Define Levels of Proficiency

Defining Levels of Proficiency 

Once a system defines standards or competency outcomes (see more about the distinction here), it must also establish how learners will show progress. Defining levels of proficiency helps identify where learners are in their journey and informs them and their families of their standing in relation to expectations, developmentally or based on course or grade level.

There are two main approaches to defining levels of proficiency:

• Proficiency Scales (more common with standards)

• Progressions or Continua (more common with competencies)

In addition to choosing one of these approaches, systems must decide whether to define proficiency in a binary way (earned vs not earned) or by using multiple levels with either numbers (1, 2, 3) or descriptors (emerging, practicing, demonstrating) and how many levels to include.

Systems that adopt a Standards-Based approach to outcomes typically define proficiency scales by first identifying what achieving the standard looks like. This level is often named “proficient” or “meeting.” Most systems use a 1-4 numerical scale, while others opt for a descriptive approach or a binary scale (meeting or not yet meeting). Many standards-based systems use proficiency scales. According to Marzano (n.d.), a proficiency scale "represents a progression of learning goals with three levels of difficulty: (1) the target (level 3.0) content; (2) the simpler (level 2.0) content; and (3) the more complex (level 4.0) content." The target level (level 3.0) represents meeting the standard and is defined by verbs used in standards, such as "explain," and other higher-level Bloom's Taxonomy and Depth of Knowledge (DOK) skills. Level 2 is typically characterized by learners demonstrating necessary knowledge, such as defining vocabulary or identifying items. In this approach, learners must meet level 2 before progressing to level 3. Proficiency scales define the steps learners take to reach the desired outcome (the standard).

Standards-based systems vary in their approach to defining the highest level of proficiency (level 4.0), often defined as exceeding expectations, advanced or extending. Some systems define this as going beyond what was taught, which can be an equity issue for learners and difficult for educators to track. In his book, Get Set, Go, Thomas Guskey highlights the challenge with this highest level: 

"In most standards-based environments, mastering a standard means hitting the target. It signified achieving the goal and learning at the expected level....As soon as you make the task more difficult or move the learning expectation to a higher and more advanced level, you have changed the standard and altered the goal. Students who achieve at that level have not really exceeded the standard. More accurately, they have mastered a different standard” (Guskey, 2020, p. 133).

Guskey goes on to recommend that systems be very clear in defining the highest level of proficiency. 

Below are two different examples of how systems approached this: 

Any system that provides a level above meeting expectations must consider equity. It is not equitable to expect learners to do more than what is taught or to put the burden on learners to demonstrate a higher level than expected on their own time or in an undefined, ambiguous way. When systems conflate these highest levels with grades, it becomes an even greater issue with equity, as there is a lack of clarity between the highest level of the standard at an A and B grade. This is discussed more in the translating to grades section. 

In a Competency-Based approach, this challenge of defining the highest level of proficiency and ensuring opportunities to demonstrate them is eliminated. Learners simply reach the next level of proficiency in the progression or continuum if they go beyond the definition of proficient at that level.  To ensure there are opportunities for learners to perform at their highest level on the progression, the educator needs to provide more open-ended assessment opportunities for learners to demonstrate proficiency at a variety of levels. 

Systems that take a Competency-Based approach to outcomes typically develop what are called progressions or continua that define progress across multiple levels over time on the same competencies. Both Building 21 and Redesign’s competency frameworks take this approach, defining six levels or stages and then defining those stages by competency. 

How Many Levels is the Right Level? 

Researchers like Thomas Guskey (2020) recommend using fewer proficiency levels. With 100 points, there is too much room for variation in scoring. However, a binary approach, which you can read about here, can also be challenging. It is difficult to demonstrate growth over time, especially on larger grain size competencies, with a met or not yet met binary approach because there is a lot of nuance in where learners are relative to what “meeting” means. Embark Education at one point chose a binary scale for their Competency-Based approach of Practicing and Applying. They found that there was more nuance in progress to communicate to learners and families and decided 3 levels balanced clarity, depth and simplicity. Other systems find that they need more levels for nuance, such as One Stone and Bostonia who chose 7 levels to move clearly away from the typical 4 levels that are associated with letter grades. The IB program has 8 levels of proficiency, which is the highest number of scales in our research. 

Our review of the existing models has revealed that, other than binary systems, levels of proficiency are defined by no less than three levels and no more than eight.

Numeric Scoring Scale Examples

Not all systems that take a numeric approach to proficiency levels are standards-based, as described in the previous section. In fact, there are several competency-based systems that also use numbers. Among these are International Big Picture Learning Credential which uses a scale of 5 Progressional Levels and Building 21 which uses a 6-level continuum. Building 21 has chosen to define these levels or stages by number because they use a mathematical approach to summarizing progress, which you can read more about here, and they want that math to be transparent. 

Descriptive Proficiency Levels 

A descriptive approach to proficiency levels means instead of focusing on numbers as the levels, each level has a descriptive title such as “emerging” or “meeting.” Many systems choose a descriptive approach to defining proficiency levels to move away from traditional grading practices and shift the mindset towards talking about the level of proficiency.

Most systems that use a descriptive scoring scale also associate that level with a number, which is required if the system has chosen to use a mathematical approach to summarizing progress (see more here). However, they use a description instead of a number to define proficiency outside of numerical values and use the numbers more in the background to provide summaries. Some might say that defining levels of proficiency is just putting a new name on letter grades. However, “until it’s necessary to convert to the traditional ‘language’ of grades, many schools have found that the seemingly cosmetic change from the letters of grades bolsters the school’s internal culture of a growth mindset in which every student is on a trajectory toward eventual academic success” (Feldman, 2019, p. 165). This language shift can begin to really shift the narrative around assessment, grading and reporting and is key to success of a new structure. 

Binary Scoring Scales

In addition to multiple levels of proficiency being defined numerically or descriptively, there is a binary approach to defining proficiency, similar to  Digital Promise’s micro-credential program. Either the learner has earned the micro-credential or not yet earned the micro-credential, with little gradation or variation in progress defined. Usually, what learners are earning is defined at a smaller grain size so that it’s clear enough what it means to earn or not earn proficiency on that standard or competency. Additionally, with smaller grain size often allows for close communication between educator and learner making it relatively easy to offer direct feedback of what’s needed to meet proficiency.  

You can read more about a binary approach to levels of proficiency, including the benefit of simplification, from the co-founder of Workshop School here (Riggan, 2022).