Teachers v. Doctors

I want my teachers to be like doctors and the students like patients. Each student has specific needs and specific treatment plans. They may be all in the same wing of the metaphoric hospital, pediatrics, mathematics, ophthalmology, social studies, and so forth. But, their treatment plan is individualized. Teachers may use similar tools from one student to the next. They may see different progressions and outcomes. All students have the goal of becoming healthy. That definition – that learning outcome – is a continual collaboration between teacher and student, patient and doctor. 

When we go to the doctor and complain of a pain in the side – the teacher must take the time to diagnose the symptoms and understand the root cause of the pain; the student didn’t understand fractions in third grade and now in seventh they can’t complete the algebra problem presented because they don’t understand how to find the common denominator. The student doesn’t understand word problems because they are skipping ahead to the outcome and instead need to understand the problem from a perspective applied by Bloom’s taxonomy – identifying the facts of the problem first. 

Teachers and doctors are often compared; the snarky comment that teachers often ask is – how would a doctor feel if they had 30 patients all at the same time, for only an hour window, each needing a diagnosis and treatment plan, individual attention to existing issues, anticipation of future problems, and an expectation that every patient reaches a full recovery? How would a doctor feel if they had to do that five to eight times a day? How would they feel if they had resources removed and administrative oversight asking for testing that they did not need or results when the student wasn’t ready to demonstrate their understanding and mastery? 

I still want my teachers to be like doctors giving less panacea and more individualized treatment. The question is how can the administration support this perspective.

Quick Crisis Communication

Getting ahead of the story and telling your narrative is essential. Many big crisis communications are best managed with forethought. I would argue that because of cell phones in the hands of students, schools need to be more responsive than in the past. 

The National School Public Relations Association (2021) suggests that the first 30 minutes after a crisis is the most important time to respond because it allows one to control the story. They suggest the following important steps: designate a point person to address the situation, define the problem, consider the options, communicate with staff and media, update students, as a starting place for communications. Taking these steps may alleviate the spontaneous text communication damage from students. What do you think? 


National School Public Relations Association. (2021). National School Public Relations Association. Retrieved January 06, 2021, from https://www.nspra.org/crisis

Wide Audience Communication in Schools

There is not a singular tool that can be universally prescribed as the best to reach a wide audience. It truly depends on the purpose of the communication and the audience receiving the message. One must look at their communications from the various points of view in their community because “perception is more powerful than reality” (Warner and Mathews, 2009, Dealing with Perceptions section, para. 3).


There is not a singular tool that can be universally prescribed as the best to reach a wide audience. It truly depends on the purpose of the communication and the audience receiving the message. One must look at their communications from the various points of view in their community because “perception is more powerful than reality” (Warner and Mathews, 2009, Dealing with Perceptions section, para. 3). There are three solutions to consider: mass-text-messaging systems, web-page builders, and my most preferred option (and likely the most used option) school learning management or classroom management systems. There are ‘best of’ lists for recent years provided by Business News Daily (2020), Wilson (2020), and Softwareworld (2020) respectively. Technology both has and has not improved the way in which stakeholders are communicated with, effective use comes down to the user. Often, technology creates one-way communication, contrary to the goals of an educational system; “the two-way flow of ideas and accurate information is essential to school improvement” (Kowalski, 2011, p. 23). Technology may create the illusion of better communication, because the data that is shared efficiently and gives families and students a window into the day-to-day progress of the student; this is an important piece of the communication chain as Kowalski (2011, p. 23) points out that “school administrators are accountable to the public” and “the public has a right to information about schools.” However, human to human communication over the phone, video conferencing, and in-person conferencing remains the most effective communication, though this can be difficult to do in large groups; it allows for two-directional and symmetrical information to be exchanged. Technology options have dramatically changed in the past ten years, since the publishing of Kowalski’s (2011) research. Regarding the best tools (over methods) for communicating to a wide audience, there are three options to discuss for education today. 

First, mass-text-messaging: In a school system where poverty is high and families cannot be expected to have regular access to a computer, a mass-text-message system may be the most beneficial. Families in poverty, earning less than $30,000 per year, are more likely to have a phone at a rate of 71% over a personal computer at a rate of 54% according to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center (Anderson and Kumar, 2020). Additional considerations for school administrators should be the rate of poverty in the United States. The amount of children in poverty increased, from 1995 to 2001, from 20% to 28% respectively (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004, p. 169 as cited by Kowalski, 2011, p. 31). Further, “in the last decade, this rate has risen from 18% in 2007 and 2008, peaked at 23% in 2011 and 2012, and returned to 18% in 2017 and 2018.” (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2020). In a school system with a wide range of home-languages text-messages may be also beneficial, messages can be sent out in groups with the preferred language selected. The home language is an important consideration for administrators. Kowalski (2011, p. 32) notes that large populations of immigrant students have reshaped the school system; schools already strapped for resources have additionally had to customize portions of the education system to accommodate the needs of these students in regards to time, money, and legitimate attendance. This tool is effective for quick short messages relating to school operations; links to web-content can be included for more details. Similar to the connections made through mass-text-messages, email messaging (perhaps for a school newsletter) and social media tools such as Facebook and Instagram can be accessed through smartphones to distribute school messages. These too can be linked to a school website. Tufts University (2021) has compiled a listing of the top platforms including Twitter, Snapchat, and LinkedIn for communications along with user guides that emphasise connections and the ease of access. 

For a general population, in an average school district, a Management Information System would be the one singular tool that I would most rely on as an administrator because it has so many functions within the system. These systems vary in use and pricing, examples include Google Classroom, Schoology, Class Dojo, PowerSchool, ManageBac, Canvas, and Seesaw. Kowalski (2011, p. 135) does warn that the system selected does limit the effectiveness of the public relations efforts based on the functionality of the system. In general, these systems provide on-line learning options, messaging to parents and students through email, documentation and retention of demographics, homework submission and grading, as well as other features. The benefits of these systems include the ability to communicate to general groups, classes, and individuals. Many include language preference integration so that communications are automatically translated to the target home language. They also can help users to track their individual information with the school and give the school access to global data about their population and performance. Teachers and administrators can even use some of these tools to track, manage, and support good behavior in schools. This would be a significant benefit to teachers as they communicate with both students, parents and other teachers. Not only would it have the potential to improve the school community but it may increase school attendance retention. Negative student behavior often results in school suspensions, expulsions, and grade retention levels; the No Child Left Behind Act allows for students to transfer from “persistently dangerous schools” in favor of “safer schools” (Kowalski, 2011, p. 33). Tracking the data could support the communications with state and federal departments regarding the safety of the school. These systems are no better than the data put into them and how they are effectively managed. While they are powerful tools, they are continually being updated and users (teachers, students, parents, and administrators) need to be educated on the updates. Kowalski points to the “information literate educator,” one who can form questions about information needs, identify where to find the information, access the information through computing systems, evaluate the information, organize the information in a practical method, integrate information into an existing database, and use information to solve problems (Doyle, 1992, as reported by Kowalski, 2011, p. 134). In the workplace, and certainly the classroom, of today, information and technological literacy is nearly a given which is why this powerful tool would be my first choice tool. 


Anderson, M., & Kumar, M. (2020, May 30). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption. Retrieved January 02, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2020, January). Children Living in Poverty in America. Retrieved December 29, 2020, from https://www.aecf.org/blog/children-living-in-poverty-in-america/

Business News Daily. (2020). The Best Text Message Marketing Services of 2020. Retrieved January 02, 2021, from https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15044-best-text-message-marketing-solutions.html

Softwareworld. (2020, December 31). Best Learning Management System (LMS) Software With Reviews & Comparison. Retrieved January 02, 2021, from https://www.softwareworld.co/top-learning-management-system-software/

Tufts University. (2021). Social Media Overview. Retrieved January 02, 2021, from https://communications.tufts.edu/marketing-and-branding/social-media-overview/

Warner, C., & Mathews, J. (2009). Promoting your school: Going beyond PR (3rd ed.). (Kindle, E-book)Thousand Oaks: Corwin. 

Wilson, J. (2020, December 16). The Best Website Builders for 2021. Retrieved January 02, 2021, from https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-website-builders?test_uuid=001OQhoHLBxsrrrMgWU3gQF

Effecting Positive Change from Tragic Reenactment

Two students dressed as the shooters from Columbine, 1999, attended Kentucky High School for halloween and reenacted scenes from that horrific day; the students were suspended. Comments on the report vary between praise and condemnation for the suspension. One comment called for the parents of the students to face criminal charges. Other comments called the actions of the school overreach, lacking specific reasoning for the suspension – admitting that the costumes were in poor taste.

Reacting to the reenacted Columbine shooting with a suspension and a statement, the school could have done more to manage and effect positive change. 

Two students dressed as the shooters from Columbine, 1999, attended Kentucky High School for Halloween and reenacted scenes from that horrific day; the students were suspended. Comments on the report vary between praise and condemnation for the suspension. One comment called for the parents of the students to face criminal charges. Other comments called the actions of the school overreach, lacking specific reasoning for the suspension – admitting that the costumes were in poor taste. 

The school additionally released a statement, as reported by Joyce (2018), “”We take the situation very seriously and our personnel are continuing to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding this matter,” Stephens said in a statement. “The students are currently suspended.”” 

This situation, from a public relations perspective, missed the mark. Releasing a statement is one-way communication that leaves the audience without a method of creating dialogue. That is all that the school did. This is shown by observing the comments in the article (Joyce, 2018); people responding to the report clearly needed an opportunity to speak their mind and the school missed a teachable moment. The school could have explained the reasoning for the suspension, Joyce (2018), gives none. Instead, a community meeting or town-hall may have been a valuable step to take. School shootings have long been a worrisome problem in the field of education and there is likely a community member that is apathetic to the topic.  

Kowalski (20011, p. 14 – 16) identities several goals of PR inside of education; three of these goals “encouraging open political communication,” “enhancing the image of the school district,” and “managing information” could have been served with a communication that fostered open-dialogue. There were clearly people upset with the restriction of the students, the school could have addressed freedom of speech in their communications about the incident and why reenacting the violence of an historic school-shooting would be restricted. Stapelton and Murphy (2018) reported on a shooting that resulted in the deaths of two students and the injury of 18 others, from January of 2018, just ten months earlier. The school could have used this halloween incident and suspension to improve the image of the district by promoting school safety. Creating a forum for open dialogue would have helped the school to manage the information and explain the reasoning with the community. 

Joyce, K. (2018). Two Kentucky High School Girls Suspended After Dressing Up As Columbine Shooters for Halloween. Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/2-kentucky-high-school-girls-suspended-after-dressing-up-as-columbine-shooters-for-halloween

Kowalski, T. J. (2011). Public relations in schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Yan, H., Stapleton, A., & Murphy, P. (2018, January 24). Kentucky school shooting: 2 students killed, 18 injured. Retrieved December 28, 2020, from https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/23/us/kentucky-high-school-shooting/index.html

Missed Opportunities for Safeguarding Students

In 2018 teachers from the Middleton School District dressed as the border wall, presented the statement ‘Make America Great Again’ and coordinated with another group of teachers dressed as Mexican immigrants, photos of both these costume groups were posted to the district Facebook page; later the superintendent retracted the photos and replaced them with a recorded apology.

In 2018 teachers from the Middleton School District dressed as the border wall, presented the statement ‘Make America Great Again’ and coordinated with another group of teachers dressed as Mexican immigrants, photos of both these costume groups were posted to the district Facebook page; later the superintendent retracted the photos and replaced them with a recorded apology. 

The situation described by Maxouris and Gray (2018) was initially managed well; however based on the information provided there were many missed opportunities for school improvement and community relations. 

While political speech is typically protected, this case may be viewed through the lens of student safety and wellbeing. The school – and certainly the superintendent  – has a duty first to the students and their wellbeing. Given that this incident occurred in 2018, during the Trump administration, this political topic of imigration control and reform was certainly present in the everyday lives of students, even elementary students. Given that the Middleton School district is composed of 4,000 students (About Us/About MSD, 2020) and according to Idaho Ed Trends (as cited in Maxouris and Gray, 2018), almost 13% of the school’s population is Hispanic. 

The teachers dressed in a way that some parents “described as racist,” Superintendent Josh Middleton described the costumes as “clearly insensitive and inappropriate” and an immigrant rights advocate Beth Almanza commented that the photos were “extremely disheartening” and “heartbreaking” (Maxouris and Gray, 2018). This alone identities the controversy within the community and the potential harm to students. 

Given that there was potential harm to students, the retraction of the posts on Facebook, with the addition of an apology was a good first step in managing the incident. The Middleton School District states that it has a “goal to provide quality education… in an atmosphere safe for growing and learning” (About Us/About MSD, 2020). The retraction satisfies this portion of their mission. However, they also state that the learning should be completed “through the collaborative efforts of our staff, students, parents and community” (About Us/About MSD, 2020). 

The post from the Superintendent Middleton, creates what Grunning (as cited in Kowalski, 2011, p. 12) would call two-way asymmetrical communication. It is not collaborative. It does not create a meaningful dialogue between the stakeholders in the school community. The superintendent’s post creates a message intended to persuade the public that the removal of the content was a reasonable response. Members of the Facebook page would be able to reply to the post and comment, though this function in social-media would fall short of symmetrical communication; it is unlikely that “mutual understanding,” as described by Grunning, (as cited in Kowalski, 2011, p.12) would emerge from this lone response. 

This response falls short of the full force that public relations can have. The National School Public Relations Association (as cited in Kowalski, 2011, p. 14) defines Educational PR as “a planned and systematic two-way process of communications between an educational organization and its internal and external publics designed to build morale, goodwill, understanding, and support for that organization.” It would be interesting to follow up on the impact that this incident had in the community or if the superintendent was able to spark conversation or further actions in the community that did promote understanding and support for the organization. 

Because the response does not create dialogue or meaningful two-way communication,  the morale and goodwill that could have come from this difficult incident is missed. 

Considering different actions and approaches to only the Public Relations components of the response, the school could have held a community forum to discuss the issue, integrated community voices into the classroom to discuss immigration reform, and discussed the issue directly with the teachers. However, given the bandwidth of working time and attention, this response from Superintendent to internally review and publicly apologize may be all the time that was actually available. 

About Us / About MSD. (2020). Retrieved December 28, 2020, from https://www.msd134.org/domain/32

Kowalski, T. J. (2011). Public relations in schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Maxouris, C. & Gray, M. (2018). Elementary School Teachers in Idaho Dressed Up As a MAGA Border Wall for Halloween.  Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/us/idaho-teachers-border-costume-trnd/index.html

Grade Authentic Responses

I see teachers, in the current virtual teaching modality, struggling with student assessment. I have some thoughts on that.

First – grades are only as good as the test and do nothing to increase happiness. It is that- happiness that we need more of in the classroom. It is the only logical response to the mass global trauma that everyone is going through. Trauma changes the way your brain functions; it is not making logical choices, not everything is connecting fully.

I understand that people feel a need for control and the response goes to the authoritarian, information processing, teacher strategies that may have been handed down through teacher induction, mentoring, and systemic ideas about what education was.

Second – I have been asked this question multiple times:

How can we stop students from cheating on their at-home testing. My response, really goes to the core of, what are you teaching?

The problem: Teachers, why are you testing students on things that can be googled? Regardless of the constraints you place on them, time limits, screen-casting to document and monitor the test, locked google forms, and even education software that promises to manage it for you, students will find a way to cheat if they want. And then you still have to verify their work. This, at its core, is not the job of the teacher. That’s what a proctor does.

Here is a solution:  Why not give an exam that requires original creative thinking? Ask a question that gives the answer and the student must come up with the question. Ask for a book summary in the form of a monologue from the second most important character. Ask a riddle that has no answer (aside from the creative response that applies authentic connection with the material). Move the quiz into an oral defense of the work. With google we can use Blooms taxonomy to move beyond the facts and analysis (and the former style of info-processing teaching) and move into creation and synthesis. Test students on that.

When you engage students authentically, with personalized material, you increase the chances of intrinsic motivation. That is a key to happiness.

Subjective and Objective Student Assessment- A Thought Experiment on Student Learning

What assessment is fair to every student?

Imagine for a moment – you are a student, learning in a subject that you find to be difficult. Consider a time that you struggled to grasp the content; but, you ‘failed’ the mid-term exam. Can you remember a time in your life or the experience of your students that the ‘failure’ to learn at the mid-term actually motivated a positive growth in learning. What would be in the best interests of the student?

  • How would positive based assessment impact a student?
    • Why mark down incorrect understanding?
    • Why not reward correct knowledge?
    • Assessment at any time?
  • What would be the impact of students choosing their mode of assessment?
    • Unless the mode of assessment (a writing task in an English class for example) is germane to the assessment, why should the mode matter?
    • Can students show their understanding in multiple ways?
  • Could a student be assessed fairly at any time?
    • What if the student completes the learning task late? Does that change the amount they have learned?

What would be in the best interests of the teacher? The teacher has a set time-frame to assess every student – a semester, a week, a day perhaps. What would be fair to all of the students? If the teacher allows for maximum flexibility in assessment, are they setting the path to every student achieving their very best? What if the student does not display mastery at the same level as another student simply because the modality of the assessment does not allow for some expression of knowledge?

Suppose a science class is finishing a unit on the water cycle. One student might choose to be assessed traditionally by completing a paper based test. A second student may opt for more flexibility in how the information is presented and create a presentation with graphics and written paragraphs that explain the content. A third, less talented writer with test anxiety, may opt to create a dance that demonstrates the water cycle. All three students may have the same understanding. The mode of assessment will reveal different sets of knowledge.

The first student will show a prompted understanding of the knowledge deemed important by the teacher.

The second student – assuming they are a good writer – will be able to clearly articulate what they understand to be important in regards to the water cycle.

The third may be a highly accomplished dancer – and compose a dance that could be interpreted with all the same content as either of the first two students, but it is dependent on the teacher’s ability to understand the dance.

It seems there is a line between subjective assessment and objective assessment. Clear criteria, the correct and incorrect answers are set in one corner. As is the case with student one, accolades are given for reproducing the answer exactly as instructed. It is clear which student has the information and which does not. Some may argue that test anxiety gets in the way – a re-test on paper or even orally may be the remedy.

This is set against the modality of the student that creates their own mode of assessment and tells the teacher what they know. The second student clearly has done this.

The third student may need to interpret their work for the teacher, which is ultimately an oral report (a hybrid of student one and two); perhaps the second two students can even assesses their own work for their own grade. At what point is the assessment fair? At what point does the assessment support the learning of the student?

In life outside of school – which all teachers must consider in the instruction of students – the later, student created assessment, seems to be more applicable to growth. The answer to a real world problem rarely has a clear single solution. With the drive toward soft-skills such as flexibility and creativity this mode seems to be the most relevant. It also allows students to test how they want to be perceived in the world and how their ideas my be received. However, for the sake of teacher-ease and transparent fairness to the students, a clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answer is clearly the way to go.



Poetry Assessment Objectives IGCSE

Upon reflecting on effective teaching practices, here are four activities that engage students in the four AOs for IGCSE Literature.

FOR AO4: Display of Questions

I believe these questions are good starters for the students to identify their perspective on a text. There are two possible deployment tactics I would first take. OUT OF CLASS TACTIC: Primarily, given that my students are fairly high level, I would give these questions as an out-of-class assignment. Students would be instructed to read the text and then write for 10 minutes in response to the questions. The students would then come to class with these questions answered and ready to discuss them with small or large groups. IN CLASS TACTIC: On the opposite end of ability, my second deployment method, would be to provide sentence frames, helping my one low student respond to the questions. For example, in the question, ‘what words do you find most vivid?’ I would provide a frame for the response, ‘I find the word____________ most vivid because it reminds me of _______.’ Or, ‘List five words that you find to be important for the poem’ followed by a numbered list with blanks to fill in.

FOR AO2: Deeper Meanings

USE OF BLOOM’S TAXONOMY: The suggested activity asks pupils to ‘ask probing questions’. But, it lacks specificity. To support this activity, I would use Bloom’s Taxonomy. We would first identify factual elements of the poem. E.g. there are four quatrains and an A-B-A-B rhyme scheme. I would move to analysis questions. For example ‘what is the narrative content of the first quatrain, the second, third and fourth?’. Moving from identification and analysis, I would then ask them to make connections between the facts of the poem and the identified elements. I would use questions such as, ‘what is the importance…’, ‘what is the significance….’, ‘tell me why…’ and ‘tell me how…’. By identifying the elements that need to be connected, I can guide the pupils to make those connections. Students may respond orally or in writing. They may do the work individually or in groups. It could even be done as a presentation or interview (imagine students ‘pretending’ to be an expert on the poem and then answering the interview questions I identified earlier).

FOR AO3: Connecting to the text

PERFORMANCE AND DIRECTION: This activity suggests partners work together to identify elements such as enjambment, rhyme, and meter. I have used excellent speaking aloud work to do this. One student acts as a director and the other the performer. The performer stops when the director tells them to stop (e.g. at the end of the line), tells them to walk and helps them identify how fast to walk – in identification of the meter, and provides a gesture or movement to be symbolic of the rhyming elements (this works too with alliteration and assonance). The students trade positions and use a new or the same text. If using the same text, the students try to make new choices or pick a different element of focus.

GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION: The second part of the activity suggests that pupils comment on and identify devices – such as imagery, sound, and rhetorical devices. This too can work with a performative activity, as suggested above, or it can be effective graphically. Using class posters that include common elements such as: 1) The device, 2) a modern-language definition of the device, 3) examples from poems (and citations of which poem). Then groups can present on one element and identify all the devices. This can also be an effective tool to review and revise before a mock exam.

FOR AO1: Extension activity, peer-review

This activity suggests that students can essentially annotate the work of a peer and identify required or beneficial elements in a practice response. I would add to this with a reflective piece before the activity. REFLECTIVE PEER-REVIEW: For this activity I would start with the class by giving them the rubric with each band. I  would ask them to identify possible examples of what they may see in an essay, meeting each band. They may identify signpost language (e.g. key words such as ‘one key quote is…’), they may identify structure such as (PEEL), they may identify countable elements (such as one quote for each section of the poem). We would then create a shared annotation key (building from the one identified in the SOW). Students would peer-review, annotate, then talk back to their peer on their perspective of the work.

Reflection on PRESENTING in CLASS

I think presentation is essential. Therefore, I ask that my students do it frequently and the stress is lessened. All students are also rewarded with a single clap of respect from the entire class after every presentation, 1, 2, 3, *clap*. It’s just part of my expectations. However, I have provided accommodations for students gripped with fear. Accommodations have included, presentation in a seated position instead of standing in front of the class, written work read by another student on behalf of the shy student, small group instead of full class presentations, recorded at home and sent in presentations, and fully excused presentations as part of an identifiable medical disability. Any clearly seen accommodations like this are often accompanied with a class discussion about different abilities with fear and presenting – as well as why learning to talk in front of the group is important.

Assessment of Literature Ability

This one lesson activity is conceived of as being an INITIAL ASSESSMENT to analyze student ability at the start of an IGCSE literature course. It easily could be adapted to other subjects and grades in the upper school. 

OBJECTIVE: To identify literary elements within a text for further analysis

BELL RINGER: 1 minute: Name as many literary elements as possible (such as metaphor or simile)

PARTNER WORK: 10 minutes: – share your list with your partner. Define any common elements together. Define any unique elements on your own. Use your combined experience to craft a shared definition. Use a dictionary as needed.

(Informal teacher assessment here – observing the wealth of and accuracy of knowledge within the class)

GROUP ACTIVITY: 15 minutes: Share one element and the definition, aloud with the class (practice presentation of information). Individual students note any elements they did not have on their list, note definitions. Students should be left with a list of literary elements.

INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY: Formative assessment. 20 minutes:  Students are given one of four or five (depending on group size) short texts (a paragraph, a poem, for example – ideally from the syllabus for future scaffolding). Students, annotate their unique text in the following way. The teacher should provide a live demonstration of this – or at least an exemplar of annotation.

– Highlight any literary element

– Annotate a description of the element

– Make any connections, in writing to the text as a whole or to other literary elements

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT: Students turn in work from the class. Count literary elements with correct definitions. Note current knowledge of students.

NEXT CLASS: SMALL GROUP WORK: Pass back formative assessments: Students connect in groups (based on text) and make note of their work and compare to others. They review their understanding in contrast to others. Students create one large annotated (collaborative poster) on their text. Students present their work to the class. Students can then craft an essay in response to their text. Use a past paper question to guide the in-class text. This becomes a second formative assessment looking for essay structure and response style.

  1. THE ASSESSMENT WILL HELP present the learners’ level of understanding with factual information (identification of literary elements in a text) and the application of that understanding (composing an essay).
  2. WITH THIS INFORMATION instructional decisions will be made to teach (or not) the identification of literary elements, textual annotation, essay composition.
  3. LEARNERS WITHOUT THE ABILITY will be identified from the first ten minutes of class. They could get, elements highlighted but not identified (or the reverse “look for a comparison”). Learners may need ESL accommodations (such as mother tongue translation). Learners may need to be referred to a learning support team. This two day assessment will identify a range of skills that can be scaffolded. It will also provide support to the student through the collaborative elements.