Build Your Own Adventure: A brief introduction to Majors and Minors in an 8th Grade Life Science Course

In my self paced 8th grade life science class, I set up a system in which students completed selective units, called minors and majors, after completing prerequisite and required units. For example, at the end of the Genetics & Inheritance unit, students spent one week completing a mini-unit about genetic modification, cancer or cloning. After the Evolution unit in the spring, students spent the entire fourth quarter completing a major about evolution, inheritance, evolutionary genetics, immunology or the human body. 

8th grade course overview with minors & majors

The primary motivation for this system was the experience I had with self paced courses. The high achieving students who worked through my required content before the end of the year had the opportunity to select and choose topics to investigate. They reported loving this opportunity because, according to them, their teachers rarely allowed them to learn about topics of their interest and choosing. They said occasionally they could select a project topic but my course allowed them to spend a good chunk of time learning in a structured way. A number of other factors (including what I learned about 20 Time or Genius Hour) led me to the conclusion that all students should experience this opportunity to learn about content of their choosing.

I created learning cycles for all minors (one cycle per minor) and majors (4-5 cycles per major). I used a variation of the 5E learning cycle, so all units (required and selective) were similar. So even though students worked on different content, the similar structure of each unit helped students build routines and allowed me to organize the chaos within my class. 

To find out more about my major & minors system, check out these resources:

• An Introduction
• Useful strategies for implementation

Keeping Track in a Mastery Based Class

After wrestling for years with different systems for keeping track of student progress and interventions for struggling students within an asynchronous course, I finally arrived at a solution that works for me. Learning Management Systems that I have used don't appear to offer helpful internal structures for self paced learning, so I had to develop my own tools. Before diving into the nitty gritty, here's the gist: I set up a suggested pacing calendar that represented the slowest pace allowed in the course. Once the suggested pacing calendar was created, I made a Google tracking Spreadsheet with all of my students in one place, then used the Import Range formula to automatically update progress in personalized spreadsheets shared with students (and parents and/or tutors as needed.) Within these spreadsheets were predetermined check-in times which also served as triggers for contacting parents or advisors.

The course calendar was the slowest pace allowed in the course. Since the course was self-paced within reason, I no longer distinguished between class and homework. I only shared my expectation for what work needed to be completed by the end of each lesson. The standing homework was to complete whatever did not get done during class. I did not check where students were at the end of each class, unless they needed that support; I was only concerned about their progress at the end of each 8 day cycle (my school has an 8-day schedule) but I recognize a weekly or even shorter cycle might be more helpful for other schools, divisions, etc.

Suggested Pacing Calendar

Students were highly encouraged to show me their work after completing each assignment in order to prevent bottlenecks on Day 8 check-ins. Whenever a student satisfactorily completed an assignment, I updated the master copy of the pacing calendar spreadsheet shown below. Note: in the past, I asked students to update their own progress but found that the students who most needed this type of support were also unreliable in updating their own tracking sheet.

Here's some useful information to help read the spreadsheet:

• The left column has names of students in each section and the top row has the name of the assignments.
  
• The cells in green with an "X" indicates a student has completed the assignment, while cells highlighted red with "no" are missing or incomplete assignments. (Note: a slightly different system could have grades rather than the binary "Yes/No" system described above.)
• The black columns represent a check-in time at the end of every 8 day cycle. 
  

Master Spreadsheet

If a student did not have all green cells at the designated check in time, then on a second tab shown below, I colored the cell red to indicate "behind" the suggested pacing within the course. I blind copied students who were behind after each cycle with a warning email.  For students who I knew there were other significant issues, I sent individualized emails and copied their advisors. For students who were behind two cycles in a role, I sent home an Academic Notification to parents. In our school, these interventions are sent for a number of reasons, including failing an exam or missing several assignments. As the year progressed, I lifted these notification rules for some students; Eventually by the 4th quarter, I did not have to do the check-ins for most students.  

Cycle Check-in Tab

After using this system for a few weeks, students wanted me to post or share access to my master spreadsheet because it helped them keep track of their own progress. Since I did not want students to have access to their peer's data, I used the Import Range formula to link my master spreadsheet to individual student spreadsheets. Shown below is an example of one student's spreadsheet. By using the Import Range formula, I was able to copy a particular segment of my master spreadsheet and place it in an individual student's spreadsheet. Whenever I edited the master spreadsheet, the individual student's spreadsheet also updated. 

Individual Sheet

An added benefit of individualized spreadsheets was being able to share it with parents, advisor, learning specialist, and/or tutor. If I wanted certain students to skip an assignment, it was easy to update the spreadsheet with that information as well. If there were optional enrichment assignments or particular assignments for different groups of students, this system also accommodated for that as well.

Recent Course Updates and Future Plans

It’s been awhile since I wrote an article to my blog. I’m unsure if it was due to lack of inspiration, distraction, complacency or some combination of different reasons. My class has continued to evolve and I made important changes to the course. I hope to continue to improve my course and reflect about it online.

Since the last blog post, these are the changes I’ve made to the course:

• SBG improvements: science process standards that span between units as part of my SBG focus
• Flirtation with gamification: leader-board and other graphics showing the number of level 4s and mastery projects completed by individuals and classes.
• More voice & choice: robust offerings of optional units and mastery projects.
• Differentiation in content delivery: iBook that accompanies most of the videos.
• Lab report improvements: Less focus on formal lab report writing and greater emphasis on flexible formatted lab write ups.
• More flexible hot seats: students decided how to show they understood the standards rather than answering questions from me.  

Upcoming this year:

• Personalized learning continuum: as I continue to work on voice & choice and differentiation, there will be entire learning cycles that all students will be able to choose. Rather than only offering this choice to students who finish the course earlier than others, there will be two stopping points where all students will have to select a learning cycle from a menu of topics.
• Claim Evidence Reasoning: as I moved away from the traditional format of lab reports, I was proud to see improvements in overall quality, yet many students needed more direction. I will use the technique of Argument Driven Inquiry, also known as Claim-Evidence-Reasoning for lab assignments. As a department, we agreed to adopt Claim-Evidence-Reasoning for lab reports because it helps to focus the students on the important elements of experiment analysis.

I am happy to report that the journey started as part of my shift to flipped learning has opened avenues for the course that I would not have predicted. These changes have led to a more engaging, rigorous and authentic experience for students.

Straddling the Asynchronous - Synchronous Line

Perhaps the greatest sense of pedagogical innovation and challenge of my course is the desire to offer differentiated pacing. The last few years, my flipped course has been asynchronous. 

One on hand...

It's been a great experience. Students have learned to become more responsible for their learning and self-directed. Asynchrony has also allowed students to slow down when they struggle with the content and speed up during other times. This has given me an opportunity to work with individual students on their particular needs. Excelling students can learn content beyond the scope of my course if they finish the course or particular units quickly. Struggling students no longer have to worry that their questions or misconceptions are slowing down the rest of the class.

On the other hand...

I've found in past years that the majority of students who work from behind are due to time management and motivational issues, rather than profound challenges with the content. The reason for moving to an asynchronous class is to allow students to learn at the speed which helps them learn most effectively. Unfortunately, while asynchrony has benefited the excelling and struggling students achieve this goal, it has been a struggle for some of the middle students with executive functioning and motivational issues. In essence, I've given these students the opportunity to slack off. In a synchronous class, these students would have been forced to learn more. 

Another issue is when students are learning and struggling together, it bonds them in an inspiring way. It creates a class culture that is hard to recreate in an asynchronous class. 

On both hands...

Last year I made a conscious effort to recreate some of the synchronous experiences in the asynchronous setting. Students responded to warm up and exit ticket prompts in their journals at the beginning and ending of lessons. We played formative assessment games and did peer instruction at the beginning of other lessons. Students planned out their week at the beginning of Mondays and reflected about their week last thing on Fridays. These were helpful strategies to develop student metacognition. But I've found this year's cohort do not require the same level of reflection and for the most part can handle the content with ease. Therefore, these ideas are not as helpful. 

This year, I've made some changes that I hope will better serve these students. Rather than giving away complete autonomy of pacing, my suggested course calendar represents the slowest speed allowable. Students have permission to move ahead but cannot fall behind. After students fall behind beyond a time frame (every 8 days), I send home academic notifications. When it becomes obvious that a student is in jeopardy of falling behind, I try to send a warning email to the student prior to sending home a notification. Since students are no longer required to map out their week, I do not start Monday's with the planning activity. In fact, I try to give the students as much asynchronous time as possible since I'm holding them more accountable to work at a certain pace. This also means doing away with the journaling. Instead, I've been more strategic about how to use synchronous times in class. 

So far, I've kept the formative assessment games and peer instruction when it appears necessary based on how well the students are grasping the material. In addition, I've reinstituted the Socratic seminar discussions. Perhaps I hastily gave up the seminar discussions last year - they are a true joy. They breathe a life into the class that was missing last year. Students report enjoying the discussions because they find the articles and controversial issues interesting. They also enjoy switching to full class activities once in awhile. To facilitate optimal engagement, I give students a heads up of the scheduled date for the seminar and encourage students to be ready to talk by that date.

The final synchronous exercises I've reinstituted is the full class exam and common due dates for lab reports/write ups. As I predicted in a previous blog article, these deadlines have helped keep students accountable for pushing through the curriculum at a reasonable pace. The biggest deadline is also at the end of quarters; students must earn level 3 on specific "I can" statements by the end of the quarter. 

I'm hoping the suggested pacing calendars and the synchronous scaffolds of quarter, semi-weekly, test, lab report, and full class discussion deadlines will provide enough structure and accountability in my asynchronous course to help students who need traditional elements of schooling. I also hope that these attempts of support will still allow students to learn at their own pace instead of being rushed through the curriculum. In essence, I hope I'm successfully straddling the synchronous-asynchronous line. 

Looking Back on My Second Year of Asynchronous Learning

Due to specific issues in asynchronous learning last year, I started the year by scaffolding mastery. The scaffolding seemed to help students learn the organization of the course before attempting the challenge of asynchronous learning. This year, students were closer together at the end of the year, than in the previous year. While most students were successful, the students who lacked motivation and follow-through continued to struggle.

The most frequent piece of advice my students left for next year's students have to do with keeping up in an asynchronous class. To help students stay afloat, I will mandate cumulative exams. I hope the exams will act as deadlines without completely taking away independence, which many of my students valued. The added benefits of cumulative exams is preparation for final exams and it provides more data for me to evaluate student progress on learning targets.

I tried differentiating the final exam with three versions based on percent of the content covered: 90%, 97% and 100%. After some protests from students, I let students choose which final to take rather than mandating the version. The overwhelming majority opted for the most difficult exam and averaged a "B+." Unfortunately, the students who opted for the lower exams performed poorly, with only one student earning a respectable "B." Aside from a few marginal passes and the lone "B", the handful of students who opted for the less rigorous finals failed. I wonder if announcing there will be different finals altered the study ritual for struggling students. In addition, all but one of the struggling students worked from behind and used a lot of effort in the final weeks to play catch up, rather than prepare for the final. Another confounder is these students also failed other final exams.

Earlier in the year, I missed the synchronous discussions of past years like Socratic Seminars. Perhaps along the way, I got use to doing without them but I no longer see them as a great loss. If I'm being completely honest with myself, these discussions weren't as transformative and powerful as I know they are in some other courses. At this point, offloading these discussions to online forums in the engagement segment at the beginning of learning cycles, seem to be an appropriate decision.

I do, however, need to refocus on offering some synchronous activities like formative assessments to build a sense of community and maximize opportunities for students to collaborate and help peers. In an asynchronous class, group member choice is limited to the students working on the same step. Including more of these synchronous assessments and learning opportunities, students can collaborate with new group members.

The asynchronous debate is still the biggest source of concern and pride. In the exit surveys, many students cited the independence as their favorite part of the course, while roughly the same number cited it as the most challenging aspect of the course. Right now, I plan to continue running an asynchronous course, not only for reasons cited in previous blog posts but because so many students never have to opportunity to learn how to work independently, set priorities and manage their time. These skills are needed by adults but are infrequently developed in primary and secondary schools. I'll continue to fight the good fight...

Related articles

• Scaffolding Asynchronous Learning

Flipclass Resolutions in 2015

http://christmasstockimages.com/

I usually avoid making resolutions in my personal life because they rarely come to fruition. However, I followed my professional resolutions last year. They really catapulted my course and held me accountable. For that reason, I offer professional resolutions for 2015 below:

1. Continue to explore differentiated learning. In particular, offer alternative ways for students to acquire and process content.

2. Investigate project based learning in an asynchronous course.

3. Similar to number 2, enhance the role of data analysis and inquiry throughout the course. Even though all labs are student-designed and data-rich, I wish to incorporate these principles during non-lab opportunities. Some ways to accomplish this task is to increase the role of inquiry through case studies, assignments, POGILs, problem sets and projects. 

Baby Steps to Standards Based Grading & Differentiation

Flickr : radhika_bhagwat

Susan Reslewic, a colleague of mine, and I recently discussed making a transition to standards based grading in her course. Susan agreed that I could share the contents of her email:

Getting the feeling that standards-based-grading goes hand in hand with differentiation...I think it [standards based grading] could really support my efforts to better differentiate.  When I looked at the physics tests today (all over the map: some failing grades, some perfect scores plus), I just felt like I wish the kids who "did poorly" could say "oh, I know a and b, but not x, y and z".  It frustrates me that some kids are going to get their test back and see a score in the 70s and then go to the place of "I did poorly. I don't understand physics. I hate physics. I hate science!" I wish instead...the grade communication focused on what the kid can and cannot do (yet).  As I write this I think maybe a first step is for me to provide detailed comments on the test next to the grade.... Basically saying here's where you are excelling and here are things you need to work on."

Susan makes some of the most compelling arguments for Standards Based grading (SBG): helps teachers differentiate and lets students know what they know and don't know. 

As I read Susan's email, I was reminded how overwhelmed and excited I felt about the idea of SBG. I responded with some thoughts included below about taking baby steps to SBG. 

Transitioning to Standards Based Grading: 

If you want to try baby steps to standards based grading, the easy way is to start reorganizing your tests, quizzes and other assessments. Label each test question with the idea being tested - maybe even grouping those questions together. For example, perhaps questions 1-5 are about calculating velocity and 6-15 are about applying Newton's Three Laws. Don't report a final total percentage on the test, instead report percentages on each group of questions: 80% or 4/5 on balancing equations, 70% or 7/10 on calculating K. Then, make students retake only portions of tests and quizzes that fall below a certain percentage. For example, you may tell student "X", you "mastered" balancing equations but have to retake a quiz on calculating K. 

In addition, make the benchmark quizzes about only one idea; if they pass the quiz, then they mastered the idea. Just like the tests, students only retake failing quizzes. Of course, you will need multiple versions of comparable tests and quizzes. It may take years to build a robust question bank but perhaps start with 2 or 3 versions of each test or quiz.

Another quick thing is to label the problem set and homework questions with the specific idea being practiced. You could even identify the basic and challenge questions within each subset of questions. Certain questions can be mandatory for all and excelling students can attempt the challenge questions. Over time, you can build a library of remedial activities and other resources to help students with particular skills or topics. If they fail a part of a test or a quiz, then you can point students to specific activities and resources that target their deficiency.

These are some baby steps that will not take much tweaking to course structure. These steps should help gain some of the benefits of a SBG course but keep in mind that these are temporary fixes. Not only does it take major structural changes to implement SBG but a comparable shift in mindset must also occur. 

Related articles

• The Urgent Need for Standards Based Grading
• Standards Based Quiz Spotlight: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

DIfferentiation is Good Teaching: A Review of "Differentiation From Planning to Practice"

After learning some frameworks and theories about differentiation from Carol Ann Tomlinson's “How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms", I yearned for more practical strategies. Rick Wormeli's “Differentiation From Planning to Practice" did not disappoint. Rather than summarizing the book, I'll list what I learned, both things I already do that are consistent with the research and things I want to do in order to be more consistent.


Helpful Research

1) Differentiated Processing: One piece that was new to me is differentiating processing activities. Currently, I use the same processing activities after a video lesson - practice quiz, guided notes, and posting and responding to online discussion forums. It's now clear to me that students process the material in different ways and ought to have options for processing the content. What I'll plan to do is give students more options of processing after a lesson - perhaps they can use their journals to choose from the following:

• summary paragraph
• Creative RAFT, poem or story 
• Complete or create a graphic organizer 
• Compare & contrast assignment 
• Frayer method 
• Play a game with a twist - like charades, pictionary, charades or taboo

The processing activities can be organized in think dots, cubing, think tac toe or choice boards. This approach could work with my current system because the processing activities can be seen as level 1 out of 4 in my standards based grading world.

2) Building background or give experience to get background: I already accomplish this through the exploration activities prior to lessons. Even if students don’t possess the optimal priming experiences, they will gain this experience through the exploration.

3) Priming- I prime student brains by offering guided notes, a list of the "I can statements” they will learn about, a unit overview and potential agenda for each lesson.

4) Primacy-Recency theory: we remember the first and last things we learned in a chunk of time. This means the first and last minutes of class are crucial. I have to do a better job designing warm up activities that engage students fully in content. I have to move away from the housekeeping activities at the beginning of class. The same thing can be said for exit tickets; they should be as closely related to content as possible. Housekeeping and non-content related metacognitive activities can be done at other times in the lesson.

5) Explore similarities & differences: Students learn more effectively when they are asked if asked about similarities and differences. This is consistent with the idea of schema and brains wanting to make connections between preexisting schemata. In some processing activities, I need to ask how things are examples or non-examples of a concept.  The tricky thing is the brain is ineffective at remembering distinctions if learned at the same time. If possible, I need to teach  similar ideas days apart.

6) Novelty: While it’s important to prime the brain, it’s also important to switch things up and break from the routine. Brains are effective at picking up contrast and important moments. I need to encourage more divergent thinking by asking for arguments against what they learned, describe concepts without using certain words, etc.

7) Memory: Middle school students are typically limited to memorizing 5 unrelated facts.

8) Socializing: I already structure my course to be as social as possible. Most assignments and tasks can be completed in groups or as individuals. Students can pick and choose to what extent they wish to be social and with whom.

What’s clear to me is the heart of differentiation is just good teaching research-based practices. Providing choice and alternative routines and assignments are also important but meeting the needs of all students has to start with solid pedagogy.

Related articles

• A Review of "How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms"
• Differentiated Grading: Fair Isn't Always Equal

A Review of "How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms"

 Carol Ann Tomlinson's book, How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed Ability Classrooms, was a brief introduction to differentiation. I read this book in order to improve my asynchronous flipped class. As I started to let students work at their own pace a couple of years ago, I immediately understood other accommodations can and should be made in order to meet the needs of my students. I read the book in the hopes of learning some tools of the differentiation trade.

Overall, the book was useful. Initially, I was disappointed because I already knew several of the techniques mentioned; I was hoping to pick up some more ideas. I'm already using tools like cubing, choice boards and tiered assignments. However, after greater reflection, I'm grateful for reading this book because I now have a better understanding of the guiding principles of differentiation and picked up a few ideas. Some of the ideas that I plan to institute as a result of the book are the following:

• Challenge leveling: in problem sets and beyond the course learning opportunities.
• Choices in learning materials: textbooks, videos, online articles, simulations, etc. 
• Compacting: students who demonstrate prior mastery of a concept can "test" out of the unit.

It was validating to read that some of the strategies I already decided to institute were considered effective ways to differentiate. For example, I am holding all students accountable to be able to apply their learning but exceptional students will be allowed to demonstrate learning at a higher level by creating, evaluating and analyzing learning materials. These higher order products are organized in think-tac-toe boards, choice boards, 2:5:8 boards, etc. Another point of validation was the idea that everything does not have to be graded. It's okay for students to practice applying skills without the specter of a grade looming. It's also helpful to know that my approach of starting small and adding more opportunities for differentiation is appropriate. 

The greatest takeaway from the book was the cognitive framework for differentiation. Rather than gaining a random collection of tools, I have better insight into the paradigm shift, which will equip me with the ability to develop my own tools. For example, there are three major ways to differentiate - by readiness, interest and learning profile. I've tended to focus on readiness and interest. It's easier to differentiate according to ability (readiness) and interest by offering choices at harder and easier degrees of difficulty and allow some freedom in the details and topics of projects. It is much harder to tailor intervention and activities based on individual student learning styles or profiles. That will take a better understanding of learning profiles and the type of lessons that will cater to the various styles in my classes. Looks like I have more research to do. 

The other major insight is there are three major things one can differentiate: content, process and product. Again, I've favored some of these more than others. It's easier to differentiate student products because projects can be broad enough to allow students to decide which modality to use - a report, presentation, video, essay, photo journal, story, etc. In some ways, differentiating content can also be straightforward. I have already offered optional topics for students to learn. Some students will have an opportunity to solve dihybrid Punnett Squares or sex linked problems, while other students will only handle basic genetics problems. In addition, students are allowed to learn the content at their own pace. The most difficult, or time consuming, part of differentiating content is curating a library of varied resources that can make the content accessible to all students. I would love to create an iBook that some students can choose to read, rather than relying on watching the videos I make. 

Another piece is differentiating process. These are the sense making activities that help students process or understand the material. Right now, I don't have many options for students to learn and process the material. Students may complete the sense making activities at their own pace and even have the freedom to pick and choose how much of the activity to complete; however, they do not have freedom to choose WHICH activities to complete. They all pretty much have to do a problem set, lab and online discussion for a typical learning cycle. I'd like to give students a choice, or make the choice, about the nature of the sense making activity. 

The neat thing about differentiating by readiness, interest and learning profile and differentiating content, process and product, is there are a number of possible techniques in a given unit. In one learning cycle, I may differentiate the content by interest but keep the other variables the same. In a different learning cycle, perhaps I may allow students to submit different products according to their learning profile. The combinations are plenty and can be tailored to the particular topic and combination of students in my class. 

Spotlight on the Hot Seat: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

This year I've instituted mastery checks, which are one-on-one discussions with students to see what they know. I made this change because I was spending too much time as a study hall monitor checking off assignments, rather than talking with kids about what they did and did not know.

I'm using mastery checks in combination with standards based grading and Bloom's taxonomy. Students move through levels by completing certain tasks aligned to comparable levels of Blooms taxonomy - from understanding to creating. Students start with a level "1", which means showing no evidence of understanding the "I can" statement. In order to progress to a level "2", they meet with me one on one in the mastery check "hot seat" (or "fluffy chair" as one student affectionately calls it.)

I give students a small whiteboard and ask them to demonstrate what they know based on the "I can" statements. 

Work in progress on student whiteboard for the Hot Seat

Students solve problems and explain their thinking in real time. Once students successfully complete the mastery check, they receive permission to take the quiz. This mastery check allows me to identify issues and suggest remediation, before a student takes a quiz. Last year, these talks were less frequent and often happened as a result of a student failing a quiz. Instead of students wasting quiz attempts, they have a good idea if they are ready for a particular quiz, and so do I.

The other nice thing about the "hot seat" is I'm getting better insights into the common misconceptions. By identifying these misconceptions early on, I can adjust my practice in the moment when it's most helpful to students. I'm already considering making a video aligned to a deficit I'm seeing in mathematical reasoning; only students who have this particular confusion will be pointed toward the video.

Finally, the biggest anticipated impact will be to prevent students from hiding. Every student must talk to me before moving on. Rather than a mere suggestion or informal check-in that a student can blow off, students are getting the clear message that a one-on-one talk with me is mandatory. I've already identified a few students who tried to skip over some of the learning materials, like problem sets or notes. When they came to me, they couldn't explain why they were completing certain steps in a problem. I've had to redirect them to earlier learning opportunities they had not completed.

I'm hoping the hot seat or fluffy chair will provide better supports for my students. So far, these discussions have been enlightening and seemingly helpful to my students.

Related articles

• Spotlight on Mastery Choices: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles
• Spotlight on the Mastery Phase - the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles
• Spotlight on the Apply Phase: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

Spotlight on the Apply Phase: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

The Apply phase follows the flip phase in a mastery learning cycle. The purpose of apply is two fold: first, to practice the concepts learned in the flip phase and second, to revisit the exploration. 

Typically the students learn the content from a video. After they have taken notes, students complete a standards based problem set in the Apply phase. The questions of the problem set are organized by standard. 

At the beginning of each section, the standard is quoted and the questions specifically aligned to that standard follow. I denote mandatory questions in blue highlighting. Once students complete the mandatory problems, they are free to answer or not answer the other problems. Not all students require the same amount of practice for each standard. In addition, this builds in extra practice for those who choose not to complete the entire problem set the first time around. The mandatory questions usually point out special scenarios that students may encounter. For example, on the chi square inheritance problem set, one of the mandatory questions demonstrated what would happen if expected numbers were zero. Since the chi square formula has the expected number in a denominator of a fraction, any problem with expected as zero would be undefined; it's important to have this scenario as a mandatory problem because many students are tempted to incorrectly give this answer as zero. 

Answer keys are provided for all of the problem sets.  

I only show the answers and perhaps some of the work done. I've found when I show how the work is done, students are likely to copy the work, rather than trying to solve the problems. By giving them the answer key, they get immediate feedback and don't have to wait for me to be available to look over their work. However, they are less able to cheat since they must show their work on mandatory problems. 

The other half of the apply phase is the re-visitation of the explore phase. In the explore phase, students are introduced to a concept before direct instruction during the flip stage. Once students have practiced applying the concepts in the problem set, they are usually ready to tackle the explore re-visitation. 

Other activities that may take place during the apply phase are labs, discussions and case studies. These activities may also occur during the explore or apply phase, it just depends on whether it makes more since for the activity to teach a concept or apply a concept. Many times, these activities are divided into two parts - part A as an exploration and part B as the re-visitation during the apply phase. For example, in the explore phase of the Natural Selection learning cycle, the Part A of the Chips are Down lab asked students to collect data and draw conclusions about evolving populations. After learning more in subsequent activities, Part B in the apply phase required students to revise their conclusions. 

Once students have worked through the apply phase, they must sit with me to gain permission to enter the mastery phase which consist of a mandatory quiz and optional projects. 

Related articles

• Spotlight on the Mastery Phase - the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles
• Spotlight on the Flip: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

Spotlight on Mastery Choices: the Anatomy of Mastery Learning Cycles

In this spotlight, we'll explore the mastery assignments of the mastery phase. In each learning cycle, students will have the opportunity to extend their thinking on specific standards beyond the application level in Bloom's taxonomy. They'll also be able to choose the nature of the assignment and even within the options, there is room for differentiating the level of difficulty. Depending on the learning cycle, these mastery assignments may be organized into choice boards, 2:5:8 boards, tic tac toe boards, think dots or cubing boards. I'll explain some of the options below.

Choice Boards
In some learning cycles, I use choice boards. Choice boards typically have nine project choices, of which students select one. Each choice will encompass all of the relevant learning standards; therefore, only one project is needed. The Analysis, Evaluation and Creation levels of Bloom's taxonomy are equally represented. In addition, different learning preferences are represented - students have the option in the type of modality: video, article, essay, cartoon, poem, etc.

2:5:8 Board
The 2:5:8 board gives students options between levels of difficulty. The rule is the students have to complete assignments that add to ten; for example, a student may select one "2" level and one "8" level or two "5" level assignments. I also added a "10" level assignment, where students could opt for just one assignment at a higher level of difficulty. I used Bloom's taxonomy again to determine which activities are level 2, 5, 8 and 10.

Think Dots
I use Think Dots similarly to choice boards. In both case, students only select one option. The major difference is theoretically, students don't actually choose the assignment. Students roll die to determine which project to complete. Think Dots can work well if there aren't significant differences between rolling a "one" or a "three." In either case, students are basically completing the same assignment but the details are different. Other teachers use Think Dots differently but I like using it this way to encourage students to be okay with rolling the die and doing whatever assignment is randomly selected. There's a neat online die that one can use if physical dice are unavailable.

Tic Tac Toe
The Tic Tac Toe board is an effective variant of the choice board. Again, the assignments are aligned to specific standards as well as levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The way I use tic tac toe boards is when I have a variety of standards that are too difficult to encapsulate into one project. In this case, I still have nine project options, of which students have to select three. I can set up specific rules to force students to select specific types of projects. For example, in the board below, students have to go from top to bottom, either in the same column or at a diagonal. In that case, students are forced to select one project from each of the three rows. Each row has three options aligned to the same standards. The result is students cover all of the standards but have some choice in the combination of assignments.

My hope by using these strategies is students will complete higher order assignments to demonstrate mastery of specific standards. I'll be sure to reflect on the effectiveness of these tools at a later date.

Related articles

• Introducing Mastery Learning Cycles to the World: a post FlipCon14 presentation reflection
• Mastery Learning Cycles: a Mash Up of Mastery Learning & Explore-Flip-Apply

My Plunge into Standards Based Grading

Cody Hough // Wikipedia

After short-lived flirtations, I'm plunging into the Standards Based Grading (SBG) pool. Of all the recent changes to my course, SBG requires the biggest paradigm shift. Like many other updates to my biology course, my entry point was the flipped class - another testament to the benefits of flipped instruction.

What is SBG?

For those who are unfamiliar with standards based grading, this video should offer a good summary contrasting it with the traditional model of Assessment-Based Grading.

How am I approaching SBG in year one?

First, I've identified the standards. For each unit, I listed each learning objective and rephrased them as "I can" statements. (Thanks to @mrsebiology for the inspiration.) I've redesigned each unit as mastery learning cycles centered around these standards. I plan to acknowledge four levels of progress for each standard - does not meet (no evidence), approaching (explaining), meeting (applying) and exceeding (mastery.) 

First draft sample of a few genetics objectives

Second, I've tailored the learning materials (videos, readings, labs, etc) to the standards. This was an eye opening process because several materials that I've used in the past did not meet a specific standard; I was forced to delete these materials. The other important revelation was that some activities required too much effort in return for how they aligned with the standards. For example, if I identified a lab that took several days to complete but barely addressed one standard, I either modified it or chose an alternative. I forced myself to prioritize the "need to know" content and skills over the "nice to know" material. 

Third, I strategically designed assessments to align to the standards. Every quiz, lab or test question will be intentionally designed or modified to address the standards. Again, very eye opening process. I'm especially excited about this change because I will be able to generate informative data about each student. No longer will a student or parent see a vague "88%" on a report. The 88% could hide that this student struggled mightily on one topic, while excelling at the other topics. Instead of quoting numbers, I will be able to state the exact nature of the areas of strengths and weaknesses.  

I have a lot to learn and so glad that I have a wonderful group of teachers in my PLN.

So far I've found been using the following SBG resources:

• ThinkThankThunk
• Always Informative
• Standard Based Grading Videos
• A post from The Blended English/Ethics Classroom

I would love it if you can reply with your own list of Standards Based Grading resources.

Related articles

• Grading to Inform
• Keep It Simple Standards-Based Grading
• Transitioning to SBG
• [SBG] My First Attempt at SBG
• The Spirit of SBG

Student Voice and Choice

CC Courtesy of Crossroads by Carsten Tolkmit on Flickr

I've been sitting on this post for a year and now that I'm ready to implement differentiated instruction, I thought it prudent to share this post.

Last year throughout FlipCon 13, I heard the expression student "voice & choice" on many occasions. The expression is a hip way to tout differentiation.

One of the most informative workshops was Ellen Dill's "Offering Student Choice." (See her playlist below.) She's a flipped french teacher who gives her students a variety of project alternatives to demonstrate learning for each unit. Students have created songs, fashion shows, puppet shows, just to name a few. It became clear that these projects are far more rigorous than standard exams. 

Create your own Playlist on MentorMob!

Partly inspired by Dill, I made the plunge into differentiation as well. I've known of the benefits of voice and choice but didn't have the means to do so, until now. The flipped classroom gives students and teachers this wonderful treat of differentiation. I designed a choice board of projects aligned to unit objectives. To ensure comparable rigor, those projects are aligned to the Analysis, Evaluation and Creation levels of Bloom's Taxonomy. I've also made projects that cover the same Blooms levels and unit objectives but varied them according to Gardner's multiple intelligences. I hoping this strategic alignment to Gardner's work will provide enough variety to meet all of the needs of my students. 

Draft of the complex inheritance choice board

Also consistent with this flexible model, I also let my students choose which objectives to demonstrate "mastery" level. Mastery, in my course, is demonstrated at the analysis, evaluation and creation levels. All students must meet application level on all objectives but can choose which objectives to master. I envision students meeting application level on some objectives and going on to master the objectives they wish to further investigate. So students will only complete projects on the objectives that "speak to them." 

Other Resources:  Dare to Differentiate Wiki

Related articles

• Mastery Learning Cycles: a Mash Up of Mastery Learning & Explore-Flip-Apply
• Onto my Second Iteration of Flipped Learning: A Post FlipCon14 reflection