Episode II: T-CAP Assessment Model

Figure 1: Twinings English Breakfast Tea in Hawaii Mug

Welcome to Digital Tea with Mr. E. where we will discuss what’s brewing in the world of educational theory. This blog is the second of an eight episode series where we will explore T-CAP: A Student Learning Model, and its fit for the modern digital classroom. As I write this blog sitting in the Millerstown Square on a partly cloudy 64 °F day, I am sipping a cup of Twinings English Breakfast Tea in my Hawaii Turtle mug. This mug features a sea turtle outline decorated with a map of the Hawaiian Islands. I acquired this mug while taking a graduate course on Volcanoes and their environmental impact above and below the water line. This was the best experiential graduate course I have ever taken. All the lessons, journaling and activities were conducted out in the field on the land and under the waters of the Big Island of Hawaii.

In this second episode exploring the T-CAP student learning model the focus will move to the development and features of the T-CAP assessment instrument. The assessment instrument has been grounded in the use of the cognitive levels of ascending student thought developed in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl & Anderson, 2009). Also, the instrument has been carefully constructed to feature authenticity of learning, complexity of learning and approach to learning, (Cox, 2003). Another goal in the construction of this assessment was to flexibly design it so that it can be used across all contents and grade levels. I accomplished this feature through the use of student learning actions and evidence indicators in the rubric descriptions. Lastly, numerous revisions were made to improve the assessment’s ease of use. The biggest breakthrough came with an assessment model that allows for the independent scoring of the three dimensions of T-CAP. The three scores then serve to plot a location on T-CAP model to reveal the student’s achievement. This feature allows for greater consistency in T-CAP evaluation.

Figure 2: T-CAP Assessment Instrument Title Page

Let’s take a look at how to use the T-CAP assessment instrument. The first step is in understanding the definitions of content, technology and artifact that the assessment instrument uses to assess student learning. Content is defined as national, state or local standards for specific subject areas taught in school. In this perspective, content learning is beiling limited in scope to the educational goals of the class. Technology is defined as the use of hardware, software and educational theory to conduct learning and improve performance. Technology proved to be hardest definition lock down as it went through numerous revisions. The refined technology perspective focuses on the use of hardware and software to advance the content education. Lastly artifact is defined as any product student built or created, with planning and structure. The artifact focus was designed to introduce student choice and differentiation elements in developing the evidence to prove learning. Artifact production may prove to be the most powerful dimension of T-CAP as students motivated to learn and create for themselves instead of just for the teacher.

Figure 3: Content Learning Rubric

The second step is to use the assessment tool to independently assess each of the three dimensions of content, technology and artifact with student work. As the teacher considers the achievement level in a domain she is to choose the score with the most evidence. In this way a student can have one foot in each of two categories but will be assessed in which ever the category the evidence is stronger. The numeric score from each domain is then used plot the achievement on the T-CAP model.

Figure 4: Technology Learning Rubric

The third and final step is to consider which dimensions scored 4 or 5. The proficient and distinguished scores enable one dimension to connect with another T-CAP dimension. The T-CAP Venn Diagram is used to determine the connected achievement. For example if a student earns a 4 on all three dimensions, then the student earned the T-CAP domain as all three dimensions are connected. Also if another student only achieves a proficient score in content and artifact dimensions, then the student would earn the CAP domain (Content Artifact Production). In this system the students are taught to strive for T-CAP by increasing their cognitive thought to create and synthesize learning with an artifact grounded in technology. With the tools of 1:1 student devices and a learning management system, the T-CAP model and assessment instrument is poised to move students forward in their ability to gain the skills needed to successfully adapt in an ever changing technology based society, (Doran & Herold, 2016).

Figure 5: Artifact Production Rubric

Episode III of this eight part series will journal my experiences in the week of September 9th-13th. In that week I will present the T-CAP Model to the Greenwood Middle/High School Staff at a faculty meeting. Also, I will ask for teachers to participate in the Validity and Reliability studies. I suspect this will be a critical juncture in the internship as I learn if the T-CAP model is well received by the staff, and if my colleagues have any interest in being part of the research team. Also, the third post will feature a new brew of tea in a special mug. I look forward to sharing the progression of my T-CAP research throughout this internship. Feel free to leave comments below. You may also contact me privately at jeverett@greenwoodsd.org.

References

Cox, Cathy. (2003). The state of Georgia K-12 technology plan. Retrieved from http://archives.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/technology/state/TechPlan.pdf.

Doran, L., Herold, H. (2016, May 11). One-to-one laptop initiatives boost student scores, Researchers Find. Education Week. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2016/05/

one-to-one_laptop_test_scores.html.

Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2009). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Retrieved from https://doubledumplings.com/a-taxonomy-for-learning-teaching-and-assessing-a-revision-of-blooms-taxonomy-of-educational-obje-ebooks-small-project-lorin-w-anderson- david-r-krathwohl.pdf.