1. Marzano’s Teacher Evaluation Model*
Marzano is an educational researcher who has developed a teacher evaluation model that has been adopted by most of the school districts in the United States.
A learning map/placemat has been developed that consists of domains and indicators on which teachers are evaluated.
*This presentation has been
significantly adapted from the
HAPPY Hour workshop presentation on
Creating Scales by Courtney Kavanaugh,
Val Brown, and Kim Dansereau,
Seminole County Public School educators.

4. This is an example of a completed
Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop a scale for tracking student progress toward achieving
Score: the learning goal.
4.0
Participant will design formative and summative assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
Participant will construct a scale to track student progress toward achieving a learning goal.
Scales should:
be related to the learning goal
articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy
be written in student language
provide consistent feedback to students
encourage students to improve.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
Learning Continuum
Target Learning Goal
Simpler Content
More Complex Content
Participant is able to communicate a clear learning goal.
Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do.
Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
This is an example of a completed
academic scale.
(Kim) Look at the scales on writing scales. Rate yourself according to the criteria listed, showing by number where you are on the scale continuum regarding writing a scale. Use an electronic poll to have participants record their responses if possible. If time allows have the participant turn to a colleague to share where they are on the continuum by numeral and why.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

5. What Marzano’s research says - High Probability Strategies
(Kim) As adult learners we ask the same question as our students: Why do we need to use scales and have students track progress? Explain that research shows the Tracking Student Progress and Scoring Scales has a 34% probability of increasing student achievement. The Instructional Model that we are using is research based.
- Marzano Research Laboratory

6. Learning Continuum Scale
A scale is an attempt to create a continuum that articulates distinct levels of knowledge and skill relative to a specific topic.
It can be thought of as an applied version of a learning progression.
A well-written scale should make it easy for teachers to design and score assessment tasks that can be used to generate both formative and summative scores.
(Courtney)Look at the definition for scales. Point out key words such as continuum, applied version of learning progression, teachers can use the scale to design assessments.
- Dr. Robert Marzano

7. (Courtney) The scale includes five levels (0-4)
(Courtney) The scale includes five levels (0-4). Starting with Score 3: This is the target learning goal. Stress this is the point on the scale that represents mastery or proficiency of the learning goal. It includes the complex thinking required by the learning goal. Score 2 represents the simpler, foundation content, including vocabulary and foundational skills and concepts. Scores 0 and 1 should stay the same for every scale. Score 0 means the student is not experiencing success even with help. Stress that this is not “who you are” but “WHERE you are.” It’s okay to start here but we want students to quickly move up from this score. Score 1 represents partial success with help. Moving back up to Score 4, this level offers an opportunity for students to extend their learning in a MORE complex way than is required by the learning goal. It involves MORE COMPLEX learning and could include inferences and novel applications.

8. Courtesy: Hamilton Elementary 1st Grade Team
(Courtney) Discuss example from last year before teachers had the training. Point out student friendly terms. MAJOR EMPHASIS: teachers must make the posted scale for young or special needs students understandable--pictures, colors, symbols, etc.
Courtesy:
Hamilton Elementary
1st Grade Team
Instructional Excellence & Equity

9. Scale Examples (Continued)

10. Scale Examples (Continued)

11. This is a checking-for- understanding scale.

12. This is a another checking-for -understanding scale.

13. Marzano’s Generic Scale
Organize Learning Goals into a Scale
Advanced = 4.0 More Complex Content
Proficient = 3.0 Target Learning Goal (Complex Content)
Progressing = 2.0 Simpler Content
(Courtney)

14. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by
experimental evidence
Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.
Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model.
Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support planetary model.
Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra
Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr
Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded
Describe the procedure used for each experiment
Summarize the important results of each experiment
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
(Kim)This is an example of a completed scale. We will show you how to build this scale piece by piece.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

15. Development of a Scale for Student Learning: Example
Student Learning Goal:
Students will be able to describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence.
Scale
Comments
Score 4.0
Score 3.0
Score 2.0
Score 1.0
With help, partial success
Score 0.0
Even with help, no success
Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained.
(Val) This is a multiple part slide.
Originally blank, the learning goal is moved to Score Then Scores 2.0 and 4.0 are filled in. This is a simplified version of the scale. The full scale will include specificity for each level.
The student will:
define model, subatomic particle, proton, electron, nucleus
understand results of historical experiments and previous
atomic model representations
Instructional Excellence & Equity

16. Scale Development for Student Learning
(Courtney)This slide provides specific directions for “Completing a Scale.” Ask participants to refer to this scale as we build the following scale example.

17. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by
experimental evidence
Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.
Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support his nuclear model.
Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the results obtained support planetary model.
Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results support the quantum atomic model
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
Proton electron model energy level cathode Cathode ray tube subatomic particle neutron nucleus excited state ground state anode triboluminescence emission spectra
Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr
Identify by name the experiments that lead to each model being discarded
Describe the procedure used for each experiment
Summarize the important results of each experiment
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
(Kim)This is an example of a completed scale. We will show you how to build this scale piece by piece.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

18. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
Place the learning goal at Score 3.0.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

19. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence.
The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
Add specificity with key points that identify the complex thinking students must master to become proficient in the learning goal. Remind participants that this is NOT a menu of options. Student must be proficient in all of the content included in Scores 2.0 and 3.0.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

20. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence
The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus
Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded.
Describe the procedure used for each experiment.
Summarize the important results of each experiment.
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
Add specificity with key points that identify the complex thinking students must master to become proficient in the learning goal. Remind participants that this is NOT a menu of options. Student must be proficient in all of the content included in Scores 2.0 and 3.0.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

21. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence .
-Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how
the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.
Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and
how the results obtained support his nuclear model.
Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the
results obtained support his planetary model.
Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results
support the quantum atomic model
The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus
Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded.
Describe the procedure used for each experiment.
Summarize the important results of each experiment.
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
Add specificity with key points that identify the complex thinking students must master to become proficient in the learning goal. Remind participants that this is NOT a menu of options. Student must be proficient in all of the content included in Scores 2.0 and 3.0.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

22. 4.0
In addition to Score 3.0, in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond instruction to the standard
The student will:
Predict how atomic models might have evolved if different experimental results had been obtained by Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
The student will describe changes in the atomic model over time and why those changes were necessitated by experimental evidence .
-Explain why Thomson’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how
the results obtained support his plum-pudding model.
Explain why Rutherford’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and
how the results obtained support his nuclear model.
Explain why Bohr’s experimental results necessitated changing the atomic model and how the
results obtained support his planetary model.
Explain the experimental results that disproved the planetary model and how the results
support the quantum atomic model
The student will No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content (simple or complex)
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
The student recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
model subatomic particle proton electron neutron nucleus
Label the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr.
Identify by name the major experiments that lead to each model being discarded.
Describe the procedure used for each experiment.
Summarize the important results of each experiment.
No major errors or omissions regarding the simpler details and processes but major errors or omissions regarding the more complex ideas and processes
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
Add specificity with key points that identify the complex thinking students must master to become proficient in the learning goal. Remind participants that this is NOT a menu of options. Student must be proficient in all of the content included in Scores 2.0 and 3.0.
Instructional Excellence & Equity

23. Develop a Scale for your Learning Goal
Start with Score 3.0 and write your Target Learning Goal
Continue to develop Score 2.0 and Score 4.0
Include specific indicators that would demonstrate acceptable performance for that score.
Scale
Comments
Score 4.0
Inferential Understanding (Beyond Standards)
More Complex Content
Score 3.0 Essential Complex Content (Based on the Standards)
Target Learning Goal
Score 2.0 Essential Foundational Knowledge
Simpler Content
(Kim) Facilitate participants in writing a scale. Pre-service teachers will have copies of standards for various levels. Request that they use handouts to select a learning goal and to write a scale.
Review the three levels that require the teachers to complete.

24. Share your results Share your scale
(Val)Group teachers by content/grade level. Request that they use handouts to select a learning goal and to write a scale.

25. Learning Goal: Participant will be able to develop and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving
Score: the learning goal.
4.0
Participant will design formative and summative assessments to evaluate 2.0, 3.0, & 4.0 student performances.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 4.0 content
3.5
In addition to score 3.0 performance, in-depth inferences and applications with partial success
3.0
Participant will construct and use a scale to track student progress toward achieving the learning goal.
Scales should:
be related to the learning goal
articulate the levels of performance using the taxonomy
be written in student language
provide consistent feedback to students
encourage students to improve.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 3.0 content
2.5
No major errors or omissions regarding 2.0 content and partial knowledge of the 3.0 content
2.0
Participant recognizes and describes specific terminology such as:
Learning Continuum
Target Learning Goal
Simpler Content
More Complex Content
Participant is able to communicate a clear learning goal.
Goal is a statement of what a student will know or be able to do.
Goal is not written as an activity or assignment.
Goal supports the standards/benchmark for the course.
No major errors or omissions regarding the score 2.0 content
1.5
Partial knowledge of the score 2.0 content, but major errors or omissions regarding score 3.0 content
1.0
With help, a partial understanding of some of the simpler details and processes and some of the more complex ideas and processes.
0.5
With help, a partial understanding of the score 2.0 content, but not the score 3.0 content
0.0
Even with help, no understanding or skill demonstrated
(Kim)Ask participants to refer to their PD Scale to assess their learning. Use Poll everywhere to access learning.
Instructional Excellence & Equity