Re:Weaving History

This is the fourth post in a series on the Interview as Exam. The first outlines why we did it: the causes and consequences for me and my students of doing this kind of assessment. The second explains the first kind of interview we started with in our history department. The third explains how and why we simplified the interview and supported the learning all the way through the course. This post is about assessing the interview. Warning: Learning in Progress! Whenever people ask to see my rubrics or assessment tools for the interview, I have an internal cringe. It's not that I don't like to share ( see my teaching wiki  or Twitter ! ) it's that the formal assessment process was really still in process when I left the classroom to work as an instructional coach in 2015. A lot of the initial assessment was kind of "loose." Things did get tightened up over the years, but I've learned a lot in the past few years that I would now apply a little differently...

This is the second post in a series on the Interview as Exam. The first outlines why we did it: the causes and consequences for me and my students of doing this kind of assessment. This post explains the first iteration of the interview we used in our history department. The third post explains how and why we simplified the interview, and supported the learning all the way through the course. Part 4 is about assessing the interview. We as a teacher team created  a set of 20 documents , mostly primary sources, that we gave to students near the end of the course (CHC2D - Canadian History 1914-present). We made sure that they were documents that students had either seen before, or they had enough contextual knowledge to decode and explain them. We agreed that we could swap out some of the documents, depending on our own teaching that semester. We asked students to prepare to discuss all six historical thinking concepts for two documents of their choice, using the  historical ...