marzano’s teacher evaluation model*

MARZANO’S TEACHER EVALUATION MODEL*

Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the school districts in the United States.

A learning map/placemat has been developed that consists of domains and indicators on which teachers are evaluated.

*This presentation has been significantly adapted from the HAPPY Hour workshop presentation on Creating Scales by Courtney Kavanaugh,Val Brown, and Kim Dansereau, Seminole County Public School educators.

Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving Score: the learning goal.

4.0Participant will design formative and summative assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content

3.5 In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success

3.0

Participant will construct a scale to track student progress toward achieving a learning goal.Scales should: be related to the learning goal articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy be written in student language provide consistent feedback to students encourage students to improve.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content

2.5 No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content

2.0

Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: Learning Continuum Target Learning Goal Simpler Content More Complex ContentParticipant is able to communicate a clear learning goal. Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do. Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content

1.5 Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content

1.0With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.

0.5 With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content

0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstratedSEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Instructional Excellence & Equity

This is an example of a completed

academic scale.

What Marzano’s research says - High Probability Strategies

- Marzano Research Laboratory

LEARNING CONTINUUM SCALE

A scale is an attempt to create a continuum that articulates distinct levels of knowledge and skill relative to a specific topic.

It can be thought of as an applied version of a learning progression.

A well-written scale should make it easy for teachers to design and score assessment tasks that can be used to generate both formative and summative scores.

- Dr. Robert Marzano

Courtesy: Hamilton Elementary

1st Grade Team SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Scale Examples (Continued)

Scale Examples (ContINUED)

This is a checking-for-

understanding scale.

This is a another

checking-for -

understanding scale.

MARZANO’S GENERIC SCALEOrganize Learning Goals into a Scale

• Advanced = 4.0 More Complex Content• Proficient = 3.0 Target Learning Goal

(Complex Content)• Progressing = 2.0 Simpler Content

4.0

In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standardThe student will:• Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson,

Rutherford and Bohr.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content


3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence • Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained

support his plum-pudding model.• Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained

support his nuclear model.• Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support

planetary model.• Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic

model No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0

The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra The student will:• Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr • Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded• Describe the procedure used for each experiment• Summarize the important results of each experimentNo major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes




0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated

SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS


Development of a Scale for Student Learning: ExampleStudent Learning Goal:

Scale Comments

Score 4.0

Score 3.0

Score 2.0

Score 1.0 With help, partial success

Score 0.0 Even with help, no success

The student will:- define model, subatomic particle, proton, electron,

nucleus- understand results of historical experiments and

previous atomic model representations

Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained.



Students will be able to describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence.

SCALE DEVELOPMENT FOR STUDENT LEARNING

4.0

In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standardThe student will:• Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson,

Rutherford and Bohr.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content


3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence • Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained

support his plum-pudding model.• Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained

support his nuclear model.• Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support

planetary model.• Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic

model No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0

The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra The student will:• Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr • Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded• Describe the procedure used for each experiment• Summarize the important results of each experimentNo major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes







4.0

In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standardThe student will:• • No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content


3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence • • No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0

The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:• • • • The student will:

• • • No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes




0.0 Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS


4.0



3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence.

• •

The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0

The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleusThe student will:

• • • No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes






4.0



3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence • •

The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0

The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus

The student will:•Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.•Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded.•Describe the procedure used for each experiment.•Summarize the important results of each experiment.No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes







4.0



3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence .

-Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.•Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model.•Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his planetary model.•Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic modelThe student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0


The student will:•Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. •Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded. •Describe the procedure used for each experiment.•Summarize the important results of each experiment.No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes






4.0

In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standardThe student will:•Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content


3.0

The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence .

-Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.•Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model.•Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his planetary model.•Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic modelThe student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)


2.0


The student will:•Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr. •Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded. •Describe the procedure used for each experiment.•Summarize the important results of each experiment.No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes






DEVELOP A SCALE FOR YOUR LEARNING GOAL

Scale CommentsScore 4.0 Inferential Understanding (Beyond Standards)

More Complex Content

Score 3.0 Essential Complex Content (Based on the Standards)

Target Learning Goal

Score 2.0 Essential Foundational Knowledge

Simpler Content

Start with Score 3.0 and write your Target Learning Goal

Continue to develop Score 2.0 and Score 4.0 Include specific indicators that would

demonstrate acceptable performance for that score.

SHARE YOUR RESULTS

Share your scale

Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving Score: the learning goal.

4.0Participant will design formative and summative assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content


3.0

Participant will construct and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving the learning goal.Scales should: be related to the learning goal articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy be written in student language provide consistent feedback to students encourage students to improve.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content


2.0

Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as: Learning Continuum Target Learning Goal Simpler Content More Complex ContentParticipant is able to communicate a clear learning goal. Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do. Goal is not written as an activity or assignment. Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course.No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content






marzano’s teacher evaluation model*

Documents