In an evidence-based grading model, we know that the proficiency expectation is the most critical component of being able to classify student performance and ultimately give a grade. In Proficiency-Based Assessment (Gobble et al., 2016), we offer the following example of how a proficiency-based learning target is used for evidence-based grading. This example is a proficiency-based expectation for a unit of study on World War I:
If we develop a gradation of learning and proficiency for our World War I target, it may look something like the following.
4—Using unique examples and opinions, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
3—Using examples from class, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
2—Using given definitions and terms, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis.
1—Using a text, students will be able to effectively explain the main political, economic, and social causes of World War I in a written analysis. (pp. 19–20, emphasis added)
This particular proficiency scale pertains to a written analysis of WWI’s causes and breaks down the expectations for learning. A learning gradation like this positions proficiency as a 3, which helps both the teacher and student develop a better picture of the student’s growth and achievement in relation to a stated level of proficiency. Proficiency-based learning targets clarify the differences in student growth, providing students with clear descriptions of a learning destination: proficiency or mastery. This articulates how students are performing and where they have room for growth. A curriculum that supports evidence-based grading provides proficiency-based learning targets that clearly outline the intended competency or learning progression for students.
Instruction Focuses on Teacher and Student Reactions to Student-Produced Evidence
Teachers tend to intentionally plan traditional instructional sequences, deliver them in scaffolded segments, and verify their efficacy with either a formative or summative assessment. Evidence-based instruction is much different. It demands evidence. So, teachers must work with students to see the evidence of learning before they plan what direction the instruction takes from that point forward. In evidence-based grading, the sequence looks more like this: (1) observe and collect evidence of learning through formative assessment, (2) intentionally react by deploying instruction and engagement strategies, and (3) reflect on the state of learning and the potential for growth.
As we know from experience, traditional instructional techniques often promote shallow retention of material and can actually slow down the learning process for students. Figure I.1 shows the traditional instructional sequence: each small circle represents an instance of teaching and assessing a small component of what teachers ultimately expect of the student. The teacher moves deliberately from one small component to another before ultimately teaching and assessing students on the learning target. The larger circle at the end of the line represents this assessment.
Source: Gobble et al., 2016.
Figure I.1: Traditional sequence of instruction and assessment.
Evidence-based instruction focuses on the student’s reaction instead of the teacher’s delivery, so teachers must direct the lesson while learning is happening and determine the direction to take based on student-produced evidence, as figure I.2 (page 8) illustrates. The small dots in figure I.2 represent students, and the big circles represent what the teacher expects students to ultimately know or do (learning target or desired level of proficiency). Notice that students move closer and closer to desired levels of proficiency. They do this by recalling, reflecting on, applying, and reapplying the small components of a given learning target.
Figure I.2: Evidence-based sequence of instruction and assessment.
Think about it this way: figure I.1 is like teaching a child how to ride a bike by making sure he or she knows all the bike parts (pedals, handlebars, and so on) and how they function. Figure I.2 represents how you would actually teach a child to ride the bike. You let the child get on the bike right away, and he or she learns to ride while simultaneously making sense of the bike parts.
In evidence-based grading, teachers must remember that instruction has no shape or size. The first step is to realize that lessons are not small, systematic increments to success, but rather arbitrary reactions to student input and output. Evidence-based instruction promotes self-reflective interaction with expectations. Subsequently, evidence-based instruction manages and supports a space for learning to occur.
When instruction focuses on reaction, the lesson centers less on the teacher. Students become more involved in their own learning. However, this only happens when teachers use proficiency-based learning targets. Proficiency-based learning targets are defined states of competency that act as learning outcomes (Gobble et al., 2016). In Proficiency-Based Assessment, Gobble et al. (2016) state that proficiency-based learning targets have three components.
1. Proficiency language outlines the intended state of competency. Examples of this language include words such as effectively, main, appropriate, all, and creatively. These words are important because they contextualize the state of competency for students as well as allow students to accurately perceive their own state of competency. Moreover, these words create the reflective foundation for learners to gain appropriate perspective and prevent them from becoming overconfident in their skills or knowledge.
2. Measurable language outlines how students show the extent of their competency. Examples of this language include phrases such as in writing, with sufficient detail, in order, and with personal connection. These phrases are important because they state the framework through which we evaluate competency. For example, if the proficiency-based learning target has the measurable language in writing, learners know that teachers will evaluate their competency via what they write.
3. Gradations of competency are essential for self-reflection and growth. According to Gobble et al. (2016), gradations properly contextualize proficiency, create purpose for instructional activities, make student-produced evidence growth driven, and provide a script for quality feedback. Evidence-based grading is a method for learning, not just a way to determine a grade.
Evidence-based instruction means that learning targets are active learning tools for students. Teachers and students use feedback related to the target to help students grow, reflect on learning, organize their thoughts, review work, self-assess, and revise learning to demonstrate growth in a skill area. Clear feedback helps students relate the target to the evidence they create, which is at the center of the learning process. This is similar to backward design, in which the value lies in students knowing expectations for outcomes prior to starting the learning process.
Incorporating reflective and reaction-based instructional practices makes it more likely that students achieve