基于熟练程度的模型使用基于标准的评分来报告学生达到标准的程度。如果学生未达到预期的学习标准，教师将知道目标是额外的指导或练习时间。由Lisa Lachlan-Haché和Marina Castro于2015年4月委托美国研究院委员会发表的一份名为“熟练或成长”的报告？编写学生学习目标的两种方法的探索解释了教育者使用熟练度模型的一些好处：熟练度目标不需要预先评估或任何其他基线数据。能力目标反映的是侧重于缩小成就差距。教师可能更熟悉熟练程度目标。在许多情况下，熟练程度目标可以简化学生学习措施纳入评估时的评分过程。在熟练度模型中，熟练度目标的一个例子是“所有学生将在课程结束评估中获得至少75分或熟练程度的标准”。该报告还列出了基于熟练程度的学习的几个缺点，包括：通过这种方式，基于熟练程度的模型适用于每个学生的差异化教学。熟练程度目标鼓励教师考虑对学生表现的最低期望。能力目标可能会忽略表现最好和表现最差的学生。期望所有学生在一个学年内达到熟练程度可能不适合发展。熟练度目标可能不符合国家和州政策要求。能力目标可能无法准确反映教师对学生学习的影响。这是关于熟练学习的最后一个声明，它引起了国家，州和地方学校董事会的争议。基于对使用熟练程度目标作为个别教师表现指标的有效性的担忧，全国各地的教师提出异议。两个梯子上的两个学生的快速回归，无论是在熟练程度上，都可以看作是基于熟练程度的模型的一个例子。该图示使用基于标准的评分提供学生成绩的快照，并在单个时间点捕获每个学生的状态或每个学生的学习成绩。但是关于学生身份的信息仍然没有回答“哪个学生表现出学业成长？”的问题。状态不是增长，为了确定学生取得了多少学业进步，可能需要采用增长模型方法。在Katherine E. Castellano（加州大学伯克利分校）和Andrew D. Ho（哈佛大学教育研究生院）的一份题为“实践者的成长模型指南”的报告中，增长模型被定义为：“定义，计算，或规则，总结学生在两个或多个时间点的表现，并支持对学生，他们的教室，教育工作者或学校的解释。“定义中提到的两个或多个时间点可以标记为在课程开始时使用预评估，单元或年终课程作业以及在课程，单元或结束时给出的后评估。年级课程。在描述使用增长模型方法的好处时，Lachlan-Haché和Castro解释了预评估如何帮助教师制定学年的增长目标。
新西兰林肯大学教育学Assignment代写:增长模型与熟练度模型
A proficiency-based model uses standards-based grading in order to report on how well students have met a standard. If a student fails to meet an expected learning standard, a teacher will know to target additional instruction or practice time. A report commissioned by the American Institutes for Research in April 2015 by Lisa Lachlan-Haché and Marina Castro titled Proficiency or Growth? An Exploration of Two Approaches for Writing Student Learning Targets explains some of the benefits for educators in using a proficiency model: Proficiency targets do not require pre-assessments or any other baseline data. Proficiency targets reflect a focus on narrowing achievement gaps. Proficiency targets are likely more familiar to teachers.
Proficiency targets, in many cases, simplify the scoring process when student learning measures are incorporated into evaluation. In the proficiency model, an example of a proficiency target is “All students will score at least 75 or the standard of proficiency on the end-of-course assessment.” The report also listed several drawbacks to proficiency-based learning including: In this way, a proficiency-based model is geared for differentiated instruction for each student. Proficiency targets encourage teachers to think about a minimum expectation for student performance. Proficiency targets may neglect the highest and lowest performing students. Expecting all students to achieve proficiency within one academic year may not be developmentally appropriate. Proficiency targets may not meet national and state policy requirements. Proficiency targets may not accurately reflect teachers’ impact on student learning. It is the last statement about proficiency learning that has caused the most controversy for national, state, and local school boards. The have been objections raised by teachers across the country based on concerns about the validity of using proficiency targets as indicators of individual teacher performance. A quick return to the illustration of the two students on two ladders, both on the rung of proficiency, can be seen as an example of the proficiency-based model. The illustration provides a snapshot of student achievement using standards-based grading, and captures each students’ status, or the academic performance of each student, at a single point in time. But the information about a student’s status still does not answer the question “Which student has demonstrated academic growth?” Status is not growth, and to determine how much academic progress a student has made, a growth model approach may be needed. In a report titledA Practitioner’s Guide to Growth Models by Katherine E. Castellano, (University of California at Berkeley) and Andrew D. Ho (Harvard Graduate School of Education), a growth model is defined as: “A collection of definitions, calculations, or rules that summarizes student performance over two or more time points and supports interpretations about students, their classrooms, their educators, or their schools.” The two or more time points mentioned in the definition could be marked as the use of pre-assessments at the beginning of lessons, units, or end of year coursework and the post-assessments given at the end of lessons, units, or end of year course work. In describing the benefits of using a growth model approach, Lachlan-Haché and Castro explained how a pre-assessment can help teachers to develop growth targets for the school year.