Practice makes proficient<\/h1>\n

What’s special about a proficiency-based environment? Practice, that’s what.<\/p>\n

I know, it sounded weird to me too. As a former math teacher, I thought of practice as the mind-numbing repetitive stuff that students had to do in order to attain fluency. Practice was for straightforward procedural skills.<\/p>\n

But\u00a0Sam Nelson, a social studies teacher at Shelburne Community School, has broadened my perspective on practice to encompass all formative assessment, including complex skills and concepts.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

More feedback, less evaluation<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Proficiency-based environments shift the assessment focus firmly to the formative side of the spectrum.<\/p>\n

By the time students are formally evaluated, they should have had the chance to fully unpack the expectations so that they thoroughly understand what it means to be proficient, repeatedly practice and receive formative feedback, take advantage of extra support as needed, and generally feel fairly confident that with effort they will be able to independently demonstrate proficiency.<\/p>\n

Less is more. Less time is spent on formal evaluation, and fewer areas are evaluated. But if done right, there’s a lot more engagement and deep learning.<\/p>\n

A fundamental building block of\u00a0a proficiency-based environment is what<\/em> the proficiencies are. If you are focusing on fewer outcomes, they better be ones that you truly care about. (For example, Sam and his colleagues derive all of their target proficiencies from the cross-curricular Vermont Transferable Skills.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Perhaps even more crucial is how<\/em> the proficiencies are addressed. This is where practice and formative assessment come to the fore.<\/p>\n

The winning formula: You\/We\/Us\/I<\/h2>\n

Nelson, in collaboration with his colleagues, has developed the “You\/We\/Us\/I” pattern for proficiency-based units, with three stages of practice.<\/p>\n

\n
• You – Teacher-led<\/li>\n
• We – As a group<\/li>\n
• Us – Partners<\/li>\n
• I – Independent (formal evaluation)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

  Let’s look at how this instructional rhythm\u00a0played out in two different units.<\/p>\n

  The Election Unit<\/h2>\n

  During this unit, students explored the 2016 election while tackling two proficiencies – domain-specific vocabulary and note-taking. Here’s how the\u00a0note-taking proficiency developed throughout the unit.<\/p>\n

  You (teacher-led)<\/h3>\n

  The unit started with a general brainstorm of the What\/Why\/How of note-taking so that students could engage their prior knowledge and Sam could pre-assess their skills.\u00a0Students also received a resource with \u201chow-to\u201d information on different methods of note-taking. <\/span><\/p>\n

  Then the class read a Voting System in America<\/em> article\u00a0together and examined\u00a0the teacher-developed notes. They compared the notes to the proficiency scale for note-taking to begin to unpack the expectations.\u00a0As a group, the students and teacher evaluated the teacher-developed notes to find consensus on where they landed on the learning scale. <\/span><\/p>\n

  <\/a><\/p>\n

  We (group)<\/h3>\n

  Students read another common piece, chose a method and took notes. These notes were put onto a poster with a learning scale attached to the bottom. Then they provided gallery feedback while referencing the learning scale. This method facilitated deep discussions about each student\u2019s perspective on what makes notes thorough and organized. In the end, each group received feedback from their peers, as well as their teacher. <\/span><\/p>\n

  Us (partners)<\/h3>\n

  Students spent a week practicing their note-taking by playing “Note-taking bingo”. Students read four different articles and applied a different note-taking strategy to each one. The articles were teacher-provided but students chose\u00a0their topics.<\/p>\n

  <\/a>