: (80+70+0)/3 = 50

Student B: (90+80+0)/3 = 57

Student C: (60+80+0)/3 = 47

Under Scenario 2

Student A: (80+70+50)/3 = 67

Student B: (90+80+50)/3 = 73

Student C: (60+80+50)/3 = 63

Under Scenario 3

Student A: (3+2+0)/3 = 1.7 or 67

Student B: (4+3+0)/3 = 2.3 or 73

Student C: (1+3+0)/3 = 1.3 or 63

You can see that scenario 2 and 3 align well as they give similar results to all three students. Scenario 1 gives the most punitive results. Similar results can be obtained using a variety of different scores. While, scenario 2 and 3 may not provide exactly the same scores for the three students, they will closely align. This validates the practice of using 50 rather than zero as the base.  If we want to align the percentage scale with the 4-point scale, we need to address the disproportionate failure range by setting 50 as the floor for failure. Using 50 as the floor allows us to continue using the familiar percentage scale for grading, while at the same time ensuring the fairness that the 4-point scale offers.

#11: Stage 2 - Acceptable Evidence (Grading Scales)

Is there a difference between an assessment and a grade?

An assessment is any instrument that is able to measure or provide feedback on student achievement or performance. A grade is a recorded score that may be derived from an assessment or assessments.  An assessment need not be graded, but a grade, by name, is a point on an agreed upon scale of achievement.

Many formative and diagnostic assessments are not graded. Their primary purpose is informational feedback to both the student and the teacher. Most summative assessments -assessments of learning - are graded. They provide a measure of what the student knows and is able to do at the end of a learning period.

Here are two common grading scales, each having a number of ways they are used or expressed.

1. The straight points or percentage scale. Here, there are a certain number of possible points that may be earned and these points are awarded based on objective (or subjective) criteria. The most common scale is the percentage scale. All numerical scales may be converted to a percentage. The straight points scale is defended on the grounds that it is easy to understand, administer and defend. Conversely their critics say they can be unfair and arbitrary.
2. The level of achievement scale. Here, there a certain number of achievement levels that a student's work may be pegged against. Each level of achievement is described in terms of performance expectations within the context of a learning standard or objective. Levels of achievement are defended as clear, fair and objective. Opponents say they are subjective, inaccurate and difficulty to administer. 

The most common criticism of the percentage scale comes from its distribution of points within achievement levels. The F or failure range is accorded 60 points, while every other achievement level (from A to D) is accorded 10 points. The problem best reveals itself when two extreme grades are averaged. A grade of a zero when averaged with a grade of 100 gives a student a 50 - a failing grade. Proponents of levels of achievement recommend a 4-point scale with F (0); D (1); C (2); B (3) and A (4). They believe this evens out the scale and does not penalize a failure during the process of averaging. In the above extreme example, a 4 and 0 averages to a 2 (a C rather than a failing grade). They also argue that most schools use the 4-point scale when calculating GPA's.

A solution therefore may be to use the GPA scale as an assessment's grade. Teachers may still grade assignments using the percentage scale, but translate the grade to the GPA scale when they record it. For example anything below a 60% translates to a zero, while 60-69 translates to a 1; 70-79 translates to a 2; 80-89 translates to a 3; and 90-100 translates to a 4. This has the same effect as using the 4-point scale, but allows the traditional use of the percentage scale as well. This also has the same mathematical effect as recording a 50 as the lowest grade, but it does not come with the "baggage" of awarding free points for nothing.

While schools may see the logic and beauty of the 4-point scale, they may decide to keep using the more traditional percentage scale that the school community better understands. They may however also decide not to award a grade below a 50 in order to align the policy to the 4-point scale. They prefer this hybrid scale rather than the early application of the GPA scale as they may believe the point intervals (points between an 80 and 89 say, rather than just a 2) allow students a fairer and/or more accurate average at the end of the marking period.

#10: Stage 2 - Acceptable Evidence (Formatives & Summatives)

Formative and summative assessments may take many forms. They may be traditional paper and pencil quizzes and tests or something more complex like a project that calls for the application of the learned knowledge and practiced skills. Whatever form they take, assessments should primarily address the learning standards of the unit. This is the foundation of standards based or referenced assessments. The assessment should not assess a concept or skill that the learning unit does not address. This may only occur in diagnostic assessments where the teacher is attempting to gauge what the student already knows so as to design the pace and focus of the learning unit.

As discussed in the previous post, formative assessments provide corrective feedback and prepare students for the summative assessments that typically occur towards the end of the learning unit. There are many times when the complexity and scope of a standard may demand that the material be assessed in chunks. In these cases, there may be a number of summatives interspersed by formatives along the duration of the learning unit. Teachers should be flexible in designing formatives and summatives that motivate and support the learning process.

The number of formatives that one should give before the summative depends on how ready the students are to attempt the summative. Of course there should be at least one formative before each summative. However, the complexity or inability of students to fully understand the target learning may require that two or three formatives be attempted before students are ready for the summative.

Technically, a formative assessment should not be graded, as learning is still taking place. Practically however, many schools have a policy that limits formatives to no more than 20% of the unit grade. This low weighting of formatives provides an incentive for students to take their formative assessments seriously. As students learn that fully cooperating with the learning process is what true learning is all about, schools may decide to further reduce the weighting of formative assessments and allowing for summatives to count for 100% of the unit grade.