Georgia Student Learning ObjectiveWorld History (Grades 9-10)

May 2013

2

Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

What Is an Annotated SLO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

How to Use This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Georgia Contextual Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Student Learning Objective: World History (Grades 9-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Element List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Selected Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pre- and Post-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Baselone Data or Historical Data/Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SLO Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Strategies for Attaining Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Mid-Year/Course Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Overview of Georgia World History (Grades 9-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3

Introduction What is an SLO?

As States and school districts implement educator evaluation systems that include measures of student growth, one of the challenges they face is identifying measures for non-tested grades and subjects. The use of student learning objectives (SLOs) is one promising approach to addressing this challenge. Structurally, an SLO consists of several “elements” that describe a specific learning objective for a particular student population as well as a specific, systematic process for how an educator can identify and implement strategies to track progress toward that goal and achieve it.

What is an Annotated SLO?

The Reform Support Network (RSN) has developed a series of annotated SLOs to orient readers around their structure, provide analysis and suggest specific actions to strengthen the SLO’s quality. Each annotated SLO, such as the one in this document, provides analysis and suggestions for improvement for each individual element within the SLO as well as the SLO as a whole. States, school districts, colleges, universities and others can use the RSN’s collection of annotated SLOs, the “SLO Library,” to prepare teachers and administrators to develop high-quality SLOs or to improve SLOs that they have already developed.

The SLO Library is not a collection of exemplary SLOs. The RSN designed the library as a teaching tool, so most of the jurisdictions intentionally provided the library with SLOs that vary in quality. They also vary in their subject areas and grade levels. Each SLO review identifies and discusses both strengths and areas for improvement. It is up to the reader, then, not to mimic the SLOs found in the library but to extrapolate lessons learned from them to produce new, original and high quality SLOs.

How to Use This Document

The RSN intends for the SLO Library to support any stakeholder actively engaged in learning about or implementing SLOs: State departments of education, school districts and schools, teachers implementing SLOs, administrators leading an SLO process and colleges of education interested in adding SLO coursework to their teacher or administrator preparation programs.

Each annotated SLO begins with contextual information for the jurisdiction that produced the SLO and then presents each element of the SLO in sequence. Each element begins with the jurisdiction’s actual description of it, which is followed by the text of “an author” from the jurisdiction. Think of the author as the teacher(s) or school district administrator(s) who actually wrote the SLO. The language from the jurisdiction’s description comes from the jurisdiction’s SLO template or other guidance materials. The author’s text comes from the SLO provided by the jurisdiction. Both sections are unedited.

The subsequent section, “Review of the Author’s Text and Potential Improvements,” is the focus of the library and should be of greatest interest to the reader. This section analyzes the text written by the author from the jurisdiction and provides considerations for improving the quality of the individual element.

An overall summary of the entire SLO follows the presentation of the elements and concludes the review of the SLO.

The appendix contains what the RSN calls an “element comparison tool,” which links the name of the element used by this jurisdiction to the standardized term used in the SLO Library. The comparison table intends to provide readers with the means to compare elements across SLOs, even if they are called by different names.

4

Georgia Contextual InformationSLO Implementation TimelineSchool year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs without stakes for teachers 1

2011–2012

School year the jurisdiction piloted or plans to pilot SLOs with stakes for teachers2

2012–2013 (SLOs will be included in educator evaluations for diagnostic and general information purposes but not factored into the final evaluation rating.)

School year began or plans to begin large scale implementation 2013–2014

SLO Development and ApprovalWho develops SLOs? Grade- or content-level teams of teachers and district

administrators

Are collectively developed SLOs permitted (for example, by teams of teachers and administrators)?

Yes

Who approves SLOs? District and State administrators

SLO Use in EvaluationAre SLOs required or optional for use in evaluating educators? Required for teachers of non-tested subjects

Are SLOs the sole measure of student growth in the evaluation system? If not, what other measure(s) does the jurisdiction use?

No, the State uses student-growth percentile and achievement-gap reduction measures for teachers of tested subjects.

Does the jurisdiction use SLOs to determine educator compensation?

No

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for teachers in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

N/A

What weight does the SLO carry in determining the summative rating for administrators in the jurisdiction’s evaluation system?

N/A

SLO ImplementationHow many SLOs are required for most teachers? One SLO per subject

How many SLOs are required for most school administrators? N/A; All school SLOs aggregate for Leader Effectiveness System

Which teachers and administrators are required to use SLOs? Teachers of non-tested subjects

SLO AssessmentWho selects which assessments are used for SLOs? District administrators

Are there standards or required development processes for assessments created by teachers, schools, or districts? If so, whatare they?

Georgia has established a required process for assessment development, which includes documented alignment to standards, a table of specifications and an SLO criteria table, whereby a group reviews each assessment for specific criteria.

What types of assessments are permitted? Teacher-developed, district-developed and State-developed assessments

Are performance or portfolio-based assessments permitted for SLOs?

Yes

Are commercially available assessments permitted for SLOs? Yes 1 SLOs will not be used in educator evaluations2 SLOs may be used in educator evaluations

5

Student Learning Objective: World History (Grades 9-10)Element List

General Information ....................................................................................................................................................6

Selected Standards........................................................................................................................................................7

Pre- and Post-Assessment.........................................................................................................................................8

Baseline Data or Historical Data/Trends................................................................................................................9

SLO Statement..............................................................................................................................................................10

Strategies for Attaining Objective............................................................................................................................11

Mid-Year/Course Review..........................................................................................................................................12

6

General InformationStandardized Name

Other InformationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT• All general information is complete and accurate

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

A. District Name [District Name Removed]

B. State Funded Course Number 45.083000

C. State Funded Course Title World History

D. Grade(s) 9-10

E. Pre-Assessment Commercially Developed Locally/Regionally Developed

F. Pre-Assessment Window September 13 – 23, 2012

G. Post-Assessment Commercially Developed Locally/Regionally Developed

H. Post-Test Window April 8 – 12, 2013

I. Collaboratively Developed List assessment/SLO team members and roles:

[9 SLO Team member names and affiliation removed]

J. Developed by GADOE Trained Assessment Team

Yes No

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author presents all required information. Also listed are members of the state-trained team that developed this SLO.

7

Selected StandardsStandardized Name

Learning ContentJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT• Focused on content standards

• Standards are selected by collaborative team

• Teachers and content experts were involved in the SLO development

• Brief description of standard(s) provided

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTSSWH1 The student will analyze the origins, structures, and interactions of complex societies in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean from 3500 BCE to 500 BCE. (a, c, e)

SSWH8 The student will demonstrate an understanding of the development of societies in Central and South America. (a, b)

SSWH2 The student will identify the major achievements of Chinese and Indian societies from 1100 BCE to 500 CE. (d)

SSWH3 The student will examine the political, philosophical, and cultural interaction of Classical Mediterranean societies from 700 BCE to 400 CE. (a)

SSWH4 The student will analyze the importance of the Byzantine and Mongol empires between 450 CE and 1500 CE. (b, c, d, e, f )

SSWH5 The student will trace the origins and expansion of the Islamic World between 600 CE and 1300 CE. (a, b, c, e, g)

SSWH6 The student will describe the diverse characteristics of early African societies before 1800 CE. (b)

SSWH7 The student will analyze European medieval society with regard to culture, politics, society, and economics. (a, c, b)

SSWH9 The student will analyze change and continuity in the Renaissance and Reformation. (b, d, e, f, g)

SSWH10 The student will analyze the impact of the age of discovery and expansion into the Americas, Africa, and Asia. (a, b, c)

SSWH12 The student will examine the origins and contributions of the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires. (b)

SSWH13 The student will examine the intellectual, political, social, and economic factors that changed the world view of Europeans. (a)

SSWH11 Students will investigate political and social changes in Japan and in China from the seventeenth century CE to mid-nineteenth century CE. (b)

SSWH13 The student will examine the intellectual, political, social, and economic factors that changed the world view of Europeans. (b)

SSWH14 The student will analyze the Age of Revolutions and Rebellions. (b, c, d)

SSWH15 The student will be able to describe the impact of industrialization, the rise of nationalism, and the major characteristics of worldwide imperialism. (a, b, d)

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author identifies portions of 15 of the 21 Georgia course standards for world history, covering a substantial amount of learning content.

The selection appears to be too broad and lacks focus. The content identified by baseline/historical data analysis could provide more focus for this SLO.

8

Pre- and Post-AssessmentStandardized Name

AssessmentsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT• Assessment is aligned with the standards

• It appears that an appropriate instrument/measure is selected to assess SLO

• Assessment is described or referenced (for procured assessments)

Or

• Locally developed assessments are submitted; SLO Assessment ToS has been accurately completed forlocally/regionally developed assessments.

• Pre-assessment /post-assessment are utilized by multiple teachers/schools

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTThe World History Public Domain Pre-Assessment is a performance based assessment comprised of 25 constructed response items. The proficiency criteria are as follows: a. Exceeds 90% - 100%b. Meets 70% - 89%c. Does Not Meet 0% - 69%

The World History Public Domain Post-Assessment is a balanced assessment comprised of 60 items to include 54 multiple choice items and 4 short answer items. multiple choice, constructed response and document based questionsThe proficiency criteria are as follows: a. Exceeds 90% - 100%b. Meets 70% - 89%c. Does Not Meet 0% - 69%

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

The pre- and post-assessment are not comparable in format and rigor. For example, the pre-assessment requires students to recall content from memory and construct responses, while the post-assessment offers reference documents and allows for selected responses. Growth seen between the pre- and post-assessments is likely to be misleading due to the disparity in assessment design.

Documenting the alignment between assessment items and standards would help pinpoint student strengths and weaknesses (for example, student Y does not know standard x). Further, this documentation makes SLO quality easier to ascertain.

The pre- and post-assessments should be comparable in structure and rigor. In addition, a scoring guide would strengthen this element by providing clarity in evaluating the work of students.

9

Baseline Data or Historical Data/TrendsStandardized Name

BaselineJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT• General baseline and/or trend data are provided

Or

• Convincing rationale is providedAUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTCurrent baseline data indicates that during the 2011-2012 school term 16 out of 67 (24%) students failed the World History course.

[District name removed] World History data (teacher observation, course grades, and classroom assessments) show that World History students struggle with concepts relative to Social Complexity and Need for Order and Mounting Global Tensions. Students are also challenged when required to analyze, examine, and/or explain the origins, diffusion, or impact of topics in World History.

The following data indicate an established trend in students’ EOCT U S History performance in history courses:

2011-2012 - 80% failed to pass the United States History EOCT

2010-2011 – 87% failed to pass the United States History EOCT

The 2012-2013 World History pre-assessment will serve as the baseline data. 87 students participated in the testing. 70/87 students scored between 0-6. 50 students scored 0.There were two outliers, one scoring 62 and the other at 34. The test format presented difficulty for students due to the constructed response format.

Note: Although World History standardized test data are not available, the American History EOCT data and the 8th grade CRCT Social Studies data indicate a need for the SLO development in order to focus on student progress in acquisition of concepts, skills, and knowledge related to world history.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe data indicate a need for the selected standards (for example, 70 in 87 students scored 6 or fewer points). Student performance on related coursework and data from students previously taking this course indicate general need in the content area.

To clarify expectations for each student, the author could present individual baselines and targets in a spreadsheet-and-roster format. This would strengthen other elements of the SLO, justifying the selection of content and informing the choice of instructional strategies.

10

SLO StatementStandardized Name

Student Growth TargetsJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

• SLO is clear and coherent

• Uses SMART criteria

• SLO appears to be feasible for teacher

• Teachers are able to align work directly to the district SLO

• Growth targets appear realistic and meet the needs of all students

• SLO is within teachers’ control to effect change and appears to be a worthwhile focus for the instructionalperiod

• Growth targets appear to be rigorous

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENTFrom September 10, 2012 to April 12, 2013, 100% of World History students will improve their ability to identify, define, describe, explain, compare-contrast, examine, and analyze topics relative to Social Change and Need for Order and Mounting Global Tensions as measured by the World History Public Domain Assessment. Students will increase from their pre-assessment scores to these post-assessment scores on the World History Public Domain Assessment by a minimum of 20% as measured by the following formula:

-Students scoring between 0-20 will increase by 60-70 points

-Students scoring between 21-40 will increase by 50 – 60

-Students scoring between 41-62 will increase by 30-40

-Students exceeded the top number of the range by one or more will exceed their target.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe author presents tiered targets, grouping ranges of pre-assessment scores and targeting a range of post-assessment score-increases for each group. The author expects all students to score at least 60 percent on the post-assessment. This establishes high expectations for growth among students, particularly those who scored on the low end of the pre-assessment.

The expectation for students who “exceeded the top number of the range by one or more” is not clear and concise enough. This group needs a specific numeric target as well. If students have demonstrated they learned the content, the author could consider revisiting the content selection for those students. Tiered targeting typically requires a progressive increase in the target (as pre-assessment scores increase, targets increase). This sometimes creates uneven expectations that administrators of SLOs need to watch for. In this case, the lowest acceptable target for a student with a pre-assessment score of 20 is 80, while the lowest acceptable target for a student with a pre-assessment score of 21 is 71. This creates an uneven distribution of expectations.

11

Strategies for Attaining ObjectiveStandardized Name

Instructional StrategiesJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT• Very specific strategies are recommended/required

• Frequency of strategies is stated along with the strategies

AUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT 9 Required:

1Required

Reference and integrate Habits of Mind, use rubrics to evaluate and monitor individual student progress, conduct ongoing informal and formal assessments for continued data analyses and data use to differentiate instruction and address individual learning needs.

9 Recommended:

Extended opportunities for students to write using the LDC framework

Bell-to-bell instruction

Use of Thinking Maps

Standards-based classroom

Differentiated Instruction

Flexible Grouping

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSFrequency of use of the various strategies is somewhat unclear, given the author’s use of the vague term “ongoing.” There is no indication of how or when the teacher might employ the strategies.

Describing and elaborating on the frequency of use of the instructional strategies would allow administrators and teachers to gauge whether the strategies will be effective.

12

Mid-Year/Course ReviewStandardized Name

Other InformationJURISDICTION’S DESCRIPTION OF THE ELEMENT

• Statement of mid-year/course review is clearly stated for teachers and local evaluators

Or

• Format of mid-year/course review is determined at the local school levelAUTHOR’S TEXT FOR THE ELEMENT

January 7- 30, 2013

The review will include formative and benchmark classroom and grade-level or content-area data to monitor student progress. Collaborative teacher data review within the content area and across grade-levels where appropriate will be considered.

REVIEW OF AUTHOR’S TEXT AND POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTSThe plan of action for the mid-year review is clear. The author intends to review student data with the evaluator and to include in that review an examination of the data from other classrooms.

The identification of a date provides clarity for all parties. It is early enough in the school year to positively influence the implementation and outcome of the SLO.

Overview of Georgia World History (Grades 9-10)This World History SLO takes a tiered approach to setting targets, which acknowledges the different starting points of learners, a valuable consideration. By grouping students into tiers based on pre-assessment data, the targets progressively increase expectations for students. These targets require students with the greatest demonstrated need to grow the most. Further refinement of this approach would avoid unintentionally uneven expectations.

The pre-assessment is not comparable in format or rigor to the post-assessment, with the pre-assessment representing a challenging constructed response format as compared to the largely multiple-choice post-assessment. The quality of this SLO also would be strengthened by selecting a more limited set of standards, increasing the comparability of the assessments, and demonstrating the alignment between the standards and assessments.

13

Appendix: Tool for Comparing SLO Elements Across JurisdictionsGeorgia Element Name Standardized Name

General Information Other Information

Selected Standards Learning Content

Pre- and Post-Assessment Assessments

Baseline Data or Historical Data/Trends Baseline

SLO Statement Student Growth Targets

Strategies for Attaining Objective Instructional Strategies

Mid-Year/Course Review Other Information

An earlier version of this document was developed under the auspices of the Reform Support Network, with funding from the U.S. Department of Education under contract #GS-23F-8182H. This publication features information from public and private organizations and links to additional information created by those organizations. Inclusion of this information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any products or services offered or views expressed, nor does the Department of Education control its accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness.