Module 11-1: Assessing Student Dispositions

• Provide summary information about the student make-up of the group and the assignment 111
they were working on.

The classes observed for this assignment were three different and unique eleventh grade
US History classes. One was an honors level class and the other two were standard level
classes. The classes were small in number containing only 17, 23, and 15, and diverse in
terms of about half of the students were of non-white ethnicity. The assignment involved
students discussing the decade of the 1920s in teacher designated groups of 4 or 5. The
students were required to complete a question sheet in which they generated 5 specific
comparisons between the decade of the 1920s and today, 5 specific differences, and
explanations for these similarities and differences. They were also required to write every
person’s name down for each thought or comment they contributed. The learning target
goals of this assignment were to reinforce concepts covered in our 1920s unit, spark
comparative and evaluative reasoning concerning the 1920s era and our present society,
and foster collaborative attitudes in a group discussion setting. The form of assessment was
my live observations (I did not use video) of the group discussion using the group rubric
and notes I took of specific remarks made in their discussions.

• Copy and paste your summary analysis of the group. Discuss the differences between
students you observed based upon the rubric.

Summary Analysis

First of all, content understanding was very evident throughout all the classes and all
the groups. This makes sense because this was the final activity after a week long study of
the 1920s that included a great variety of instructional methods such as: lecture, movie
samplings, individual research projects and presentations of them, and finally review
activities, and a formal assessment. Students were easily able to brainstorm specific and
unique characteristics of the 1920s. I heard groups mention many specific 1920s topics
such as flappers, jazz music, Model T, popularity of sports and movies, organized crime,
and excessive use of credit. So groups definitely mastered 1920s trends and characteristics
content.

The evidence of reasoning, however, was not so apparent in all groups. Reasoning at a
higher level would be required in making the contrasts lists and explanations lists.
Comparisons were easy for most groups because so many attributes of the 1920s are very
real today such as rebellious young girls, going to movies, attending parties with dancing
and music, and the popularity of sports. That portion of the question sheet was quickly
completed by most every group. But really thoughtful contrasts between the two decades
were less prevalent. A few clearly showed reasoning, for example, a student mentioned that
we are currently in a recession and that consumer spending is off unlike the consumerism
of the 1920s. I also observed some student reasoning during the contrasts brainstorming
stage concerning similar aspects of now and then but how it has changed, for example,
movies are much more sophisticated, we have gangs but they are different from the
organized style, and, no need for speakeasies today because alcohol is free. Of course, this
led to some interesting conversation about would the same thing happen now if marijuana
was made legal and then prohibited. So, comparative reasoning was visible during the
group discussions. I also was pleased to see some amount of evaluative reasoning, but this
was most definitely the least visible form of reasoning. Students offered some evaluative
arguments for these differences and comparisons such as government influences having an
impact and that things don’t really change, they just get modernized, but the harder
reasoning, the more evaluative reasoning was less noticeable even with prodding.
 It was very interesting to watch the interaction with one another with this fairly precise
task presented to groups. In nearly every group a girl was given the task of writing down
responses. In the honors class it was a girl in every group. In one of the standard classes, it
was split equally – half of the groups, a girl was the recorder, in the other half, a boy was. In
the other standard class it was all girls as the recorders, except one group was completely
male. In most of the groups, the other group members nominated a recorder based on
handwriting or “smartness”. It was rare that a student took the initiative upon themselves
by volunteering to be the recorder, the only occasions were in the honors class. Students
had been arranged by the teacher with a varying degree of personality traits and ability
levels. Of course the discussion would turn off task from time to time, for example when
they mentioned music, they would start talking about some song or group of today with no
connection with the 1920s. I also heard ramblings about other classes that did not relate to
our assignment. Sometimes, I made a comment to get back on task, but I was surprised to
see that occasionally the students were drawn back themselves, knowing that they had to
have things written down or perhaps they heard the other groups rattling things off or being
on task. Some students were extremely quiet in the groups, one situation was because of
drama going on outside of the class and one other I observed was just from not being very
confident with their responses. There were also some examples of kids looking for
reinforcement from me. There were some inappropriate comments or just silly things
being said, especially in the standard level classes, I either cautioned or ignored. There were
some questions for clarification or requesting some additional points, if they couldn’t think
of 5 – these were in the standard classes. Sometimes, just the conversations sparked
questions for me like, for example, when discussing behaviors of the 1920s, a student asked
if gambling was legal today. Some groups discussed some religious issues as they
mentioned the Scopes Trial and some of the philosophies of the 1920s. As I reflect, I tend to
think that in order to minimize the amount of bird walking and off task discussion, it does
help to give specific written and individual accountability requirements.

The language used by group members seemed to reflect some mastery of important
vocabulary. For example, students consistently used the word flapper, jazz, silent movies,
and prohibition on their own. I even observed on one occasion, the foreign policy term of
isolationism used. Sometimes students used words with each other that I would expect
them not to use when conversing with me or other teachers. I did not observe any situations
in which language appeared to be unfamiliar to group members. I also noted that a degree
of manners and respect was used with each other suggesting to me that these students have
a good deal of experience working within the small group setting.

In closing, it was interesting to really concentrate and tune into the approaches students
used to complete this assignment and the attitudes they exhibited. As expected, some
students were very forthcoming and others had to be prompted. What was refreshing to
me, was that some students were very generous in doing the prompting to ensure that each
group member did contribute and would get their name recorded by a comparison,
contrast, or explanation. I knew that there might be some prompting required, but I just
assumed that I would be the one doing the prompting as I circulated and monitored the
discussions. Group discussions, if given specific criteria, are an excellent method to foster
and assess positive and cooperative attitudes we all want to see developed in our young
people.
 • Attach a copy of the group participation rubric for one representative student.

Group Discussion Rubric - for female Honors student, Taylor

This is a composite rubric synthesized from several sources. It is not meant to be a

checklist - the descriptors under each level of performance are indicators of the
quality of performance rather than an exhaustive listing; not everything must be
“checked off” to receive a score of a particular level. (Note: The article by David Harris
cited in the source note provides sample dialogues that illustrate many of the
indicators in the rubric.)

Trait 1: Content Understanding—Comprehension of the Content under

Discussion
For the Content Understanding Trait, Taylor is in the “high” category. She
clearly appeared to understand 1920s concepts. She was the recorder in her
group and appeared to use correct examples, she was accurate and
articulate in her written descriptions

High
The student understands significant ideas relevant to the issue under discussion. This
is indicated by correct use of terminology, precise selection of the pieces of
information required to make a point, correct and appropriate use of examples and
counterexamples, demonstration of which distinctions are important to make, and
explanations that are concise and to the point.
Information and knowledge are accurate.
The student elaborates statements with accurate explanations, reasons, or evidence.

Medium
Ideas are reasonably clear, but the listener needs to make some guesses as to what
the student meant.
Some vocabulary is used correctly and some is not.
Ideas are correct but not concise.
Contributions to the group are generally supported by some facts, examples,
analogies, statistics, etc., but there’s a sense that more is needed.

Low
The student uses basic knowledge incorrectly.
The student struggles to provide ideas or support for ideas.
Ideas are extremely limited or hard to understand.
The student has difficulty understanding themes and distinguishing main ideas and
supporting details.
Terminology is used incorrectly.
 Trait 2: Reasoning—Ability to Use the Content to Explore an Issue, Reach
Agreement,
Make a Decision, or Discuss a Point

For this trait, I would rate Taylor in the medium category, she seemed to seek
reinforcement from other group members before writing anything down,
occasionally asking for clarification and was questioned by other group members
about what she had written down and asked to change it, appearing to think her
answer was inferior. However, group interaction was not disrespectful at all
and Taylor did not interpret it that way at all either.

High
The student actively participates in the development of the group mission.
The student takes a position or makes a claim and defends it with explanations,
reasons, or evidence.
The student argues by analogy.
The student recognizes the accuracy, logic, relevance, or clarity of statements. The
student recognizes contradictions and irrelevant comments.
The student has a clear idea of the scope of the task and sustains inquiry until the
task is completed. The student knows when the task is completed satisfactorily.
The student asks clarifying questions and knows when clarifying questions need to be
asked.
The student distinguishes fact from opinion.
The student summarizes points of agreement and disagreement to set the stage for
further movement; the student knows when such summaries are useful.

Medium
The student relies on the momentum of the group to motivate inquiry.
The student generally distinguishes fact from opinions.
The student may be repetitive with comments.

Low
The student accepts ideas of others without much thought.
The student jumps randomly from one aspect of an issue to another.
The student provides little relevant information or contributes little to the
discussion.
Opinions may be stated as facts.
The student shows little evidence of understanding the task and how to sustain the
inquiry to adequately fulfill it.
There is little sense of which information is of most importance.
The student frequently asks for repetition of ideas, but shows little evidence of
understanding.
 Trait 3: Interaction with Others

Taylor would definitely fall into the high category for this. She was very
encouraging and positive concerning other students’ comments or suggestions.
She also wanted full approval of the group before she wrote anything down. She
was not bossy or authoritative, she exhibited a sort of informed humility.

High
The student initiates development of the group process, including identifying roles
and accepting responsibility for fulfilling assigned roles within the group.
Interaction reflects group norms—the student is appropriate for the group and
setting.
The student acknowledges the statements of others in a way that builds a
consecutive interchange between participants. Replies to others are responsive to
the statement and indicate that the student understood it and thought about it.
When disagreeing, the student does it respectfully. The nature of the disagreement
is stated and an invitation to respond extended.
The student makes sure that all relevant points of view are heard.
The student is courteous and attentive.
Nonverbal behavior is consistent with verbal behavior; both are positive. Positive
nonverbal behavior includes nodding, learning forward, and maintaining eye contact.
When conflicts arise, the student attempts to resolve them.
Talking is task oriented and group oriented—“we.”

Medium
The student participates in development of the group process, including identifying
roles and accepting responsibility for fulfilling assigned roles within the group.
The student attends to the discussion, but doesn’t participate very much.
The student’s contributions do not detract from the group’s purpose or goals.
The student participates in the group with prompting.
The student responds to solicitation of opinions or ideas, but doesn’t volunteer
them.

Low
The student does not fulfill assigned roles.
Interaction does not reflect group norms.
The student makes irrelevant or distracting statements.
Interruptions, when they occur, are unconstructive and discourteous.
The student monopolizes the conversation—a pattern of domination with the effect
of preventing others from contributing.
The student makes a personal attack; language might suggest bias toward a group
 member or others.
The student is uninvolved in the discussion, even when directly asked for an opinion.
Nonverbal behavior is inconsistent with verbal behavior—usually the nonverbal
behavior is very negative while the verbal behavior might be positive. Nonverbal
behavior may alienate the student from other group members.
Talk is self-oriented

Trait 4: Language
Taylor is at the medium proficiency here – she definitely was not completely
comfortable with some words or phrases while using many very appropriately.

High
The student uses precise vocabulary and economical syntax. Words and syntax are
purposefully chosen to make a point.
The student uses language that others in the group will understand.
The student defines or clearly explains language or concepts that might be
unfamiliar to others; the student knows when such explanations might be necessary.

Medium
The student uses general vocabulary and tends to express ideas wordily.
Although correct, language might not be equally understandable to all members of
the group.

Low
The student uses language that others in the group are unlikely to understand.
Ideas appear disproportionately lengthy and are difficult to follow.
Language choices are vague, abstract, or trite. Jargon may be used when more
precise language is needed.

Source: Synthesized from (1) David Harris, Assessing Discussion of Public Issues: A Scoring Guide, in Ronald Evans
and David
Warren Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on Teaching Social Issues, NCSS Bulletin 93, 1996; (2) Alberta Education, Oral
Communication
Evaluation: English 30/33 Activities and Scoring Guides, Edmonton, Alberta: Learning Resources Distributing Center,
1992; (3) John
Zola, “Scored Discussions,” Social Education, Feb. 1992, pp. 121–125; (4) California Learning Assessment System,
History-Social
Science, Grade 11, Sacramento: California Department of Education, n.d.; (5) Paula Usrey, Group Discussion
Member Rubric,
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1998; (6) Kansas State Department of Education, State
Assessment—Social
Studies, Topeka, KS: Author, 1995; (7) Oregon Department of Education, Collaborate Scoring Guide, Portland, OR:
Author, 1994.

• Identify possible sources of bias or distortion in assessment results that may interfere with
obtaining an accurate picture of individual students’ group discussion proficiency.

The only bias that was detected in this group assessment would be the fact that I was assessing
my own students. Therefore, students know me and they know my expectations and boundaries.
This may cause them to be a little more inhibited as compared to if I was assessing a different group
of students, who did not know me.

• Discuss the impact of using video recording to conduct this assessment. How did the use
of video recordings influence your findings?
I did not use video to complete this disposition assessment.

COURSE GOAL ALIGNMENT:

ASSESSMENTS SERVE ARTICULATED PURPOSES.