Printer Friendly Version - Shifting from Lecturer to Coach

Middle School Science Teacher David Plotkin is piloting a new standards-based teaching and assessment model that puts him in the role of coach and facilitator.

There’s a revolution going on inside Old Saybrook Middle School science teacher David Plotkin’s room. Students are taking control of their own learning and what they learn with this new standards-based, student-directed approach, they remember.

The change was driven by Plotkin’s decision to pilot a new grading system for his 8th-grade science classes. Once he developed the detailed standards-based rubrics and recording sheets, he realized he also had to change how he taught each day. Instead of a teacher-directed approach relying on a combination of lecture, demonstration, discussion, and labs, the new approach relies more on student-directed in-class research. Students explore topics in the science study unit using materials he developed as their research road map.

Individually and in groups, students in each class investigate specific research questions Plotkin presents. Through this student-directed approach, they learn research and critical thinking skills, to assess the quality of information they find, and then to synthesize to support their conclusions using multiple sources and references. The students are taking charge of their learning; Plotkin provides the tools to guide them.

He transitioned to the new standards-based teaching and grading system, where he serves as coach and facilitator during in-class research activities, in September 2015. After spending 10 years as a science teacher using more traditional methods, he said the hardest part of the change was the sense of not always being in control. But the best part of the transition has been seeing the students’ excitement as they explore topics in depth.

It took years of effort on his own outside of the classroom to get ready for this year’s shift to standards-based learning and assessments.

“Over several years, I re-wrote lessons and prepared rubrics for each of the activities to address the various state standards. This year, I finally got to a point where I was comfortable,” said Plotkin. “Once the system was in place, it’s a repeating process. You know what the standards are.

“The highlight for me is watching the students [as they research] and checking in with them—it’s very student-centered,” he continued.

Two examples illuminate a typical class day under Plotkin’s new standards-based teaching and assessment system.

The period begins with Plotkin posing a question that students will research in class. A recent Earth Science question was, “How do we know the Earth is 4.6 billion years old?” Posed to a recent Physical Science class was, “How did ancient civilizations build such tall structures using minimal technology?” Once the question is on the table, Plotkin sets the scene with a short video or other visual to spur students’ interest in the topic.

Armed with a detailed rubric (a scoring guide) titled Gathering Information, they begin, using iPads and other sources, to find information and a worksheet on which to record their notes. Each student knows exactly how thoroughly he or she must research, record, and analyze the information found in order to score a 4 (meeting the standard), or a 5 (exceeding the standard). For example, to meet the “Searching” standard under the gathering information task, a student must gather “relevant information from multiple sources using search terms effectively.”

Other “gathering information” activity standards are these: Credibility, the ability to assess the validity of the information source; Summarizing, the ability to determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text and summarize it effectively; and Facts vs. Opinions, a standard for which mastery is demonstrated when a student “distinguishes between facts, reasoned judgment, and speculation in the text(s).”

On another day, students use a different inquiry investigation rubric, one for Sharing Information. This scoring guide lists the benchmarks for student mastery of these standards: Introduce the Topic, Supporting Facts and Evidence, Visual Representation, Transitions, Science Vocabulary, Style and Tone, and Concluding Statement.

A third rubric, Compare and Contrast Information, comes out at the end of each academic unit (there are six to eight units each year).

Perhaps the best gauge of how the new system is working is from students. Two students from Plotkin’s classes were willing to comment on the new grading approach: 8th-graders Carissa Schilke from his Physical Science class and Cooper Pavlovich from his Earth Sciences class.

“This new grading system has helped me to change the way I approach classroom work. In most classes, your research isn’t graded. Here, you’re making your own notes based on your own research. It helps you. You know where it is,” Pavlovich said.

“It’s almost like building a foundation that you would build your house on top of,” said Schilke in describing how she uses the rubric to build knowledge of a topic.

Both Pavlovich and Schilke agreed that the new rubric-reliant grading system for assessing and guiding their in-class research has a secondary benefit: It takes the stress out of quizzes and tests.

“It helps make sure your work is what the teacher expects. If you do poorly, you have the rest of the rubric to guide how you can do better,” said Schilke.

Both also were enthusiastic when asked about whether it helped them remember information, saying that the new rubric-based system led them to retain information longer than the old system. And that’s clearly a measure of successful learning.

“When they do the end-of-unit assessment, it requires them to look back and reflect on what they knew at the beginning of the unit and what they know now and the skills they’ve learned along the way,” said Plotkin. “This approach also measures student learning over a period of time, not just on one day. The rubrics and standards-based teaching has changed the way I teach, I assess, and the way I can identify students’ needs. And the amount of learning that I can see for each student is tremendous.”

In November 2015, the Connecticut State Board of Education updated state science teaching standards by adopting the national NextGen (Next Generation) standards that were developed by the national science academies. The detailed standards list for each grade level and science topic the content areas, the level of depth, the skills, and standards against which to measure student mastery (to read through them, visit www.nextgenscience.org).

Within five years, all state school districts will be required to adjust teaching lessons, approach, and assessments to prepare students for new grade-level statewide tests that will be based on the NextGen science standards.

“The new NextGen standards are specific and uniform enough to use [in the classroom]. The scope and sequence is carefully thought out across grade levels,” explained Amity Goss, the district’s interim director of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment.

For Plotkin, it will likely mean a smaller adjustment than for some teachers, since he will just need to tweak the standards-based rubrics he’s already written and is using effectively in the classroom.

Eighth-grade science students Cooper Pavlovich and Carissa Schilke agreed that they remember more of what they learn in class and are less stressed in teacher David Plotkin’s new standards-based teaching and rubrics grading system. Now their performance is measured not just on a particular quiz or test day. It’s now about how well they research, document their findings, analyze the information, and support their conclusions on a daily basis.