Originally published August 22, 2017
CLASS® Specialists at Teachstone all take turns providing reliability support to anxious testers. We often see the same mistakes and misconceptions over and over again about how the CLASS works, and as my story below will share, how the behavioral markers fit into the coding process.
Let’s make this right.
The Question
I don’t understand how many times I need to see evidence for a behavioral marker to score high. One observer shared with me that she expects at least five instances for each behavioral marker within an indicator. I did the math, and that would require at least 190 examples for a 7 score! Another observer scored differently; if she sees each behavioral marker at least one time, she scores a 7. I’m confused!
It’s no wonder she’s confused! To clear this up, I'd like to clarify what the coding process is and isn’t.
2 Ways to Code Incorrectly
1. Looking for a certain number of times to see evidence for a behavioral marker to get a high score.
2. Using someone else’s “formula” for calculating a high score because we are all human and yearn to make CLASS into a more concrete checklist.
2 Ways to Code Correctly
1. Assigning a range of low, mid, or high to each indicator, according to the evidence from the observation. Do this by comparing your notes to the long descriptions for each indicator found in the CLASS field guide.
2. Avoiding perfection. Not every behavioral marker needs to be present to achieve a high-range score. At the high range, we are looking for consistency of evidence; at the mid-range, there is mixed evidence; and at the low range, there is a lack of evidence.
Let’s be clear: There is no set number of times you need to see evidence of a behavioral marker. In fact, it's a misconception to score behavioral markers at all. Don’t do it!
Page 20 of the Pre-K - 3rd Observation Field Guide states:
The list of markers is not meant to be a checklist. It is not necessary for an observer to see evidence of all the markers within an indicator to score within the high range.
We never recommend a certain number of examples (such as five feedback loops in Quality of Feedback) to lead to a conclusive score. Rather than counting back-and-forth exchanges, consider: “Did the child engage with the teacher and learn as a result of this interaction?” Remember, in assigning ranges, we must consider the depth, frequency, and duration of interactions.
Page 21 of the Pre-K - 3rd CLASS Observation Field Guide reads:
A high-range dimension score means the observer noted consistent evidence of the types of interactions illustrated in the indicator high-range descriptions, even if one or two behaviors were more aligned to the mid-range descriptions
I can hear you thinking, “But how many times do we need to see something to call it “consistent?” If you’ve read this far, you know the answer already: there is no set number of times!
What To Do Instead of Counting
- When you are observing, keep writing your notes don’t obsess over counting.
- When you are ready to determine the range for each indicator, think: “Were those children consistently exposed to any behaviors that demonstrate this indicator?”
- Read the descriptive pages to determine what depth, frequency, and duration look like based on the examples given.
- Use the bigger picture (found in the indicator and dimension definitions) rather than a specific number of examples. Look for the child’s response and depth of overall experience. The more you do this, the easier it gets.
Like a broken record, you will hear CLASS specialists say, “CLASS is not a checklist.” Resist the human urge to turn it into a checklist and treat it like the complex, holistic tool that it is. If CLASS observations were as easy as counting behaviors, they wouldn’t capture the complexity of classrooms in all their infinite glory.
