Transcript Quality Review Rubric

Created by NWRESD
Created by NWRESD
Data Quality Project
Data Quality Project
CCSS Stewardship Committee
EQuIP Network
2013
Common Core Stewardship Committee
Purpose: To assure that lessons &
units are aligned to Common Core
State Standards and focused on
depth of instruction using common
criteria to determine quality.
Objectives:
Review lessons/units using the Quality
Review Rubric
Provide rating, suggestions and
comments for lesson developer
Common Core Stewardship Committee
Professional Development Plan-Oregon
Content Knowledge
Instruction
Assessment
Understand the coherence
of the CCSS standards and
how the concepts and skills
progress, build, and
connect with one another
Design units and lessons
that support every student
in meeting the math & ELA
content and practice
standards
Create and use formative
assessments to examine
student learning and
monitor progress in order
to meet individual needs of
students and to challenge
students exceeding
benchmark
Understand the student
learning requirements and
be able to describe the
expectations in terms of
student actions-what does
it look like when a student
demonstrates the
knowledge and skills
stated in the standards?
Implement evidence-based
instructional strategies that
scaffold learning to ensure
students meet the rigor of
the CCSS, and differentiate
instruction to support the
growth of each student
Design tasks and
experiences at the
appropriate level of rigor
that will enable students to
demonstrate proficiency
through a variety of
responses
Common Core Stewardship Committee
Professional Development Plan
Content Knowledge
Instruction
Assessment
Develop an understanding of
the major shifts between
Oregon Standards and the
CCSS (Building leaders)
Provide dedicated and
consistent teaming time to
design units, select
research-based instructional
strategies, and assess
learning (Building leaders)
Use assessment data to
determine instructional
gaps and to conduct
program evaluation at the
building & district level
Provide professional
development to ensure staff
acquires the knowledge
and skills needed to design
and implement assessments
to monitor student progress
and inform instruction
Conduct professional
development to help
teachers develop the
knowledge and skills needed
to design instruction and
assessments that meet the
rigor of the CCSS (District)
Create, monitor and support
focused opportunities for
teachers to collaborate
across grade levels to
discuss student learning
progress (Building leaders)
(District)
Ensure that district
instructional materials are
coherent, consistent,
comprehensive and support
shifts in CCSS (District)
(Building & District)
EQuIP Network
History of the
Development of the
Quality Review
Rubric
Four Dimensions of the Quality
Review Rubric
I. Alignment to the Depth
II. Key Shifts in the CCSS
III. Instructional and Supports
IV. Assessment
Quality Review Rubric
MATHEMATICS
Quality Review Steps for
Individuals or Groups
Step 1-Review Materials
Step 2-Apply criteria in Dimension I:
Alignment
Note- Dimension I is non-negotiable. In
order for the review to continue, a
rating of 2 or 3 is required.
Step 3-Apply criteria in Dimensions II-IV
Step 4-Apply overall Rating and
Summary Comments
Step 5-Compare Overall Ratings &
Determine Next Steps
Quality Review Process
for Individuals and Groups
Step I
Review
Materials
Step 5
Compare
Overall Ratings
and Determine
Next Steps
Step 4
Apply an
Overall Rating
and Provide
Summary
Comments
Step 2
Apply Criteria
in Dimension I
Step 3
Apply Criteria
in Dimensions
II-IV
Quality Review Principles & Agreements
1. Common Core:
Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are
familiar with the Common Core Standards.
2. Inquiry:
Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are
organized in steps around a set of guiding questions.
3. Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague
and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process.
4. Criteria & Evidence:
All observations, judgments, discussions, and recommendations are
criterion- and evidence-based.
5. Constructive:
Lessons/units to be reviewed are seen as “works in progress.”
Reviewers are respectful of contributors’ work and make constructive
observations and suggestions based on evidence from the work.
6. Individual to Collective: Each member of a review team independently records his/her
observations prior to discussion. Discussions focus on understanding
all reviewers’ interpretations of the criteria and the evidence they
have found.
7. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventually calibrate
our judgments so that we move toward agreement about CCSS
Quality.
Step I-Review Materials
• Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the
recording form: scan to see what the lesson/unit contains
and how it is organized
• Read key materials related to instruction, assessment
and teacher guidance
• Study and measure the text(s) that serve as a
centerpiece for the lesson/unit analyzing text complexity,
quality, scope, and relationship to instruction
Step 2-QRR
• Identify the grade level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets
• Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each
criterion
• Individually check each criterion for which clear and
substantial evidence is found
Step2-Apply Criteria
• Identify and record input on specific improvements that
might be made to meet criteria of strengthen alignment
• Optional* Enter your rating 0-3 for Dimension I alignment
Note: Dimension I is non-negotiable and a rating of 2 or 3 is
required for the review to continue. If the review is
discontinued, consider giving general feedback to
developers/teachers regarding next steps
Dimension I: Alignment to Depth of CCSS
Check criteria for which clear
evidence is found
Make observations and suggestions
in relation to criteria and evidence
Determine a dimension rating based
on checked criteria and observations
Determine Alignment rating and
continuation of review
Compare Observations, Feedback,
and Ratings
• What is the pattern within our team in terms of the
criteria we have checked?
• Do our observations and feedback reference the criteria
and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional
materials?
• Does our feedback include suggested improvement(s)?
Step 3-Continue
Application of Criteria
Apply criterion in Dimensions II-IV
II. Key Shifts in the CCSS
III. Instructional Supports
IV. Assessment
Closely examine the criterion through the “lens” of each
criterion
Record comments on criteria met, improvements
needed and then rate 0-3
In depth with high expectations
New conceptsPrevious understanding
Demonstrate understanding
Application
Conceptual
Understanding
Procedural Skill &
Fluency
Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS
Check criteria for which clear evidence
is found
Make observations suggestions in
relation to criteria and evidence
Determine a dimension rating based
on checked criteria and
observations
Researchbased
•Clear & sufficient guidance
•Academic language
•Engaging
•Instructional expectations
•Scaffolding
•Interventions for all learners
Dimension III: Instructional Supports
Check criteria for which clear
evidence is found
Make observations and
suggestions in relation to criteria
and evidence
Determine a dimension rating
based on checked criteria and
observations
Assessments:
Pre-post
Formative
Summative
Self-assessments
Dimension IV: Assessment
Check criteria for which clear
evidence is found
Make observations and
suggestions in relation to criteria
and evidence
Determine a dimension rating
based on checked criteria and
observations
Step 4-Overall Rating
• Review ratings for Dimensions I-IV adding/clarifying
comments as needed
• Write summary comments for your overall rating on your
recording sheet
• Total dimension ratings and record overall ratings
E=Exemplar
E/I=Exemplar if improved
R=Revision needed
N=Not ready to review
Step 5-Summary
Note:
1.Evidence cited to arrive at final rating
2.Summary comments
3.Similarities & differences among raters
Step 5-Next Steps
Then:
•
Recommend next steps for the lesson/unit
•
Provide recommendations for improvement
and/or ratings to developers/teachers
Overall Rating:
What does the creator of the
lesson/unit need to know to
improve the design?
Which number on the rating
scale best describes the
current analysis of the
lesson/unit?
How is this rubric being used in Oregon?
Teacher lesson and unit review
Teacher lesson and unit development
Data team and professional learning community collaboration
District instructional materials review and selection
State instructional materials review and adoption
process
30
Extensions:
Using the Quality Review Rubric
• Curriculum materials selection process criteria
• PLC/Data team data collection
• Guide for lesson/unit development
• Review of newly created materials
• Review of existing materials
• Screening materials to post on websites
• Quality control/quality assurance of vendordeveloped materials
• Training educators
Special Thanks: Oregon
Data Project
Educators Evaluating Quality Instructional Products (EQuIP)
Network, facilitated by Achieve
Oregon Department of Education (ODE)
ELA and Literacy Criteria Development Committee
ODE Educational Improvement and Innovation Steering Committee
Clackamas Education Service District
Northwest Regional Education Service District
Salem-Keizer School District
Student Achievement Partners
Oregon CCSS Stewardship Committee
Tri-state Collaborative - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New
York Departments of Education