The complex instruction methodology
has been developed to foster effective learning in the heterogeneous setting by
changing the role of the teacher, the role of the learner, and the method of
learning. Complex Instruction
fosters a cooperative learning approach in which the teacher often becomes the
facilitator of group learning activities rather than the transmitter of
knowledge. Students learn in
heterogeneous groups of four in which each participant has an assigned role. In order to engage all of the students
in the learning process, teachers must prepare well structured learning
activities that exhibit the following characteristics:
1)
challenging
2)
open-ended
3)
multi-ability based
4)
requiring interdependent work
A significant focus of complex
instruction is the sociological component of status within the classroom. The complex instruction researchers
contend that in every classroom, some students assume dominant roles while
others find their learning restricted because of their relatively low
status. An important role of the
complex instruction teacher is, therefore, assigning of competence in order to
create a greater degree of equality within the learning community.
Research has indicated that the
student interaction, particularly verbal interaction, fostered by this approach
leads to higher levels of achievement not only in the subject matter, but also
in language arts.
In a presentation at the Mid-Winter Conference of the Lookstein Center
Principals’ seminar, Professor Clifford Hill of Columbia University stated that
assessment drives curriculum. It
is, thus, impossible to discuss curricular and methodological changes involving
multiple intelligence theory and/or complex instruction without concentrating
as well on a structured alternative assessment program.
Professor Hill’s research
demonstrates that traditional assessment instruments often fail to accurately
evaluate the skills of all students.
Standardized tests, and to a degree teacher made tests, are designed for
a particular cultural perspective and thought process. For the sake of utility, traditional
assessment sacrifices accuracy and fairness.
On the other hand, many
alternative assessment models have serious drawbacks. Alternative assessment programs tend to be more labor
intensive and more difficult to standardize and quantify. As a result, they fail to create an
adequate method of reporting student progress. Portfolio assessment, with all of its positive attributes,
suffers from these drawbacks.
In recent years, the concept of
utilizing instructional rubrics
as a basis for assessment has become increasingly popular. Rubrics provide students with: 1) a
list of criteria upon which their work will be evaluated, and 2) a clear
description of gradations of quality for each of the criteria. The following is an example of two
criteria and their gradations of quality from a persuasive essay instructional
rubric devised by Heidi Goodrich Andrade of Harvard University’s Project
Zero:
Criteria: The Claim
4:
I make a claim and explain why it is controversial.
3:
I make a claim, but don’t explain why it is controversial.
2:
My claim is buried, confused and/or unclear.
1:
I don’t say what my argument or claim is.
Criteria: Organization
4:
My writing has a compelling opening, an informative middle, and a satisfying conclusion.
3:
My writing has a beginning middle and end.
2:
My organization is rough but workable. I may sometime get off the topic.
1:
My writing is aimless and disorganized.
Rubrics make the assessment of
students quick and efficient, and provide a clear method of reporting progress
to students and parents. Ms.
Andrade claims that rubrics are not just excellent assessment tools, but also
powerful instructional tools. She
identifies a number of positive aspects of instructional rubrics:
1.
Instructional
rubrics are easy to use and to explain.
2.
Instructional
rubrics make teachers’ expectations very clear.
3.
Instructional
rubrics provide students with more informative feedback about their strengths
and areas in need of improvement than traditional forms of assessment.
4.
Instructional
rubrics support learning.
5.
Instructional
rubrics can help students become more thoughtful judges of the quality of their
own work.
6.
Instructional
rubrics support the development of skills.
7.
Instructional
rubrics support the development of understanding.
8.
Instructional
rubrics support good thinking.
In describing an alternative assessment
project that he conducted with the Newburgh School District, Professor Hill
identified several other positive outcomes of cooperative alternative
assessment work including:
1.
Restructuring
of the learning environment.
2.
Increased
collegiality among teachers - sharing of ideas regarding the best way to assess
what kids know or can do.
3.
Enrichment of the relationship between teachers and students.
4.
Reduction of fear of assessment among students and an increase in self confidence.
Ms. Andrade acknowledges that
it is not easy to create rubrics.
In her article entitled "When Assessment is Instruction and
Instruction is Assessment: Using Rubrics to Promote Thinking and
Understanding", she does however suggest practical ways to create an
effective rubric.
The increasing heterogeneity of
the Jewish day school demands the development of approaches that will enable
teachers to meet the needs of the entire class. The lack of standardized testing relating to Jewish Studies makes
it a perfect area for the development of innovative curricular and
methodological approaches and alternative assessment programs. Given the relative lack of appropriate
educational materials geared for heterogeneous instruction, this effort will
require a serious professional development program for teachers and
administrators. The investment of
time and resources, however, promises not only to help day schools better meet
the needs of their students, but to revitalize the Jewish Studies faculties and
programs.