# data[].attributes.body
Mindfulness is when you are aware of what you are doing and how you are doing it.

# data[].attributes.body
A way to show mastery of a skill through choice of assessment. A student can choose how they are going to display their learning. The student can take a test if that is what they are most comfortable with or they can show mastery through other ways like a project or paper.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers base their grading off of the standards for their subject and content. Grading is more specific then and there is no grading done on effort and participation because grading is standards based so it is based off of the specific learning content.

# data[].attributes.body
Define: Thinking about thinking. Metacognition is the act of thinking about how you think like reasoning and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
Problem solving is done by not teaching the answer but teaching how to find the answer and get the solution to the problem. That is useful inside school and outside of school dealing with academics and other stuff like friends and family issues.

# data[].attributes.body
Students need to have the content fit their academic ability so students may need it more challenging and some may need it more simple, basic and to the point but in the end the same content is being taught.

# data[].attributes.body
Personalized learning and differentiation are very similar as you are making the learning specific to the students and how they learn best and will gain the content information and be successful. Personalized learning uses technology a lot because there are many resources and tools available there.

# data[].attributes.body
School is a safe space for students so teachers need to make their classroom feel safe and inviting which requires the feeling of inclusion. A few ways to help is promoting celebrations, modeling emotional regulation and focus on students strengths and interests.

# data[].attributes.body
Primacy/recency talks about when it is best for students to learn. Students will remember the most when it is the first thing they learn or the last thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When was the last time you reflected on your intellectual growth? When was the last time you stretched it further? Paying attention to how you think and how your thinking affects how you learn enhances both self-awareness and brainpower. This "thinking about thinking" is called metacognition, and it's a skill teachers can introduce to students at a very young age.

What is metacognition?

Philosophers have been thinking about thinking for centuries, but three psychologists-William James, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky-examined the role of metacognition in modern education. Each studied it from a different angle: James concentrated on the distinctively human ability to look inward; Piaget focused on metacognition as it applies to reasoning; and Vygotsky connected it more broadly with consciousness. "All three," however, "underscored the value of metacognition for intellectual growth."

To understand what you think, you need to understand what you know, which leads to what you don't know. In the classroom, this is where the metacognitive "path to understanding" begins.

Why is metacognition important?

Marilyn Price-Mitchell, PhD, says that metacognition helps children "make greater sense of their life experiences and start achieving at higher levels." That's a pretty huge benefit. But before discussing how to teach it, we need to understand how it works.

Metacognition involves five key thinking practices, or what I used to describe to my high school students as "good habits of mind." They include:

1. Planning and goal setting

2. Continual monitoring of progress

3. Identifying what you know

4. Identifying what you don't know

5. Adapting as necessary

These habits make learning about so much more than the basic memorization of facts and definitions; they help integrate new knowledge into what students already understand about the world. When kids feel the rewards of making genuine connections between facts, definitions, and concepts, learning is a lot more fun. And when learning is fun, it's easier to retain.

"Young people become more self-reliant, flexible, and productive," says Price-Mitchell, "when teachers cultivate students' abilities to reflect on, monitor, and evaluate their learning strategies."

In other words, you're teaching a child to step back and notice her strengths and weaknesses and how those strengths and weaknesses affect her performance. It's like course correction for the mind, and it shows kids that their brains, like their bodies, are growing all the time. Metacognition helps them grow positively, and proactively.

The Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning agrees: "Students aren't going to learn how to be good learners unless we engage them in activities and discussions about how they perceive themselves as learners."

How to apply metacognition in the classroom

When teaching metacognitively, the goal is for students to learn a new concept, retain it, and then apply what they learned to new circumstances. You're essentially creating "an environment where students feel comfortable attempting new feats," says John Mendes, EdD.

Consider the following sequence of exercises and keep in mind that metacognitive strategies occur during learning.

1. What don't you know?

Perhaps the single most important thing for children to learn about learning is that it's okay not to know things. That's why we go to school in the first place. Learning is what living is all about. And confusion is a big part of learning. It's important for kids to get comfortable with this idea.

Ask your students to make a list of things they know about the solar system, for example, as well as a list of things they don't know. They'll be excited to share the knowledge they bring to the table, and that excitement will prepare them to investigate the gaps in their knowledge.

2. Make learning visible.

Concept mapping develops logical thinking by literally showing relationships between ideas, images, or words. This is where the lightbulbs start flashing around the room because kids begin to see how isolated ideas relate to the big picture.

Every concept map begins with a focus question, which serves as the trunk of the concept tree (or the beak of the concept octopus or the hub of the concept wheel ... you get the idea). Key concepts associated with that question become the branches, further refined ideas and observations become the leaves, and so on.

To get started, do your first concept map as a group so your students can brainstorm collectively. For some helpful visuals, visit Kathy Schrock's Guide to Everything or run a Google image search.

3. Use reflection as a measuring tool.

After you've completed a unit of study, ask your students to make then-and-now charts with one side labeled "Before we studied ..." and the other side labeled "After we studied ... ." In the Before column, have them write everything they thought was true, and in the After column, have them write what they now know to be true.

With this activity, kids are visibly reinforcing the cognitive journey they've just traveled. They are thinking about the thinking they've done and seeing where it's brought them.

In an article for the Brookings blog, David Owen and Alvin Vista outline a feedback tool called Exit Tickets for use at the end of each lesson. Modeled after traffic lights, red prompts students to explain where their learning got held up. Yellow invites different or unexpected questions, ideas, and perspectives. Green signifies new learning.

Hint: Pay close attention to the yellow light. That's where students are reflecting on how they learned-or the act of learning itself-instead of on what they learned.

For older kids, journals are great for reflection. In addition to being safe spaces for analyzing their learning strategies and assessing performance, they also invite students to plan for future learning experiences. "With this," says Mendes, "students are taking accountability for their 'own' learning and developing into lifelong learners."

4. Bookend activities with helpful reminders.

The other day while volunteering in my kindergartener's class, I noticed how his teacher prepared the students for story circle. "As I read this book," she said, "I'd like you to listen for some facts that you already know about platypuses. I'd also like you to listen for some facts that are new to you. Then we'll talk about them after."

Using this simple, tactical method, she was cueing up the class for active listening, while also preparing them for a follow-up discussion. This worked so well that the kids opted to spend extra time sharing all the platypus facts they had learned.

These kinds of prompts are effective at any age and can be easily adapted to mirror the complexity of the material.

5. Facilitate dialogue that challenges biases.

Prejudice interferes with learning. If metacognition is learning how to learn, then it needs to address the personal and social biases we naturally develop over time. The process is called reflexive thinking, or reflexivity; it trains a reflex into the brain to, first, be aware of one's own biases and, then, to use critical thinking to challenge them and consider other perspectives.

Don't miss the opportunity to model healthy reflexive thinking! Perhaps you have a story about an experience that helped you recognize your biases and how you adapted your thinking as a result. Share it. When you do this, you're showing metacognition in action and helping your students see that everyone's thinking evolves over time-even the thinking of teachers.

Is this thing working?

How do you know whether you've successfully fostered metacognition in your classroom? Instead of peppering you with countless questions about a new topic, your students will start asking themselves.

Resources for learning more about metacognition
Come and share your strategies and questions for nurturing metacognition in our WeAreTeachers HELPLINE group on Facebook. Plus, check out some of the other articles in this series:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is Metacognition? A Guide for Educators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When was the last time you reflected on your intellectual growth? When was the last time you stretched it further? Paying attention to how you think and how your thinking affects how you learn enhances both self-awareness and brainpower. This "thinking about thinking" is called metacognition, and it's a skill teachers can introduce to students at a very young age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn ways schools can promote mindfulness to help students manage stress and reduce anxiety and depression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Competency-Based Learning: Developing Mastery of Skills and Content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At Pittsfield Middle High School, students choose how they will show what they have learned.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How to Teach Problem-Solving Skills to Kids (Ages 3-14)

THIS ARTICLE INCLUDES A FREE PRINTABLE

Whether it's a toy-related conflict, a tough math equation, or negative peer pressure, kids of ALL ages face problems and challenges on a daily basis.

As parents or teachers, we can't always be there to solve every problem for our children. In fact, this isn't our job. Our job is to TEACH our children how to solve problems by . This way, they can become themselves, independent, and successful individuals.

Instead of giving up or getting frustrated when they encounter a challenge, kids with problem-solving skills manage their emotions, think creatively, and persist until they find a solution. Naturally, these abilities go hand-in-hand with a

Before you move on, be sure to sign up for our FREE weekly printables carefully crafted to teach your kids growth mindset, resilience, and much more. Sign up below to make sure you're on the list!

Once signed up, you will immediately receive our popular Parent's Guide to a Growth Mindset.
So HOW do you teach problem-solving skills to kids?

Well, it depends on their age. As cognitive abilities and the size of the child's challenges grow/evolve over time, so should your approach to teaching problem-solving skills.

Read on to learn key strategies of teaching problem-solving to kids, as well as some age-by-age ideas and activities.

3 General Strategies to Teach Problem-Solving at Any Age

1. Model Effective Problem-Solving

When YOU encounter a challenge, do a "think-aloud" for the benefit of your child. MODEL how to apply the same problem-solving skills you've been working on together, giving the real-world examples that she can implement in her own life.

At the same time, show your child a willingness to make . Everyone encounters problems, and that's okay. Sometimes the first solution you try won't work, and that's okay too!

When you model problem-solving, explain that there are some things which are out of our control. As we're solving a problem at hand we should focus on the things we CAN actually control.

You can show the Circle of Control printable included in the Growth Mindset Printables Kit.

2. Ask for Advice

Ask your kids for advice when you have a problem. This teaches them that it's common to make mistakes and face challenges. It also gives them the opportunity to practice problem-solving skills.

Plus, when you indicate that their ideas are they'll gain the valued, confidence to attempt solving problems on their own.

3. Don't Provide "The Answer"

As difficult as it may be, allow your child to struggle, sometimes , and ultimately LEARN from experiencing consequences.

3-5 Years

Use Emotion Coaching

To step into a problem-solving mindset, young children need to first learn to manage their emotions. After all, it's difficult for a small child to logically consider solutions to a problem if he's mid-tantrum.

One way to accomplish this is by using the emotion coaching process outlined by John Gottman.

First, teach your kids that ALL emotions are acceptable. There are NO "bad" emotions. Even seemingly negative emotions like anger, sadness, and frustration can teach us valuable lessons. What matters is how we respond to these emotions.

Second, follow this process:

When your child is upset, help her process the way she's feeling. Say something like, Step One: Naming and validating emotions."I understand that you're upset because Jessica is playing with the toy you wanted."

Guide your child to her calming space. If she doesn't have one, it's a good idea to create one. Let her calm her body and process her emotions so she can problem-solve, learn, and grow.

Step Three: Problem Solving. Brainstorm solutions with your child, doing moreLISTENINGthan talking during the conversation. This allows your child to practice her problem-solving skills, and she's more likely to actually implement the solutions she came up with herself.

Say, "Show Me the Hard Part"

When your child struggles or feels frustrated, try a technique suggested by mom and parenting blogger Lauren Tamm . Simply say, "Show me the hard part."

Repeat back what your child says, "So you're saying..."

Once you both understand the real problem, prompt your child to come up with . solutions "There must be some way you can fix that..." or "There must be something you can do..."

Now that your child has identified "the hard part," she'll likely be able to come up with a solution. If not, help her brainstorm some ideas. You may try asking the question, "If you know, what would you think?" and see what she comes up with.

Your child can practice finding solutions to obstacles they're facing with My Mighty Treasure Coins printable found in the Self-Esteem & Confidence Kit.

Problem-Solve with Creative Play

Allow your child to choose activities and games based on her interests. Free play provides plenty of opportunities to navigate and creatively solve problems.

Children often learn best through PLAY. Playing with items like blocks, simple puzzles, and dress-up clothes can teach your child the process of problem-solving.

Even while playing, your child thinks critically: Where does this puzzle piece fit? What does this do? I want to dress up as a queen. What should I wear? Where did I put my tiara? Is it under the couch?

Encourage creative play, creative thinking, and problem-solving with our fabulous Growth Mindset Activity Kit for children!

Problem-Solve with Storybooks

Read age-appropriate stories featuring characters who experience problems, such as:

Ladybug Girl and Bumblebee Boy by Jacky Davis: The story of two friends who want to play together but can't find a game to agree on. After taking turns making suggestions, they arrive at a game they both want to play: Ladybug Girl and Bumblebee Boy.

The Curious George Series by Margaret and H.E. Rey: A curious little monkey gets into and out of dilemmas, teaching kids to find solutions to problems of their own.

Ira Sleeps Over by Bernard Waber: Ira's thrilled to have a sleepover at his friend Reggie's house. But there's one problem: Should he or should he not bring his teddy bear? It may seem small, but this is the type of early social problem your child might relate to.

Connect these experiences to similar events in your child's own life, and ASK your child HOW the characters in these stories could solve their problems. Encourage a variety of solutions, and discuss the possible outcomes of each.

This is a form of dialogue reading, or actively ENGAGING your child in the reading experience. Interacting with the text instead of passively listening can "turbocharge" the development of literacy skills such as comprehension in preschool-aged children.

By asking questions about the characters' challenges, you can also give your child's problem-solving abilities a boost.

For book suggestions, refer to the printable Top 85 Growth Mindset Books for Children & Adults in our Growth Mindset Printables Kit.

5-7 Years

Teach the Problem-Solving Steps

Come up with a simple problem-solving process for your child, one that you can consistently implement. For example, you might try the following five steps:

Help your child understand what she's feeling in the moment (frustration, anger, curiosity, disappointment, excitement, etc.) Noticing and naming emotions will diffuse their charge and give your child a chance to take a step back.

problem. In most cases, help her take responsibility for what happened rather than Step 2: What's the problem? Guide your child to identify the specific pointing fingers. For instance, instead of, "Joey got me in trouble at recess," your child might say, "I got in trouble at recess for arguing with Joey."

Step 3: What are the solutions? Encourage your child to come up with as many solutions as possible. At this point, they don't even need to be "good" solutions. They're just brainstorming here, not yet evaluating the ideas they've generated.

Step 4: What would happen if...? What would happen if your child attempted each of these solutions? Is the solution safe and fair? How will it make others feel? You can also try role playing at this step. It's important for your child to consider BOTH positive and negative consequences of her actions.

Step 5: Which one will I try? Ask your child to pick one or more solutions to try. If the solution didn't work, discuss WHY and move on to another one. Encourage your child to keep trying until the problem is solved.

Consistently practice these steps so that they become second nature, and model solving problems of your own the same way. It's a good idea to reflect: What worked? What didn't? What can you do differently next time?

Help your child visualize and practice this process using the colorful in the My Problem-Solving printable Self-Esteem & Confidence Kit .

Problem-Solve with Craft Materials

Crafting is another form of play that can teach kids to solve problems creatively.

Provide your child with markers, modeling clay, cardboard boxes, tape, paper, etc. They'll come up with all sorts of interesting creations and inventive games with these simple materials.

Ask Open-Ended Questions

Asking open-ended questions improves a child's ability to think critically and creatively, ultimately making them better problem-solvers. Examples of open-ended questions include:

How could we work together to solve this?

How did you work it out? or How do you know that?

Tell me about what you built, made, or created.

What do you think will happen next?

What do you think would happen if...?

What did you learn?

What was easy? What was hard?

What would you do differently next time?

Open-ended questions have no right answer and can't be answered with a simple "Yes" or "No."

You can ask open-ended questions even when your child isn't currently solving a problem to help her practice her thinking skills, which will come in handy when she have a problem to solve.

For more question ideas, use "10 Growth Mindset Questions To Ask Your Kids at the Dinner Table" in our . Growth Mindset Printables Kit

7-9 Years

Break Down Problems into Chunks

This strategy is a more advanced version of "Show me the hard part."

For instance, let's say your child has a poor grade in history class. Why is the grade so low? What are the causes of this problem?

If the low grade is the result of missing assignments, perhaps your child can make a list of these assignments and tackle one at a time. Or if tests are the issue, what's causing your child to struggle on exams?

Perhaps she's distracted by friends in the class, has trouble asking for help, and doesn't spend enough time studying at home. Once you've identified these "chunks," help your child tackle them one at a time until the problem is solved.

Make sure to use our printable cards "Problem-Solving Steps for Kids" (available in theGrowth Mindset Activity Kit). This is a fun and interactive way your child can learn the steps to problem-solving and have confidence in the process.

Discuss the importance of embracing challenges and solving problems independently with the "broken escalator video."

In the video, an escalator unexpectedly breaks. The people on the escalator are "stuck" and yelling for help. At this age, it's likely that your child will find the video funny and immediately offer a solution: "Just walk! Get off the escalator!"

Tell your child that this is a simple example of how people sometimes act in difficult situations. Ask, "Why do you think they didn't get off the escalator?" (they didn't know how, they were waiting for help, etc.)

9-11 Years

Problem-Solve with Prompts

Provide your child or a group of children with materials such as straws, cotton balls, yarn, clothespins, tape, paper clips, sticky notes, Popsicle sticks, etc.

With just these materials, challenge your kids to solve unusual problems like:

Make a leprechaun trap

Create a jump ramp for cars

Design your own game with rules

Make a device for two people to communicate with one another

This is a fun way to practice critical thinking and creative problem-solving. Most likely, it will take multiple attempts to find a solution that works, which can apply to just about any aspect of life.

Make Them Work for It

When your child asks for a new toy, technology, or clothes, have her make a plan to obtain the desired item herself. Not only will your child have to brainstorm and evaluate solutions, but she'll also gain confidence .

Ask your child HOW she can earn the money for the item that she wants, and encourage her as she works toward her goal.

Put It on Paper

For example, use this graphic organizer developed by The New York Times Learning Network . Your child can identify her problem and brainstorm solutions.

But now, she takes this process a step further: After attempting each solution, which succeeded? Which were unsuccessful? ?

This helps your child reflect on various outcomes, learning what works and what doesn't. The lessons she learns here will be useful when she encounters similar problems in the future.

Ages 12+

Play Chess Together

Learning to play chess is a great way for kids to learn problem-solving AND build their brains at the same time. It requires players to use critical thinking, creativity, analysis of the board, recognize pattern and more. There are online versions of the game, books on how to play, videos and other resources. Don't know how to play? Learn with your teen to connect problem solve together!

Have Them Learn To Code

Our teens and tweens are already tech-savvy and can use their skills to solve problems by learning to code. Coding promotes creativity, logic, planning, and persistence. There are many great tools and online or in-person programs that can boost your child's coding skills.

Encourage to Start a Meaningful Project

This project has to be meaningful to your teen, for example starting a YouTube channel. Your teen will practice problem-solving skills as they're figuring out how to grow their audience, how to have their videos discovered, and much more.

In the Big Life Journal - Teen Edition, there's a section that guides them through planning their YouTube channel and beginning the problem-solving process.

Apply the SODAS Method

Looking for a game plan that your teen can employ when faced with a problem? The SODAS method can be used for big or small problems. Just remember this simple acronym and follow these ideas:

Encourage to Join Problem-Solving Groups

Does your teen enjoy solving problems in a team? Have them join a group or club that helps them hone their skills in a variety of settings--from science and robotics to debating and international affairs. Some examples of groups include:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Teach Problem-Solving Skills to Kids (Ages 3-14)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether it's a toy-related conflict, a tough math equation, or negative peer pressure, kids of ALL ages face problems and challenges on a daily basis. As parents or teachers, we can't always be there to solve every problem for our children. In fact, this isn't OUR job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

This study explored high school teachers' perceptions of the effects of standards-based grading (SBG) on planning, instruction, assessment, classroom management, and student behaviors. Findings indicated that despite some infidelity and an initial implementation dip, systemic (SBG) changes made teaching clearer, more purposeful, and more conducive to student needs while enhancing student growth mind-set and ownership. The researchers concluded SBG is a viable reform because it makes teaching and learning more focused, effective, and enjoyable. Findings also led to several recommendations for administrators and teachers.

Introduction

First, SBG bases grades on students' performance against specific learning standards ( Beatty, 2013; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). In a traditional grading system, points or percentages are recorded for each assignment or assessment, and all scores are averaged together to calculate a final course grade. In SBG, however, grades are determined based on students' proficiency on a predetermined set of skills with the goal of more clearly communicating students' academic strengths and weaknesses to students, parents, and other educators ( Scriffiny, 2008). For some districts, this means redesigning the report card to include multiple scores for each subject that reflect students' proficiency levels against several standards ( Guskey, Swan, & Jung, 2011; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; O'Connor & Wormeli, 2011). Because of frequent parental lamentations that such a report is cumbersome and confusing ( Spencer, 2012; Swan, Guskey, & Jung, 2014), as well as a general preference among college admissions personnel ( Peters, Buckmiller, & Townsley, 2016), many schools utilize standards-based rubrics and proficiency scales to determine scores for each standard, but then convert the scores into a traditional letter grade or percentage ( Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Reeves, 2011; Scriffiny, 2008).

Overall, SBG alters how grades are determined by focusing on standards, isolating academic evidence, and allowing multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency. Each of these key components is designed to increase the validity, reliability, and equity of grades to ultimately improve student learning. However, the practical application of each SBG component continues to clash with centuries-old grading traditions and deeply ingrained belief systems among parents, students, and teachers. Therefore, specific SBG practices continue to evolve as school leaders learn more about the effects of SBG and seek to meet the needs of individual communities.

Purpose of the Study

There is a lack of empirical evidence demonstrating the effects of SBG, which makes it difficult for school administrators and teachers to rectify the gap between scholars' recommended grading practices and stakeholders' long-held belief systems. Since school leaders must constantly find ways to uphold best practices in learning while validating teachers' and parents' traditions and beliefs, this study was intended to shed light on the day-to-day experiences of high school teachers utilizing SBG in a variety of avenues and environments. Because of a plethora of aforementioned teacher and parent concerns regarding the practicality of various SBG components-especially how separating behaviors from academic grades and allowing reassessment opportunities might affect teachers' classroom management and students' work ethic-the purpose of this study was to explore high school teachers' perceptions of the effects of standards-based grading on planning, instruction, assessment, classroom environment, and student behavior.

Given the interdependence between grading practices, teaching practices, and student behaviors ( Glasser, 2010; McTighe & O'Connor, 2005; Schimmer, 2016), as well as the lack of empirical studies examining the holistic effects of SBG, Ormrod's (2008) interdependent network of teaching model provided the conceptual framework for examining teachers' experiences with SBG. Ormrod's (2008) network depicts the interconnectedness of planning, instruction, assessment, classroom environment, and student behavior, each with an influence on the others. According to Ravitch and Riggan (2017), a conceptual framework "shapes the design and direction" of a study and "guides its development" (p. 4). Therefore, Ormrod's (2008) interdependent network of teaching guided the methodological and analytical decisions for this qualitative phenomenological study.

Ormrod's Interdependent Network of Teaching

Ormrod's (2008) framework demonstrates the interdependence between planning, instruction, assessment, classroom environment, and student behavior. In the context of this study, planning involves establishing purpose, selecting learning goals (often standards), designing assessments and learning activities, and considering student backgrounds, interests, and abilities. Instruction refers to the articulation of the learning goals and the use of various teaching strategies to facilitate learning activities. Assessment includes diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments; within this study, feedback, homework, and score reporting also play a role in this component. Environment is comprised of climate, behavior management, and relationships. Within classroom climate, students' needs for safety, belonging, freedom of choice, and enjoyment are considered ( Glasser, 1988; Maslow, 1943). Finally, student behaviors are situated within desirable employability skills such as communication, adaptability, ethical leadership, initiative, and accountability ( Achieve, 2016; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

Authors' Positionality

The authors' interest in this study stemmed from the first author's experiences as a 7-to-12 educator utilizing various SBG practices. In her personal experiences with SBG, the first author has noticed a continual need to learn from and compromise with various stakeholders. She has also recognized the ripple effects involved in grading reform-namely, that changing grading and reporting practices requires an intimate alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment; and SBG practices affect students' approaches to learning.

Although the first author implemented SBG practices in her district, she seeks and is open to literature suggesting alternative grading and reporting practices; however, she has yet to find strong evidence that SBG is not a viable alternative to traditional grading, so she continues to advocate SBG while remaining open to further change. Despite this potentially biased view of SBG, the authors attempted to "bracket out" ( Creswell, 2013, p. 81) their own experiences throughout the research process. Bracketing, introduced by Edmund Husserl and made known by Moustakas (1994), requires researchers to "set aside their experiences, as much as possible, to take a fresh perspective toward the phenomenon under examination" ( Creswell, 2013, p. 80). Therefore, the researchers approached the study as if they had little knowledge of SBG, asking open-ended, nonleading questions that allowed participants to freely share their experiences, perceptions, and opinions of SBG. The researchers also set aside their own experiences while analyzing and discussing participants' responses, which allowed them to fully capture the essence of how participants experienced SBG.

Research Design and Limitations

Lincoln and Guba's (1985) qualitative "trustworthiness" criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (p. 290) were followed to ensure a quality research design. Credibility (akin to internal validity) was sought by pilot testing interview questions, keeping detailed field notes, triangulating methods (interviews, observations, and document review) and data (multiple interviews with multiple participants), and conducting member checks on all interview transcripts with participants ( Creswell, 2013). Transferability (similar to generalizability) was created via rich descriptions of participants' demographics and experiences with SBG to help readers determine whether the findings are transferable to their own contexts ( Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Dependability (reliability) was ensured by maintaining an audit trail ( Guba & Lincoln, 1981) consisting of participant communication logs, consent forms, field notes, reflexivity journals, verbatim transcripts, coding memos, and drafts of participant and setting descriptions. Additionally, triangulation and thick description strengthened the dependability of this study, as did coding and recoding the data multiple times over the course of several days. Finally, confirmability (objectivity) was enhanced through reflexivity ( Creswell, 2013), which is part of Moustakas's (1994) Epoche, or bracketing, in phenomenological research. The goal of reflexivity is to set aside one's personal experiences and to look at the phenomenon from a fresh perspective in order to understand the participants' experiences ( Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Therefore, the researchers practiced reflexivity by disclosing their personal experiences with SBG (see Positionality) and keeping a reflexivity journal to reflect on personal thoughts, feelings, and potential influences on data throughout data collection and analysis. In addition, the aforementioned strategies of triangulation, member checks, and an audit trail further diminished potential biases in the research process ( Guba & Lincoln, 1981).

Although trustworthiness strengthens a research study, it does not promise perfection; thus, this study contains a few limitations. First, student behaviors were explored through the perceptions of their teachers, rather than directly from students. Second, participants relied on memory to compare their experiences with SBG and traditional grading, which may have diluted their perceptions of change. A third limitation is that the practice of reflexivity may not have completely removed the influence of our personal experiences with SBG. However, Guba and Lincoln (1981) purport that pure objectivity is an "impossible constraint," adding that practices such as audit trails and member checks help researchers "report his data in such a way that it can be confirmed from other sources if necessary" (p. 126).

Method

A phenomenological methodology was used to collect and analyze data. It would not have been possible to encapsulate the intricacies and interconnectedness of teachers' planning, instruction, assessment, and classroom management through quantitative data, nor would such methods fully capture the teacher participants' perceptions of the impact of SBG on students' behaviors. The phenomenological researcher combines participants' objective and subjective experiences to construct the overall essence, or meaning, of participants' experiences with a common phenomenon ( Creswell, 2013, 2014; van Manen, 1990). Hence, the phenomenological approach was appropriate to explore teachers' lived experiences with the SBG phenomenon.

Participants and the Setting

A purposeful sampling method was used in which participants were recruited who met predetermined criteria ( Creswell, 2013), specifically, that they currently employed SBG practices in their classroom and had done so for at least one school year. Purposeful sampling is appropriate for phenomenological studies because the participants need to have experienced the same phenomenon for the researcher to capture the essence of the lived experience ( Creswell, 2013, 2014; Moustakas, 1994). Due to its emergent design, qualitative researchers often collect data until they have reached data saturation, where the information becomes redundant and the researcher is no longer gaining new insight into the phenomenon ( Creswell, 2013, 2014; Seidman, 2013). Seven high school teachers participated in this study and data saturation was sufficient not to warrant additional recruitment of participants.

Five high schools in the Central United States comprised the research setting. Of the five schools, one had schoolwide SBG, one strove for full SBG implementation by the following school year, two included several departments using SBG, and one was entirely using traditional grading except for one teacher using SBG practices. To strengthen participants' anonymity, specific demographic information was approximated, and pseudonyms were used for all schools, towns, mascots, participant names, and other potentially identifiable names. Table 1 includes basic demographic information for each research site derived from participant descriptions, school websites, and state Department of Education websites.

Research Setting Demographics.

Seven high school teachers from various backgrounds and teaching styles volunteered to participate in this study. Five were in a leadership position at the time of interviews and five were among the first teachers to implement SBG in their schools (the other two began teaching after SBG had been implemented in their school). Regarding the three major elements of SBG, all seven participants aligned instruction and assessment with standards and allowed students to reassess. However, only one participant had a system in place to report behaviors separately from the academic grade (one used 21st-century skills as her curriculum, two did not report behaviors at all, and the remaining three counted certain behaviors as a small percentage). Table 2 includes basic demographic information for each participant, compiled from participant self-descriptions, teacher documents, and field notes.

Participant Demographics.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected via semistructured interviews, observations, and document review. Specifically, Seidman's (2013) "in-depth, phenomenologically based interviewing" process (p. 14) was followed, consisting of a three-interview series that "allows both the interviewer and participant to explore the participant's experience, place it in context, and reflect on its meaning" (p. 20). Each interview lasted 60 to 90 minutes and was recorded using an audio or video recorder. The first interview, or "focused life history" (p. 31), provided context for the phenomenon. Teachers were asked to reconstruct their experiences in school as both students and teachers. The second interview, called "details of the experience" (p. 21), delves into the specific details of the phenomenon. Participants were asked how their planning, instruction, assessment, and environment changed since the implementation of SBG. The third and final interview is aimed at "reflection on the meaning" (p. 22). Participants were asked to make meaning of their experiences with SBG, including their perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and overall worth of switching from traditional grading to SBG, as well as their perceptions of how students' characteristics and behaviors changed since implementing SBG. Overall, Seidman's three-interview series provided sufficient details and context of the phenomenon to synthesize participants' meanings and generate an overall essence of SBG.

Interview data were triangulated with observations and document analysis. Observations were conducted to compare teachers' perspectives with observable behaviors. Each teacher was observed in their typical teaching environment for one class period, where observable components of the teacher's planning, instruction, assessment, environment, and student behavior were recorded in field notes. Additionally, official documents were collected, including syllabi with classroom rules, procedures, and grading policies; grading rubrics; student assessments; examples of feedback given to students; district and school grading policies; parent letters and other community communication regarding SBG; student handbooks depicting school rules and consequences; gradebooks; and a few examples of student work. Public documents such as handbooks and grading policies were accessed via participating schools' websites, and all other documents were voluntarily provided by each participant. All documents were later coded to align with each component of Ormrod's (2008) framework.

Data analysis steps were drawn from Creswell's (2013) qualitative data analysis spiral and Moustakas's (1994) transcendental phenomenological research analysis. The data analysis process consisted of the following steps: data organization and familiarization, coding (horizonalization), thematizing, creating rich descriptions, and making meaning of the phenomenon. Throughout data organization and familiarization, interviews were transcribed, handwritten field notes were typed, and all electronic files were uploaded into a computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software program called NVivo. Since such programs expedite-not replace-human analysis, NVivo was used to organize data, search for specific codes or keywords throughout the data, run queries for frequently used words and codes, and to display connections between codes. The recursive process of coding began after each round of interviews, during which every transcript was read while listening to audio files or watching video files from the interviews, and memos were added in the margins. During this first round of coding, memos were added in the margins of interview transcripts, observation notes, and collected documents; data were coded for each component of Ormrod's (2008) framework (planning, instruction, assessment, environment, and student behavior), and additional codes were added for anything seeming important, repetitive, or contradictory. After generating a preliminary set of codes, NVivo was used to produce a second list of codes based on word frequencies throughout all interview transcripts, observation notes, and collected documents. With NVivo's suggested codes in mind, the authors combed through all data again to add, combine, or eliminate codes from the first round. After recoding and reducing the data several times, a list of final codes was utilized in thematizing. During the winnowing process of thematizing, greater weight was given to codes mentioned by multiple participants, frequently referenced by one participant, particularly emotional, or explicitly noted as important. Meanwhile, the researchers ensured the themes included diverse perspectives and quotations across all participants and schools. Eight general themes emerged from the data, which were used to develop a thick description and make meaning of the phenomenon ( Creswell, 2013).

Findings

Through data analysis, eight overarching themes emerged that addressed the purpose of this study. Due to the true interconnectedness of Ormrod's (2008) interdependent network of teaching-the conceptual framework guiding this study-themes are presented here as interconnected (aligning with more than one component) rather than in direct relation to each component of Ormrod's framework. Table 3 provides a breakdown of each overarching theme within Ormrod's (2008) interdependent network of teaching. Following is a detailed description of each theme.

Themes as They Connect to Ormrod's (2008) Interdependent Network of Teaching.

Theme 1: Planning, Instruction, and Assessment Become More Purposeful

Participants repeatedly referenced a connection between SBG and more purposeful planning, instruction, and assessment. As Lindsay explained, "If you can't come up with a 'why,' then it gets eliminated." Participants noted specific effects of more purposeful planning, instruction, and assessments, namely that their instruction was driven by assessment data and differentiated for student needs, and assessments became more rigorous.

Participants recognized that once assessments were aligned to specific standards, analyzing assessment data and planning effective, differentiated instruction became much easier due to clearer results and a deeper knowledge of student needs. As participants explained, "the target is clear," and teachers "have more accurate data," therefore "instruction is driven by . . . assessment a lot more." Participants also realized that by focusing on skill acquisition over task completion, it did not matter how students demonstrated their level of proficiency as long as it was related to the standard in question. Therefore, all seven participants differentiated their instruction and assessments in some way, including variations in length, depth, or process. Such differentiation was especially apparent while observing Seamus; he and his co-teacher took turns in providing guided instruction to three separate groups of students each reading and preparing in various ways for an upcoming student-led discussion. Seamus explained in a later interview that as a result of the student-led discussion (used as a formative assessment), additional directed instruction was planned for a small group of students who struggled with the task.

For participants, assessments not only became more differentiated with SBG but also more rigorous. As Matt identified, "one big thing we had to change was the rigor of the tests" to ensure they accurately measured each standard. Similarly, Bridget remarked that SBG "makes my assessments better" because her tests "include questions that [have students] show me that they understand the material and not just a whole bunch of multiple-choice questions about what year something was discovered." Overall, participants shared how the focus on standards that naturally accompanies SBG led to more purposeful planning, instruction, and assessment.

Theme 2: Communication Is Clear

Participants emphasized that with SBG, learning became the focal point of communication; as such, they noticed enhanced "clarity," making communication more "transparent," and "open-ended." Particularly, teachers pointed out effects of SBG on their elucidation of students' needs, students' understanding of the purposes and expectations for their learning, the provision of clear feedback for students and parents, and more learning-centered student conversations.

Teachers believed SBG not only helped them understand their own students' needs (thus improving their ability to plan effective instruction) but also enhanced their articulation of those needs with others, such as future teachers, special education teachers, paraprofessionals, tutors, or parents. As Lindsay put it, "the gradebook itself communicates better" because interested stakeholders could see a breakdown of how students performed on specific skills. For example, instead of labeling each assignment in the gradebook (e.g., "Quiz 1" or "Exercise 1.1"), participants entered scores for each standard or learning target (e.g., "apply the distributive property" or "simplify square roots"). The clearer gradebook, Matt believed, led to increased "parental support, as well [because they] know how to help their kids a lot more." Teachers also elucidated purposes more clearly during instruction. While observing classrooms, six of the seven participants directly referred to that day's goal or learning target toward the beginning of the lesson; for Seamus, that included three types of goals: learning, language, and social. According to Amanda, "We have more real-world applicable conversations, like the why behind what we are doing." Similarly, Colleen revealed, "It's become less about, 'I'm writing the paper for school because I have to,' and more about, 'Here are the things I need to be able to do to be successful.'"

All seven participants emphasized that assessment feedback became more specific once implementing SBG. Seamus indicated that "a benefit of standards-based systems is that feedback is grounded in the measuring tool," pointing out there were "really no questions about, 'What do I have to change?' because they saw the descriptor and the rubric." Colleen expressed that "before, [students would say], 'Okay. Well, I got a 75 on that test.'" With SBG, however, students could articulate, "I'm really good at introductions, but I struggle with conclusions." Colleen's student-specific, detailed feedback was evident while observing her one-to-one writing conferences with students, as well as in the examples of student feedback she provided via document review; for each student, Colleen provided a one-page document listing each substandard, along with several sentences describing the students' specific strengths, weaknesses, and next steps for each category. Bridget also provided concrete examples of her feedback, writing on one student assessment, "Your hypothesis should be in [ sic] if, then, because statement. It should also include your IV and DV."

Additionally, participants voiced a change in the student behavior of asking questions. Several teachers mentioned how SBG gave students "the language to know what they need help with." Instead of "asking about tests or projects" or providing a vague "I don't get it," student conversations became "more about the skill." Bridget, especially, observed a difference in how her current students-immersed in traditional grading outside Bridget's class-approach her for help. Students in Bridget's previous SBG school "would come in and say, 'I don't understand this part of what we learned.' Whereas the students will come in here, and they'll just be like, 'I don't understand any of it.'" Overall, participants believed students' communication with one another and with teachers became clearer with SBG because they were better able to articulate what they were learning, provide feedback to peers, and ask more learning-centered questions.

According to some participants, students are not the only beneficiaries of clearer communication; parents also gain a better understanding of where students are and how they can improve.

Theme 3: Compromises Are Made Between Adopting Recommended SBG Practices and Maintaining Tradition

Although most participants were aware of recommended SBG practices, each of them made some compromises in practice. For example, all participants continued assessing and reporting based on percentages and letter grades-albeit unwillingly, as each participant noted limitations in their school's conversion system. Lindsay lamented, "the biggest flaw is that we have people trying to do standards-based grading in a percentage system. . . . You're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it just doesn't work." A few participants discovered students could be proficient on only a few standards, but still earn passing-or even high-grades once everything averaged together.

Ironically, while teachers believed converting SBG to letter grades dispensed inaccurately high grades, a plethora of students and parents criticized the practice for unfairly lowering grades. To illustrate, Seamus pointed out that his school converted a score of "progressing" to a D, which "has nothing but negative connotations associated with it." Moreover, several participants described a general grade reduction for compliant students who did not thoroughly understand course concepts; once SBG reported "where [students] are in terms of their relationship to the target," it became "harder for [students] to work the system."

As a result of merging SBG practices with traditional grades, teachers needed "to balance the reality of the current school system with idealistic grading." Therefore, several participants allowed certain student behaviors to influence academic grades, as was reflected throughout interviews and provided course syllabi. Various rationales included raising or lowering a borderline grade based on work ethic, grading nonstandards such as notebook completion to maintain compliance, or adding a grading category for "professionalism" because students will need such skills in the future.

In addition to behaviors, participants sometimes allowed student characteristics to influence academic grades in pursuit of fairness and equity. Specifically, participants reported a conundrum when trying to grade students with special needs or language barriers against the same standards as everyone else. Bridget acknowledged she had a "different perspective on what their . . . mastery would look like compared to the other students." Comparably, Colleen admitted she would "take more liberty" with students with special needs, and Matt said he was "more lenient" with students from other countries, rationalizing, "it's not like they're going to get accepted to Harvard and bump someone else out."

In addition to disapproving of converting SBG scores into letter grades, teachers' frustrations amounted when SBG was implemented in isolation from-or inconsistently with-other teachers. Each participant described either benefits of implementing SBG in collaboration with others-such as the ability to "divvy up the workload"-or the perils of feeling like an "island," as some put it. Six participants implemented SBG practices in a school where other teachers continued traditional practices, and they revealed it was "a bit of a struggle" and "a rough transition" for parents-and especially students-to adjust to SBG when they toggled between traditional and SBG practices.

Even among teachers utilizing SBG practices, participants lamented inconsistencies between departments, which they believed created a disorganized environment that exacerbated parent and student frustrations. Seamus explicated, "A vocal minority of parents were complaining about some of the standards-based practices. They didn't really understand it, and I think that might have been due to a lot of poor implementation in those initial stages." Colleen shared a similar frustration, stating, "We could kind of do what we wanted, and so everyone was grading on standards, but everyone's gradebook looked different. . . . Kids complained about that." Furthermore, Matt and Lindsay described so-called "standards-based" teachers who "don't quite get it yet" or "were not doing it right at all," which caused further inconsistencies, thus, increasing irritation among teachers and students.

Theme 4: SBG Creates an Environment Conducive to Learning

Every participant believed SBG was more conducive to student learning than traditional grading, and most could not justify a return to the latter. Specifically, participants praised SBG for its acceptance of mistakes and unacceptance of failure, which they believed "makes sense" for student learning. Participants realized that when grading became less evaluative and more recursive, both teachers and students became more comfortable with making mistakes-a concept that will be further explicated in Themes 5 and 7, respectively. Although mistakes became more acceptable, failure became less of an option, as was evident when reviewing various individual and schoolwide reassessment policies. For some teachers, not accepting failure meant requiring students to reassess work that was below proficient; for others, such as the teachers at Waterford, students were obligated to demonstrate proficiency on all priority standards to pass general education courses. Every participant believed reassessment opportunities helped students reach challenging learning goals. Amanda believed reassessments were especially beneficial for students with special needs because they "leveled the playing field" by honoring later learning. Lindsay contended, "The students who are at-risk . . . tend to thrive in this environment." However, as Matt clarified, reassessment was not an endless supply of "do overs," but a system that held students accountable: "We don't let kids retake. We let them reassess and relearn."

As a result of increased expectations-and supports such as honoring later learning and allowing reassessments-participants believed students "generally do improve" academically. Seamus supported this perception with data from an "audit" of the state universities:

A complaint from the community was, "Well, we're not going to prepare them for college by offering reassessments." And it turns out that we're one of the most successful buildings in the state with kids not having to take remediation courses in college.

Additionally, Lindsay mentioned that her students were "more successful" in an SBG environment, and Colleen believed SBG "pushed all [students]." Participants acknowledged that an increased emphasis on feedback over grades, as well as more differentiated learning, helped students of all ability levels demonstrate academic growth.

Theme 5: An SBG Climate Meets Students' Needs

Academic achievement is not the only student need enhanced by SBG practices. As part of an overall environment that is conducive to student learning, participants noted that SBG classrooms created a favorable climate for additional student needs to be met, as well. Participants identified several SBG practices that satisfy-to varying degrees-students' needs for intellectual safety, belonging, and choice; however, teachers perceived SBG met only certain students' need for enjoyment.

SBG was perceived to meet students' needs for intellectual safety because both students and teachers became more comfortable making mistakes. For instance, Lindsay believed her classroom was "a very safe environment to make mistakes in" and that "there's no gotcha moment, ever." As Bridget pointed out, "I think [SBG] just builds a more positive climate within the classroom, where it's okay not to be right the first time around." Matt explained, "I think it's a lot more easygoing in my class than a lot of the other classes where they're constantly being judged for a grade." Students' willingness to admit mistakes and seek feedback was observed during five of the seven classroom observations, as each teacher provided time for students to practice a skill without being graded. For example, Colleen conducted one-on-one writing conferences with students, Seamus checked in on each student's progress on a project, Lindsay worked in peer and teacher feedback during small group performances, and Matt and Bridget circulated the room while students practiced new skills. In each circumstance, students were observed asking questions, admitting when they were unsure, and seeking feedback on how well they were doing with various skills.

SBG met students' needs for belonging. Several teachers mentioned an increase in "community" in which students' behaviors were "more supportive of each other" because prior judgment and peer comparison had been removed. Lindsay reported, "I don't see a lot of grade comparing that I used to see," and Amanda believed this especially benefitted students with special needs. On the other end of the spectrum, Seamus believed the reduction in competition caused irritation for upper-level students who liked to be compared with their peers.

SBG met students' needs for choice, which participants believed contributed to a comfortable and community-oriented climate. Specifically, teachers gave students more choice in how to learn when planning for instruction and assessment because they realized, in Colleen's words, "The end goal is this, so why do I really care how they get there?" Mitch further corroborated, "showing evidence that you know [the standard is] all that matters." Student choice was especially apparent when observing Amanda's and Colleen's classrooms at Waterford. Amanda's students were each presenting a self-created artifact of their choice, based off a book of their choice, to demonstrate the assigned reading strategy. Students in Colleen's classroom were working independently to apply teacher and student feedback to self-selected creative writing tasks while taking turns conferencing with Colleen about their writing.

Finally, participants perceived that students' need for enjoyment was only fulfilled for certain students in an SBG system. While there was some mention of increased student engagement during class, participants were more apt to discuss a particular demographic with an aversion to SBG: the "teacher pleaser." Participants repeatedly targeted this group for disliking SBG the most. Most participants purported such distaste was a result of having to work harder to earn an A, typically because students could no longer "pad" their grade with homework completion or extra credit points, but instead had to demonstrate high levels of learning. Seamus explained, "I think it haunts the teacher pleasers ( laughs) because it's harder for them to work the system." While participants believed the "high fliers" found the least enjoyment in a standards-based environment, five participants stated they received generally positive feedback from students and parents regarding their SBG practices. Two participants remarked that it was not the students-but the parents-who were the "harder sell." Despite SBG only meeting certain students' needs for enjoyment, participants perceived it as a generally positive fulfillment of other classroom climate needs: intellectual safety, a sense of community over competition, and freedom of choice. When SBG meets students' needs, the overall classroom environment becomes even more conducive to student learning-including classroom management.

Theme 6: Teachers Must Find New Ways to Promote and Enforce Desirable Behaviors

With SBG, every participant ceased lowering grades due to work completion or work timeliness, instead finding alternative ways to admonish poor work habits. Participants promoted desirable classroom behaviors by tying them to a more clearly elucidated purpose. Teachers spent more instructional time communicating the rationale behind desirable classroom behaviors and "talking about how academic behaviors get in the way of their success." One such example was found in Colleen's syllabus:

When you don't have rough drafts ready to go for revision days, that tells your classmates 1) you don't value feedback . . . and 2) you aren't willing to make yourself available to give them feedback. . . . Similarly, it shows a lack of respect for my time when you turn in drafts late. When you write, participate, and meet deadlines, you'll get a good return on your investment-you'll get feedback from your peers and me to help you improve the quality of your thinking and writing.

Although SBG helped participants clearly rationalize appropriate student behaviors, teachers did not become immune to student misbehavior or irresponsibility. However, instead of utilizing habitual assessment and reporting tactics such as lowering students' grades, participants employed more "natural consequences" for undesirable student behaviors. Such policies-intended to maintain an environment focused on learning-were often communicated via course syllabi. For example, students who did not complete their work were required to complete it instead of receiving a zero. Some teachers did not allow revisions on work submitted after a due date. Another policy required peer review before submitting writing drafts, so students who missed the deadline were required to find a reviewer outside of class.

Lindsay was particularly troubled by a lack of connection between consequences and learning goals within the traditional system. She lamented, "[Students] missed a concert. What do they have to do to make up a concert? Write. A. Paper. . . . But that's not what we are grading them on in the performance." Lindsay went on to describe her new system of consequences, in which a student who missed a concert would videotape himself or herself singing the music from that concert. She discussed, "That's an assessment I can get behind because ... you're doing the same skill set as everybody that was there. That makes more sense to me."

Besides late and missing work, participants also altered the way they handled cheating or plagiarizing behaviors, again shifting the environmental focus from the consequence to learning. As Lindsay pointed out, "Cheating doesn't result in a zero. . . . It results in a reassess because I want them to get it eventually." Referring to students who plagiarize, Seamus stated, "In the past, I would have just failed them; and now, I still want evidence of the learning." He added, "But then I give them the full credit for the work when it's done-according to the standard."

Theme 7: Students Shift Toward a Growth Mind-Set

In juxtaposition with learning-centered communication, participants provided several behavioral examples depicting a general shift in students from a fixed mind-set toward a growth mind-set ( Dweck, 2006). Specifically, participants recognized that their students focused more on learning content than earning grades, embraced mistakes, took healthy risks, and experienced increased confidence. Participants recognized that students discussed learning more than grades. For instance, Mitch commented, "I couldn't tell you the last time I heard somebody ask, 'Do you have any extra credit?' [or] 'Is this worth points?' . . . It's a lot more like, 'I don't understand this. I need help with this.'"

Furthermore, participants perceived that their students became more comfortable making mistakes, occasionally pointing out that students began to associate mistakes with learning, rather than identity. Colleen's students recognized, "I can do well on five parts and do not so well on three parts in that paper. That doesn't mean I'm a bad writer. It means I need to improve on those three parts." Colleen's students exhibited this attitude with statements such as, "I need . . .," "I don't like . . .," or "What if we . . .?" while conferencing with Colleen on their writing. When self-identification and all-or-nothing thinking was reduced, students were more likely to persist despite setbacks-and also admit mistakes. Matt reflected on previous student behaviors regarding homework: "I don't think [students] ever wanted to tell me they got something wrong because even though it was based on completion, I think they were nervous I was still going to change their score or something." Bridget believed "the whole safety piece with the students knowing that it's okay to be wrong" was an important benefit of SBG.

Participants also believed students took more risks with SBG, such as "try[ing] some of the harder problems," attempting new writing styles, or "reading a more difficult book." Seamus credited students' risk-taking to differentiation, as well as multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency. Lindsay further reported that most of her students were more willing to take risks because "it's never about being perfect. It's about growing from wherever they are. And so, they're willing to take more risks because it's safe to take risks."

As a result of shifting from fixed to more growth mind-set habits, participants perceived an increase in student confidence. Mitch pointed out that students, especially those receiving special education services, "feel a little more encouraged" and have less "hopelessness that, 'It's bad, so it's done. It's over. I'm a failure.'" Several participants correlated students' boost in self-confidence with more specific feedback and the ability to reassess. Colleen explained, "I've had a couple kids say, 'Oh, that's the first time a teacher has ever told me something I've done well.'" However, multiple participants acknowledged that students' increased confidence may take time to develop. Seamus emphasized how some students endure "a lot of struggle before they get to experience success."

It is important to note participants' revelations that it took time for students to develop some of the aforementioned growth mind-set characteristics and behaviors. One student characteristic, however, was frequently mentioned as unchanging in some students: the desire to get a good grade. Most participants acknowledged that even though students talked about standards and became more comfortable with mistakes and risks, some students were "still motivated by the grade." A few participants explored the "cultural focus on grades," pinpointing societal and parental pressure on students as a catalyst in their extrinsic motivation. Several participants also believed students' extrinsic motivation was in part the result of converting standards-based scores into traditional letter grades and percentages. Bridget, for example, observed, "It's still playing a game then, if it's based off percentages in the gradebook-and the kids pick up on any sort of game that they can get away with." She later explained that "standards-based does a better job of [students] seeing how they can learn better to achieve that grade," but students still think, "'I need to do better for the grade,' and not because they want to know the material."

Theme 8: Students' Accountability Initially Decreases, but Given Time, Students Take More Ownership for Their Learning

With SBG, students had more flexibility regarding work completion and deadlines. As a result, some students initially decreased accountability because they did not recognize an "immediate payoff" for their efforts. One way that students would "cheat" or "abuse" the system was to "see the test, fail it, and then take it again." Bridget explained that this led to "the horrible reassessment spiral [with students] trying to learn new material and do all the work to reassess, so they're constantly behind." Some participants, however, pointed out that effective policies-such as prerequisites for and limitations on reassessments, as well as instructional changes based on assessment results-could curb students' lack of effort on a first assessment attempt. Four of the seven participants included reassessment policies in their course syllabi, and two of the five schools developed schoolwide reassessment guidelines; each of these policies included a prerequisite for students to complete teacher-assigned practice work for reassessment eligibility, which Kilkenny's school policy refers to as an "opportunity cost . . . so that students will recognize the value of doing well the first time."

Despite a noticeable reduction in assessment preparation, most participants did not perceive significant changes in students' general effort or work completion. Matt reflected,

If I were to try to quantify when I graded homework versus when I don't grade homework, the percentage of students that do a quality job, I honestly don't think it's changed. . . . I don't know that any grading scale can change some of their minds.

Although participants did not perceive noteworthy changes to students' general effort or work completion behaviors, timeliness was a bigger concern. Students tended to put off work until the end of a term, and then rushed to get it finished at the last minute. Amanda explained, "My students leave the reassessment of standards or competencies until the last week, and then they have 15 to retest, and it's this insurmountable task." Colleen shared that one of the biggest challenges of SBG was "work ethic," pointing to students' perceptions that, "I've got all this time. I don't need to worry about it." While most participants indicated students took advantage of flexible deadlines and sometimes waited until the end of the term to complete their work, Seamus contended, "Kids have missed deadlines since the beginning of my career ( laughs). Even with the threat of 50 percent going off, I've had kids go all the way to 50 percent off their papers. It didn't change their behaviors." He also mentioned that late work "stands out to me more now," later contemplating, "I hear teachers complaining about it. . . . So, I think it's more prevalent to me just because of how much attention it gets."

Despite a slight reduction in effort and timeliness, participants believed such behaviors eventually improved as students began taking "more ownership" for their learning. A few participants credited the improvements to tightened policies and deadlines, such as the previously noted reassessment guidelines. Lindsay additionally attributed this improvement to student experience: "Some of it is that they lived through it at the end of last semester, realizing the frantic rush to try to get things done was not better, and that they didn't do as well on those assessments." A few participants referred specifically to an increase in student control as a component of student ownership. Lindsay expressed, "[Students] have more ownership over it. I feel like they feel like they're in control of their grade as opposed to the grade is something being done to them." As a result of increased control, participants also discussed students' improved ability to prioritize their learning and advocate for their needs.

Additionally, several participants believed students became more engaged and took more ownership for their learning because they had a clearer understanding of why and how to improve their learning. For example, Lindsay would "make that connection of, 'Here's the hoop we're jumping through, but this is why I'm making you do it.' ... And then, they will do it.... The kids need to be connected to their learning." Bridget also believed SBG helped students understand how to improve their learning, especially when preparing for tests. Seamus explained that when his students understood the purpose of formative assessments, it provoked them to do their best, despite not receiving an immediate, tangible grade for their efforts. Observing Seamus's classroom corroborated this notion; after spending 15 minutes clearly explaining the expectations and real-world applications for specific speaking and listening skills, students remained on task for the remainder of the class period while preparing for an upcoming formative discussion (which would not count toward their final grade).

Moreover, participants believed students were more likely to read assessment feedback and self-assess their understanding. Colleen pointed out that SBG requires students to internalize feedback in a deeper way because "they can't just take the number [and say,] 'I'm done.' They have to figure out, 'Well, what don't I understand about that, and what do I need to do?'" Students also began using feedback to improve their learning. Colleen, for example, remarked, "Before, no one ever asked to make revisions, ever. Unless I forced them to ( laughs)."

Discussion and Implications for Practice

Although this study was not intended to prove whether SBG is effective, it provided insight for administrators and teachers on the ways in which SBG practices affect planning, instruction, assessment, classroom environment, and students' behavior, thus, helping practitioners decide if and how such changes may be applicable to their own contexts.

Secondary School Administrators

Implementing SBG requires more than a few alterations to the gradebook; it requires systemic modifications to teachers' planning, instruction, assessment, and classroom environment (see Themes 1, 4, and 6). To support teachers in this work, it is important for high school administrators to explore and address teachers' hesitations in adopting specific SBG practices, develop schoolwide systems to support teachers as they transition to SBG, create grading expectations that foster consistency, and provide meaningful professional development opportunities.

As identified in Theme 3, participants struggled to fully remove all nonacademic factors when assessing student work, often to communicate important behaviors, hold students accountable, or seek equity for students with special needs or extenuating circumstances. When teachers struggle to turn SBG theory into practice, whatever lies at the heart of this reluctance must be explicitly recognized and accounted for within the new grading system. To adequately compromise theory and practice, administrators need to begin by exploring teachers' concerns with SBG practices.

Once specific concerns have been identified, administrators can develop schoolwide systems to support teachers through the transition. For example, since teachers still considered student behaviors and characteristics when assessing and reporting student work (see Theme 3), administrators could create separate reports for academics and behaviors, so that teachers can communicate important behaviors without affecting the validity or reliability of the academic grade. Administrators could also create a schoolwide approach to grading and reporting for students with special needs, such as the step-by-step guide developed by Jung and Guskey (2011, 2012). To address teacher concerns regarding student accountability-as revealed in Themes 3 and 8-administrators could develop schoolwide, learning-centered consequences for students who do not complete necessary schoolwork. Participants believed classroom-level policies involving natural consequences eventually increased student ownership (Theme 8); therefore, schoolwide interventions can be arranged, such as required before or after school sessions with a paid teacher supervisor, for students who struggle with accountability (Theme 8).

Participants expressed additional frustrations when SBG was implemented without adequate supports or consistent policies (Theme 3). To alleviate this concern, administrators should create schoolwide policies to foster consistency. To balance the school's need for reliability with teachers' need for autonomy, DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, and Mattos (2016) recommend developing "tight" and "loose" expectations; however, they caution, "Loose and tight culture will impact student and adult learning in a positive way only if the district is 'tight' on the right things" (p. 212). In an SBG environment, one of the "right things" with which to enforce consistency is the grading scale used to determine final course grades, as inconsistent grading policies seemed to cause the greatest frustration among teachers, students, and parents (Theme 3). Other "tight" policies must ensure teachers implement the three cornerstone elements of SBG with fidelity to ensure valid and reliable grading that supports student learning: grades based on standards, removing behavioral influences on academic grades, and allowing multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency ( Beatty, 2013; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Schimmer, 2014; Vatterott, 2015; Wormeli, 2011).

Finally, sufficient time and supports should be devoted to learning why and how to adopt each element of SBG. SBG takes ample time to implement, especially in the initial stages. Teachers must redesign their assessment, instruction (Theme 1), grading scales (Theme 3), and classroom management policies (Theme 6), and spend more time providing feedback (Theme 2), differentiating instruction based on student assessments (Theme 1), and providing multiple assessment opportunities (Theme 4). Teachers-including participants in this study-prefer implementing standards-based practices incrementally and in teams ( Vogel, 2012). Therefore, it is recommended that professional development on specific SBG practices-especially strategies for removing behaviors from academic grades and recording full credit for later learning-be effectively embedded into professional learning communities by knowledgeable, supportive teacher leaders. If administrators address teachers' hesitations, create schoolwide systems of support, develop consistent expectations, and provide appropriate professional development, then teachers are more likely to feel supported and implement grading practices with fidelity.

Secondary School Teachers

Teachers are often on the frontlines of educational reform, and SBG is no exception. Based on the findings of this study, teachers may reduce stress and maximize effectiveness by working in teams to implement one change at a time, teaching students why and how to develop lifelong work habits, and allowing the "implementation dip" to happen. When participants began utilizing SBG, they redesigned assessments and instructional planning to be more purposeful and responsive to student needs (Theme 1), altered communication methods (Theme 2), and revamped policies for managing student work ethic and behavior (Theme 6). Such changes take time to implement, and teachers do not always recognize the full extent of necessary changes until they are deeply immersed in the SBG process. Systems changes can be overwhelming, and teacher stress is exacerbated when standards-based practices are implemented "too top-down, too fast, too much at once" ( Vatterott, 2015, p. 102; see also Vogel, 2012).

Because of SBG's multifaceted effects, coupled with teacher and student frustrations when SBG is implemented hastily and inconsistently (Theme 3), it is imperative for teachers to focus on one change at a time. For instance, teachers can begin by identifying priority standards, followed by creating proficiency scales, redesigning assessments, aligning instruction with standards, and then slowly incorporating natural consequences for work habits. Although seemingly counterintuitive, reporting practices should be the last thing to change with SBG because teachers cannot report on standards until everything else aligns with them. In addition to changing one thing at a time, teachers should work together to shoulder the load-especially early in implementation-since participants expressed increased difficulties when implementing SBG in isolation (Theme 3). Teachers can seek out a support system from the same school, a nearby school, or even through an online professional learning network; this will save teachers time and provide much needed support.

Furthermore, teachers should explicitly model and teach why and how to develop lifelong work habits. To prevent students from decreasing accountability when certain behaviors are not graded (Theme 8), teachers must consistently communicate the purpose of specific behaviors such as completing practice work, submitting work on time, and preparing for assessments. When students understand the purpose for behaviors-and perceive the purpose as beneficial for them in the long term-they will be more likely to demonstrate desirable work habits such as hard work ( Glasser, 2010), intrinsic motivation ( Pink, 2011), and integrity ( Tovani, 2014). Participants similarly purported that more clearly communicated purposes for academic and behavioral expectations led to an eventual increase in student ownership (Theme 8).

Even when students understand the purpose, they may need additional strategies and support for following through with desirable work habits; this was evident when students increased late work (Theme 8) and continued to be extrinsically motivated by grades (Theme 7), despite teachers more clearly communicating the purpose behind various learning activities (Theme 2). Since participants worried students would not willingly prepare for class, stay on task, or complete their work without the motivation of a grade-and student behaviors corroborated their concerns-not all participants removed the influence of such behaviors from the grade (Theme 3). However, grading scholars recommend that rather than "teach" responsibility by using grades as a mechanism for rewards and punishments, teachers should explicitly model and teach desirable work habits because "punishing irresponsibility doesn't teach anyone how to be responsible. If we want students to learn to be responsible, we must teach them how to be responsible" ( Schimmer, 2014, p. 12). Specifically, teachers could demonstrate and provide feedback on note-taking, study strategies, organizational techniques, or task prioritization. If teachers see there are options besides manipulating grades for promoting desirable student work habits, perhaps they will be more inclined to remove all behaviors from academic grades with fidelity.

Finally, teachers must allow the "implementation dip" to happen as students learn to become more accountable for their own learning (Theme 8). During the first several months of SBG, participants' students remained extrinsically motivated by grades (Theme 7) and tried to "play the game" by submitting late work and failing to prepare for initial assessment attempts (Theme 8). However, this "implementation dip," as Peters and Buckmiller (2015) call it, should eventually give way to a general increase in student growth mind-set and ownership, as reported by participants (Theme 8). If teachers have established appropriate and effective natural consequences for undesirable student behaviors, this may further expedite the process for students, as participants believed refined policies improved student accountability over time (Theme 8). For example, if a student submits practice work late, consequences may include missed opportunities for peer review, late return of teacher feedback, removal from an engaging activity while they complete their work, or after school or lunch sessions until the work is complete. Additionally, students who perform poorly on assessments should be required to complete or revise the practice work before reassessing, or perhaps be required to attend special study sessions, which may take place after school or in place of an engaging extension activity. In the meantime, teachers must be patient with the process, allowing the "implementation dip" to happen and natural consequences to run their course, because students-like teachers-need time to comprehend and navigate a new system of grading and reporting (see Theme 8). Overall, when teachers take small steps together, teach rationale and strategies for developing desirable behaviors, and exercise patience through an initial accountability decrease, they are more likely to feel successful with SBG implementation.

Conclusion

Although "grading" is the focal point of SBG, it is not just a grading reform, but an educational reform. SBG implementation requires systemic changes that affect many facets of stakeholders' beliefs and practices. High school teachers in this study who adopted SBG practices believed it made their planning, instruction, assessment, and environment more purposeful and successful. SBG implementation does not come without a price, however; it requires time to develop, often faces pushback from community members resistant to change, may cause frustration when inconsistencies or unanticipated issues arise, and does not produce immediate results. Nevertheless, SBG was perceived by participants as the "right work" and beneficial for students' long-term learning and development.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achieve . (2016). Charting college- and career-ready skills. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/CollegeCareerReady-Skills-VennDiagram.pdf
Google Scholar

Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., . . . Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86, 803-848. doi: |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals | ISI

Carifio, J., Carey, T. (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy recommendations. High School Journal, 93, 23-37. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref

Glasser, W. (2010). The quality school curriculum. In K., Ryan, Cooper, J. M. (Eds.), Kaleidoscope: Contemporary and classic readings in education (12th ed., pp. 128-133). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. doi: |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals

Guskey, T. R., Swan, G. M., Jung, L. A. (2011). Grades that mean something: Kentucky develops standards-based report cards. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 52-57. |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals | ISI

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Muñoz, M. A., Guskey, T. R. (2015). Standards-based grading and reporting will improve education. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(7), 64-68. doi: |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals | ISI

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers . (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Google Scholar

Peters, R., Buckmiller, T. (2015). Our grades were broken: Overcoming barriers and challenges to implementing standards-based grading. Journal of Educational Leadership in Action, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.lindenwood.edu/academics/beyond-the-classroom/publications/journal-of-educational-leadership-in-action/all-issues/previous-issues/volume-2-issue-2/our-grades-were-broken-overcoming-barriers-and-challenges-to-implementing-standards-based-grading/
Google Scholar

Swan, G. M., Guskey, T. R., Jung, L. A. (2014). Parents' and teachers' perceptions of standards-based and traditional report cards. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 289-299. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref | ISI

Vogel, L. R. (2012). A leader's journey: The challenges of implementing standards-based student grouping. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 323-349. doi: |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals

Welsh, M. E., D'Agostino, J. V. (2009). Fostering consistency between standards-based grades and large-scale assessment results. In T. R., Guskey (Ed.), Practical solutions for serious problems in standards-based grading (pp. 75-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Google Scholar

Zoeckler, L. G. (2007). Moral aspects of grading: A study of high school English teachers' perceptions. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 83-102.
Google Scholar

Author Biographies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taking on a New Grading System: The Interconnected Effects of Standards-Based Grading on Teaching, Learning, Assessment, and Student Behavior - Megan Knight, Robyn Cooper, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This study explored high school teachers' perceptions of the effects of standards-based grading (SBG) on planning, instruction, assessment, classroom management, and student behaviors. Findings indicated that despite some infidelity and an initial implementation dip, systemic (SBG) changes made teaching clearer, more purposeful, and more conducive to student needs while enhancing student growth mind-set and ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Differentiated Instruction

Whether students are ahead of their peers or behind, differentiation should ensure that all learners engage in critical thinking.

Imagine asking one of your students for advice about choosing a birthday present for a family member who's their age and shares similar interests. When they recommend what to get, could they also explain what options to avoid and why their suggestion is the best choice? Is it likely that any of your students could give gift advice in this scenario whether their academic success was high or minimal?

Their advice is critical thinking in action. They analyze the information about your family member's interests and evaluate the quality of the options, including their suitability as the best fit. How do we give all learners opportunities to engage in challenging content that is differentiated based on academic needs?

A common misconception is that an effective differentiation system for readiness (i.e., skill levels) can be based on the revised Bloom's Taxonomy or another framework, like Webb's Depth of Knowledge. The idea is that advanced learners get activities where they analyze, evaluate, and create, while struggling learners need to build knowledge and understanding through basic applications.

As a result, learners who struggle with a subject area are denied rich experiences that could help them see authentic uses of skills in the world outside of school. While they work on abstract school content, they see their peers engage in rich conversations, analyzing and evaluating concepts to create artifacts for a public audience. It's like watching a three-star chef prepare a savory banquet as you prepare to eat a white bread sandwich containing iceberg lettuce.

This oversimplified approach to differentiation denies struggling learners valuable experiences that are based on higher-order thinking, despite their capacity to analyze, evaluate, and create in their daily lives. But how do we give all learners opportunities to engage in challenging content that is differentiated based on academic needs?

Steps for Differentiating to Challenge All Learners

Start with the end in mind. Identify the core skills and concepts that make up the learning outcomes. Then collect information on your students' preparedness, from prerequisites and minor gaps to existing mastery. Combined with students' lived experiences, this data should inform you on how to revise and/or remix a planned complex activity.

Recorded readings. Oral understanding can aid reading material by improving access to the information.

Word journals. Provide a words/terminology bank for key concepts in the subject area. Students should routinely update and review their journals.

Collaboration teams. Use structured protocol strategies for learner groups to explore, process, and construct content.

Peer support. Other learners can serve as resources as the need arises.

Next, design the learning experience for all students to complete that includes a critical thinking challenge.

Learning stations. Have students participate in different stations where they work on prerequisite skills based on their current skill level. The teacher is one station to personalize support for students grouped by similar needs.

Independent work. Assign students work based on the prerequisite skills they need more practice with. The teacher meets with students for personalized support.

Remix the critical thinking activity. Review the activity and make a version that focuses on either fewer choices or fewer moving parts. Simplify without compromising the critical thinking experience. Or, create a version that focuses on the prerequisite skills without compromising the opportunity for critical thinking.

For students who can accomplish the skills with bridging supports,curate resources, guides, and tools that support learners' needs while focusing on the instructional outcome. Here are some examples:

For students who lack prerequisite skills or conceptual understanding,plan activities that include custom supports for skills and critical thinking experiences. Here are some examples:

For students who already meet learning expectations,introduce new knowledge, skills, and/or concepts that amplify their understanding. Add these elements into the prepared critical thinking experience for more seasoning and spice. This could be included in learning stations, independent work, and other activities.

Differentiation is about meeting needs for all learners through equitable critical thinking challenges.

If we routinely review and analyze student achievement data to monitor their progress, the information tells us the specific gaps or prerequisite skills each learner needs more practice with to learn. The steps shared above take that information and add adaptations or mirrored versions of the core assignment. A different series of learning activities do not need to be created-unless that is the direction you choose based on the learner achievement data.

Not limiting critical thinking opportunities for learners who struggle with the content helps them feel that they can do challenging work. This is an important goal for growing their self-esteem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Differentiation to Challenge All Students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether students are ahead of their peers or behind, teachers can use differentiation to challenge all of them to think critically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Is it going to transform public schools, finally bringing education into the age of digitally driven personalization embodied by companies such as Amazon and Netflix? Or is it a billionaire-backed boondoggle, aimed primarily at replacing teachers and extracting data from children? When it comes to "personalized learning," there's no shortage of hyperbole from either proponents or critics.

Here's what you need to know about the realities of one of the biggest, most controversial trends in K-12 education-starting with the most difficult question first.

What exactly is personalized learning?
Inside K-12 schools, the term is used to mean just about anything.
For many educators, it's about using adaptive software that adjusts to each student's skill level. Sometimes, it's about the systematic use of digital data to inform big decisions, like how to group students. Other schools focus on giving students more say over what projects they undertake, or how they present their work. And increasingly, personalized-learning proponents also take a much wider lens, saying schools must nurture each individual child's social, emotional, and physical development.

Some see such scattered and nebulous definitions as reason to worry that personalized learning will go the way of other short-lived reforms. Others are more positive.

"In the same way that Inuits have lots of different words for 'snow,' I think these are all personalized learning," says Larry Berger, the CEO of ed-tech company Amplify and a leading thinker and writer on the topic for over a decade.

What's the hope behind the movement?
Very broadly speaking, the idea is to customize the learning experience for each student according to his or her unique skills, abilities, preferences, background, and experiences.
The hope is that will improve a wide range of student outcomes, from engagement to achievement to wellbeing.

Personalized-learning pioneer Dianne Tavenner told Education Week in 2017 that it's about the type of education good teachers have always envisioned, but haven't always had the tools to make a reality.

"Personalized learning is a way to actually enact the pedagogy we believe in and that kids thrive in," said Tavenner, the founder of Summit Public Schools, a California-based charter network that operates about a dozen of its own personalized-learning schools while licensing its personalized-learning software to hundreds of others.

So is this a new idea or not?
Not really.
The personalized learning movement has two primary wings, each of which is grounded in decades-old (and often warring) philosophies about how children learn. The so-called "engineering model" of personalized learning emphasizes efficient mastery of academic content. The idea is that experts can map out what each child needs to learn, measure what of that each already knows, and then create the optimal path for him or her to learn the rest.

Other approaches to personalized learning are rooted in progressive education traditions. This wing of the movement generally holds that learning happens when schools tap into students' interests and passions, giving them individualized opportunities to ask questions and explore and take risks.

The former approach dates at least back to the 1950s, when psychologist B.F. Skinner was experimenting with "teaching machines" intended to let students answer questions and receive feedback at their own pace. The latter goes back more than a century, to John Dewey. It's often seen today in schools that emphasize more project-based learning.

In both cases, what is new is the way in which technology-from big data to online collaboration tools to social media-is being used to amplify methods educators have been using more or less forever.

Where did the new push for personalized learning come from?
Big-picture, it's a reflection of deeper trends in both society and the K-12 sector.
Technology has already transformed other sectors of society, such as retail. Often, this has taken the form of using digital data to learn more about individuals and their preferences, then target them with information, advertisements, and recommendations. In part, personalized learning is a reflection of the push to apply those tools and ideas to education.

It's also emerged out of rising opposition to standardized tests and the so-called "factory model of education," which critics contend has left both children and teachers feeling like widgets inside the classroom. These broad forces started to come together in tangible form roughly a decade ago.

Beginning around 2009, for example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation began committing hundreds of millions of dollars to support research and development around personalized learning.

Then, under President Obama, the U.S. Education Department gave half a billion dollars to encourage districts to embrace the trend, primarily via its competitive-grant program known as Race to the Top. More recently, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the venture-philanthropy group started by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, pediatrician Priscilla Chan, has vowed to give hundreds of millions of dollars per year in support of its vision for "whole-child personalized learning," encompassing students' emotional and physical development as well as their academic learning.

States, companies, other philanthropies, and a network of nonprofits and advocacy groups are also now backing the movement.

Do personalized learning strategies work?
Oh yeah. Big-time.
In 2018, for example, the Education Week Research Center conducted a nationally representative survey of the country's school principals.

More than half characterized personalized learning as either a "transformational way to improve public education" or a "promising idea."

A whopping 97 percent said their schools were using digital technologies to personalize learning in some form or fashion.

Does personalized learning work?
That's precisely the wrong question to ask.
John Pane, a senior scientist at the RAND Corporation and a leading researcher of the personalized learning movement says the reason why goes back to the incredible variation in how personalized learning actually happens inside real classrooms.

"At this stage, we really need to be looking at the actual components of what people are trying to do and assess them each on their own," Pane said.

That's an argument that proponents generally embrace. They point to the strong research base for some of the core building blocks of most personalized-learning models, including providing students with differentiated instruction and real-time feedback.

Some studies of specific personalized-learning products, used in particular situations and under particular circumstances, have also yielded promising signs.

But other such studies have shown small or even negative results.

And what about personalized-learning models that seek to transform entire schools? Experts estimate there are maybe 1,000 or so such schools in the country. How are they doing?

Summit is one of the best-known, best-funded examples, having received more than $40 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. But Tavenner's group has declined to undergo independent third-party evaluation.

The results for other models that have been studied are generally not great.

"The evidence base is very weak at this point," said Pane, who led a Gates-funded study of about 40 personalized-learning schools, finding modest gains and big implementation challenges.

Are there other arguments against personalized learning?
You betcha.
Critics such as independent researcher Audrey Watters warn that personalized learning is a pretext for "massive data collection" and surveillance of students. They point to the rapid adoption of analogous technologies in other sectors (think, for example, Facebook), before the unintended and adverse privacy-related consequences we are now seeing could be ironed out.

That 2018 Education Week Research Center survey also found that a strong majority of the nation's principals worried that the trend was leading to too much screen time for students (85 percent expressed "some," "a lot" or "a great deal" of concern), students working alone too often (77 percent), and the tech industry gaining too much influence over public education (67 percent.)

Where does all that leave schools?

Pane and his team at RAND say K-12 educators, administrators, and policymakers are in the unenviable position of having to make high-stakes educational decisions with "imperfect evidence."

That doesn't mean they should stick their heads in the sand, the RAND team said. Personalized learning holds promise. Careful, cautious attempts at some elements of the trend may make sense. Stick to common sense and the evidence we do have, they advise. Resist pressure to throw out established practices that work just because they're not new and shiny.
But think twice before diving in.
"I would not advise schools to dump massive resources into going fully into personalized learning," Laura S. Hamilton, a senior behavioral scientist and distinguished chair in learning and assessment at the RAND Corporation, told Education Week in 2017. "Experiment with some new approaches that might be a good fit for your particular school or district, but monitor it very closely."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is it going to transform public schools, finally bringing education into the age of digitally driven personalization embodied by companies such as Amazon and Netflix? Or is it a billionaire-backed boondoggle, aimed primarily at replacing teachers and extracting data from children? When it comes to "personalized learning," there's no shortage of hyperbole from either proponents or critics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Differentiated Instruction

Teachers can design a learning environment that helps their students know they belong and can access multiple avenues to success.

If you're looking for ways to build an inclusive community in an elementary classroom setting, you can consider the following five strategies to ensure that students feel valued and their academic and social and emotional needs are met.

1. Provide different tools So All Students Can succeed

This idea applies to both students and teachers. Teachers can reinforce the idea that each student requires different tools to be successful in school. This can be modeled through teacher actions. For example, after dealing with a challenge that resulted in frustration, a teacher can model a constructive way to calm down by taking 10 deep breaths in order to return to work in a calm and focused manner. First, the teacher can think aloud, "That was a frustrating moment. How can I support myself? I know! I can take 10 deep breaths."

Number lines to support adding and subtracting.

Fidgets to help students regulate emotions or focus attention on the task at hand.

Math manipulatives such as counters, cubes, or coins to support math problem-solving.

Checklists to support students in completing assignments. Sentence starters or stems. Teachers can provide the beginning of a sentence to answer an open-ended question. For example, when answering the question "How does the character in the story feel?" a stem would be, "The character in the story feels _____."

In terms of accessible student learning tools, teachers can introduce a variety of options, and through trial and error they can find an appropriate approach that best meets student needs. Teachers can model each tool as they introduce it.

Here are some examples of tools:

While the above examples are all distinct, they each provide an opportunity for the student to thrive in the classroom setting. Be creative when coming up with these types of tools.

2. Focus on individualized learning

Guided reading instruction in small groups or one-on-one to support reading comprehension by teaching a targeted reading skill

Writing conferences to provide feedback on student writing and discuss strategies and next steps

Intervention opportunities to support learning across all subject areas

Preteaching concepts such as vocabulary or math strategies

Extension opportunities that encourage students to think critically

In an inclusive classroom setting, it's important for teachers to work with all students individually or in a small group on a frequent basis. This instruction can be for intervention, for extension, or on level learning. When all students have the opportunity for more individualized instruction, it reinforces the idea that all learners are deserving of support and recognition from their teacher.

Some examples of individualized instruction include the following:

3. Celebrate successes in the classroom

Teachers should celebrate student successes, no matter how big or small. Learning is something that should be consistently recognized in the classroom, as teachers have the ongoing opportunity to validate students for their progression. Take the initiative to celebrate even the smallest of wins to demonstrate to students that their efforts are seen and important. Some ways to celebrate student success can include providing notes home to share a job well done or coordinating an author's chair celebration for students to share their work with their peers and/or families.

4. Emotionally co-regulate

Support students' emotional needs through co-regulation. Emotional co-regulation is the modeling of how to manage strong emotions. Co-regulation can be supported in the classroom by designing a calm-down center in the classroom for students to access in times of need. This center can include stress balls, fidgets, or yoga and breathing cue cards. As previously stated, it's important and helpful for teachers to model how to access these tools.

To support the growth of skills in co-regulation, establishing strong and positive relationships with each student is necessary in order to best provide effective guidance. This can be reinforced during individualized learning, discussed in the second point. In addition to this, teachers can support students in developing stronger relationships with their peers. Social skill development is important because it teaches students how to communicate and work alongside classmates.

Lastly, teachers can guide students to develop and recognize their sense of self. When children understand their emotions and who they are, they're better at working and connecting with those around them. One way to do this could be through using a feelings chart that includes feeling and emotion words as well as pictures to match. Teachers can also provide opportunities for students to reflect on how they're feeling and set personal goals for managing their strong emotions.

5. Capitalize on student strengths and interests

Providing students with learning opportunities that highlight their strengths builds confidence in the classroom. When students have the chance to showcase their strengths, they're better connected with the content at hand. If a student is a very talented artist and a developing writer, a teacher can create an assignment where the student is prompted to create a comic strip instead of writing a story. Additionally, when teachers give students feedback, they can take time to recognize their strengths and articulate how their capabilities can support success in other areas.

Teachers can create learning experiences that highlight student interests-increasing engagement. For example, teachers can develop academic projects centered around student interests. When researching topics for an informational writing project, teachers can prompt students to pick a topic of their interest to better motivate and engage them.

In math, teachers can develop story problems that involve student names and their passions. For example, in a classroom with Pokémon fans, a teacher could write, "When playing with Pokémon cards, Ameya has three Pikachu cards and one Jigglypuff. How many Pokémon cards does she have altogether?" Lastly, teachers can connect content to careers or real-life experiences that spark student curiosity. For example, if students are interested in engineering, they could design and create a toy while acting as a toy engineer.

Creating an inclusive school environment promotes equity and establishes a safe, welcoming learning community for a diverse group of learners. Teachers can prioritize inclusion in their classrooms so that every student has the opportunity to not only succeed, but thrive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Tips for Ensuring That Your Elementary Classroom Is Inclusive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers can design a learning environment that helps their students know they belong and can access multiple avenues to success.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever been asked to memorize a list of items? Or just been given a list of items that you tried to remember? If so, you might have noticed that it's easier to remember the very first items and the very last items on the list, but the ones in the middle are a bit hazy. This is due to something researchers refer to as the "primacy effect."

What Is the Primacy Effect?

In simplest terms, the primacy effect refers to the tendency to recall information presented at the start of a list better than information at the middle or end.

Primacy vs. Recency Effect

In contrast to the primacy effect, the recency effect refers to the tendency for people to more easily recall items that are presented last in a list. In the case of the recency effect, this is likely due to those items being the most recent and therefore still being held in your short-term memory.

When you consider the primacy and recency effect in tandem, what you see is a u-shaped curve, also known as the serial position curve, for the recall of items on a list.

Causes of the Primacy Effect

What are the precise causes of the primacy effect? There are several causes that relate to how well information is attended to, practiced, and then later stored.

The main cause is likely the fact that people tend to rehearse items in order to remember them. This means that items presented early in the list are more likely to be remembered because they have been practiced more than items in the middle or at the end of a list. This is supported by evidence showing that when study participants are instructed not to rehearse or are not given enough time to rehearse, the primacy effect disappears.

Attention Span

There's also a second reason related to attention span. People are more likely to pay attention at the beginning and at the end of the presentation of a list of items, and so those are more likely to be remembered.

Think back to the last conversation you had, the paragraph you read, show you watched, or podcast you listened to. Chances are you may have zoned out at some points during the middle but probably were paying attention at both the beginning and the end.

Memory Limitations

Finally, the primacy effect likely persists because of limits in memory. A person might be able to store those first few items to long-term memory, and those last few items might reside in short-term memory, but the ones in the middle never get stored.

Early Studies on the Primacy Effect

Much research has focused on examining the primacy effect, going all the way back to the 1940s. In the typical study, participants are presented with a list of words, each shown for a fixed amount of time. After the words are presented, the participants are asked to write down all of the words from the list that they can remember.

Solomon Asch first examined the primacy effect in a study using sentences with reversed order of adjectives. In the study using two groups, a character was described as either "envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent" or "intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious." The results showed that the second description led to the person being rated more highly.

Murdoch (1962)

In a 1962 study conducted by Murdoch, participants were asked to learn a list of words that varied in length from 10 to 40 words. Each word was presented with a one or two-second gap in between. Using free recall, they were then asked to remember the words.

This study showed that the probability of recalling words on the list depended on their position on the list. Specifically, those at the beginning and the end were remembered more often.

Glanzer and Cunitz (1966)

In 1966, Glanzer and Cunitz gave two groups of participants the same list of words. One group was asked to immediately recall the words after being presented the list, while the other was asked to count backward in threes for 30 seconds before they had to recall the list.

The study results showed that preventing rehearsal in this way meant that both the primacy and recency effects disappeared.

What Influences the Primacy Effect

We know that the primacy effect is influenced by several factors based on the results of existing research. Let's have a look at what these factors are:

Time of presentation: The longer the time between the presentation of items on the list, the greater the primacy effect. This is due to people having time to rehearse.

Time of recall: When there is a delay in recall, it affects the primacy effect in a negative way such that it is reduced.

Memory and the Primacy Effect

Researchers have concluded that the primacy effect supports the idea of two separate memory systems at work: short-term memory (recency effect) and long-term memory (primacy effect).

The primacy effect involves rehearsing items until they enter long-term memory.

The recency effect involves the brain's ability to hold up to seven items in short-term memory.

This highlights that people are drawing on two different types of memory when they demonstrate the primacy and recency effect.

How can you put this information about the primacy effect to use in your own life? Understanding the impact that the primacy effect might have on your decisions might help you make better judgments about a wide range of things.

Decision Making for Complex Choices

One important takeaway is that the way in which we receive information is a critical factor during complex decision-making processes. This might come into play when making a large purchase or an important decision in our lives.

Marketing experts are aware of this cognitive bias and use it to their advantage. They want your first impression and the last impression of a product to be positive. This is why you will see advertising for a product that is not yet available. It is also why a company will add extra finishing touches such as special packaging for a product. They want your first impression and last impression to be positive because these are the things that will matter.

Anchoring Effects

The primacy effect also has an important influence on a type of cognitive bias known as the anchoring bias. This bias involves relying too heavily on the first piece of information you receive (the "anchor") and neglecting any subsequent information you learn. The bias can have a wide range of effects on decision-making including how much you are willing to pay for something.

Research has also shown that it can have an effect on how doctors diagnose and treat illnesses accurately.﻿﻿ The initial assessment a physician makes about a patient's health or illness creates an impression that then influences the assessment the doctor makes in the future.

Making a Lasting Impression

If there is something that you want to stand out: say it first, say it last, or both! This is when it is most likely to be remembered. If you're trying to convince someone of something, repeat your message several times so that it is remembered. Remember that serial position matters as well as the content of your message (positive vs. negative), so it's important to put this knowledge to use.

Learning and Studying

If you are a student, you can also put this information to use in your learning strategies. Become aware of your tendency to remember things from the beginning and end of what you study, and change up the position so that you can eventually store everything to your long-term memory.

Try focusing on particularly difficult concepts at the beginning of your study sessions and conclude each session with another quick review of that information.

A Word From Verywell

As if you already didn't have enough to remember, now you've got to remember what you might forget to remember! In its simplest terms, the primacy effect refers to our tendency to remember the first things we hear in a series. This makes logical sense, but it's not something you'd typically think about.

So the next time you find yourself in a high-pressure sales situation, trying to make a positive impression, or cramming for an exam, put this information to use.

Gather your research so you won't be unduly influenced, say what you want people to remember most first, and change up the order in which you study things so that you're more likely to remember everything.

What do you remember most from this article? Step away for a moment and try to list the main points you remember. Then check if you have also become an example of the primacy effect in action in your own life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Primacy Effect Can Help You in Your Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever been asked to memorize a list of items? Or just been given a list of items that you tried to remember? If so, you might have noticed that it's easier to remember the very first items and the very last items on the list, but the ones in the middle are a bit hazy.

# data[].attributes.body
Students should learn how their brain works because then they will want to learn the information more. Creating a classroom that is engaging and exciting will help the culture of thinking which will hopefully gain more learning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do your schools and learning communities promote curiosity, innovation, collaboration, empathy, determination, and analytic thinking? Ron Ritchhart, a senior research associate at Harvard Project Zero and a fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia, argues that although these are the most critical skills to impart upon students, they are not the skills that typical learning cultures foster. In Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform Our Schools, Ritchhart asserts that we can build learning spaces that emphasize thinking by focusing on our construction of expectations, language, time, modeled behavior, learning opportunities, routines, interactions, and the learning environment. Ritchhart acknowledges that there are many paths to creating cultures of thinking, but all schools that have successfully shifted towards cultures of thinking had a clear vision, tools to help them achieve that vision, plans to facilitate long-term change, and the wisdom to celebrate growth. Because Ritchhart provides numerous concrete tools for fostering a culture of thinking, this book is a useful guide for any bold teacher or educator ready to transform his class or school into one filled with thinkers.

In a culture of thinking, all participants bring a passion to the task at hand; they share a vision, common goals, mutual respect, and special language. No one-including the leader-dominates, but rather all input is valued. Participants listen actively and taking time for reflection is encouraged.

Ritchhart contends that classes in which expectations are less about student's obedient behavior and more about goals for knowing, doing, and achieving are closer to promoting a culture of thinking. Teachers should monitor students' learning and understanding more closely than their work product and recitation of knowledge. With continuous feedback, teachers should work to promote independence in students and a sense that their intelligence can grow. Doing so means teachers need to pay close attention to their choice of words. Language should be inclusive, warm, humble, and questioning. Focused listening is a critical preliminary step in using language effectively to create a culture of thinking.

If teachers value student thinking, they need to make time for their students to wrestle with ideas. Students need time to formulate complex answers and test themselves. Teachers should reflect about the core concepts or skills they want their students to learn, and focus on those. Ritchhart argues that managing one's time can be very difficult and even futile; instead, he advocates managing one's energy by engaging in, as much as possible, activities that are satisfying-activities that give more energy than they demand.

When we appreciate that the way we spend our time is a signal of what we value, we may shift our patterns to ensure that we spend time on critical activities such as creating personal connections with students and giving extensive feedback. Indeed, interactions in which educators listen to students, ask thoughtful questions, promote collaboration, and are supportive, respectful, trusting, and encouraging of risks are exactly the kinds of interactions that Ritchhart argues promotes a culture of thinking.

This book provides examples of instructors who demonstrate that when teachers show themselves to be authentically passionate about their topic area, lovers of learning, and reflective individuals, they model for their students the skills necessary to be a thinker. Teachers can allow students to demonstrate these same attributes by creating novel learning opportunities that are easy for students to begin, that can sustain them for the depth of investigation the students wish to pursue, and that give students a chance to produce something valuable.

Having well established routines in which students know what to do, can provide structure to thought and to the learning process. For example, teaching students to make a claim, support it, and question it gives them a pattern they can successful employ across learning situations. Finally, Ritchhart shows that while teachers may feel as though they do not have much control over the physical environment in which they teach, there typically are slight adjustments that a teacher can make to create a more comfortable and collaborative learning space. Ordering desks in a "C" shape can signal that discussion is encouraged; displaying samples of student learning products can enlighten and enliven a class; giving students tools to fidget with in a non-disruptive way reduces behavioral concerns; soft lamp lightening rather than harsh overhead lights creates a calm space to learn.

Ritchhart argues convincingly that shifting towards a culture of thinking is a worthwhile investment in nurturing the type of adults we hope to see in the next generation.

Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. John Wiley & Sons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform our Schools by Ron Ritchhart

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do your schools and learning communities promote curiosity, innovation, collaboration, empathy, determination, and analytic thinking? Ron Ritchhart, a senior research associate at Harvard Project Zero and a fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia, argues that although these are the most critical skills to impart upon students, they are not the skills that typical learning cultures foster.