ToolKit98

Activity 1.2

Clear Targets--What Types are These?

Purposes:

To consider different kinds of learning targets for students
To consider what a good mix of learning targets for students might be
To become familiar with local content standards
To experience how frequently learning targets for students that we thought were clear really aren't

Uses:

This activity is at the intermediate level—best used after reading the Chapter 1 text and doing other context and stage setting activities in this chapter, such as Activity 1.1—Changing Assessment Practices, What Difference Does It Make For Students? or Activity 1.12—Assessment Principles. It develops skill related to Chapter 1, Key 1—Clear Targets.

Rationale:

This activity makes several points, so there are several rationales for it.

Rationale #1: State and local content standards are intended to clarify targets so that instruction across the system is focused on what is important. We've found that it is most meaningful to teachers to have them list their goals first so that they can see that the state or district content standards represent what they already value for their students. This activity relies on this method.

Rationale #2: We are coming to the conclusion more and more that the single biggest barrier to improving classroom assessment has nothing to do with the physical aspects of assessment at all (such as selecting the correct assessment method, making sure that there is only one correct answer, etc.). The biggest barrier is not having clear learning targets for students. One can't assess (or teach) something if one doesn't know with crystal clarity what it is they are trying to assess (or teach).

For example, every set of content standards we've seen includes "critical thinking." Well, what does that mean? What does a person look like when they are thinking critically? What does such a person know and what is such a person able to do? Likewise, what is "communication in math," "quality writing," or "life-long learning?" How do educators know when students are doing them well? How do educators know when students are developing adequately toward proficiency? This activity is only the opening gambit on this issue. Other activities in Toolkit98 are also designed to assist teachers to be masters of the targets of instruction embodied in content standards.

Rationale #3: One reason that targets tend to be unclear is that, in the past, many teachers have had an "activities" focus to instruction rather than an "outcomes" focus. What we're trying to do here is to assist teachers to change their focus from "task" to "targets." This is not meant to disparage teachers, the importance of change in focus—to a standards-based approach to instruction—is only now becoming apparent.

Materials:

Overhead projector, screen, blank transparencies, and transparency pens
Overheads A1.2,O1—Clear Targets Purposes and A1.2,O2—Kinds of Achievement Targets
Handouts A1.2,H1—Kinds of Achievement Targets; A1.2,H2—Examples of Learning Targets, and A1.2,H3—What Types of Student Learning Targets Are These?

Time Required:

740-60 minutes

Facilitator's Notes:

(2 minutes) Use Overhead A1.2,O1—Purposesto introduce participants to the activity. The first step in designing any assessment is to have clear and appropriate learning targets for students. Educators can't assess something if they don't know what it is. Further, lots of learning targets for students are unclear—teachers disagree on what they mean. This activity provides an opportunity for participants to experience what "unclarity" is like.
(5-10 minutes) Ask participants to individually list their learning goals for students. (Use whatever language they are most familiar with—student learning outcomes, goals, content standards, or, merely, "What would you like students to know and be able to do when they leave your class?") Then ask participants to prioritize the top 5.
(5 minutes) Make a list of outcomes on a blank transparency or chart pack paper. An efficient way to do this is to randomly select 15 people and ask them to read the top item on their list. Then ask if anyone has any other items that must be added.
(5 minutes) Show Overhead A1.2,O2—Kinds of Achievement Targets and Handout A1.2,H1—Kinds of Achievement Targets. Describe the various types and show how the list generated by participants corresponds to the categories.
(15 minutes) Pass out a part of the state/local content standards (or course achievement targets) on which you'd like to focus. Ask participants to classify several targets. Or, use Handout A1.2,H2—What Types of Student Learning Targets Are These?

Participants will often begin to "quibble" as to the "correct" classification. This occurs because people interpret the outcome differently; in other words, it is not clear what the standard means. This actually brings home the message of the entire segment—if educators don't agree on what targets mean, how can they exert a concerted effort to assist students to reach them? And, if educators don't agree on what targets mean, assessments will look quite different.

Caution
Affective targets may be a red flag to some community members. if so, the entire activity can be done merely with cognitive targets. Simply remove all mention of the affective domain on all handouts and overheads.
In every situation where we've asked participants to look at local content standards or course outcomes and explain what they mean, there have been differences of opinion. Adopted standards (as well as everyday course outcomes) are likely to contain ambiguities. Therefore, district administrators and teachers have to come to consensus on their meaning—to openly discuss various interpretations to come to agreement on their breath and depth. Rather than being an occasion for despair, many educators have told us that such discussions are invaluable for influencing instruction, helping teachers feel more in control, and developing the "right" assessment. (Note: If the targets being clarified are official district or state standards, it is the responsibility of the district or state administration to clarify them and provide guidance so that a consensus is reached on what is intended. An individual group of teachers should not have to take on this responsibility unless requested and empowered to do so.)

(15 minutes, optional) If participants are looking at their local or course outcomes, ask them to decide if they have a good mix of types. What would a good mix look like?
(5 minutes, optional) Show an analysis of the learner targets in a textbook (Handout A1.2,H3—Examples of Learning Targets). Searching through this particular textbook resulted in only two reasoning targets, and these were in the "expanded" activities. The point: it was hard to find reasoning and product targets, so if teachers are counting the textbook to match our important learning outcomes, it could be misplaced trust.

This document's URL is:

Email Webmaster
Tel. 503.275.9500