Regarding the historicity (being in history) of Jesus, the convergence of multiple lines of evidence is very important in historical assessment and evaluation. I gave the example of multiple lines of evidence converging on the idea the Jewish elite were seen as responsible for the death of the historical Jesus, e.g., it makes sense Mark was inspired to write his gospel after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple using Jesus as a protagonist because Jesus was a conspicuous example of the Jewish elite wrongly killing a beloved messianic claimant favored by God Jesus, and so the gospels interpreted the Romans destroying the temple as God’s wrath at Jesus’ death being poured out on the sinful Jews, similar to the Babylonians destroying the first temple. While this line is not definitive in itself, it paints a vivid picture when it converges with many other similar “Jews killing Jesus” lines of evidence. Let’s consider this example of convergence theory in analogy to its use in elementary education, a second approach that with historical convergence will paint a picture of convergence theory for us.
What could be multiple assessment/evaluation strategies that could converge to give a grade level of “B” for a grade 4 writing portfolio? For example, a teacher might use rubrics, exemplars, checklists, etc? Why are multiple converging lines of assessments pointing to a “B” grade superior to using just one, or worse the teacher just using the gut feeling approach that the writing project “feels like a B?
“Multiple Assessment/Evaluation Strategies for a Grade 4 Writing Portfolio”
A grade 4 writing portfolio typically includes a collection of student work, such as narrative stories, persuasive essays, informational reports, and revisions, demonstrating skills like organization, vocabulary, grammar, creativity, and mechanics. To assign a “B” grade (often meaning “good” or “above average” but with room for improvement, e.g., solid ideas but inconsistent execution), teachers can use multiple strategies that provide converging evidence. These strategies allow for a holistic view rather than relying on a single snapshot. Below, I’ll outline several strategies, with examples of how they might point to a “B” level.
- Rubrics: A rubric is a scoring guide with specific criteria and performance levels (e.g., 1-4 scale, where 3 might equate to a “B”). For a writing portfolio, criteria could include content (ideas and development), organization (structure and flow), voice (personal style), word choice (vocabulary), sentence fluency (variety and rhythm), and conventions (grammar, spelling, punctuation).
- Convergence to “B”: A student’s portfolio might score a 3 (proficient) on most criteria, such as well-developed ideas with some supporting details, logical organization but occasional lapses in transitions, and mostly correct grammar with minor errors. This averages to a “B” if the rubric weights criteria evenly.
- Exemplars: These are anonymized samples of student work at various grade levels (A, B, C, etc.), used as benchmarks for comparison.
- Convergence to “B”: The teacher compares the portfolio to exemplars. For instance, a “B” exemplar might show a narrative with engaging characters and a clear plot but underdeveloped descriptions or repetitive vocabulary. If the student’s work matches this—e.g., a story about a family adventure with good sequencing but simplistic language—it reinforces a “B” assessment.
- Checklists: A simple yes/no or partially met tool listing essential elements, such as “Includes introduction and conclusion,” “Uses varied sentence lengths,” “Incorporates feedback from revisions,” or “Demonstrates understanding of audience.”
- Convergence to “B”: Out of 20 items, the student might check “yes” for 15-17, indicating strong but not exceptional completion. For example, the portfolio includes revisions based on teacher notes (yes), but lacks advanced vocabulary variety (partial), pointing to “good” overall performance.
- Peer and Self-Assessments: Students review their own or peers’ portfolios using simplified rubrics or checklists, often guided by the teacher.
- Convergence to “B”: In a peer review, classmates might rate the work as “mostly clear and interesting” but note “could add more details.” The student’s self-reflection might admit to strong ideas but weaker editing. If these align with teacher observations—e.g., peers score it 80/100 on a group rubric—this supports a “B.”
- Conferring and Anecdotal Notes: During one-on-one conferences, the teacher discusses the portfolio, noting strengths and areas for growth in a log.
- Convergence to “B”: Notes might record “Student explains ideas well orally but written expression needs polishing,” or “Revised draft shows improvement in organization from C-level to B-level.” Over multiple entries, this builds evidence for a “B” if progress is evident but mastery isn’t fully achieved.
- Standardized or Benchmark Assessments: Tools like district writing benchmarks or tools aligned to standards (e.g., Common Core for grade 4, focusing on opinion pieces with reasons and linking words).
- Convergence to “B”: A benchmark test might score the portfolio’s persuasive essay at 75-85% proficiency, indicating solid argument structure but limited evidence or minor errors, aligning with a “B.”
By using these strategies together, the teacher triangulates data: If the rubric gives a 3/4, exemplars match “B” samples, checklists show 80% completion, and peer/self-assessments agree on strengths with minor gaps, they converge on a “B” grade.
Why Multiple Converging Assessments Are Superior
Using multiple converging lines of assessment is superior to a single method or a “gut feeling” approach because it enhances reliability (consistency across evaluations), validity (accurately measuring what it intends to), fairness (reducing subjective bias), and actionable feedback (helping students improve). A single method might overlook nuances, while gut feelings are prone to inconsistency, influenced by factors like teacher mood, familiarity with the student, or unconscious biases (e.g., favoring neat handwriting over content). Multiple methods provide a robust, evidence-based picture, much like how doctors use multiple tests (blood work, scans, symptoms) for a diagnosis rather than intuition alone.
- Superior to a Single Method: A single rubric might emphasize organization but miss creativity, leading to an incomplete grade. For example, if only a rubric is used on a grade 4 portfolio, a student with strong ideas but poor spelling might get a “C” due to heavy weighting on conventions. Adding exemplars could reveal the ideas align with “B” samples from past years, and checklists might confirm most content elements are met, converging on “B” and highlighting spelling as a targeted area for growth. This multi-faceted approach ensures the grade reflects the portfolio’s overall quality, not just one dimension.
- Superior to Gut Feeling: Gut feelings are subjective and unreliable, varying by teacher experience or external factors. For instance, a teacher might “feel” a portfolio is a “B” because it “seems solid,” but without evidence, this could be biased—e.g., underrating a shy student’s work or overrating a charismatic one’s. In contrast, multiple strategies provide objective data: Imagine two similar portfolios; gut feeling might grade one “B” and the other “A” based on the teacher’s fatigue that day. But with rubrics (both score 3/4), exemplars (both match “B” level), and peer reviews (averaging 82%), both get “B”s consistently. This promotes equity, especially in diverse classrooms where cultural differences in writing styles might influence intuition.
In educational research, this is supported by concepts like “triangulation” in assessment, where converging evidence builds confidence in the grade. For grade 4 students, this not only justifies the “B” but also gives clear feedback—e.g., “Improve transitions (from rubric) and add details (from checklist)”—fostering growth mindset over vague impressions.
How does this relate to teacher accountability such as communicating grades to students and parents, and how is a multiple assessment approach important for planning for Next Steps for student learning?
Relation to Teacher Accountability in Communicating Grades
Multiple assessment strategies that converge on a grade, such as a “B” for a grade 4 writing portfolio, directly enhance teacher accountability by providing transparent, evidence-based justification for the grade when communicating with students and parents. Accountability in this context means teachers are responsible for fair, defensible evaluations that support student growth, often tied to standards like those in educational frameworks (e.g., Common Core or state guidelines). Relying on a single method or gut feeling can lead to vague explanations, eroding trust, whereas multiple converging assessments offer concrete data, making communication clearer and more collaborative.
- Transparency and Justification: When sharing a “B” grade, a teacher can reference specific evidence from rubrics (e.g., “Scored 3/4 on organization, showing logical flow but needing better transitions”), exemplars (e.g., “Similar to this ‘B’ sample with solid ideas but room for richer vocabulary”), and checklists (e.g., “Met 16/20 elements, including revisions, but partial on varied sentence structures”). This moves beyond “It feels like a B” to “Here’s why it’s a B, based on these tools.” For parents during conferences, this reduces disputes by showing objective criteria, fostering buy-in for improvement plans.
- Consistency and Equity: Multiple assessments promote accountability by minimizing bias. For instance, if a teacher uses only gut feeling, grades might vary based on personal preferences (e.g., favoring creative over structured writing). Converging evidence ensures consistency across students, which is crucial when parents compare notes or in school audits. In communicating, teachers can say, “This ‘B’ aligns with district benchmarks and peer reviews, ensuring fairness.”
- Feedback Loop: Accountability includes ongoing communication, not just end-of-term reports. With multiple strategies, teachers can share interim insights (e.g., via progress reports or apps like Google Classroom), like “Based on conferring notes and self-assessments, we’re targeting grammar next.” This holds teachers accountable for responsive teaching, as parents can see how assessments inform adjustments.
In essence, this approach makes grades defensible and communicative, aligning with accountability models like those in teacher evaluation systems (e.g., Danielson Framework), where effective communication is a key domain.Importance for Planning Next Steps in Student Learning. A multiple assessment approach is crucial for planning next steps because it provides a comprehensive diagnostic view of strengths and weaknesses, enabling targeted, personalized instruction rather than generic plans. Single methods or intuition might overlook patterns, leading to inefficient interventions, while converging evidence identifies precise gaps and leverages successes, supporting differentiated learning and growth mindset principles.
- Identifying Specific Needs: Multiple tools reveal nuanced insights. For the “B” writing portfolio, a rubric might highlight inconsistent voice, exemplars show underdeveloped details compared to “A” samples, and anecdotal notes from conferences indicate oral explanations outpace written ones. This convergence points to next steps like mini-lessons on descriptive language or peer editing workshops, rather than broadly “practice more writing.”
- Data-Driven Differentiation: It allows grouping students for tailored support. For example, if checklists show many students at “B” level miss advanced vocabulary, the teacher plans a unit-wide word study; for an individual, peer assessments revealing self-doubt could lead to confidence-building activities. This is superior to gut-based plans, which might assume all “B” students need the same fix, ignoring variations.
- Monitoring Progress and Adjustment: Converging assessments create baselines for future tracking. Post-“B” grade, teachers can revisit the same tools (e.g., updated rubrics) to measure growth, adjusting plans dynamically—e.g., if revisions improve via checklists, shift focus to creativity. This iterative process, rooted in formative assessment theory (e.g., Black and Wiliam’s work), ensures next steps are responsive, promoting deeper learning over superficial fixes.
Overall, this method empowers proactive planning, turning assessments into roadmaps for student success, and aligns with best practices in curriculum design where evidence informs instruction.
In this way, I think convergence theory is a helpful tool in triangulating the historicity of Jesus, notably with the “Jewish Elite Killing Jesus” converging lines of Evidence. Carrier has objected that the archons passage in Paul suggests demons killed Jesus, and that Paul says leaders are good and chosen by God. Paul obviously knows history has had evil rulers, so it doesn’t mean that. But, what these seem most like is the problem of Sin as an evil entity outlined in Paul’s Romans who has brainwashed the people to be under its spell, and so besides the transgression model of sin that requires an atoning payment, there must also be a moral influence cross that allows us to break the Spell of Sin, as I described in previous posts. It’s like a group of kids excitedly pulling the legs off of daddy long legs insects in the school yard for fun, while one kid watches horrified, his moral compass awakened. Consider Satan entering Judas (John 13:2 adds that the devil had “prompted” Judas) leading to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, and Judas later realizing what he did after Satan left him and in grief and remorse committed suicide.