6 – The Anatomy of a Learning Outcome: An Interview with Joe Zeccola

Episode 6 • 22nd August 2023 • The Grading Podcast • Sharona Krinsky and Robert Bosley

Joe Z: What we're talking about is the goal. The point is it's supposed to be a tool for the kid. And I agree with that a hundred percent. I just want the tool to also be something that helps the kid to see themselves differently. Right? And that's very important to me.

Sharona: Absolutely. So your learning target is clear, it's clearly measurable. It's at an appropriate level. Do you think that the student can look at a piece of work and look at the learning target and sort of self-assess whether or not they're getting there?

Bosley: Welcome to the grading podcast, where we'll take a critical lens to the methods of assessing students' learning. From traditional grading to alternative methods of grading. We'll look at how grades impact our classrooms and our students' success. I'm Robert Bosley, a high school math teacher, instructional coach, intervention specialist, and instructional designer in the Los Angeles Unified School District and with Cal State la.

Sharona: And I'm Sharona Krinsky, a math instructor at Cal State Los Angeles, faculty coach and instructional designer. Whether you work in higher ed or K 12, whatever your discipline is, whether you are a teacher, a coach, or an administrator, this podcast is for you.

Each week, you will get the practical, detailed information you need to be able to actually implement effective grading practices in your class and at your institution.

Welcome everyone back to The Grading Podcast. I'm Sharona Krinsky, one of your co-hosts, and I have here with me our other co-host, Boz. And today we're really excited to have on the pod with us, Joe Zeccola. Joe is a National Board certified English teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District and a union activist, and other than that, I'm going to have him introduce himself. So, Joe, welcome to the pod.

Joe Z: Thanks for having me. I'm excited to be here. I was a little offended that I was not Bosley's first guest, but I'm, I'm working my way around that slight, and we'll figure it out.

Sharona: Well, you were Bosley's first guest, but we know who really runs the show around here and so my mentor got interviewed a couple, couple of episodes ago.

Joe Z: Well, I mean, I, I'm okay with you doing it, but I still choose to believe it was Bosley who slighted me. So let's just roll with that.

Sharona: Okay. We'll go with that. Is that okay with you, Boz?

Bosley: You are our first non-stem guest and our first from the K-12 world.

Joe Z: Civilian, as you would call them. Right?

Sharona: Exactly. Exactly. So thanks for coming on. So clearly Joe, you and I have worked together a little bit. You've worked a lot more with, with Bosley. Why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself and why you agreed, other than the arm twisting, to come on the pod?

Joe Z: So I've been teaching in one form or another for over 20 years. I've been teaching in LAUSD for 15. Actually no. Wow. This is my 16th year teaching. And, really I'm one of the people in the world, I'm, I'm doing, you know, like a lot of people, teaching was my sort of second choice profession, but is my first love. So I'm, I'm one of the people doing who's happier in his second choice profession than his first, and I would say at least for the last, gosh, eight plus years, grading has been a huge part of that. And a big journey I started with Bosley, so I was honored and delighted to come on the podcast.

Sharona: Well, that's, thank you very much. That's, that's high stakes. Boz, anything you wnat to add to Joe's introduction of himself?

Bosley: Well, I just kind of wanted you, 'cause one of the things we like to do, especially with guests, the first time they're on, is kind of ask them, you know, their, their origin story into alternative grading. Like, how did you come to this you know, different way of grading?

Joe Z: Sure. I mean this, you know, looking back on the time we spent together at Santee with the principal, we had Martine Gomez, they were doing a lot of very valuable training. They put a lot of money. They, and the partnership for Los Angeles schools, put a lot of money into training teachers in a lot of really effective ways.

And Bosley and I are both truly collaborative teachers who, you know, who give a damn. So we immediately sort of found each other and connected in terms of our connection with students. So that, that was sort of the beginning was we're both growth mindset people. And I, you know, we had a long trip down to San Diego where we did a conference.

So we spent, you know, because we left I think rush hour traffic, so we spent about two and a half hours in the car, you know, getting to know each other and realizing we, we agreed on most things. And then started sort of giving each other stuff to think about in areas where we didn't have expertise.

And the beginning of that was, of course, where most people sort of begin in this journey is the case against the zero. And I think Bosley discovered that about six months, eight months before I did, I went to there, we kept pushing. Similarly Santee Education Complex paid to send me to a DuFour PLC conference.

And I had a seminal training there that really sort of blew my mind in the sense it was, it was all about understanding how to score with, they call them rubrics, what I now know as proficiency scales. Just a, you know, scoring, scoring one element or scale on a zero to four, a standardized Marzano proficiency scale.

And it was one of the most sort of mind blowing experiences for me because I realized very quickly that most teachers, especially English teachers like myself, misused a proficiency scale in that we don't make each element distinct each, each level of proficiency distinct. So what English teachers have been doing for years is making the four, sort of a three plus.

And the idea was, is that each level, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0 is no evidence. Each level gives the teacher something to do. So a 0 is no evidence to assess. A 1 is you're far from where I want you. A 2 is you're close to where I want you. A 3 is you've met the target that I want you to be at. And a 4 is you're beyond the target so sufficiently that I need to differentiate instruction for you.

So that sort of was similarly working on me and really sort of blowing me away. And I sort of brought that back and pushed it into a lot of the data-driven instruction we were doing while at the same time I was sort of killing the zero. I'd switched my zeros and my percentage, percentage based grade book scale into 35s.

That way just, you know, not turning something in got you a 35 out of a hundred and then turning something in that was just not good at all, that was an F, was 55 and then 65, and then 75, then 85, and then 95, and I even think I had a hundred too. So I think at that point, let's see, 35, 50, 60, 70, 80. So I was like in a weird seven point scale.

I was, I was, I was getting closer to something manageable in my head without realizing it. So there were no scores in my grade book that weren't 35, 55, 65, 75, 85, 95 or a hundred. And I hadn't realized what I was doing was slowly but truly shifting my grades to that zero to four proficiency scale that I was working on.

And while all this was happening, I was recognizing as I was becoming better as an educator, I was beginning my national board's journey that my students' work wasn't aligning to my percentage based grades. So I get to, to final grades, and I have a kid who was killing it, but the percentage based algorithm with the, with all the, you know, what percentage is this worth, what value is, that wasn't lining up.

And I was telling myself that the problem was I was cheating as a teacher, right? I was being unfair to the rigid algorithm that was so scientifically based that I had set up with a hundred point scale and it forced me, little by little, to start, you know, without knowing I was doing it, use my judgment and tweak things.

And I was literally trying to create, you know, new math equations to do it until finally right around the time that I was leaving Santee to, to go to a different school in, in the six months preceding it and the six months after I had left about, I don't know, I'd say six to seven different people, starting with a guy I used to work with, he was an administrator at a nearby school and came to a baseball game, when I was on a free period, I'd walked down, he told me he was at the school, and this guy was a very good teacher who became administrator. He said, have you looked at mastery learning? And a bunch of people had started to tell me around the same time.

And by the time I had switched to the school I'd left Santee for, they had a cohort that was doing training every week, and that sort of shifted me into it. And that was sort of my origin story. And I can go deeper into how that journey's gone since. But the, to sort of wrap it up in a bow, not only have I, you know, gone full bore into standards-based mastery or as LAUSD calls it equitable grading instruction.

I used it to maintain my national board certification. It was, the entirety of that work was around my grading practices. I just finished a micro-credential in it with LAUSD. I'm a facilitator so I can train others. And I'm our school's, what's called Equitable Grading Champion, which, you know, it's just a ridiculous name, but it does mean they pay us to get other teachers to do this kind of work.

Bosley: See, and that, that's interesting. You, you brought up that San Diego, what was that Illuminate workshop? That we went down there together and, you know, that's really kind of where, not where we met, but where our friendship really started. You know, I talked about my origin story and, and one of our first episodes, I didn't talk about that, but that was really where my beginning of training people outside of the math department, like my journey of trying to train people into more equitable grading started. You know, and you and I did that whole series of case against the zero of, of trying to get our, our whole staff.

And at one point we did get them away from using zeros because of, you know, just the mathematical penalty and just death sentence to a grade that, that, you know, a zero has on a hundred point scale that, you know, we talked about Sharona on our episode on what's wrong with traditional grading and, you know, Guskey and O'Connor and several others have written several things about, but you, you mentioned probably one of the most well-known and used articles that, that Cast Against the Zero.

Sharona: So, my question though. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. I was saying my question to you, Joe, is why were you open to that article? Like why, how, why did that article make you willing to throw out, you know, a hundred years of grading practice?

Joe Z: Well, I mean, for me, it, it's, it's, it's a simple thing. I'm, I'm, I've already, I've already seen enough to know that as soon as I read it, you know, I'm a growth mindset person.

I don't want to say that sort of like it's trite. What I mean is as soon as I see evidence that something I'm doing isn't working, I, you know, I long ago gave up the idea that I couldn't change practice based on evidence. So it was just so stunning to me. Again, the amount of damage, a zero data in a percentage based system, that it, it was, it was inarguable to me. Like the part I found, you know, amusing and yet frustrating is, you know, my colleagues who would just rigidly go, yeah, but they didn't do it. They gave a zero. Not understanding that the impact, you know, the sentence far outweighed the crime, for a better way to say it.

So you, the, you know, what the damage it was doing did not penalize a kid for not turning work in, the damage it did destroy the kid's grades. So it was a very easy shift for me. Once I read it, I mean, I, I just sort of had a, whoa, this is, this is terrible. I'd never thought about that, you know, and I, and, and maybe I had thought about it in the abstract of, well, we'll get 'em some more assignments and maybe I had, on a student to student basis, created more opportunities for them to do stuff.

But I never thought about it systematically in that way. So that was, it was a, a real, a real eye-opener that just started the journey of the, there's, there's a lot wrong with percentage-based grades.

Bosley: Yeah. And I, and I also think that is a good example of, you know, we, Sharona, you and I talked a lot of different issues with traditional grading on that, that "what's wrong with traditional grading" episode, and here's an example of, you know, still utilizing traditional grading, but trying to make it more equitable by, you know, addressing one of those issues. But then it still led to so many other issues still being there. And, you know, like Joe was saying, once he, you know, he was slowly making these changes towards a, a four point rubric without even knowing it.

And then once he got introduced to, you know, what was then called Mastery, Mastery Based Learning, or Mastery Grading you know, he, he, it clicked, it made sense of, you know, some of these other things that he was trying to do, but still was having to fudge around with, with the end grades and still having to make adjustments.

Joe Z: And, and just to get, to make, to really concretize sort of what I was wrestling with and what most teachers, especially if they, they serve, you know, kids who are severely underserved or you know, who need far more than they're getting.

I had a couple of 11th graders in Avid my last year at, at Santee. I had them ninth, 10th, 11th, and two of these young women were just tanking. And they were, they were related. And they came to talk to me one day after school and they started crying and started telling me this whole story about how their father had gone to jail.

Their, they lost their house, so they had to move in with relatives. They were crammed in one room where they didn't want to be, the family who was, who was holding them, didn't want them. So basically they were, you know, constantly walking on eggshells, afraid they were going to lose shelter. And, you know, and, and that would just tell me to the teacher, like, can you care about doing work in my class?

Why? Right. And what I remember saying to them, and I, I said it with the confidence of, you know, teachers like Bosley and I at Santee were very highly regarded by administration. They knew we, we put in the work, they knew we cared, they knew we had the research to back us up. So if I needed to get some flexibility for an administrator, I would get it.

But I didn't connect this to a problem with grading until this all clicked, which was, I said to them, look, you've done nothing. And now we're in like early November. What I can tell you is I can look your parents, my principal and the superintendent in the eye and start you over right now. And, and, and just excuse all of that if you could just show me some, and I remember using these words, some consistent evidence that you can do it, not realizing there was a whole grading philosophy that was anchored in that. And that's what it's there for, right? For whatever reason, it isn't, it isn't there for just a kid who has holy crap crises going on, but just for whatever reason. That if the work isn't done early, but it's done later, why am I creating a penalty system as opposed to assessing what the kid can do consistently at any given moment.

Sharona: Exactly. Exactly. And that's where so many people have come, come from for this. And I guess my next question, there's a couple of things that we want to get to, but my next question is, how has that played out for you over the years since making this change?

What are the things that you see the most and and what are you still grappling with?

Joe Z: I'm grappling, well, I'll, I'll start with the grappling 'cause it just comes for first, for foremost to mind. I'm grappling with the same things I've been grappling with since I started teaching, which is how do I do it better?

How do I do it faster? How do I create less work for myself? And some of that just seems to be happening other than the fact that I'm kind of a lunatic in that I create more work for myself because I find new challenges and new things that I want to engage in. So like this last year, I, I stupidly took on the challenge and, you know thank the universe, my wife really supports my, my teaching journey. So she was like, yeah, you do it. We have a four year old, yet I took on this unpaid micro-credential, which was hundreds of hours of work. But that micro-credential led to all this new learning, some of which I even brought to Bosley, the Guskey book, even though you know all about Bloom and stuff.

But that's Guskey's third edition of implementing Mastery Learning became a, a a point of a point of discussion for us when I was looking at the second edition, which was out of print, found out the third edition was about to come out, you know, almost, almost 25 years later. But so the grappling is, I'm just, I'm, I'm trying to, I'm always trying to find a way to systematize it.

We, we, because of, you know, most school grade books are still integer based one way or the other. And, and LAUSD uses Schoology, which is less flexible than others, probably more flexible than some. We're hacking the grade book to make it work with our grading system, but it works. You know, so that's my grappling with, is trying to figure out a way to always communicate it more clearly.

I've got pushback from colleagues who just wanted to, they, they love the percentage based system because they believe that gives them something real. What they really get like is that they can quickly see a number and it tells them they think something. Right. And what Bosley and I would say is it tells them nothing but it, there is a number there, right?

Whereas in my case, there is no number they can find. So they actually have to, either try to understand the system, which I'm happy to do or talk to me, you know, one of the two. What I see the most is students after pushing back and after fighting it and after whining about the change. By the end of the year, they go, oh my God, I love that so much better.

Because there's, there's always a moment, you know, with five to 10 students in a class where they have that moment where I go, I've got the evidence I need. You know, I had a student who was a real hard worker, but could be really annoying in the sense of checking their grade all this time. And, and at one point they didn't do this last essay well, but they'd shown me five other times they did something.

They're like, do I need to redo the essay? And I looked at 'em and said, no. And their, their eyes popped out of their head and go, I've got the evidence I need kid, you're fine. You know, and they were like shocked. I'm like, it's not a favor, you, I've got the evidence. Right. You know, I had a kid, two kids actually, who just tanked the most important essay in my class, but they had blown up, a bunch of time, rights that was demonstrating the same, that was demonstrating the same skill for the exam. And what I was able to do, and they both redid it because I told 'em, I said, well, you've got no problem. You're, you didn't damage your A, all you damaged was my respect for you because you clearly didn't try on this.

And I said, but I'm not touching your A , you've got mastery of the skill. And then I suppose that happened was I got the rewrites because they didn't want me to be, you know, looking ascance at them. You know? So I see that a lot. And then the other thing I see, which is the challenge, and this is something that teachers have to sort of steel themselves for, is when it becomes clear that I take late work, I become the lowest priority because I've got colleagues who fetishize deadlines, right?

So that means I have to create other forms of pressure, that respect thing we talked about, you know, getting into kids' faces in, in, in nice but uncomfortable ways, things like that. So that is part of it, the work now, but I, I would, I'd be lying if I said I have a bigger problem with students not submitting work than I had before.

Right. Because a lot of the students who do that are the better students now, so I'm still going to get it. You know, they just push it back a little bit and then when they realize it's not, I'm going to make them uncomfortable, then they don't, you know, and then the ones that don't, were probably not going to anyway, unless we, unless we apply different kinds of pressure.

And those are the challenges that teachers see, period. So, you know ups and downs, a lot of, a lot of it's the same. But you know, the one thing I guess I haven't said is I feel like it, and we can talk, talk about this more. I'm sure these are based, you know, in your questions, Sharona, but I would, I would argue that I have such better understanding of what my students can do and what they know now I have, and I can explain why. And I have far more comprehensive knowledge of them from my grade book. My grade book communicates something to me and to them in ways it never did before.

Sharona: And to follow up on that, sorry boz, one question and I'll let you talk. What has it done to your relationship with your students?

Joe Z: Oh, that's, you were such a great follow up and you're so right that, that, you know the school I'm at now, marsh John Marshall High School in LAUSD and the school I was at, Sherman Oaks Center for Enriched Studies have a fairly high number of high achievers, but they're both diverse, you know, mixed population schools with every type of student you can imagine, but a fairly high population of kids who are convinced they're going to college and doing well, which usually creates some pretty serious grade grubbing and what it's done immediately, and again, I can go into detail about how I did this and all that, but is when they say, how do I get an A, I say, show me, you can do these things.

Right? So it immediately pushes them to the learning targets, which are "I Can..." Statements, which tell them what they need to be able to do. There are no points, there is no extra, there is no dumping work on me. Right? So the conversations shift to how do I do this? And, and it creates learning. And it's, it's wonderful in that regard.

That's been the most profound thing. It's certainly part of what I used to maintain my national board certification for sure.

Bosley: And that's, that's really interesting you bring up those conversations. 'cause one of the things that you and I talked about Sharona on I think it was our first episode, was how bad our first attempt of doing this was.

And I think you asked me, you know, considering how, how much of a disaster it was, why did you stick with it? And it was the conversations I had with the students. You know, I in particular, the, the conversation that every teacher has, especially high school teachers or K 12 teachers, that time when grades come up, you know, hey, hey Mr, how do I get more points? How do I, you know, get a higher grade? I've never had that conversation since I've switched. It's been, you know, okay, what do I need to show you about learning target two, if that's what's keeping me, you know, So it's, it's instantly became about mathematics and about the learning and not about points. And you know, you, you were talking about how that conversation looks at the beginning of the year, but it's, yeah, it's that same conversation, which I think, again, that's what has sold me.

That that is why I will never go back, is I'm no longer having conversations about gaming, you know, grades or point grabbing. It's, it's about the mathematics, it's about the learning. It's about what the student actually needs to improve on. That also though, kind of brings us up to the topic of this episode and really why we wanted you on here this time.

Although I already have another episode that I'm going to want to bring you back talking about student buy-in and, and you know, how do you get students that aren't used to the system and what do you do when you do have that pushback? So we'll definitely be inviting you back for that episode later, Joe.

But this episode really is about learning targets. When we were talking in some of our earlier episodes, learning targets, not only is it one of the four pillars of you know, alternative grading, it is also the first thing you kind of have to do before you start putting the nuts and bolts, what we call the grading architecture, together.

So that's really what this episode is going to focus on, which is why we wanted to bring you on because you are in a very different discipline than I am. And again, you have, you know, your experience with K 12, both from, you know, I know you've done everything from, you know, remedial freshman level English classes to AP Lit and Lang.

You've, you've read for both AP Lit and Lang, so you have this really wide, you know, background in the English world at, at the high school level. So we wanted to bring you on to kind of talk about those learning targets, what they look like, the different types of learning targets, how you kind of come up with those Sharona.

Where, where do you want to start with this?

Sharona: Well, I, I want to start with, talk about the different types of learning outcomes that you have in your courses and how you come up with them, and then maybe some, a little bit about the anatomy of it, like what makes a good learning outcome.

Joe Z: Sure. I mean, I don't have, I don't have content-based learning targets or learning outcomes.

I'm not... and, and the more I know, the less I'm interested in them. You know, I've, I have a, a colleague who is a physics teacher and he's been moved to get rid of his content based ones. Because even if you do four to five skills, as you rotate through content, you have to keep demonstrating those skills and, and baked into that as learning that content so that, that moved him in that direction.

For me, it's always been easier. But I would say broadly I have, I have two types of learning outcomes broadly and then a little more differentiated after that. But the broad based ones are, I have higher level thinking, learning outcomes, and I have more discipline, specific learning outcomes that are necessary, but not necessarily demonstrative of higher level thinking.

So I have a reflection inquiry learning target, which you can demonstrate in conversation, but mostly through writing reflections or writing other pieces of writing that have reflective piece. I've got analysis learning targets I've got synthesis learning targets, argument learning targets. All of those demonstrate higher level thinking in one way or the other.

And then in the discipline specific ones, I've got ones that are specifically writing based, ones that are speaking and listening based which I would argue may be the most important because how we learn, like what we're doing right now is just talking to one another and really listening and building off one another.

And I'll have some of the more mechanical things English teachers have, but even that, that's one, that's one learning target for me. So those are the type of learning targets I do. And again, for, for the most part, they're just, they're just divided under about a third of them demonstrate higher level thinking, and the other two thirds are more discipline specific.

Sharona: So can you give an so, oh...

Bosley: I was, so when you say discipline specific, because I, we made a point about this when we talked about you know, learning targets. I'm gonna read you one of the Common Core standards, and you tell me if this is an appropriate learning target in, in your class. Demonstrate knowledge of 18th, 19th, and early 20th century foundational works of American literature, including how to, or more texts from the same period, treats similar themes or topics.

So is that the type of learning target when you talk about discipline specific?

Joe Z: No, although there's some synthesis embedded in that, that I could use. Right? Like looking at multiple texts and, and, and drawing, making connections between them could hit my reflection one. And then you could also be using evidence from multiple texts to, to push your own argument, which would be synthesis, synthesizing multiple works, you know?

But No, absolutely not. And you were, you were going to ask for, for examples of those?

Sharona: Yeah, I was going to say, can you give me an example of, say, a synthesis learning target or a reflection one?

Joe Z: Yeah, let me just, let, just pull up real, real quick. And read them to you. Yeah, I'll read you the, I can statements really quickly, but Yeah, for sure not that. The, you know, the, the, the 18th century stuff, like, I want, like, I'm going to look at some of those texts, but I, that's the end of the day. I could care less. You know, I care that the, that kids have the ability to go engage that, that stuff, that's what I care about. Let's see. Is this the, yeah, so here's the, here's the learning target for synthesizing information from multiple sources.

I can integrate material and ideas from multiple texts, media types and or sources in order to answer a question, solve a problem, or support my own argument.

Bosley: Okay. And I think that is a perfect example of how you're not, you're not ignoring the common core state standards. Because those are, you know, legally what we are supposed to be teaching.

You're not ignoring that in any way at all. But that's not the learning target. The, the learning target, like you just read, you know, utilizes and can incorporate that common core standard. But that's not your learning target. The common core standard is not, you know, word for word what the students are being graded on.

Joe Z: Correct. Well, I I think that leads to another point that is worth mentioning. And I, I tell this like when I was, when I was doing a, a professional development session on this, you can't do one for one anyway. There are too many standards, right? So my learning targets incorporate multiple standards. My synthesis one, I had redesigned it recently, so I haven't put the, the actual whole count of common core, but I'll give you the count for, for example, analyzing rhetorical details of text in relation to purpose, which is the primary 11th grade learning target for analysis, rhetorical analysis, I'm just looking right here. Let's see. It is 1, 2, 3, 4 common core standards. So there you go. You know what I mean? Like the idea is there are mashups of standards and some standards overlap, between learning targets and so that's that one. Do you want to hear another one?

Is that important or are we good with the one?

Sharona: Well, before we go on to another one, I want to hear, I want to see if I can reiterate to you what I heard in that, that statement that you just made. So first of all, you want the student to do something, right? You want them to integrate this information in order to do a variety of things, answer a question, different kinds of things, right?

Right. So it sounds like you have an action verb in there, and it's an action verb that you can externally measure. Correct?

Joe Z: Oh yeah. And, and it's, and it's, you know, do you, is it solving a problem? Is it answering a question or more often support my own argument? Right. Okay. So I, I, I, what, you know, and that's usually what it is, I just have the other ones in there because sometimes when there's problem solving, they'll make a connection and I'll hear that and I'll quickly document that.

You just showed me you can synthesize kiddo, or, or in a conversation, they'll answer a question by putting a couple of different texts together or or, or different ideas together that were clearly from different units and you see this higher level thinking going on. But more often than not, it's, I want to see them use other people's ideas to, to support their own argument, because that's something we all have to do.

And we spend, you know, gosh, I'd say, you know, half of our submitted work in college or more is doing that. Mm-hmm. Right. So it, it's just really, really important. So that's, that's, but that's it. And yes, there they all have to be doable.

Sharona: Right? So you've got an externally measurable thing, an action that someone has to take. You have that "I can" statement, right? So the student is identifying with it. Your language seems like something an 11th grader would be able to understand. Like that if an 11th grader could read that learning target and understand what you're trying to get them to do.

Joe Z: Yep. Yeah. I, I'm, I'm somewhere in the middle on the kid friendly language stuff. And what I mean by that is I'm never dumbing down for kids. Right. Because I, I want them, I want it, I want them to think of themselves as scholars, but I also don't want to have their eyes glaze over. Like, if the three of us, you know, had to look at a, a traditional PhD dissertation, we'd want to kill ourselves.

Right. And, and I know the trend in academia is actually pushing away from that for that very reason. That when the goal is to increase the body of knowledge, why on earth are you giving me something that is so hard to engage? Right? But, so that's the balance I'm doing is I want them to, I want it to elevate a little bit and make them feel like I'm going to become, you know, a badass in this room, you know, but I want them to be able to engage with it and not be turned off by the language as well.

Sharona: Right. Well, and my argument, especially in our discipline, where some of the content, you cannot understand the language until you've learned it. But my argument is at least after you've shown proficiency in that skill, you should be able to understand the language.

Right? Yep. So, so it may not be beforehand, like in engineering, one of our, our, our teachers likes to say they have to be able to draw a free, a free body diagram. Now you understand each of those words, free and body and diagram, but you probably don't know what a fee a free body diagram is. I don't know what your answer.

Joe Z: I definitely do not. Right?

Sharona: Yeah. But if you learned it, then you could go back and read this standard and you would understand it, right? Yep. So, so, You don't necessarily need to be able to understand it before you do it, but you certainly need to be able to understand it after it. And the reality is, if you were to take your 11th grade standard and show it to a fourth grader, they might not be able to understand that language.

Correct. Correct. So you don't wanna be so far away that, you know.

Joe Z: Right. But I don't care if a fourth grade group, but you're right, I I, I would like a, I would like a 10th grader to be able to look at it and have an idea. Mm-hmm. Right. Because yeah. So yeah, I just, I just, the only thing, the only thing I sort of bristle at is some of that kid friendly language stuff.

You know, like, again, what we're talking about is the goal. The, the point is it's supposed to be a tool for the, for the kid. Right. And I agree with that a hundred percent. I just want the tool to also be something that helps the kid to see themselves differently. Right. Absolutely. And that's very important to me.

Sharona: Absolutely. So you have, so your, your learning target is clear, it's clearly measurable. It's at an appropriate level. Do you think that the student can look at a piece of work and look at the learning target and sort of self-assess whether or not they're getting there?

Joe Z: With the proficiency scale? You bet. Because the proficiency scale you know, one of the things that, you know, it's funny, I'm a, I'm a union activist, but one of the things I say over and over again and, you know, we've, you know, Bosley and I have been part of two strikes in the last six years against this district. As much as I organize against some of the things that this district district has done, the training around what was called mastery learning grading is now called equitable grading and instruction has been fantastic.

And that includes something they called an unconference, which is basically they give you 10 day, 10 hours of PD time, over two days to develop products and with help with coaches. And one of the things they did, that was so tremendous, is they really helped me to rethink my proficiency scale. So I took, you know, there, of the 10 hours, I think there's two hours of time that's like little mini lesson and a little debrief with that, so it's eight hours of work, I'd say. Of those eight hours I spent six and a half just tweaking this proficiency scale that that ended up becoming the model for the rest of mine. And the whole point of it was, was to make it into digestible checks box, text box, I'm sorry, check box chunks. So that when a student looks at what is proficient for this learning target, they're seeing digestible, I've gotta do this - check, I've gotta do this - check.

And it makes it very easy for them to understand. So when I have that and I combine it, you know, with some exemplars of successful work, You know, and, you know, obviously some introductionary teaching, but they can keep returning to those proficiency scales and using them to self-assess, which is the whole point.

And that's, even their thinking in this unconference was you've created a great tool for a student here. And I think that's, that's the most important part. If it's not for them to use, what am I doing it for.

Sharona: Right. So two things to follow up on that. Can we hear one of your discipline standards and can you share one of those proficiency scales that goes with one of those?

Joe Z: Yeah.

Sharona: Your discipline practice standards.

Joe Z: Mm-hmm. So let's just be crafting thesis statements. Okay. All right. And let me open it up. There we go. Bear with me. Okay. I can create a thesis statement which not only presents my opinion as an arguable idea, but also provides a clear roadmap to focus and develop my argument.

And by the way, that's common core standards: writing 2, 4, 5, 6. So again, four standards for the thesis. And then you want to hear the, you want me, you want to hear the criteria?

Sharona: Yeah. The proficiency scale.

Joe Z: Yeah. So here's what meets the learning target is: your thesis statement, written or stated, demonstrates that you have a clear, understandable argument and for analysis, essays, a defensible interpretation of the text, which also establishes a line of reasoning.

And then I have three checks box, three text box here. Your thesis presents a clear and understandable argument. Second one, your thesis sets up a line of reasoning, and I put in parentheses what that is, multi-part argument that if followed would structure and focus your essay. And then finally, if your essay is analysis a) if it's AP English language, generalizes the rhetor's claim in their text and what they want to persuade their audience to think she would do as a result of the argument. Or if it's AP lit: generalizes the meaning of the text into at least one big idea or theme and one simple truth that the text communicates.

Sharona: So that's your, your meets expectations. What are the other levels on that proficiency scale?

Joe Z: So for Exceeds it would be: your argument is persuasive which is nuanced and explores complexities or tensions within the situation and or articulates the implications or limitations of the argument by situating it within a broader context.

And then that's, that's laying argument if you were doing, and then it does it for each different type of essay. So if it was an analysis: generalizes the rhetor's claim in their text and what they want to persuade the audience think field will do with the argument and demonstrates a complex understanding of the rhetorical situation.

For lit: generalize the meeting into at least one big idea and one simple truth that the text communicates and demonstrates sophistication of thought. And then it sets up a line of reasoning that would structure or focus your essay in a sophisticated, insightful, and or nuanced way. And then for analysis essay specifically, it also adds: identifying and exploring complexities, attentions with the text and or articulating the implications or limitations of an argument by situating it within a broader context.

And then for English literature: identifying, exploring complexities or tensions with the text and or illuminating the student's interpretation by, again, situating it within a broader context, which basically means, you know, connecting it to the world they live in. That's the four. The exceeds the "2" lists, the things they may not have done and you and it sort of becomes list may not have been missed.

Sharona: So does it have a, does it have a descriptor like developing or almost there or?

Joe Z: Yes, it exceeds. It's, so "4" is exceeds learning target. "2" is approaching learning target. Okay. "1" is does not yet meet learning target. Okay.

Bosley: And then so you're still using that growth language, that growth mindset language in all four of your categories.

Joe Z: Does not yet meet, approaching, meets, exceeds.

Yep. And then for the, just the language and the "2": your thesis statement demonstrates you have a defensible interpretation of the text, but you either might not yet have established a line of reasoning or your line of reasoning is not yet sound. I. Okay. Yeah.

Bosley: And even in your descriptors, you're still using that, that growth mindset type of language.

And I, I know this episode we're trying to focus on the learning targets, but I have to bring up because you were talking about this rubric and the learning target is actually, you have that learning target in both your AP lang and AP lit class, correct?

Joe Z: Correct.

Bosley: That the rubric is slightly different correct? The, the...

Joe Z: I mean, it's a shared rubric with, with with specific demarkers that take you down whichever road you're using. Yes.

Bosley: Alright, so in our episode when we were talking about the gradient architecture and, you know, how you come up with some of these rubric or proficiency scale descriptors, you know, looking at the specific course, the purpose of the course, your audience, your teaching style, your student's learning style, all of those things come into play when you're building these, this is a, a prime example of, same teacher, similar students, maybe a year difference between them, but a different purpose for the course.

So you have slight differences in the rubric and that's appropriate because of the different purposes between an AP Lit class compared to an AP Lang. Correct?

Joe Z: Correct. And, and that thesis learning target is one for my ninth graders as well. It's just not nearly as complex. Right. So what I look for is more generalized.

And I 'm looking for different things that are, that's, that I'm not asking them to dig as deep into yet, because with ninth graders, they may not yet have, have moved fully past concrete thinking into abstract thinking. You've got a lot of places where the brain is going, but those skills should be the broader ones, like having a thesis, you know, having a controlling argument for your argumentative level of thinking should be done at every level.

So a lot of that stuff repeats, which is different levels of nuance as as we go, and things don't.

Bosley: And that's also a great explanation and example of, you know, when we were talking about, you know, and kind of naming this as a discipline learning target compared to a content learning target. That being able to write a thesis is a skill that is required across the entire English discipline. It's not an AP lit, it's not an AP lang, it's not an ninth grade skill. It's something that, and it, it's not even done in high school. That's something, you know, we continue to work on. Even I had to work on as a math major working on it in college.

Joe Z: Well, and, and, and by the way, that's one of, one of my sort of transformative moments as a student that has impacted me as a teacher was I was very successful in my high school or my comp classes, and I learned from my teacher, who I got along with quite well, that my, my 10th grade English teacher really set me up to succeed. And, and her point to me was that, you know, my job for comp one and two is to break you down and rebuild you. because most high school English teachers don't teach their kids how to write.

She's like, you knew how to write. So we're having different conversations. So, I began my journey as a teacher, once I got into high school. because I've also taught middle school as well, with the idea of I want to be that teacher. And, and, and I've had my students come back and say that, that people go, yep, you can write, you're good.

You know what I mean? And I, I want, I want them to do that. Because these are skills that they need in college. And, and that's very important to me that I more than almost anything that, you know, like I, I, I always tell my kids, I, I want them to pass the AP test, but at the end of the day, as long as they can succeed in college, the AP test is icing.

Right? The cake is, do you have the skills to be successful in college? That's my job. So that's what I think about. And if they don't go to college, whatever, as long as they have the skills to be successful in college, I did my job. What they choose to do with those skills is up to them. But they should, they should possess those skills.

We should be developing those skills together.

Sharona: Well, and the other thing I love, Joe, and, and the way in which you were so valuable to me is: I am anything but a writing teacher. I know how to write. My writing is excellent. I can't necessarily articulate why it's good. I just had a lot of training, a lot of good teachers along the way, but I'm not a writing teacher.

So when I had my history math class and I'm seeing this absolute horrible writing, I didn't know what to do with it. I didn't know how to get it to move. And you sat on a Zoom with me and you read it and you said, well, it's not that they can't write, it's that they don't understand what they're writing about.

So you were able to see, somehow, that they really could write, my students, you know, at, at different levels. But, and, and it's a history of math class, so what level of writing can I really expect? But it is a senior college course.

Joe Z: No, it's argumentation, right? They, they, you know, whether their argument is this is where this math concept came from, or their argument is whatever. It's, it's for sure. And I think one of the things that has been, was fun for me about that was, you know, we had to sort of crack open what you're asking them to do and really think about it because what you're asking them to do is very different than what I'm asking my students to do, but that at some level, it's the exact same thing.

Sharona: Right? And so we got to bring our disciplines together to figure out why was the student not meeting expectations? Was it their mathematics? Was it their writing? Was it both? And I, and it was, to some degree both, but I'd say a lot of it was actually the mathematics.

Hmm. Because as soon as I provided the guidance on that, their writing got a lot better. And I really didn't comment on their writing other than to say, you know, your argument isn't clear, essentially. That's fascinating. The only, the only comment that I ever made on the actual writing.

Joe Z: But usually the, the, the writing wasn't clear because the thinking behind it wasn't sound, which points you back to the math.

Sharona: Exactly. Yeah. So that was, that was a fascinating experience for me.

Joe Z: And, and you know, that absolutely is, you know, when, when my stuff, when assignments from my class come in that are muddy in that way and, and hard to see, it usually has more to do with the fact that they haven't figured out what they want to say yet.

Right. Or they don't know. They don't know what they're saying. Even worse. Right. But yeah, and the good news is if you're, if you're being clear about your purpose as a writer, it, there's nothing to BS because you've already, like, you've sort of laid it out, you know, it, it, there is no, "I'm just going to BS this paper."

I don't know how you're going to do that without a thesis. You know, if you don't tell me what you're proving to me, I have no idea how you're going to do that. You know, even good opinion pieces do that.

Bosley: Alright. Right. So I've got another question for you, Joe. How long have you been teaching AP Lit, AP Lang?

Joe Z: So Lang since '13-'14. So this'll be my 11th year. Right. And Lit since '14-'15.

Bosley: And how many of those did you use some sort of, of alternative grading systems with?

Joe Z: I mean, it depends if you mean was I when I was fully doing it or do you mean when I started doing the, the modified?

Bosley: No, when, when you like fully went away from traditional, whether you, whether we call it mastery or EGI or, or alternative.

Like when, how long has it been since you've made that switch?

Sharona: When you ditched the points and percentages.

Joe Z: Yeah. Six full years.

Bosley: So have your learning targets. Stayed the same all six years?'

Joe Z: For five of the six. But I did something very different. And it's a fun story to tell, and I, I tell people this is what they should do for themselves with whoever they have.

But a lot of people don't have the luxury I had. So I had a student teacher during the '15-'16 year at Santee. Her name's Caitlyn Cibulsky. They are an amazing educator now, LAUSD down in Carson. And they did their credential through USC. Lord knows why they wanted that student debt, I don't know.

But I really admired their program in that what they did is, and then they stuck them with me, which, again, I'm just so grateful for that experience and, and the relationship we still have based on that. Also becoming an amazing union activist, but I digress. USC let them sit in my class for the fall semester and observe.

So they was there four to five days observing, for the fall. Then in the spring it was the, they observed, then take some classes and then take the classes all the way through. So by the end of the '15-'16 school year, I had a human being who knew my teaching practice as well as anyone, right? The only person who knew my practice better than them was me.

And you could argue, in some ways they knew it better because they was clear-eyed watching me as opposed to, you know, all the things we don't know about ourselves. So, when I decided I wanted to do this after my first year where I, you know, built the plane as I flew it and that said, I did not have the experience either of you had, I didn't have a disaster experience because I had you Bosley, you know what I mean? I had people who had already sort of stumbled. So I wouldn't call it a raging success, but I would call it more successful than not, and the kids liked it. So I was pretty happy with it, but I knew I needed to be more precise with my learning targets.

So what I did is I bought Cait breakfast and ended up buying them lunch as well. And we sat down and literally I said, today's conversation needs to be about "what do I value as a teacher?" Help me to see myself as a teacher. And we distilled the things that I was trying to get them to do. And then I took those and went into Common Core standards and saw what standards they aligned to and wrote learning targets based on what I valued.

So the only shifts have been when I knew I needed to teach something that wasn't on a learning target. And then I just went back and thought about it, and thought about what it did in terms of standards. You know, for example, I, I've done very few narratives , very little narrative writing as a teacher, but now, I do a decent amount.

I have kids do a reading memoir, which helps them to develop an identity as a reader. But more importantly, as they get going, they turn that same skill into their personal statements. And that becomes very important to them. And it's the exact same type of writing. It's a, it's a reflective memoir type of writing that, and which I've turned into the learning target writing narratives to reveal truths.

And, you know, with, with those few exceptions, they've stayed the same because I literally deconstructed my practice to, I think I know what I value, but help me see more quickly what do I value and what does that mean? So my learning targets are the way I teach.

Bosley: So, and, and that's very interesting. And I kind of already knew this story, that's why I asked, because a, a lot of people that we've talked about, in fact, we had a, a great keynote a couple years ago in our grading conference about how many different kind of iterations and how much it has changed from, you know, when they started to where they are now. Sharona and I have talked about how, how bad that our first year was and, and even just how much different it is, you know, from now, even going just back a couple years.

But part of the reason, at least I believe part of the reason that so many of us have had so many different iterations and things is because we don't really look at those learning targets. Like we, the the way that you broke them down, you know, the way that you and, and Cait went and you know, you really, like I said, you, you bought them breakfast and ended up buying them lunch because you guys were there for hours.

Just really looking at, you know, "what's important to me as an educator" and as a way that, you know, you teach what does the course need? What do the students need? So it, it's a very interesting and unique story. Like, of all the people I've talked to, I don't know of anyone that has been as consistent with their learning targets as you were.

And, and it really is, I would be willing to bet you'll agree, it's a hundred percent because of the way you broke down and really took some serious, serious time and soul searching. On developing those

Joe Z: learning targets. Yeah, I, I think that's a hundred percent right. And I'm not, I mean, it's a good model to follow, but you have to have a couple things I had. A) someone who has seen you in action enough that they can give you that check, right? Because I really wanted someone to check me and say, do I value this or do I think I value this? Right? Because they'll see how often you do it or not. And then the other thing that makes me a little unique is, and, and National Boards only solidified this, and I was, I was, by the time I'd done this, I was finished with the National Boards process, so that's important. And another one of the reasons I'd recommend the National Board process is if you really embrace it, it does wonders for your confidence as an educator, because you, it's a very reflective process. It forces you to look at yourself and if you like what you find or who you're becoming, your confidence really grows.

So I, you know, as Bosley would tell people, I, I never lacked for the appearance of confidence in the classroom and certainly not with the kids, but, finishing the NBC process made me realize I was pretty damn good. You know, and I wouldn't go further than that, but pretty damn good is a good place to sit with.

And because I know myself as an educator, and it also helps I started teaching as a second career, so I had no crisis of who am I right in the classroom I knew who I am, because of all that it made it very easy for me to do. And I'm, I've always been very clear and part of my ,constant journey is what do I value?

What do I value? What's important to me? What's important to me? You know? And and Bosley and I both, I think we would spend more, like, we get pissed off at the same stuff, right? Like we, we value the same things in, in education and with our students, so we can talk about it. But because of that, because I know who I am, because I know what I want my students to do, I, I have a fairly concrete philosophy and a teaching practice.

And if you start with that, that you know who you are and what you want kids to do if you do some work, You know, it's pretty easy to come up with these, if you give yourself time to do it. And I, you know, obviously it only took me a day, two days to really, really come up with them. But I would say a few weeks is all it would take, as long as someone knows, you know, what they value or, or can we start those questions.

And even if you only get four or five of them, it's a really sound foundation to start with, and the rest you can build off. But if you have four or five that you just know this is what's important to you, those are four or five learning targets that can anchor you. You know, and, and you're right, that's the key.

If you don't have good learning targets, I, I don't know where you go because everything is based on those learning targets.

Sharona: Yeah. Well, and what's what's coming up for me, Joe, is I resonate very highly with what you're saying in my mathematical practice targets, but it doesn't, it's not hitting for me on my content targets, in part because I teach a very different set of classes that have a set of of content... an analogy to me in English would be, if you were to teach a Shakespeare class where the intention was they had actual Shakespeare knowledge coming out, like specific knowledge of the different plays and things like that, would that change anything relative to the courses that you teach now?

Because it seems like you can, you don't have to have actual content knowledge coming out, but what if you had a class where you did have to have specific knowledge coming out of it for whatever reason?

Joe Z: So, yeah, I, I hear you. I guess what I would argue is it doesn't have to change the targets because I'm not going give a test.

I don't give tests. I don't believe in them for a English teacher. Mm-hmm. You read, you write, you listen, you speak. So the last thing I want to do is start assessing recall. Right. What I do want to do is see that they can, they can synthesize Shakespeare. So I take that synthesis and I say demonstrating knowledge from that text.

It's still a skill. And, and the reason I say that is, and I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be as confident saying this if I hadn't talked to, you know, my, my friend's name is Mario Martinez, he's up in Portland now, but he's certified here and, and, and, you know, national board certified here at LAUSD and then just moved and he had this big aha moment.

It was teaching it to the science teachers that I mentor in EGI at Marshall. And it really, it made me feel very comfortable in the skills-based approach because what I'd be struggling with if I taught that Shakespeare class, which by the way, thanks for sticking that in my head. 'cause I would love to do that. They, they do, they do electives at Marshall. I just don't know that that's going to be my, my lucky break for a while. But 'cause I'm a, I'm a huge Shakespeare fan, but I don't, like, I don't want to get into that game. I would rather they demonstrate it in other ways. And I think you can tweak the skills in such a way, because again, look what you just said, like there's a reason you're more sound on the mathematical practices.

It's not a coincidence. Right? It's obvious you're an excellent teacher, you're more sound on it, because that's what matters. And you, if you shift the, the practice into that content and you do it deliberately enough, the content will follow. And that's, that's what my, my science friend convinced me of. And that's exactly how I would approach Shakespeare.

So I, you can't write me the essay without talking about Shakespeare. Mm-hmm. So you're going to get me the content knowledge, but I'm not assessing that. I'm assessing it's going to be in there, but I'm assessing the higher level thinking in that content knowledge. I'm assessing the thesis in that content. So I, I think, I think that's what it is, because Lord knows when, when I hear pushback from people doing what we do, the big pushback comes from the content people.

For the people who say I have too much content. And I think that's, I think that's a trap that is, it's more a mirage than anything because if you just focus on the skills and you move it to the new content and the new content's where you're assessing, you don't get the content, you can't show me the skill.

And that's what my science friend pushed me to. I'm not saying, you know, my thinking evolved to that. My thinking could always evolve in a different direction as more evidence is presented. But I'm, I feel pretty confident, you know, certainly for that Shakespeare class, that that's how I would do it.

Sharona: So if I could put that in context for, you know, we probably have a lot of STEM folks as listeners just from, given where we're starting from what I'm hearing you say is, if I have a, you know, problem solving strategy skill and each time I am switching classes, I'm using new content to assess that skill, they're going to get the content, even if I don't specifically say, you must be able to do this particular integral,

Joe Z: I, I think a hundred percent.

And, and maybe you're tweaking a proficiency scale slightly in terms of the steps they need to make. You know, I, what hit my head, and this is something that fits me and Bosley, which I think would connect, is throwing a baseball versus throwing a football, right? The fundamentals are almost the same, and they shift in a little bit with where your hand is on it, this, the way your hand comes forward, it's gonna have the same impact on your elbow for the most part and your shoulder. But there's different things going on. And again, because you're throwing a different ball, you're going to have to demonstrate, you can do it in the more, in the more specific way for that sport, right?

So I, I think that's where it lies, that if you just like, again, you're going to have to show me, you can do it with this mathematical set of content because that's the game we're playing. And I think, I think that is, it's, it's a simpler and simpler, I would argue it's almost always better, right? Because simple doesn't mean easy, it just means you're reducing it to its most essential elements.

And, and it gets you out of this writing these holy cow, you know, proficiency scale rubrics that are just so byzantine. And again, then, and also when it comes to content again, the last thing I want to be doing is ever, ever, ever in my life assessing recall. You're a great rememberer. You know what I mean?

Like, again, when we use stuff a lot, we can imprint it in memory. So create a way for him to use it a lot.

Sharona: Well, on that note, you've certainly given us a lot to think about.

Bosley: Yeah. And, and I, I really do, joe, it's always great talking with you. I wanna thank you for joining us today and I hope your schedule is open enough. We're going to be asking you back several more times I guess said I've already got two episodes in mind just already from our conversations today.

Joe Z: Well, I'm sure all your listeners can tell that I love hearing myself talk, so that'll be just fine.

Sharona: Well, you're in good company with the two of us.

Joe Z: Yeah. We can just go and go and go.

Sharona: Well, I can tell you the story, and I will once we sign off of, of how I got what happened when I ask Bosley to do this podcast. But, you know, with that, thank you all for coming back to the pod. Thank you, Joe. We're going to put lots of stuff in the show notes and we look forward to seeing everyone around the pod.

Please share your thoughts and comments about this episode by commenting on this episode's page on our website. www.thegradingpod.com, or you can share with us publicly on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. If you would like to suggest a future topic for the show or would like to be considered as a potential guest for the show, please use the Contact us form on our website.

The Grading Podcast is created and produced by Robert Bosley and Sharona Krinsky. The full transcript of this episode is available on our website.

Share Episode

Shownotes

Transcripts

Follow

Links

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube