Formative assessment and checking for understanding.

by: Mery Tellez

Formative assessments are a key component of a well thought lesson plan, as they are the fundamental pieces that provides teachers with the information we should use to guide our teaching. Formative assessment refers to the on the moment small assessments we provide in order for us to be able to tell if the students are acquiring the knowledge, skills and understandings we intended for them to acquire.

For this blog post, I will be presenting 3 different formative assessments that I will use as part of my IBDP Computer Science class for my 11th grade students. These assignments will be designed with a clear objective in mind.


The objective: Students understand that every process in a computing system needs to be broken down to fundamental tasks that can be executed on a fetch-execute cycle.

In order for me to collect data related to my students’ understanding of this objective, I will ask them to complete the following formative assessment:

1. New Clothes:

a. Description: This technique, consists of taking a given topic and asking student to describe how it can be used in a different way than the one taught. For this objective, students will be asked to think of a small program that can be broken down to fundamental tasks that can be executed on a fetch-execute cycle. P.E: Adding 2 numbers: Students will need to specify the steps needed to be completed in each fetch-execute cycle in order to complete the complex task of adding two numbers: Read the first number, Read the second number, Add the number, Store the result.

b. Rationale: Measuring understanding is a difficult task. Applying the knowledge, they have acquired and having to provide an specific example is a task simple enough that can be done as an exit ticket, yet complex enough that can present evidence of the students understanding of the concept. According to Dyer (2012), this should be the first objective behind formative assessments; to facilitate the evidence of student learning so as teachers we are able to adjust our plan and to better teach our students, while at the same time involving them in their own learning.


2. I used to think / Now I think:

a. Description: Students will create a chart with a pre-defined formatting. Two columns: one entitled “I used to think” and another one entitled “Now I think”. Students will use this chart right after the teacher presents the lesson on the topic, as a way to specify their previous beliefs about how computers executed their tasks contrasted to what they know now after learning about the fetch-execute cycle. This will be shared in a short discussion, as a way to both; check for understanding, and at the same time to clarify misconceptions and to enrich the teacher explanation with the students’ insights. Students will be asked to read their: “I used to think” and peers will be asked to try to predict what their classmate wrote for the “now I think” part. After a couple of guesses and opinions the first students is asked to share his/her “now I think”.

b. Rationale: This activity allows for individual reflection on the knowledge acquired and for students to summarize the ideas they were exposed to. Additionally, the sharing opportunity create democratic spaces for students to participate, and for the teacher, an opportunity to clarify misunderstanding which is a crucial component of the learning experience. As students participate both providing their “I used to think” and/or predicting “I now think” pieces, they are provided with various opportunities to be assessed in the understanding of the objective. As stated by Heick (2013), an important characteristic of formative assessment is precisely that, it should be frequent, it should provide an opportunity for students to retry, to be exposed to multiple opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge or to build it. In this way, rather than re-teaching, you will be providing opportunities for testing again and allowing students to build their knowledge.


3. Draw it:

a. Description: Students create their own visual representation of the fetch-execute cycle, containing descriptions of the components involved and the actions involved on each stage. Students will be encouraged to use a web 2.0 tool to create their diagrams, to allow for online feedback from peers and teachers. Some suggestions will be made, but at the end students will be free to use any web 2.0 that facilitates for them to either directly draw on it, or to upload a drawing and then allowing for a space for feedback.

b. Rationale: Wormeli (2010), states the importance of feedback, and more specifically; of descriptive feedback. And it emphasises on how the best formative assessments should include descriptive feedback in order to make it more effective for the students, as it is this kind of feedback the one that clearly helps the student to revise, correct and ultimately motivates to even retry when needed. This activity will allow for the teacher to identify concepts that require to be re-taught and at the same time permits for students to receive a meaningful descriptive feedback on their work, not only from their teacher but even from others as well.

These activities will help me as a teacher to draw a clear picture of the status of the understanding of the objective of each student and of the class as a whole. In this way, I will be able to plan my next lesson based on the needs identified with these activities.

References:

Dyer, K. (2012). Formative Assessment Strategies – Teacher Learning Communities for Educational Collaboration | KLT Blog. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from https://www-cms.nwea.org/blog/2012/formative-assessment-strategies-teacher-learning-communities-for-educational-collaboration/

Heick, T. (2015). 10 Assessments You Can Perform In 90 Seconds. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from http://www.teachthought.com/pedagogy/assessment/10-assessments-you-can-perform-in-90-seconds/

Wormeli, R. (2010). Rick Wormeli: Formative and Summative Assessment - YouTube. Stenhouse Publishers . Retrieved December 18, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJxFXjfB_B4

Planning with IBDP CS Standards

by: Mery Tellez

This week I had the opportunity to go through the process of starting the planning process of a unit for my IBDP Computer Science class using the Understanding by Design technique.  I was introduced to three of the processes required for planning: Unpacking a standard, planning assessments and activities for a unit based on the results of the unpacking, and lastly, defining SMART objectives for each one of the lessons derived from the previous stages.

The entire process was very interesting for me, particularly due to the fact I was working with IBDP standards, and this is a process I haven’t consider before for the IB course.  I liked the fact that by looking at the standard I was able to have a much clear vision of what my learning activities needed to be, and it seemed like it was all clicking as I was progressing towards the activities.

I must say that I was not very enthusiastic about the topic when I started.  Unpacking the standard seemed like an almost logical and unnecessary process to go through, I kept thinking to myself that I knew what was it that I needed my students to do in order to show achievement of the standard, so I was not positive at all while going through what seemed like a grammatical revision of the standard. 

It wasn’t until the second step when I realized that by looking at the verbs, and by trying to define what they meant, I was able to visualize a much clear path in front of me, and a productive one I must say.  I realized that I made a couple of mistakes in the past by limiting the variety of activities and even assessments that I was providing for my students with a similar unit (this is my first time teaching IB, but the content itself is not new to me, as some of it is also covered in different degrees and expectations by the AP program).  I realized that was probably why they were mostly memorizing and not successfully able to apply the concepts and knowledge acquired in this unit in later stages, and why in many cases I needed to go back over this content in later stages, because once the tests passed, the information seemed to evaporate from my students’ brains.  

I believe that the simple process of defining and making a conscious effort to understand the verbs and its implications made a difference in the way I planned the assessment and therefore the teaching or learning experiences I will be providing for my students.

I am yet to experience the rest of the planning process, although so far It wasn’t as annoying as I was expecting for it to be, and it does seem like something that I might be able to do in the future, particularly for those units that I still have to figure out, or for those that hadn’t proved to be so effective in the past.

Backward Mapping in IBDP Computer Science

The backward mapping technique allows us to produce quality lessons for our students, designed and aimed purposefully to help them meet the standards determined by schools and/or state.  In my currently teaching Year 1 (Grade 11) Computer Science following the International Baccaulerate diploma programme. For my specific case, those standards are the one determined by the IB organization, in their IBDP Computer Science guide.  These standards are the ones students are expected to be able to use in their final examinations, and internal examinations in order to be granted with credit for completion of the course.

I will be illustrating the backward mapping process in this post through the use of one of said standards. Specifically, standard 2.1.4: Describe the stages of the fetch-execute cycle, including the use of registers.  

The reason why I chose this standard is because is a complex topic normally new for students taking the course, and it could be a challenging one if not approached appropriately.  Additionally, this is one of the standards I will be teaching in my next unit, and I think is just common sense to try and use something that will be useful and meaningful for my work.

In preparation for designing this activity, additional to the IBDP Computer Science mentioned before, I have supported my design with the Syllabus and Scheme of work provided by Cambridge, for the IGCSE Computer Science course 0478.  I’ve chosen these documents, as this is a topic common between the 2 curriculums, both in its content and in its approach.  Additionally, I am also teaching the IGCSE CS Curriculum to 10^th grade students (year 2 of this course), so I believe this planning will be helpful as well, for the future or other teachers, teaching this lesson to 9^th grade students (with some modification on the assessments).

Stage 1:  By unpacking the standard, the following Big Ideas, skills, knowledge and understandings were identified for the standard:

Big Ideas:

·             Stages of the fetch-execute cycle
        Use of registers in the fetch-execute cycle

Key Knowledge/Skills/Understandings

Skills - Students should be able to	Knowledge -  Students will know:	Understandings – Students will understand
Identify the computers components involved in each one of the stages of the fetch-execute cycle. Describe each one of the stages in the fetch-execute cycle. Explain how data is transmitted from one stage to the next one in the fetch-execute cycle. Explain the function of the different registers in each one of the stages of the fetch-execute cycle.	The different components of the CPU and primary memory involved in the fetch-execute cycle. The different stages of the fetch-execute cycle.	that every process in a computing system needs to be broken down to fundamental tasks that can be executed on a fetch-execute cycle. the different roles of the CPU and the main memory in the fetch-execute cycle.

These leads to the following proficiencies identified for the standard:

• By the end of the unit students will be able to explain each one of the different stages of the fetch-execute cycle.
• By the end of the unit students will be able to identify the components involved in each one of the stages of the fetch-execute cycle.
• By the end of the unit students will be able to describe the contents of different registers during each one of the stages of the fetch-execute cycle.

Stage 2:

After identifying the learning objectives, we proceed with designing assessments that will help us know if the students are meeting the standard

Examples of some of the possible assessments for this standard are:

• Performance task/project:  Students use a LMC (Little Man Computer) software to carry out a low level task that allows them to track the changes made to specific registers during a small series of fetch-execute cycles.
• Quiz:  Students will take a quiz with exam type questions checking for understanding of the concepts.  Quiz could also check for register names and its uses.
• Observation:  Students work in groups practicing to track the content of registers during a fetch-execute cycle.  Teacher keeps an observation journal looking for misconceptions.
• Performance task/project:  Students create their own visual representation of the fetch-execute cycle, containing descriptions of the components involved and the actions involved on each stage.

Stage 3:

Finally, based on the assessments we are expecting students to complete, we identify the activities or learning experiences we will create in our classroom to help students meet the standard.

The following are potential activities linked to the expected outcomes in the evaluations designed in the previous stage:

• Teacher demonstrates each one of the stages with the use of a java program or a LMC program.
• Teacher and students role-play the fetch-execute cycle for a short program, acting as components of a CPU or main memory.  They can “hold” registers values on a small white board.
• Students create one-pagers for each one of the names of the components and registers’ names, as a strategy for vocabulary building for SLL students.

In conclusion, and after following the UbD design, it is possible to come up with a teaching plan that is purposefully designed to comply with the standards stablished by the IBDP program.

References:

Hidden curriculum (2014, August 26). In S. Abbott (Ed.), The glossary of education reform. Retrieved from http://edglossary.org/hidden-curriculum
McTighe, A. (1997). Assessment Framework [PDF]. Washington: National Education Association.
Wiggins, G. (2003). Overview of UbD & the Design Template [PDF]. ASCD.