Pre-assessing Learners' Understanding

Hello Colleagues, Many teachers use KWL charts as an instructional tool. A KWL graphic organizer is often divided into three columns. In the “K” column, students write what they “Know” about a topic. In the “W” column, they indicate questions they have and things they “Want to know” about a topic. The “L” column is reserved to record what they “Learn” from the lesson.

Some teachers have found KWL to, at times, be problematic since what learners think they know is sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. To address this concern, Tony Stead (2005) recommended adding columns for learners to confirm their understanding and to correct any misunderstandings.

Have KWL charts been useful to you? What do you think about these changes to the classic KWL? What tools or strategies have you found to be useful when pre-assessing learners’ understanding or prior knowledge of a topic before presenting a lesson? It would be great to generate a list from list participants of tools and strategies that can be used to assess learners' background knowledge.

Source:  Stead, T. (2005). Reality checks: Teaching reading comprehension with nonfiction. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishing.

Cheers, Susan

Moderator, Assessment COP

Comments

Though your question seems more directed toward reading, I'd like to offer a different twist on formative assessment (or pre-assessing learners' understanding).

The important question is: How do students think?

Do they see the forest OR the trees? Or can they deal with both the "big picture" and the details at the same time?

That "both-and" kind of thinking is as necessary for reading comprehension and clear writing as it is for math. Several of my colleagues in the Language/Communications department at the community college where I was teaching said they saw a lack of this "at the same time" thinking in their lower-level reading and writing classes.

Good critical thinkers see both the big picture and the details. They are able to deal with two ideas (even contradictory ones) at the same time. That is the kind of thinking we hope to move our students toward. This is what they will need to pass the new GED/high school equivalency exams.

In 2010, as a developmental-level math teacher at a community college, I developed and completed two research projects to reveal whether or not students could think about the forest AND the trees. Did they think of the parts and the whole at the same time? Did they have the part-whole concept?

The assessment used an empty number line. The endpoints zero and 20 were labeled, but nothing else. The assessment asked students to place five non-consecutive whole numbers on the line. Most students did so with reasonable accuracy.

However, some placed 12 to the left of the center of the empty number line. Others had the numbers less than 10 very close to zero, and the numbers greater than 10 very close to 20. Still others placed all the numbers at equal intervals on the line, even though the numbers should not have been spaced evenly apart. Based on the research background for the project, these students were deemed NOT to have part-whole thinking, that ability to see the "big picture" and the details at the same time.

The first project involved over 300 students in basic math and pre-algebra.  The results showed that about 20% of the students lacked the concept.

The second project involved over 300 students in Algebra 1. About 26% of the Algebra 1 students lacked the concept.

There appears to be a connection between successful completion (passing grade) of pre-algebra and Algebra 1 and having or lacking the part-whole concept. Below are the links to the project reports.

Basic Math and Pre-Algebra report

http://engagingideas.net/frcc-student-learning/Steinke%20Final%20Report.pdf

Algebra 1 report

http://engagingideas.net/frcc-student-learning/SLP%20Final%20Report%20Steinke%20MAT%20155%202nd%20draft%20%282%29.pdf

In my article in the Numeracy issue of Focus on Basics (May 2008), I reported that I had interviewed about 100 people exiting the criminal justice system to determine whether or not they had the part-whole concept. (The interview questions were based on the same research as the number line studies.) Of those who lacked a GED, over 80% did NOT have the concept. Of those who had earned a GED, about half lacked the concept. For high school graduates in that population, about 30% lacked the concept.

This is the concept that allows people to set goals (the big picture, the forest) and then figure out hot to get where they need to be in their life (the details, the trees).

I developed a way of teaching the concept to my math classes from day 1 (contact me if you are interested in learning more).

How do teachers and tutors in the language/reading/writing area check students for this concept?

How students look at the world (parts OR whole, or BOTH at the same time) will affect how they take in what we are trying to teach them. It may be that we should be assessing for part-whole thinking first before assessing for specific content knowledge.

 

Dorothea Steinke

Dorothea@numberworks4all.com

Lafayette, Colorado

 

Dorothea, Thank you for your informative posting about the research you've done to assess learners' prior understanding of essential concepts in math. I think many folks would be interested in reading the reports you shared; however, we are not able to access the links. Would you be able to check on their viability?

In the meantime, perhaps folks would like to read your fascinating Focus on Basic article, which includes rich details about how you approach instruction to support students to acquire this fundamental number sense concept. The article is available here http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/fob/2008/fob_9a.pdf#page=1.

What have you found most helpful to teachers as they begin to present these ideas to students?

You raised the interesting question about the role of whole-part thinking in reading comprehension. I welcome you and others in the community to say more about that.

Cheers, Susan

Moderator Assessment COP

There was a good article in the March 2013 Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy on HQQ, an update of KWL.  We have found it most useful with learners because the H asks them what they have heard about the subject, rather than the K for what they know.  This allows for more flexibility to confirm or deny what is written in that column without the learner feel they are wrong or dumb.  I've also found that learners are more willing to risk stating things they have heard.  When working in a group, the H allows for multiple conflicting offerings as well.  

FYI, the QQ are both opportunities to design questions.  This brings in some of the anti-Socratic ideas of The Right Question Institutes research.  The first Q generates questions about what they'll learn, the second Q generates questions that they now have which encourages them to dig deeper and look at additional reference material.  I admit, I also do an L/learned verbally to close the exercise.

Thank you for sharing with us about the HQQ, Alison. The way teachers frame questions is such an important topic. Could you say a bit more about The Right Question Institutes research?  Do you typically have students work independently or in a group to generate questions for the HQQ?

Cheers, Susan

Moderator Assessment COP

I have never really liked KWL because it seemed too restrictive and didn't seem to allow for much discussion. HQQ seems much more "user friendly". I am anxious to try it in my classroom. Thanks!

                                Sandy Adams  

Thanks for letting me know the links no longer work.

I have uploaded the two reports to one of my websites: www.rhythmandnumbersense.com

Go to the References tab. The two PDFs at the bottom that start Student Learning Research Project are the two reports.

 

Dorothea Steinke

Dorothea@numberworks4all.com

Lafayette, CO

Susan and all -

See my post from Wed. 2/20. I have put the documents on my website: www.rhythmandnumbersense.com under the RESEARCH tab. They are at the bottom of that page titled "Student Learning Research Project."

Dorothea