Continuing the theme of the recent blog post,  “Chewing at the Common Core,” I share with you here another article that connects the work of school librarians to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards, though not directly.  (In fact, it’s up to the librarians to make the connections.)  In an online Forbes piece, “Could Competency-Based Learning Save the Common Core,” author and co-founder of Innosight Institute Michael Horn explains that in tasks from assembly line auto-making to K-12 content, the success of efforts to teach, support skills practice, and assess outcomes depends upon effective facilitation of students’ (or workers’) mastery of dependent, related skills.

“Bite-sized,” formative assessments make efficient use of school time (more so than drawn-out series of test days) and build competence incrementally, notes Horn, suggesting that “perhaps there could be short assessments to verify basic objective mastery around a particular concept followed by rich capstone-like projects that could measure several competencies and be reviewed on an on-demand basis by an outside party . . .” with the reference to potential external review as part of the forthcoming Common Core assessments.

The details of the CCSS assessment system remain to be seen for the moment, but as we speak, librarians and teachers are already collaborating to integrate content area objectives and 21st century skills in ways that break down the skills and ideas of essential questions into manageable, meaningful, and yes, bite-sized, pieces that are taught and assessed by the teachers and self-assessed by the students.

I often talk to my school library graduate students about how every lesson plan they develop doesn’t have to be a Big Huge Research Project that ends in a Paper, and that inquiry can be explored through units comprised of smaller, but still important, lessons with carefully-planned tasks that lead to evidence of learning, assessed through well-selected, formative assessment tools.

In the December 2012 School Library Monthly article, “Designing Learning Experiences for Deeper Understanding,” Barbara K. Stripling and Violet H. Harada propose “C.L.E.A.R. G.O.A.L.S.” as a structure for planning and teaching library learning experiences, from the backwards-designed units to individual lessons. From the article (on p. 6-9), these acronyms stand for the following components of teaching and learning:

C.L.E.A.R. = Content Learning Goals, Learners, Essential Questions, Assessment Product, Resources

G.O.A.L.S. = Guiding Framework of Inquiry, Outcomes (Skills) to Be Taught, ASsessment of Skill, Learning Experiences Overview, Scaffolding to Provide

I encourage you to read the full article for examples and further discussion of “CLEAR GOALS” – but for now, returning to Horn, he cites the lack of feedback, limited opportunity for growth, and time potentially wasted in the process of taking tests as reasons to turn to a more competency-driven system, which would create scenarios whereby,

“the learning objectives and assessments would be far more transparent to students and their parents, and they would understand why they had not passed a certain concept, as they could receive immediate feedback to inform what they would learn next—and understand the importance of true mastery.”

Back to the library context now, when learning experiences are designed with “CLEAR GOALS” to provide clear evidence that students attained the objectives and offer feedback and self-assessment opportunities along the way, the accountable, rigorous, and bottom-up approach that Horn advocates is taking shape – right in many school library programs and classrooms today.

Another point in Horn’s article aligns with the instructional design and assessment strategies in Stripling and Harada’s December SLM article: he expresses deep concern about the age-based, grade-level bands in the CCSS and asserts that this stringent, antiquated set of expectations doesn’t make sense for today’s learners.  He explains that innovative, more personalized assessments are needed;  Stripling and Harada write about how scaffolding instruction for interest and ability allows students to create varied products to demonstrate their learning, hone in on the most important skills required for a particular focus (perhaps shifting attention to different aspects of layered tasks another time), and read and interact with texts in ways that address their visual and reading needs.

Indeed, I think that yes, competency-based learning – and of course, librarians-at-the-ready – can save the Common Core.

–Rebecca Morris

Works Cited:

Horn, Michael. “Could Competency-Based Learning Save the Common Core?” Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2012/12/06/could-competency-based-learning-save-the-common-core/ Accessed December 10, 2012.

Stripling, Barbara K. and Violet H. Harada. “Designing Learning Experiences for Deeper Understanding.” School Library Monthly 29, no. 3 (December 2012): 5-12.

Image: Bite Size, by bigcityal, on Flickr.  Used with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License.

This week our graduate student chapter of the Massachusetts School Library Association hosted a career panel (note: these graceful dancers were not part of the event, just a fitting illustration of a strong partnership, I thought), where several recently hired school librarians offered their soon-to-be colleagues advice on interviewing, teaching demonstration lessons, and starting their practice of professional school librarianship.  A common theme across the presenters was how impressed (and even surprised) principals and interviewing teams were with the knowledge of teaching and assessment that the candidates brought to their interviews.

The role of the school librarian in student assessment is a critical and much-discussed topic at the moment, as schools implement updated district- and state-level teacher evaluation instruments.  Gathering evidence of student learning requires librarians to attend to diverse forms of assessment every day, including those which may have “thing” to show for the learning – a graphic organizer, a citation, a digital product – and those assessments that do not have an artifact – like crafting an essential question or responding effectively in a discussion – yet still demonstrate whether students know the content or can perform the skill.

In my Zite app today appeared the October 2012 blog post, “What Does Formative Assessment Look Like at the High School Level,” by Pat Sachse of the Alberta High School Completion Strategic Framework.  Among the strategies for maximizing student engagement and learning is the careful planning of discussions:

“Engineer effective discussions that elicit evidence of learning – To find out where students are in their understanding, teachers need to purposefully plan for questions that cause thinking and provide information that informs them about what to do next. Questioning too often consists of low-level, closed questions posed on the fly, and teachers miss the opportunity to check for the transfer of understanding by planning to use higher-level questioning. No Hands Up (except to ask a question) is a technique that can be applied in any classroom, ensuring every student is responsible for providing an answer. To be effective, students must feel comfortable in taking a risk to respond. It may be important to give students time to turn and talk with a partner for a short period to clarify their understanding. Students also need to know that if they provide answers that are incorrect, it is okay as these can be used to clarify misunderstandings.”

This purposeful consideration of questions, prompts, and support of critical thinking is particularly important in inquiry and research.  Whether students are developing research questions, interpreting and talking about sources after or during reading, or working collaboratively to construct a project, the librarian must seize the opportunity to make discussions a valuable tool for assessment, and show what strong teaching partners school librarians can – and must – be.

Read the rest of Pat Sachse’s blog for more strategies on formative assessment in the secondary setting, including understanding learning intentions, providing feedback that moves learners forward, and activating students as instructional resources for each other and as owners of their learning.

–Rebecca Morris

Image: Surrey Celebration Dancers, by Dance Photographer- Brendan Lally on Flickr. Used with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License.

Sara Kelly Johns shared this week via the AASL Forum that the New York State Library Association has announced the release of an evaluation tool for school librarians.  (Sara is a school librarian, active leader in professional associations, and advocacy author and blogger). From the NYLA press release,

The tool provides guidance to school districts in evaluating the performance of school librarians in support of the newly mandated Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) process.The rubric was developed in partnership between the Section of School Librarians (SSL) of NYLA and the School Library Systems Association (SLSA).  The team worked for over a year on the development of the document, which underwent multiple revisions prior to final SED approval.“We are excited to be able to provide this resource to schools across New York State, and believe it is the most accurate tool available for evaluating school librarians,” stated NYLA Executive Director Jeremy Johannesen.

The School Librarian Evaluation Rubric includes performance indicators for these categories of school librarianship:

1. Knowledge of students and student learning. Topics:  Instructional plan; independent reading; differentiated materials and instruction
2. Knowledge of content and instructional planning. Topics: Curriculum alignment, inquiry-based learning; college and career readiness
3. Instructional practice: Teaching for learning. Topics: Information literacy and technology; instructional delivery; questioning; communication; monitor and adjust
4. Learning environment. Topics: Library facility; equitable access, climate of respect and rapport; collection management
5. Assessment for student learning. Topics: Using assessment; informing instruction
6. Collaboration and professional responsibilities. Topics: Ethical, responsible, legal and safe use of information and technology; collaboration with teachers; collaboration with administrators; community collaboration
7. Professional growth. Topics: Keeping current; professional development; building level goals

I know I’ll keep revisiting and reflecting on the many dimensions of this tool, which depict the rich range of competencies, concerns, and priorities of 21st century school librarians.  I might also keep it on hand as a “So You Think You Can Be a Librarian”  quick-guide to share on occasion with those who think school librarianship is an easy job that requires no more than reading picture books to kids.  This is a rewarding but demanding profession, and a tool such as this to document evidence of professional growth and contributions to student learning reveals those rigors with clarity and high expectations for our field.

Hat tip (one more time) to Sara Kelly Johns for sharing this news via the AASL Forum and to the school librarians and educators who contributed to the development of this evaluation tool.

–Rebecca Morris

Image: screen capture from New York School Library Program Evaluation Rubric.