Qualifying Proficiency Levels with Look-Fors

As I work to assess my students more appropriate in my workshop environment, I have continually shifted how my rubrics are formatted. After hearing Dr. Connie Moss from Duquesne University (@DUSchoolofEd) speak on Learning Targets again at a recent in-service, I began to see how her concept of “student Look-Fors” could better articulate our learning goals in class. “Look-Fors” are the aspects in a learning experience that students can look for in their own work to see if they are on-target to demonstrate their learning. In earlier iterations, I had written Learning Targets with accompanying Performances of Understanding (POU) for each lesson.

For example, here is one of my Learning Target and Performance of Understanding from two years ago:

I know I can discuss text structure when I categorize examples from the myth of Theseus into the aspects of the Hero’s Journey.

The first portion (“I know I can discuss text structure”) is the learning target, while the proof (“when I categorize examples from the myth of Theseus into the aspects of the Hero’s Journey”) is the Performance of Understanding. Students knew what they were learning and how they would show it.

This year, I established Learning Targets and Performances of Understanding that spanned multiple lessons and were associated with summative assessments.

However, as I went to build a four-tiered rubric (using A, B, C, and F to imitate a true 1-4 Proficiency Scale), I had the usual trouble we face when making rubrics: what happens when what a student does well or how a student performs the task or how a student misses the mark is not accounted for in your wording of each level? So, I have transformed my rubric yet again.

The example that follows is drawn from our major writing assessment where students are tasked with writing a hero journey story after our study of classical mythology. The Learning Target stems are consistent across various units while the Performances of Understanding are generally assignment-specific. The Learning Targets and Performances of Understanding for the hero journey narrative are as follows:

I know I can establish a clear thesis statement and organize my writing to maintain a focus when

I can maintain a clear focus throughout my narrative by creating different paragraphs and utilizing effective transition words and phrases. [Standard 5: Crafting Focus, Organization, & Conclusions]

I know I can engage with the writing process and compose a narrative when

I can plan, draft, revise, and edit a hero’s journey narrative by utilizing archetypal characters and sending a hero on a quest. [Standard 6: Composing Narratives]

I know I can write with engagingly with Standard English in various sentence types when

I can write utilizing dialogue between characters as well as Standard English conventions, spelling, mechanics, and punctuation in a variety of simple, compound, and complex sentences. [Standard 9: Employing Mechanics and Style]

Rather than create a rubric with descriptions for each Learning Target, I decided to write “Look-Fors”: the things student must look for in their work to check if it is on target to demonstrate the desired learning.

And, while this at first feels subjective, I think assign an A, B, C, or F to each category. I have been highlighting bullet points where students do well in green and where they need to work in yellow. It’s not a perfect system, but coupled with workshop time where I can trouble-shoot and clarify in class on a one-to-one basis, this is working to both clarify for my students and cut down on written feedback (and grading time outside of class).

I am still working to adjust this assessment tool, as it is still a bit clunky, but I wanted to document my progress as I make it. I’d love to hear you thoughts and feedback.