& Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA & CCSSO), 2010a.
Figure 1.5: Eighth-grade ELA proficiency scale.
In the case of figure 1.5, the standard falls at score 3.0 and requires students to be proficient in two tasks: (1) analyzing a grade-level-appropriate text for theme or central idea using specific criteria, and (2) objectively summarizing a grade-level-appropriate text. There are two separate learning targets for the score 3.0 performance on this standard. In order for students to achieve proficiency on this standard, they must be able to do both tasks competently and consistently. It is likely that teachers will instruct to both learning targets in a unit on this standard, though there might be instances where they would not teach these two learning targets simultaneously. So, one consideration in designing the unit is sequencing the learning targets. Identifying the learning targets, and their sequence for instruction, is an important first step before teachers can consider the sequence of lessons that they will teach.
Further, teachers should consider the relationship between score 2.0 performance and score 3.0 performance. Score 3.0 contains two learning targets; there are three additional learning targets at score 2.0. The three additional targets are the following.
1. Student will recognize or recall specific vocabulary such as analyze, central idea, character, development, objective, plot, relationship, setting, summarize, summary, supporting detail, text, and theme.
2. Student will perform basic processes such as determining a theme or central idea of a grade-level-appropriate text (RL.8.2, RI.8.2; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a).
3. Student will perform basic processes such as summarizing a grade-level-appropriate text using a teacher-provided graphic organizer (RL.8.2, RI.8.2; NGA & CCSSO, 2010a).
The vocabulary learning target is a vital first step to score 3.0 performance. These are important terms for students to understand if they are to analyze the development of theme or central idea. The relationship between the score 2.0 learning target on summarizing a text and the score 3.0 target on the same topic is clear. Students will start by learning to summarize a text using a teacher-provided graphic organizer and then proceed to independence in performing this process.
The relationship between the learning targets regarding theme or central idea analysis at the 2.0 and the 3.0 scores is somewhat less clear. At score 2.0 the learning target requires students to determine theme or central idea for a grade-level-appropriate text, whereas at score 3.0 students must analyze theme or central idea in a grade-level-appropriate text. Consider the difference between the act of determining and the act of analyzing. Objectively, these verbs present different processes, but an important consideration is what is different for the student. In other words, what is going on inside the student’s mind at score 2.0, and how is it different at score 3.0? In determining theme or central idea, students apply a process that one can define in a series of steps. Certainly, students will need to look at important elements of a text, including characterization, plot element sequence, setting, and specific details, but the mental process consists of applying a series of clearly defined steps in order to simply determine theme or central idea. Analysis implies a higher level of critical thinking. In this case, the student may rely on a learned process but must think through a broader set of evidence, some of which may appear to conflict with other evidence, looking for and determining the effect of patterns across an entire text. Further, although each learning target applies to a grade-level-appropriate text, at score 2.0 it is likely students would receive shorter, less-challenging passages of text as they learn to determine theme or central idea. At score 3.0, students might be engaging with longer texts, perhaps full-length short stories or poems, where they must engage with much more complex evidence, and potentially multiple and even conflicting themes. Thus, in truly analyzing for theme or central idea, the student’s mental process represents a much more strenuous engagement with the text and its evidence.
A further consideration is what student performance at score 4.0 would resemble. As previously stated, students are not actually taught content that represents score 4.0 but receive opportunities to perform at score 4.0. An example follows, but at this stage consider that a student working on this standard would most likely exceed proficiency only on the learning target regarding analysis for theme or central idea. The other learning target—summarizing a grade-level-appropriate text—is inherently limited in scope, and the student’s mental state would be approximately the same as he or she summarizes any grade-level-appropriate text. It is possible to exceed proficiency by applying summary to a beyond-grade-appropriate text. But consider how a student might exceed proficiency on the learning target involving analysis of theme or central idea.
Students performing at score 4.0 will demonstrate “in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond what was taught in class.” Score 4.0 performance becomes a measure of the qualitative difference between analysis at the 3.0 score and analysis at 4.0. At score 4.0, the student might apply analysis of additional literary devices, perhaps ones that are beyond grade level (for example, tone). Or the student might do an exceptionally perceptive analysis of the grade-appropriate text, in which the reasoning is much deeper and more accurate than performance at score 3.0. It is also possible that the student can apply analysis to challenging texts beyond grade level.
Taking into account the analysis of the proficiency scale for eighth-grade ELA theme and central idea, the following unit plan (figure 1.6) is one way in which a teacher can sequence the types of lessons to provide learning opportunities for her students. Where applicable, we indicate in this figure which activities are connected to specific levels of the proficiency scale. Some aspects of the plan (for example, sharing the scale and learning target) are not specific to a scale level so no level is indicated. (For additional information, see The New Art and Science of Teaching, Marzano, 2017.)
Source: Adapted from Marzano, 2017, pp. 107–108.
Figure 1.6: Sample unit plan for theme and central idea.
A quick review of this unit plan reveals the lesson sequence’s logic. Starting with the score 2.0 content from the proficiency scale, vocabulary terms and prerequisite knowledge and processes such as the ability to summarize the text with a teacher-provided graphic organizer and a process for determining theme or central idea, students progress through the content of score 3.0 and receive the opportunity to perform at score 4.0. The speed at which this progress occurs is less important than the sequence. Perhaps this same unit might occur across twenty instructional days instead of eleven.
Also note that the unit plan does not identify specific content to teach. It will become important to align specific passages of text with each instructional activity and homework assignment, but the content will merely support the unit plan’s sequence of instruction to the standard and its learning targets.
Further, note how often assessment, in various forms, takes place. In an eleven-day period, five assessments occur. Some of these assessments are informal student self-assessments, but these give important instructional feedback to the teacher and the students, indicating how the students perceive their own progress toward the learning targets. The formal assessments provide the teacher with the opportunity to use the information from these assessments formatively, deciding whether to continue with the unit plan as initially sketched, or to make adjustments, returning to content students have yet to master, reteaching as needed and so forth.
In summary,
