BARBARA HEUBERGER

INTRODUCTION FOR FACULTY TO THIS LONG WRITING ASSIGNMENT

The following assignment is for EDT 422, Studies in Educational Issues, a capstone course.  Most students taking the course are senior preservice teachers in teacher education licensure programs. The assignment has several goals for the student learning. Some are stated in the syllabus, some are central to the notion of a capstone course, and some represent skills development that may or have not been included elsewhere in their college education. These goals include the following:

• Students will be able to integrate their previous knowledge (from many previous courses) into a new way of exploring educational issues.

• Students will be able to apply Miami Plan principles (engaging with other learners, reflecting and acting, critical thinking, and understanding contexts) into a framework that will be useful to them as practicing teachers.  Particularly important to me is to help them have a toolbox of strategies/skills/ways of thinking that they can use in new situations in their lives (lifelong learning) and to help them understand the value of the four Miami Plan principles in their own learning.

• Students will be challenged in ways that will model how they can challenge their own students in their own classrooms—they can see strategies and understand the value of challenging expectations.

• Hopefully, after the course students will be empowered to tackle complex educational issues in meaningful ways (rather than the simpler and human impulse to “dichotomize” issues).  This ability will serve them well in differentiating the needs of individual students.

• Classroom teachers often do not see the socio-cultural-political aspects of education as relevant to their specific classrooms.  Learning in this course will help students see “the big picture” and the linkages of educational issues.

The Center for Writing Excellence/CELT Workshop on Improving Student Writing contributed to my rethinking about the assignment in the following specific ways:

• Breaking up the long assignment into subparts.
• Designing the assignment to avoid plagiarism.
• Incorporating peer review into the assignment process.
• Using specific strategies (e.g., idea mapping) within the assignment.
• Grading assessment strategies (e.g., I now have several ungraded subparts).

BARBARA HEUBERGER

LONG WRITING ASSIGNMENT FOR STUDENTS

Draft of Writing Assignment for Summer Writing Workshop: May 2003

EDT 422 Studies in Educational Issues

Summer Session I 2003

Identifying and Exploring Complex Educational Issues

(60% of Course Grade)

Context of the Assignment

One way to meet the course objectives and the objectives of the Miami Plan for Liberal Education in this course is to identify and understand educational issues with multiple perspectives.  Most educational issues are complex.  Understanding how to systematically explore many dimensions of an issue will help pre-service teachers function more effectively with students, colleagues, and parents. Therefore, the assignments for this course will focus on learning how to identify and systematically explore issues in education.  Emphasis will be on understanding multiple perspectives and connecting theory and practice.  Refer to the syllabus for course objectives and the description of how the Miami Plan principles (engaging with other learners, critical thinking, reflecting and acting, and understanding contexts) are integrated into this course.

The assignment includes seven parts.  Each part should be word-processed, double-spaced using 12-point font, stapled and follow the American Psychological Association (APA) style (or the style used in your academic discipline).  Keep in mind that the seven parts collectively represent a writing process. Although they are presented in a linear form, writing is a process that includes ongoing reflection, rethinking and revision.  So you will want to revisit your work from each part as you go through the process.

Part I: Issue Identification (1-2 pages, due Wednesday, May 21)

Based on our classroom discussion during the first class session, identify a current educational issue that interests you. Respond to the following.

• What is the issue?   (Include an adequate description that would be understandable by a person outside of the field.)
• Why is the issue of interest to you?
• Why is the issue important to education?
• Develop an “idea map” on your topic. (See attached description and example of an “idea map”.)
• What are the perspectives on the issue? (List as many of you can—consider this a “brainstorming” activity to think about the complexity of the topic.
•  

Evaluation: Part I will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part II: Issue Exploration (3-4 pages, due Wednesday, May 28)

This part is the development of an annotated reference list.  Find at least 20 sources of information on your topic.  Be sure to include a range of types of sources (e.g., journals, books, popular press).  Also, include at least one source that enhances your understanding of the issue, but is not directly addressing the issues.  (Examples of this will be discussed in class.)  For each source, include the following.

• A full citation, using APA style
• A brief summary of the perspective of the source
• A brief summary of how the source enhanced your learning about the topic
• Questions the source raised for you in your thinking about the issue

Evaluation: Part II will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description later in this assignment sheet), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part III: Refining Your Topic (6-8 pages, due Monday, June 2)

Think about the work that you did in Parts I and II.  From that work, refine your topic into something you can explore in depth by doing the following steps.

• Prepare a thesis statement on the issue you selected.  (See attached for additional information on thesis statements.)
• Develop a prospectus for your project.  (See attached for additional information what is included in a prospectus.)
• Supplement your original literature review with five additional sources (minimum) that relate to your thesis.  Use the reference format from Part II for each new source.

Evaluation: Part I will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part IV: Issue Framework and Review of Literature (8-10 pages, 30 points total, due Wednesday, June 4)

Part IV is a formal written paper that focuses on the issue, your interpretation of the issue, and your review of literature on the issue (that focuses on identifying multiple perspectives on the issue).  The paper should include the following:

• a description of the topic and the thesis statement
• a statement of the relationship of the topic to personal teaching goals and the field of education
• identification and discussion of multiple perspectives on the issue
• a reference list
• a bibliography
• appendices (include if appropriate)

Evaluation:  Part IV will be graded using the following rubric.  The category language for this rubric has been adopted for use in many Early Childhood Education courses (including this one), and is described and cited later in this assignment sheet.  (Remember that your score may be adjusted to reflect weaknesses in work from Parts I, II or III.)

No or limited attempt      0-17 points

Prestructural                     18-21 points

Unistructural                     21-23 points

Multistructural                   24-26 points

Relational                         27-30 points

Part V: Peer Review (3-5 pages, due Monday June 9)

A copy of the paper prepared for Part IV will be given to another pre-service teacher in the class.  Using evaluation criteria provided by the instructor, the peer reviewer will provide detailed feedback on the paper.  Copies of this feedback will be given to the author and the instructor.

Evaluation: Part V will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the peer reviewer.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part VI.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part VII.

Part VI: Analysis of Meaning of the Research (4-6 pages, due Wednesday, June 11) and Peer Feedback (in-class activity on Wednesday, June 11)

Parts I through V focused on building skills in collecting, evaluating and integrating information on an educational topic.  Analyzing the meaning of the perspectives of the educational issue is an essential element in critical thinking.  The structure and content of the analysis of the meaning writing in Part VI will vary by topic selected.  If the educational issue is related to classroom practice (e.g., classroom management), the analysis may be applied, focusing on specific teaching or learning strategies the preservice teacher can use for the classroom.  In other cases, when the educational issue is broader in scope (e.g., school funding), the analysis section will be organized differently.

Evaluation: Part VI will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the peer reviewer.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part VI.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part VII.

Peer Feedback: Part VI will include a non-graded peer feedback session (and whole group discussion) conducted in-class. A copy of the paper prepared for Part VI will be given to another pre-service teacher in the class.  Using evaluation criteria provided by the instructor, the peer reviewer will provide detailed feedback on the paper.

Part VII: Final Draft (12-16 pages, 30 points total, due Monday, June 16)

Part VII provides an opportunity for revision of the paper produced for Parts IV and VI, based on instructor, peer reviewer, student author self feedback, and new sources. The paper should include the following:

• a description of the topic and the thesis statement
• a statement of the relationship of the topic to personal teaching goals and the field of education
• identification and discussion of multiple perspectives on the issue
• an analysis of the meaning of the research for the student (e.g., teaching/learning strategies, conclusions)
• a reference list
• a bibliography
• appendices (include if appropriate)
• all previous drafts (parts I through VI, with instructor or peer comments) in a folder

Evaluation:  Part VII will be graded using the following rubric.  The category language for this rubric has been adopted for use in many Early Childhood Education courses (including this one), and is fully described in the following section of this assignment sheet.  (Remember that your score may be adjusted to reflect weaknesses in work from Part VI.)

No or limited attempt      0-17 points

Prestructural                     18-21 points

Unistructural                     21-23 points

Multistructural                   24-26 points

Relational                         27-30 points

Scoring Rubrics for Assignments in EDT 422: Conceptual Framework

All artifacts must be evaluated with scoring rubrics that can be consistently and reliably applied. The seminal work of Biggs & Collis (1982) includes the introduction of a taxonomy, called the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes). The taxonomy can be applied to a variety of applications in teacher education (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996; Anderson, 1997).  The following is a summary of the levels of the taxonomy (as adapted by the Richard Riley School of Education, Winthrop University).

• Prestructural—There may be preliminary preparation, but the task itself is not attacked in an appropriate way.
• Unistructural—One aspect of the task is performed or understood serially. However, there is no relationship to other facts or ideas.
• Multistructural—Two or more aspects of the task are performed or understood serially with limited interrelationships to other ideas. The individual has a limited understanding of how concepts or ideas fit together.
• Relational—Several aspects are integrated so that the whole has a coherent structure and meaning in and of itself. It is like fine woven fabric.
• Extended Abstract—The coherent whole is raised to a higher level of performance showing advanced expertise. (This is not a usual level of achievement at the undergraduate level and will not be used in the grading rubric for EDT 422.)

The Early Childhood Program at Miami University has adapted the SOLO taxonomy as a shared conceptual framework that can be used to develop scoring rubrics for the 17 student work products (called “artifacts” in the standards) used to measure institutional standards of the program.  Specific criteria are included in each artifact that correspond to the institutional standard, level of skills, knowledge and dispositions important in each artifact.

In general, “prestructural” responses will be unsatisfactory, and “extended abstract” responses will be highly unusual because it represents a level beyond typical undergraduate performance.  The relationship of the categories “Unistructural,” “multistructural,” and “relational” to “unsatisfactory,” “satisfactory,” and “exemplary” performance may vary depending on the artifact.

Scoring Rubrics for Field Experiences

The ECE program includes three semesters that include two-week field experiences.  The first is in the sophomore year, and the second and third are in the junior year.  As students progress through the program, the number of specific institutional standards that must be met increase in each field experience.  Although it is expected that acceptable performance by a candidate will be at a higher level for students at later stages in the program, the following provides a basic framework for evaluating candidate performance in field experiences.  The descriptions are adapted from the Richard W. Riley College of Education Field Placement Rubric (Winthrop University).

No or limited attempt:  The teacher candidate was given an opportunity to perform the task and made no or limited attempts to do so.

Prestructural:  Little evidence of organized thinking about classroom tasks.  Planning and teaching are not well organized.  Little reflection on students or experiences.  The Prestructural level is not acceptable for teacher candidates working with students in classrooms.  It generally shows lack of understanding or lack of ability to organize activities.  In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays very poor or unacceptable behaviors in one or more of the following areas: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Unistructural:  Single-focused thinking about classroom tasks.  Candidate implements lesson plans and activities in a rote fashion; cannot explain reasons for instructional choices or decisions.  Reflections after teaching are focused mainly on events; i.e., what happened. This level represents a beginning level of functioning.  The candidate follows directions or implements activities in a way that shows procedural knowledge, but not understanding of ways to choose effective instructional activities.  In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays poor or unacceptable behaviors in one or more of the following areas: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Multistructural:  The individual has a limited understanding of how concepts or ideas fit together. Considers more than one issue in making instructional choices. Lessons and activities are purposeful. Teacher can explain plans for lessons in terms of students or in terms of curriculum or theory. Reflections after teaching focus on important events. The Multistructural level indicates that the teacher candidate considers alternatives for making instructional choices (activities, lessons, or management) and can explain reasons for choices. In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays acceptable behaviors in the areas of: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Relational:  Lessons and activities are purposeful and thoughtful. Sequences are clear. Teacher can explain lesson plans in terms of students and in terms of curriculum goal or theories. Reflections after teaching focus on meaningful events, and significance of students’ responses, or quality of learning. The Relational level indicates that the teacher candidate considers a variety of alternatives for instructional decisions, and weighs the potential effect of those choices. The candidate can explain choices in terms that show understanding of students and effective instructional strategies as they relate to curriculum goals or theories. In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays excellent behaviors in the areas of: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

At the Multistructural and Relational levels, the teacher candidate demonstrates an ability to consider alternatives when making instructional decisions. Typically, these alternatives involve some of the following issues in balancing theory and practice: recognizing individual vs. group needs or interests, making concepts understandable of interesting to students, managing learning activities within time and space constraints, determining effective learning strategies for specific purposes, selecting activities that challenge students to do their best work.

Scoring Rubrics for Written Work Products from Courses

The scoring rubric for course work products are developed and revised each semester by the course instructors. While elements of each of the five NCATE standards are represented in the following rubric categories, rubrics for each assignment emphasize the specific standards emphasized in the assignment, and will vary accordingly.  Instructors will share examples for each level that are assignment-specific for each artifact.

What is acceptable and not acceptable will be assignment specific, and based on where the student is in the program.  For example, a prestructural level might be appropriate for work products at the sophomore level, but not acceptable for work products at the junior or senior level.

No attempt or limited attempt:  Questions in the assignment are not answered; Parts of assignment are not answered (0-17 points)

Prestructural:  Simplistic; lacks thought and reflection; disorganized; does not support positions with details; first draft quality if written work; conceptual or theoretical content connections are missing or minimal in planning, implementation, and learning contexts; candidate reflection is absent or minimal; quality of writing (e.g., clarity, spelling and grammatical errors) is unacceptable and needs extensive revision (18-21 points)

Unistructural:  Some level of thoughtfulness beyond simplistic, but minimal discussion or superficial explanation; speaks in generalities; generally lacks depth in thinking in choices made by candidate and in candidate reflection; minimal or linear connections between content and practice; little attention to differentiation for needs of individual students; quality of writing (e.g., clarity, spelling and grammatical errors) is acceptable but could benefit from revision (21-23 points)

Multistructural:  Thoughtful reflections; clear and concise; connected to self as learner and teacher; depth of thinking in choices made by candidate and in candidate reflection; connections of choices to content knowledge; multiple sources of information/research; some attention to differentiation for needs of individual students; quality of writing above average (e.g., clear, well-organized, few spelling/grammar errors) (24-26 points)

Relational:  Outstanding level of reflection and analysis; thoroughly explained; positions well thought out; strong connections between examples/supporting details and self as learner and teacher; understanding of relationship between content theory and practice; evidence of application of content theory to practice; multiple sources of information/research clearly connected to practice; candidate reflection based on theory and practice; evidence of student learning; a high degree of differentiation for needs of individual students  with a well-thought out rationale; quality of writing excellent (e.g., high level of clarity and organization, no spelling/grammar errors) (27-30 points)

References

Anderson, D & Walker, R. (1997) Quality of learning outcomes amongst teacher education students.  Paper presented at the ATEA National Conference, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.  http://atea.cqu.edu.au/content/soc_base/anderson.html

Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes).  New York: Academic Press.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J. & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.

BARBARA HEUBERGER

LONG WRITING ASSIGNMENT FOR STUDENTS

Summer Writing Workshop: May 2003

EDT 422 Studies in Educational Issues

Identifying and Exploring Complex Educational Issues

(60% of Course Grade)

Context of the Assignment

One way to meet the course objectives and the objectives of the Miami Plan for Liberal Education in this course is to identify and understand educational issues with multiple perspectives.  Most educational issues are complex.  Understanding how to systematically explore many dimensions of an issue will help pre-service teachers function more effectively with students, colleagues, and parents. Therefore, the assignments for this course will focus on learning how to identify and systematically explore issues in education.  Emphasis will be on understanding multiple perspectives and connecting theory and practice.  Refer to the syllabus for course objectives and the description of how the Miami Plan principles (engaging with other learners, critical thinking, reflecting and acting, and understanding contexts) are integrated into this course.

The assignment includes seven parts.  Each part should be word-processed, double-spaced using 12-point font, stapled and follow the American Psychological Association (APA) style (or the style used in your academic discipline).  Keep in mind that the seven parts collectively represent a writing process. Although they are presented in a linear form, writing is a process that includes ongoing reflection, rethinking and revision.  So you will want to revisit your work from each part as you go through the process.

Part I: Issue Identification (1-2 pages, due Wednesday, May 21)

Based on our classroom discussion during the first class session, identify a current educational issue that interests you. Respond to the following.

• What is the issue?   (Include an adequate description that would be understandable by a person outside of the field.)
• Why is the issue of interest to you?
• Why is the issue important to education?
• Develop an “idea map” on your topic. (See attached description and example of an “idea map”.)
• What are the perspectives on the issue? (List as many of you can—consider this a “brainstorming” activity to think about the complexity of the topic.

Evaluation: Part I will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part II: Issue Exploration (3-4 pages, due Wednesday, May 28)

This part is the development of an annotated reference list.  Find at least 20 sources of information on your topic.  Be sure to include a range of types of sources (e.g., journals, books, popular press).  Also, include at least one source that enhances your understanding of the issue, but is not directly addressing the issues.  (Examples of this will be discussed in class.)  For each source, include the following.

• A full citation, using APA style
• A brief summary of the perspective of the source
• A brief summary of how the source enhanced your learning about the topic
• Questions the source raised for you in your thinking about the issue

Evaluation: Part II will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description later in this assignment sheet), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part III: Refining Your Topic (6-8 pages, due Monday, June 2)

Think about the work that you did in Parts I and II.  From that work, refine your topic into something you can explore in depth by doing the following steps.

• Prepare a thesis statement on the issue you selected.  (See attached for additional information on thesis statements.)
• Develop a prospectus for your project.  (See attached for additional information what is included in a prospectus.)
• Supplement your original literature review with five additional sources (minimum) that relate to your thesis.  Use the reference format from Part II for each new source.

Evaluation: Part I will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the student.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part IV.

Part IV: Issue Framework and Review of Literature (8-10 pages, 30 points total, due Wednesday, June 4)

Part IV is a formal written paper that focuses on the issue, your interpretation of the issue, and your review of literature on the issue (that focuses on identifying multiple perspectives on the issue).  The paper should include the following:

• a description of the topic and the thesis statement
• a statement of the relationship of the topic to personal teaching goals and the field of education
• identification and discussion of multiple perspectives on the issue
• a reference list
• a bibliography
• appendices (include if appropriate)

Evaluation:  Part IV will be graded using the following rubric.  The category language for this rubric has been adopted for use in many Early Childhood Education courses (including this one), and is described and cited later in this assignment sheet.  (Remember that your score may be adjusted to reflect weaknesses in work from Parts I, II or III.)

No or limited attempt      0-17 points

Prestructural                     18-21 points

Unistructural                     21-23 points

Multistructural                   24-26 points

Relational                         27-30 points

Part V: Peer Review (3-5 pages, due Monday June 9)

A copy of the paper prepared for Part IV will be given to another pre-service teacher in the class.  Using evaluation criteria provided by the instructor, the peer reviewer will provide detailed feedback on the paper.  Copies of this feedback will be given to the author and the instructor.

Evaluation: Part V will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the peer reviewer.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part VI.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part VII.

Part VI: Analysis of Meaning of the Research (4-6 pages, due Wednesday, June 11) and Peer Feedback (in-class activity on Wednesday, June 11)

Parts I through V focused on building skills in collecting, evaluating and integrating information on an educational topic.  Analyzing the meaning of the perspectives of the educational issue is an essential element in critical thinking.  The structure and content of the analysis of the meaning writing in Part VI will vary by topic selected.  If the educational issue is related to classroom practice (e.g., classroom management), the analysis may be applied, focusing on specific teaching or learning strategies the preservice teacher can use for the classroom.  In other cases, when the educational issue is broader in scope (e.g., school funding), the analysis section will be organized differently.

Evaluation: Part VI will be reviewed by the instructor and returned to the peer reviewer.  If the assignment is incomplete or not turned in, 2 points will be deducted from the total score of Part VI.  If the work does not reflect depth of thinking at a minimum of the unistructural level (see rubric description), 1 point will be deducted from the total score of Part VII.

Peer Feedback: Part VI will include a non-graded peer feedback session (and whole group discussion) conducted in-class. A copy of the paper prepared for Part VI will be given to another pre-service teacher in the class.  Using evaluation criteria provided by the instructor, the peer reviewer will provide detailed feedback on the paper.

Part VII: Final Draft (12-16 pages, 30 points total, due Monday, June 16)

Part VII provides an opportunity for revision of the paper produced for Parts IV and VI, based on instructor, peer reviewer, student author self feedback, and new sources. The paper should include the following:

• a description of the topic and the thesis statement
• a statement of the relationship of the topic to personal teaching goals and the field of educationidentification and discussion of multiple perspectives on the issue
• an analysis of the meaning of the research for the student (e.g., teaching/learning strategies, conclusions)
• a reference list
• a bibliography
• appendices (include if appropriate)
• all previous drafts (parts I through VI, with instructor or peer comments) in a folder

Evaluation:  Part VII will be graded using the following rubric.  The category language for this rubric has been adopted for use in many Early Childhood Education courses (including this one), and is fully described in the following section of this assignment sheet.  (Remember that your score may be adjusted to reflect weaknesses in work from Part VI.)

No or limited attempt      0-17 points

Prestructural                     18-21 points

Unistructural                     21-23 points

Multistructural                   24-26 points

Relational                         27-30 points

Scoring Rubrics for Assignments in EDT 422: Conceptual Framework

All artifacts must be evaluated with scoring rubrics that can be consistently and reliably applied. The seminal work of Biggs & Collis (1982) includes the introduction of a taxonomy, called the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes). The taxonomy can be applied to a variety of applications in teacher education (Hattie, Biggs & Purdie, 1996; Anderson, 1997).  The following is a summary of the levels of the taxonomy (as adapted by the Richard Riley School of Education, Winthrop University).

• Prestructural—There may be preliminary preparation, but the task itself is not attacked in an appropriate way.
• Unistructural—One aspect of the task is performed or understood serially. However, there is no relationship to other facts or ideas.
• Multistructural—Two or more aspects of the task are performed or understood serially with limited interrelationships to other ideas. The individual has a limited understanding of how concepts or ideas fit together.
• Relational—Several aspects are integrated so that the whole has a coherent structure and meaning in and of itself. It is like fine woven fabric.
• Extended Abstract—The coherent whole is raised to a higher level of performance showing advanced expertise. (This is not a usual level of achievement at the undergraduate level and will not be used in the grading rubric for EDT 422.)

The Early Childhood Program at Miami University has adapted the SOLO taxonomy as a shared conceptual framework that can be used to develop scoring rubrics for the 17 student work products (called “artifacts” in the standards) used to measure institutional standards of the program.  Specific criteria are included in each artifact that correspond to the institutional standard, level of skills, knowledge and dispositions important in each artifact.

In general, “prestructural” responses will be unsatisfactory, and “extended abstract” responses will be highly unusual because it represents a level beyond typical undergraduate performance.  The relationship of the categories “Unistructural,” “multistructural,” and “relational” to “unsatisfactory,” “satisfactory,” and “exemplary” performance may vary depending on the artifact.

Scoring Rubrics for Field Experiences

The ECE program includes three semesters that include two-week field experiences.  The first is in the sophomore year, and the second and third are in the junior year.  As students progress through the program, the number of specific institutional standards that must be met increase in each field experience.  Although it is expected that acceptable performance by a candidate will be at a higher level for students at later stages in the program, the following provides a basic framework for evaluating candidate performance in field experiences.  The descriptions are adapted from the Richard W. Riley College of Education Field Placement Rubric (Winthrop University).

No or limited attempt:  The teacher candidate was given an opportunity to perform the task and made no or limited attempts to do so.

Prestructural:  Little evidence of organized thinking about classroom tasks.  Planning and teaching are not well organized.  Little reflection on students or experiences.  The Prestructural level is not acceptable for teacher candidates working with students in classrooms.  It generally shows lack of understanding or lack of ability to organize activities.  In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays very poor or unacceptable behaviors in one or more of the following areas: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Unistructural:  Single-focused thinking about classroom tasks.  Candidate implements lesson plans and activities in a rote fashion; cannot explain reasons for instructional choices or decisions.  Reflections after teaching are focused mainly on events; i.e., what happened. This level represents a beginning level of functioning.  The candidate follows directions or implements activities in a way that shows procedural knowledge, but not understanding of ways to choose effective instructional activities.  In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays poor or unacceptable behaviors in one or more of the following areas: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Multistructural:  The individual has a limited understanding of how concepts or ideas fit together. Considers more than one issue in making instructional choices. Lessons and activities are purposeful. Teacher can explain plans for lessons in terms of students or in terms of curriculum or theory. Reflections after teaching focus on important events. The Multistructural level indicates that the teacher candidate considers alternatives for making instructional choices (activities, lessons, or management) and can explain reasons for choices. In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays acceptable behaviors in the areas of: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

Relational:  Lessons and activities are purposeful and thoughtful. Sequences are clear. Teacher can explain lesson plans in terms of students and in terms of curriculum goal or theories. Reflections after teaching focus on meaningful events, and significance of students’ responses, or quality of learning. The Relational level indicates that the teacher candidate considers a variety of alternatives for instructional decisions, and weighs the potential effect of those choices. The candidate can explain choices in terms that show understanding of students and effective instructional strategies as they relate to curriculum goals or theories. In terms of professional behavior, a teacher candidate at this level displays excellent behaviors in the areas of: communication, appearance, attitude, initiative, respect for students and their physical and emotional safety, and ethics.

At the Multistructural and Relational levels, the teacher candidate demonstrates an ability to consider alternatives when making instructional decisions. Typically, these alternatives involve some of the following issues in balancing theory and practice: recognizing individual vs. group needs or interests, making concepts understandable of interesting to students, managing learning activities within time and space constraints, determining effective learning strategies for specific purposes, selecting activities that challenge students to do their best work.

Scoring Rubrics for Written Work Products from Courses

The scoring rubric for course work products are developed and revised each semester by the course instructors. While elements of each of the five NCATE standards are represented in the following rubric categories, rubrics for each assignment emphasize the specific standards emphasized in the assignment, and will vary accordingly.  Instructors will share examples for each level that are assignment-specific for each artifact.

What is acceptable and not acceptable will be assignment specific, and based on where the student is in the program.  For example, a prestructural level might be appropriate for work products at the sophomore level, but not acceptable for work products at the junior or senior level.

No attempt or limited attempt:  Questions in the assignment are not answered; Parts of assignment are not answered (0-17 points)

Prestructural:  Simplistic; lacks thought and reflection; disorganized; does not support positions with details; first draft quality if written work; conceptual or theoretical content connections are missing or minimal in planning, implementation, and learning contexts; candidate reflection is absent or minimal; quality of writing (e.g., clarity, spelling and grammatical errors) is unacceptable and needs extensive revision (18-21 points)

Unistructural:  Some level of thoughtfulness beyond simplistic, but minimal discussion or superficial explanation; speaks in generalities; generally lacks depth in thinking in choices made by candidate and in candidate reflection; minimal or linear connections between content and practice; little attention to differentiation for needs of individual students; quality of writing (e.g., clarity, spelling and grammatical errors) is acceptable but could benefit from revision (21-23 points)

Multistructural:  Thoughtful reflections; clear and concise; connected to self as learner and teacher; depth of thinking in choices made by candidate and in candidate reflection; connections of choices to content knowledge; multiple sources of information/research; some attention to differentiation for needs of individual students; quality of writing above average (e.g., clear, well-organized, few spelling/grammar errors) (24-26 points)

Relational:  Outstanding level of reflection and analysis; thoroughly explained; positions well thought out; strong connections between examples/supporting details and self as learner and teacher; understanding of relationship between content theory and practice; evidence of application of content theory to practice; multiple sources of information/research clearly connected to practice; candidate reflection based on theory and practice; evidence of student learning; a high degree of differentiation for needs of individual students  with a well-thought out rationale; quality of writing excellent (e.g., high level of clarity and organization, no spelling/grammar errors) (27-30 points)

References

Anderson, D & Walker, R. (1997) Quality of learning outcomes amongst teacher education students.  Paper presented at the ATEA National Conference, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.  http://atea.cqu.edu.au/content/soc_base/anderson.html

Biggs, J. B. & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes).  New York: Academic Press.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J. & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis.  Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.