How Can We Differentiate Performance Tasks? (Part 4)
In this blog, we will explore ways to responsibly differentiate performance tasks so as to address the targeted learning goals and obtain needed evidence of their attainment.
When educators are asked to reflect on and describe their most effective and engaging learning experiences, they frequently cite the “opportunity for some personal choice within assignments and assessment tasks.” The frequency of this comment should be no surprise since we know that learners differ not only in how they prefer to take in and process information but also in how they best demonstrate their learning. Some students thrive on oral explanations; others need to “do.” Some students excel at creating visual representations; others are adept at writing. Allowing students some choice within open-ended performance tasks provides a practical way to personalize learning while letting them work to their strengths and interests. A standardized, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction and assessment may be efficient, but it is rarely optimal for all learners.
One practical way of differentiating performance tasks is to use the G.R.A.S.P.S. format (presented in Blog #3) to offer students appropriate choices. In other words, learners could be given options regarding the audience, product/ performance, context, topic, and/or process for working on the task. Here is one example:
Consider a health standard that calls for a basic understanding of “balanced diet.” Evidence of this understanding could be obtained by having students explain the concept, present examples of balanced and unbalanced meals, and list health problems that might result from a nutritionally imbalanced diet. Such evidence could be collected in writing, but this requirement would be inappropriate for a learner with dysgraphia or an ESL student with limited skills in written English. Indeed, some students’ difficulty with writing could cause the teacher to incorrectly infer that they do not understand the concept of balanced diet. However, if students are offered varied manners of response (such as creating a picture book to show a balanced vs. imbalanced diet or explaining the concept orally), the teacher can obtain a more valid measure of their understanding.
Another idea for differentiating performance tasks is to use an adaptation of the game, Tic-Tac-Toe, to offer students choices of products and performances. Figure 1.0 offers one example in which the teacher structures product and performance options of various genres through which students could display their content understanding and skill proficiency.
The product and performance options are flexible. For example, if we want students to write, then all learners would be asked to choose one option from the first column, along with one other product/performance from the second or third columns. Figure 2.0 shows a Tic-Tac-Toe chart with greater openness. By including a FREE blocks, teachers could allow students to propose an alternative source of evidence that suits their strength. For a major performance task, we might allow students to produce more than a single product (e.g., pick one from each column).
Here are several examples of performance tasks offering product chioces…
Paralympics Equipment (gr. 12)
Environmental Scientist (gr. 7)
Regardless of how open-ended the task and how many product/performance options are provided, it is important to identify a common set of evaluative criteria for assessing what the students produce. This might seem counter-intuitive; i.e., how can we have the same criteria if we give students different product options? The answer goes back to the learning goals and purpose for the tasks. Consider the unit on nutrition again: IF want students to show their understanding of a “balanced diet, ” AND students have some choices for audience (e.g, younger students, peers, adults) and products (e.g., a picture book, an information flier, a website), THEN student work on these various versions of the task would be judged by a rubric containing the following key criteria connected to the content — clear, accurate and complete explanation of “balanced diet, with appropriate examples that illustrates the concept. In other words, the evaluative criteria are derived primarily from the learning goal(s) rather than from the particular product a student chose.
Of course, a teacher may wish to add product-specific criteria. For example, if a student prepares a poster to illustrate a balanced diet, we could look for neatness, composition and effective use of visual elements. Likewise, if a student made an oral presentation, we could judge their pronunciation, delivery rate, and eye contact with the audience. However, in this example we consider these to be secondary criteria linked to specific products/ performances, rather than the key criteria determined by the learning goal.
While I encourage teachers to differentiate their performance tasks whenever possible and appropriate, I offer three cautions. First, we must always keep in mind that our aim is to engage learning in authentic and meaningful learning and to collect appropriate evidence of that learning — not to simply offer a “cool” menu of product and performance possibilities. If a standard calls for proficiency in writing or oral presentation, it would be inappropriate to provide alternative performance options other than writing or speaking. However, it might be suitable to offer the students some choice regarding the topic, audience, and form of the written product to obtain the evidence we seek. Second, the options we provide must be worth the time and energy required. Since tasks typically require time to plan, implement and score, we should reserve them for the most valued learning goals. It would be inefficient and unnecessary to have students develop an animated Power Point presentation or an elaborate 3-dimensional display for content that could be memorized and efficiently and appropriately assessed with a multiple-choice quiz. In the folksy words of teacher friend, with performance tasks, “the juice must be worth the squeeze.”
Third, feasibility must be considered. Ideally, we might wish to individualize all major assignments and performance tasks, but realistically we only have so much time and energy. Therefore, educators must be judicious in determining when it is important to offer product and performance options — striking a balance between a single path and a maze of options that would be impossible to manage.
Despite the challenges, I believe that efforts to provide options within performance tasks are well worth it. When students are given appropriate choices on worthy tasks, they are more likely to put forth effort and experience a genuine sense of accomplishment for a job well done.
Sources
- McTighe, J. (2013). Core learning: Assessing what matters most. Midvale, UT: School Improvement Network.
- Tomlinson, C. and McTighe, J. (2006). Differentiated instruction and Understanding by design: Connecting content and kids. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
For a collection of authentic performance tasks and associated rubrics, see Defined STEM: http://www.definedstem.com
For a complete professional development course on performance tasks for your school or district, see Performance Task PD with Jay McTighe: http://www.performancetask.com
For more information about the design and use of performance tasks, see Core Learning: Assessing What Matters Most by Jay McTighe: http://www.schoolimprovement.com
