My mindset shift around educator evaluation grew organically out of disappointment related to our ninth grade
research paper. First, let me outline our research process. The ninth grade social
studies teachers and I (school Librarian) co-teach the research process, and
co-assess the research papers. We have done so for 10 years even through staff
changes. The research assignment was created collaboratively, and we tweak it
each year. I teach several lessons “How to Find and Use Databases and E-Book
Resources,” “Paraphrasing: The Hardest Skill to Master in High School,” “21st
Century Search,” and to kick off research season, I do a two-day “Anti-Plagiarism”
lesson. The social studies teachers reinforce these lessons in class, and
students are given multiple days in the library to do research. I offer to edit
any student’s rough draft if they give me at least three days before it is due.
On the due date we have students peer edit with an editing sheet, and then they
get two more days to make changes, and pass in the next draft for teachers to assess.
After we edit, comment, and grade it, it’s returned to students and they are
required to revise again for another grade.
We want them to really learn how to apply the skills we have taught,
because this is the first of many research papers in their High School career.
 |
| Image Source: https://www.study-in.de/en/plan-your-studies/application_27435.php |
For the last three years I have been
very frustrated with student’s research products. It began when several
students asked me to edit their drafts, which I did, thoroughly. I commented on
their history (I’m also a certified history teacher), grammar, spelling, flow, and
I also corrected all internal citation and Works Cited Page errors. It’s my
gift to students, I want them to learn the proper way to do research and have
the best chance at getting a good grade on this heavily weighted project. My frustration came
after I did all this work to help these students and they did not make one
correction, and in one case they turned-in their paper with all of my
suggestions still showing. I was so upset. It felt they did not value my time to help them learn. In order to improve student papers, we added the
peer-editing piece, and we stopped announcing they would have another
opportunity to make changes after the teachers corrected the papers. The first
drafts of their papers submitted to teachers did improve dramatically, but for
the last two years the majority of students have not bothered to make the
corrections or all the corrections to their final drafts, resulting in
stagnated learning.
I see this as part of a bigger and increasing problem of a lack of student perseverance and resiliency toward their learning. We provide detailed corrections on their rough drafts, and invite students to get clarification, and yet as they pass in their final draft they say things like “I didn’t know what ‘ditto’ meant,” or I didn’t know what “It” (abbreviation for Italicize) meant.” Kids are given a metaphorical knee high wall and they cannot get over it.
 |
| Graph created by Rachael Costello with data collected from student work |
I see this as part of a bigger and increasing problem of a lack of student perseverance and resiliency toward their learning. We provide detailed corrections on their rough drafts, and invite students to get clarification, and yet as they pass in their final draft they say things like “I didn’t know what ‘ditto’ meant,” or I didn’t know what “It” (abbreviation for Italicize) meant.” Kids are given a metaphorical knee high wall and they cannot get over it.
 |
| Image source: http://mapio.net/pic/p-67347133/ |
My exasperation led to me start
thinking about how and why students learn. As the fall of 2016 arrived,
requests for SMART Goals and Educator Evaluation forms, led to me to approach
my evaluator (my assistant principal), about some of my out of the box
thinking. I was in the middle of a two-year technology goal, but I felt like I
was just going through the motions, “Just Doing Ed Eval” because it was
required. I wasn’t inspired. My first evaluation meeting was to pitch the idea
of using my library/classroom as a research lab. I wanted to do a Grounded
Theory Research Study on how and why students learn. The first step would be to
interview/survey students, then find themes from their responses, collate the
themes, and do a literature review on topics for which I needed more
information. I would then use the student’s data and the ideas from the
literature review to create strategies that I would use in my classes to
improve student learning. I explained that I expected it would take two-years,
the first year would be the interviews/surveys, collating of themes, and the
literature review. The second year would be the applying the strategies to
improve student learning by executing experiments
i.e. tweaking lessons, assessing student progress, recording success and
failures along the way.
When I stopped “Just Doing Ed Eval”
because it was required, and started thinking about my classroom/library as a
laboratory, and doing something I was passionate about; it changed my attitude
toward the educator evaluation process. I am driving my principal and my
assistant principal crazy talking about what I am learning, and how I want to
apply that learning. Our district spends
a lot of time talking about student agency, choice and voice, but teachers need
to be encouraged to exercise their own agency when it comes to teacher goals
and evaluation.
Our educator goals should be something that is deeply
personal, based in curiosity & passion, and the belief that as an
individual teacher you can facilitate change if only within your classroom’s four
walls.
This is the first of several posts about my professional journey.
