Transcript The Cognitive Demand of Tasks - Children First Network 609

The Cognitive Demand of Tasks
How does the selection of high level tasks prepare our students
to meet the demands of the Common Core Learning Standards?
CFN 609 Principals’ Conference
February 7, 2013
As we move into the second decade of the 21st century, one thing is
clear:
Our country needs highly trained workers who can wrestle with complex
problems. Especially needed are individuals who can think, reason and engage
effectively in quantitative problem solving. Research shows the instructional
practices used in many of our nation’s classrooms will not prepare students for
these new demands.
National studies have shown that American students are not routinely asked to
engage in conceptual thinking or complex problem solving.
If we want students to develop the capacity to think, reason, and problem solve
then we need to start with high-level, cognitively complex tasks.
Tasks are central to students’ learning, shaping not only their opportunity to learn
but also their view of the subject matter. We learn through a process of
knowledge construction that requires us to actively manipulate and refine
information and then integrate it with our prior understandings.
Quote 1 : 5 Practices for orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions, Smith and Stein, Quote 3: Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(4) Stein,
M.K, 1996, Quote 2: Stigler and Hiebert 1999, Quote 4: Adding it up, NRC 2001
Quality Review Rubric: 1.1
Designing engaging, rigorous and coherent curricula….
Well Developed:
B) Rigorous habits and Higher- order skills are emphasized in
curricula and academic tasks and are embedded in a coherent
way across grades and subjects so that all learners, including
ELLs and SWDs, must demonstrate their thinking.
C) Curricula and academic tasks are planned and refined using
student work and data so that individual and groups of students,
including the lowest and highest achieving students, ELLs and
SWDs, are cognitively engaged.
Danielson’s Framework for Teaching: 1e
Highly Effective
Plans represent the coordination of in-depth content knowledge,
understanding of different students’ needs and available
resources (including technology), resulting in a series of learning
activities designed to engage students in high-level cognitive
activity. These are differentiated, as appropriate, for individual
learners. Instructional groups are varied as appropriate, with
some opportunity for student choice. The lesson’s or unit’s
structure is clear and allows for different pathways according to
diverse student needs.
How can we make sure we are providing our
students with opportunities to engage with
high level tasks?
The Task Analysis Guide
( Smith and Stein 1998)
The Task Analysis Guide provides a general list of
characteristics of low-level and high level
mathematical tasks and thus can be used to analyze
the potential of tasks to support students’ thinking
and reasoning. The guide is intended to help
teachers match tasks with their goals for student
learning.
5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions, Smith and Stein 2011
Mathematics Task Analysis Guide
At your tables:
• Take a moment to review the Task Analysis
Guide (TAG).
• Work through the four tasks independently
(or with a partner). Use the TAG to determine
the cognitive demand of each of the tasks.
• Share your categorization in pairs then as a
table. Be prepared to justify your conclusions
using the TAG. Come to consensus at the
table.
Proportional Relationships
Use the TAG to determine the cognitive demand of each of the tasks. Share your
categorization in pairs then as a table. Be prepared to justify your conclusions using
the tag.
Identify the CCSS for Mathematical Content and Practices used.
Subtraction Tasks
Use the TAG to determine the cognitive demand of each of the tasks. Share your
categorization in pairs then as a table.. Be prepared to justify your conclusions using
the tag.
Identify the CCSS for Mathematical Content and Practices used.
Math Task Analysis Guide Reflections
What are your thoughts on the process of
identifying the characteristics that best
describe the cognitive demand of each task?
How might teams of teachers integrate this tool
and what are the implications?
At your tables:
Identify the CCLS for Mathematical Content and
which Math Practices students will have the
opportunity to use.
Which standard/s are best addressed by these
tasks?
Relating the cognitive demand of tasks to the
Mathematical Practices…
What relationships do you notice between the
cognitive demand of the written tasks and the
CCSS for mathematical Practices listed?
Characteristics of Tasks that align with CCLS
standards for Mathematical Practice
• High Cognitive Demand (Stein et. al., 1996; Boaler & Staples,
2008
• Significant Content, meaning they have the potential to
leave behind important residue (Hiebert et.al, 19970
• Require justification or explanation (Boaler and Staple, 2008)
• Make connections between two or more representations
(Lesh, Post& Behr, 1987)
• Open Ended (Lotan, 2003; Borasi & Fonzi, 2002)
• Multiple ways to enter the task and show competence
(Lotan, 2003)
Increasing the Cognitive Demand of Tasks
Strategies for Modifying Textbook Tasks
Sources for Developing Rich tasks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exemplars
Modifying existing Textbook/Program tasks
DOE Instructional Bundles
www.Parrconline.org
www.georgiastandards.org
www.schools.utah.gov
www.EngageNY.org
www.illustrativemathematics.org
www.map.mathshell.org
www.insidemathematics.org
Tasks
“There is no decision that teachers make that has a greater
impact on students’ opportunities to learn, and on their
perceptions about what mathematics is, than the
selection or creation of the tasks with which the teacher
engages students in studying mathematics.”
Lappan and Briars, 1995
“Not all tasks are created equal, and different tasks will
provoke different levels and kinds of student thinking.”
Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 200
“Not all tasks are created equal, and different tasks will
provoke different levels and kinds of student thinking.”
Stein, Smith, Henningsen, & Silver, 2000
Thank you for your attention.