A framework to move from common core to classroom practice

Louisiana Leadership – Session 2 October 23, 2014 1

Overview of the Sessions

2

Outcomes

• Analyze current LDC implementation data and plan next steps for supporting teachers • Develop a deeper understanding of effective practices when writing LDC modules • Gain a deeper understanding of the role of text complexity • Calibrate expectations when scoring and analyzing student work 3

Norms

• What working agreements will help make today be successful for you?

4

Opportunities/Expectations

5

Periodic Scheduled Check-Ins Site-Based Data

•

Mode of Communication

•

Status of Implementation

•

Comments from Teachers

•

Structures for Supporting LDC Implementation

6

Jurying Modules

How are modules deemed ‘exemplar’?

How can we support this process?

7

8

Overview of the LDC Framework

9

Jurying a Module

Comparing Economic Systems

Section 1: What Task

Good to Go: Task Clarity and Coherence

• Template task uses a writing mode that matches the intended purpose of the prompt.

• • • Task purpose is focused.

Prompt wording is clear.

Prompt wording is unbiased, leaving room for diverse responses.

• Prompt wording, content, texts, and student product are aligned to task purpose (a “ good fit ” ).

• Task is text dependent, requiring students to go beyond prior knowledge to use evidence from the texts in their responses.

• Background statement frames task for students.

11

12

What Revisions?

Comparing Economic Systems

Section 1: What Task -

Overview (page 1)

Module Revisions

New Overview lists state specific social studies

standards, what students have learned before this

module, class demographics, and existing

instructional routines. This provides better context

for an outside teacher who may be considering using this module.

14

What Revisions?

Comparing Economic Systems

Section 1: What Task -

Teaching Task Directions: 1.

2.

Identify the revisions Determine if the module rating would change

Task Revisions

“

After Reading

”

Argumentation Template Tasks

Task 2: [Insert optional question] After reading ________ (literature or informational texts), write a/an ________ (essay or substitute) in which you address the question and argue_______(content) Support your position with evidence from the text(s).

(Argumentation/Analysis)

Task 4: [Insert optional question] After reading ________ (literature or informational texts), write a/an ________ (essay or substitute) in which you compare ________ (content) and argue ________ (content). Support your position with evidence from the texts.

(Argumentation/Comparison)

1. Identify the revisions 2. Determine if the module rating would change

Module Revisions

•

The module author

’

s changed : Task 2: argumentative – analysis to Task 4:

• •

argumentative – comparison Provided more specific about texts Made the writing product more authentic

17

Overview of the LDC Framework

18

Jurying a Module Comparing Economic Systems

Section 2: What Skills?

Old: page 5 New: pages 8-9

Directions: 1.

Identify the revisions 2.

Determine if the module rating would change

Overview of the LDC Framework

20

Jurying a Module Comparing Economic Systems

Section 3: What Instruction?

Old: pages 6-11 New: page 8-21

Directions: 1.

Identify the revisions 2.

Determine if the module rating would change

Overview of the LDC Framework

22

Jurying a Module

Revised Module: Comparing Economic Systems

• Identifying Changes • Top 3 Most Effective Changes

Top 3 Changes

24

Teacher Self Assessment Tool

25

Text Complexity

•

Quantitative Measures

•

Qualitative Characteristics

•

Considerations of Readers and Task

Quantitative Dimensions

…refer to those aspects of text complexity, such as word length or frequency, sentence length, and text cohesion, that are difficult … for a human reader to evaluate efficiently… and are thus today typically measured by computer software 27

Qualitative Characteristics

…refer to those aspects of text complexity best measured or only measurable by an attentive human reader, such as levels of meaning or purpose; structure; language conventionality and clarity; and knowledge demands.

- Levels of Meaning (literary texts) or Purpose (informational texts) - Structure - Language Conventionality and Clarity - Knowledge Demands: Life Experiences (literary texts) - Knowledge Demands: Cultural/Literary Knowledge (literary texts) - Knowledge Demands: Content/Discipline Knowledge (informational texts) 28

Matching Reader and Task

…variables specific to particular readers (such as motivation, knowledge, and experiences) and to particular tasks (such as purpose and the complexity of the task assigned and the questions posed) must also be considered… Such assessments are best made by teachers employing their professional judgment, experience, and knowledge of their students and the subject.

29

Wal-mart: Good or Evil

Analyzing Text

O

nce upon a time, social activists decried the plight of workers in company towns whose paychecks vanished each week because they were being gouged by the local stores. And urban politicians, angered by the high prices charged at many grocery stores in the inner city, offered subsidies in order to attract chain stores that would make food more affordable for the poor. Then Wal-Mart came along, offering urbanites food at the same low prices charged in the suburbs. Now the activists and politicians have a new cause: Say No to Wal-Mart! Stop it before it discounts again! This new crusade is especially puzzling in light of the current consensus among poverty experts. Many have praised the welfare reform of the 1990s and say the government should keep pushing people off the welfare rolls and into jobs. From that perspective, Wal-Mart has been one of the most successful antipoverty programs in America. It provides entry-level jobs that unskilled workers badly want--there are often 5 to 10 applicants for each position at a new store.

JOBS FOR UNSKILLED WORKERS

Critics say Wal-Mart's pay, $9.68 per hour on average, is too low and depresses local retail wages when a new store opens. That effect is debatable, but even if wages do go down slightly, these workers still end up with more disposable income, according to Jason Furman, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser in the Clinton administration who studies Wal-Mart. Furman notes that the possible decline in wages is minuscule compared with what the typical family saves by shopping at Wal Mart: nearly $800 per year on groceries alone, a savings that's especially valuable to the many low-income shoppers at Wal-Mart.

AN EASY TARGET

The average income of Wal-Mart shoppers is $35,000, compared with $50,000 for Target and $74,000 for Costco. Costco is touted as the virtuous alternative to Wal-Mart because it pays better wages, but it needs to do so because it requires higher-skilled workers to sell higher-end products to its more affluent customers. Wal-Mart is often denounced for getting "corporate welfare" because some of its employees rely on Medicaid for health care and on other government aid. But so do some employees at other companies or at government institutions like public schools. Wal-Mart offers health benefits that are generally comparable to what other big retailers offer. Should the U.S. have a national health-care system? YES ARGUMENT We have two health-care systems in America. People with good insurance get excellent care. But most families are just one bad break, like a lost job or a serious illness, away from crisis.

I believe we should build one America, with one health system in which everyone can get decent, affordable health care. This means asking everyone to share the responsibility of helping to finance health care for all and paying what you can for your own care. A universal health-care system would translate into reality what Americans believe—that health care is a right, not a privilege. America is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, but 18,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance. That's just wrong. Insisting that every American participate in a universal system will save money by spreading out the risk. Today, families with insurance pay more for their coverage—an additional $922 a year on average—because they wind up footing part of the bill for treating the uninsured. But this debate is about more than 45 million uninsured Americans. Millions more have inadequate insurance that doesn't cover all their needs. And because our current system relies mostly on employers to provide insurance, other people stay in jobs they'd otherwise leave just to hold on to their health insurance. It's time to act. A million Americans lose their health insurance every year. Universal health care is the most important thing we can do to provide security for American workers and families. —

Former Senator John Edwards

Democratic candidate for President

Text Selection Support

All

• CCSS Appendix B • Readworks.org

• Newsela.com

• Tweentribune.com

• NYTimes Learning Network • CNN Student News

ELA

• LDE ELA Guidebook

Science

• Sciencebuzz.org

Social Studies

• Library of Congress • Ourdocuments.gov

31

Basics on Rubric

• Seven scoring elements • Four performance levels • Four correlating score points • plus mid-point scores Scoring Elements Focus Controlling Idea Reading/ Research Development Organization Conventions Content Understanding

Scoring Rubric for Argumentation Template Tasks

Not Yet 1 Attempts to address prompt, but lacks focus or is off-task. Attempts to establish a claim, but lacks a clear purpose. (L2) Makes no mention of counter claims. Attempts to reference reading materials to develop response, but lacks connections or relevance to the purpose of the prompt. Attempts to provide details in response to the prompt, but lacks sufficient development or relevance to the purpose of the prompt. (L3) Makes no connections or a connection that is irrelevant to argument or claim. Attempts to organize ideas, but lacks control of structure. Attempts to demonstrate standard English conventions, but lacks cohesion and control of grammar, usage, and mechanics. Sources are used without citation. Attempts to include disciplinary content in argument, but understanding of content is weak; content is irrelevant, inappropriate, or inaccurate. 1.5 Approaches Expectations 2 Addresses prompt appropriately and establishes a position, but focus is uneven. Establishes a claim. (L2) Makes note of counter claims. Presents information from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt with minor lapses in accuracy or completeness. Presents appropriate details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim, with minor lapses in the reasoning, examples, or explanations. (L3) Makes a connection with a weak or unclear relationship to argument or claim. Uses an appropriate organizational structure for development of reasoning and logic, with minor lapses in structure and/or coherence. Demonstrates an uneven command of standard English conventions and cohesion. Uses language and tone with some inaccurate, inappropriate, or uneven features. Inconsistently cites sources. Briefly notes disciplinary content relevant to the prompt; shows basic or uneven understanding of content; minor errors in explanation. 2.5 Meets Expectations 3 Addresses prompt appropriately and maintains a clear, steady focus. Provides a generally convincing position. Establishes a credible claim. (L2) Develops claim and counter claims fairly. Accurately presents details from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt to develop argument or claim. Presents appropriate and sufficient details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3) Makes a relevant connection to clarify argument or claim. Maintains an appropriate organizational structure to address specific requirements of the prompt. Structure reveals the reasoning and logic of the argument. Demonstrates a command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Cites sources using appropriate format with only minor errors. Accurately presents disciplinary content relevant to the prompt with sufficient explanations that demonstrate understanding. 3.5 Advanced 4 Addresses all aspects of prompt appropriately with a consistently strong focus and convincing position. Establishes and maintains a substantive and credible claim or proposal. (L2) Develops claims and counter claims fairly and thoroughly. Accurately and effectively presents important details from reading materials to develop argument or claim. Presents thorough and detailed information to effectively support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3) Makes a clarifying connection(s) that illuminates argument and adds depth to reasoning. Maintains an organizational structure that intentionally and effectively enhances the presentation of information as required by the specific prompt. Structure enhances development of the reasoning and logic of the argument. Demonstrates and maintains a well developed command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone consistently appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Consistently cites sources using appropriate format. Integrates relevant and accurate disciplinary content with thorough explanations that demonstrate in-depth understanding.

What Results?

– Section 4

Scoring Student Work with the LDC Rubric

• Can be used to score holistically or analytically • 2 rubrics – Informative/explanatory & Argumentative • 7 Scoring Elements: • • • • • • • Focus Controlling Idea Reading/Research Development Organization Conventions Content Understanding 33.

LDC Rubrics

–

Scoring v. Grading The LDC rubric…

•

provides feedback to students and teachers

•

helps students know expectations prior to completing the task

•

helps teachers gauge the effectiveness of their instructional choices

Scoring Rubric for Argumentation Template Tasks

Not Yet 1 Approaches Expectations 2 Scoring Elements Focus Attempts to address prompt, but lacks focus or is off-task. 1.5 Addresses prompt appropriately and establishes a position, but focus is uneven. 2.5 Meets Expectations 3 Addresses prompt appropriately and maintains a clear, steady focus. Provides a generally convincing position. Establishes a credible claim. (L2) Develops claim and counter claims fairly. 3.5 Controlling Idea Reading/ Research Development Attempts to establish a claim, but lacks a clear purpose. (L2) Makes no mention of counter claims. Attempts to reference reading materials to develop response, but lacks connections or relevance to the purpose of the prompt. Attempts to provide details in response to the prompt, but lacks sufficient development or relevance to the purpose of the prompt. (L3) Makes no connections or a connection that is irrelevant to argument or claim. Establishes a claim. (L2) Makes note of counter claims. Presents information from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt with minor lapses in accuracy or completeness. Presents appropriate details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim, with minor lapses in the reasoning, examples, or explanations. (L3) Makes a connection with a weak or unclear relationship to argument or claim. Accurately presents details from reading materials relevant to the purpose of the prompt to develop argument or claim. Presents appropriate and sufficient details to support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3) Makes a relevant connection to clarify argument or claim. Advanced 4 Addresses all aspects of prompt appropriately with a consistently strong focus and convincing position. Establishes and maintains a substantive and credible claim or proposal. (L2) Develops claims and counter claims fairly and thoroughly. Accurately and effectively presents important details from reading materials to develop argument or claim. Presents thorough and detailed information to effectively support and develop the focus, controlling idea, or claim. (L3) Makes a clarifying connection(s) that illuminates argument and adds depth to reasoning. Organization Conventions Attempts to organize ideas, but lacks control of structure. Attempts to demonstrate standard English conventions, but lacks cohesion and control of grammar, usage, and mechanics. Sources are used without citation. Uses an appropriate organizational structure for development of reasoning and logic, with minor lapses in structure and/or coherence. Demonstrates an uneven command of standard English conventions and cohesion. Uses language and tone with some inaccurate, inappropriate, or uneven features. Inconsistently cites sources. Maintains an appropriate organizational structure to address specific requirements of the prompt. Structure reveals the reasoning and logic of the argument. Demonstrates a command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Cites sources using appropriate format with only minor errors. Maintains an organizational structure that intentionally and effectively enhances the presentation of information as required by the specific prompt. Structure enhances development of the reasoning and logic of the argument. Demonstrates and maintains a well developed command of standard English conventions and cohesion, with few errors. Response includes language and tone consistently appropriate to the audience, purpose, and specific requirements of the prompt. Consistently cites sources using appropriate format. Content Understanding Attempts to include disciplinary content in argument, but understanding of content is weak; content is irrelevant, inappropriate, or inaccurate. Briefly notes disciplinary content relevant to the prompt; shows basic or uneven understanding of content; minor errors in explanation. Accurately presents disciplinary content relevant to the prompt with sufficient explanations that demonstrate understanding. Integrates relevant and accurate disciplinary content with thorough explanations that demonstrate in-depth understanding.

LDC Rubrics – Scoring vs Grading

• The rubric helps students know expectations before the task is completed, and where their strengths and weaknesses are after the task is completed.

35

Grading vs Scoring

• •

Grading:

Reflects the performance of students relative to expectations at a particular point in time.

• •

Scoring:

Uses fixed standards of quality that do not change over time.

LDC Rubrics – Scoring vs Grading

• The LDC rubric is constructed for classroom use and to provide feedback to students and teachers. • It is not a summative rubric, as might be used in state exams to measure a set of absolute criteria.

37

Grading

• • • • • • • • 3.5

2.0

2.5

2.0

4.0

2.5

2.0

Total = 18.5

• • 18.5 divided by 28 total points = .66

18.5 divided by 7 elements = 2.64

How Does LDC Look and Sound in a Classroom?

Cluster 1: Preparing for the task The students… Questions, Comments, Talking Points Teacher:

 Facilitating conversation  Asking intentionally planned, probing questions  Focusing discussions  Referencing teaching task and rubric  Referencing academic learning behaviors 

Students:

 Referencing metacognitive strategies Analyzing/deconstructing task  Analyzing rubric    Planning/discussing timeline for task completion Discussing/Demonstrating academic learning behaviors 

Classroom Environment:

 Discussing/Demonstrating metacognitive strategies Teaching task posted Evidence of LDC rubric  Evidence of academic learning behaviors and metacognitive strategies  Arrangement conducive to student discourse opportunities  Evidence of module materials being utilized

The teacher…

39

Tips for Supporting the Implementation of LDC

• Lesson Plans • Mini-Tasks • Collaboration Opportunities • Collaborative Scoring • Support from TOTs • Evaluation • Feedback • Join in the Conversations 40

Supports

What assistance is available?

41

LDC Website

www.ldc.org

42

Action Plans Supporting LDC Implementation

• After today’s conversations, what will be the next steps to _____________? How will you do this?

• Writing modules • Implementing modules • Scoring student work • Jurying and revising modules • Scaling LDC 43

Next Time…

• Please bring back a module written within your school, district or parish to jury.

44