Presentation on theme: "An Introduction to PARCC Design Principles and Evidence Tables for ELA and Math June 12, 2013 Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Curriculum."— Presentation transcript:
An Introduction to PARCC Design Principles and Evidence Tables for ELA and Math June 12, 2013 Tennessee Department of Education, Division of Curriculum and Instruction Webinar
1 Today’s agenda 1 Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design 2Math blueprints and evidence tables 3ELA blueprints and evidence tables 4Resources and conclusion
2 PARCC will be given in two sessions PBAEnd of Year Feb/ March April / May PBA II EOC II 3-8 Schedule High School Schedule PBA I EOC I Feb/ March April / May Oct / Nov Dec /Jan
3 ECD is a deliberate and systematic approach to assessment development that will help to establish the validity of the assessments, increase the comparability of year-to year results, and increase efficiencies/reduce costs. Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) Claims Design begins with the inferences (claims) we want to make about students Evidence In order to support claims, we must gather evidence Task Models Tasks are designed to elicit specific evidence from students in support of claims
4 PARCC assessment blueprints and test specifications ELA: –Form specifications (# of passages/tasks/items/task types and point values per form) –Task generation models –Evidence tables –Item guidelines –Passage selection guidelines Math –High level blueprints (# of tasks/task types and point values per task) –Evidence tables
5 The tables contain the Major claims and the evidences to be measured on the PARCC Summative Assessment. Evidences describe what students might say or do to demonstrate mastery of the standards. An item on the PARCC assessment may measure multiple standards and multiple evidences. What are evidence tables? 5
6 PARCC Model Content Frameworks Just as the major claims, evidence tables, and other documents provide blueprints for PARCC assessments, the MCFs provide blueprints for curricular development
7 To see ways to combine standards naturally when designing instructional tasks To develop the stem for questions/tasks for instruction aligned with the standards To determine and create instructional scaffolding (to think through which individual, simpler skills can be taught first to build to more complex skills) To develop rubrics and scoring tools for classroom use Instructional uses of the evidence statements/tables for teachers 7
8 Today’s agenda 1 Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design 2Math blueprints and evidence tables 3ELA blueprints and evidence tables 4Resources and conclusion
9 Claims in Mathematics Master Claim: On-Track for college and career readiness. The degree to which a student is college and career ready (or “on-track” to being ready) in mathematics. The student solves grade-level /course-level problems in mathematics as set forth in the Standards for Mathematical Content with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Sub-Claim A: Major Content with Connections to Practices The student solves problems involving the Major Content for her grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Sub-Claim B: Additional & Supporting Content with Connections to Practices The student solves problems involving the Additional and Supporting Content for her grade/course with connections to the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Sub-Claim C: Highlighted Practices MP.3,6 with Connections to Content (expressing mathematical reasoning) The student expresses grade/course- level appropriate mathematical reasoning by constructing viable arguments, critiquing the reasoning of others, and/or attending to precision when making mathematical statements. Sub-Claim E: Fluency in applicable grades (3-6) The student demonstrates fluency as set forth in the Standards for Mathematical Content in her grade. Sub-Claim D: Highlighted Practice MP.4 with Connections to Content (modeling/application) The student solves real-world problems with a degree of difficulty appropriate to the grade/course by applying knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for the current grade/course (or for more complex problems, knowledge and skills articulated in the standards for previous grades/courses), engaging particularly in the Modeling practice, and where helpful making sense of problems and persevering to solve them (MP. 1),reasoning abstractly and quantitatively (MP. 2), using appropriate tools strategically (MP.5), looking for and making use of structure (MP.7), and/or looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning (MP.8).
10 Task Types for Mathematics The PARCC assessments for mathematics will involve three primary types of tasks: Type I, II, and III. Each task type is described on the basis of several factors, principally the purpose of the task in generating evidence for certain sub-claims.
11 Task Types for Mathematics Task TypeDescription of Task Type I. Tasks assessing concepts, skills, and procedures Balance of conceptual understanding, fluency, and application Can involve any or all mathematical practice standards Machine scorable including innovative, computer-based formats Will appear on the End of Year and Performance Based Assessment components Sub-claims A, B, and E II. Tasks assessing expressing mathematical reasoning Each task calls for written arguments / justifications, critique of reasoning, or precision in mathematical statements (MP.3, 6). Can involve other mathematical practice standards May include a mix of machine-scored and hand-scored responses Included on the Performance Based Assessment component Sub-claim C III. Tasks assessing modeling/ applications Each task calls for modeling/application in a real-world context or scenario (MP.4) Can involve other mathematical practice standards May include a mix of machine-scored and hand-scored responses Included on the Performance Based Assessment component Sub-claim D
12 Design of PARCC Math Summative Assessments Performance Based Assessment (PBA) –Type I items (Machine-scoreable) –Type II items (Mathematical Reasoning/Hand-Scored – scoring rubrics are drafted but Performance Level Descriptor development will inform final rubrics) –Type III items (Mathematical Modeling/Hand-Scored and/or Machine-scored - scoring rubrics are drafted but PLD development will inform final rubrics) End-of-Year Assessment (EOY) –Type I items only (All Machine-scoreable)
13 Evidence Statement Tables: Types of Evidence Statements Several types of evidence statements are being used to describe what a task should be assessing, including: 1.Those using exact standards language 2.Those transparently derived from exact standards language, e.g., by splitting a content standard 3.Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct implications of the standards without going beyond the standards to create new requirements 4.Sub-claim C & D evidence statements, which put MP.3, 4, 6 as primary with connections to content
14 Types of Evidence Statements 1. Evidence Statements using exact standards language
15 Types of Evidence Statements 2. Evidence Statements transparently derived from exact standards language, e.g., by splitting a content standard. Here 8.F.5 is split into 8.F.5-1 and 8.F.5-2
16 Types of Evidence Statements 3. Integrative evidence statements that express plausible direct implications of the standards without going beyond the standards to create new requirements An Evidence Statement could be integrated across Grade/Course – Ex. 4.Int.2 (Integrated across Grade 4) Domain – F.Int.1 (Integrated across the Functions Domain) Cluster - S-ID.Int.1 (Integrated across S-ID Interpreting Categorical & Quantitative Data) Numbers at the end are for item developers and do not have any connection to coding for the CCSS.
18 Types of Evidence Statements 4. Sub-claim C & Sub-claim D Evidence Statements, which put MP. 3, 4, 6 as primary with connections to content
19 Using Evidence Tables to Understand Scope 5.NBT.B.7 Add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals to hundredths, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used.
20 Using Evidence Tables to Understand Scope A-REI.C.6 Solve systems of linear equations exactly and approximately (e.g., with graphs), focusing on pairs of linear equations in two variables. In Algebra I In Algebra II
21 Sample Task, High School This task is Type I, Sub-Claim A CCSS Content Standards A-REI.B.4b and Practice Standards MP5 and 7
26 ELA Task Generation Models The task generation models outline how the claims and standards are used to generate tasks for the PBA
27 Reading an Evidence Table Grade Claim Standards: RL –Reading Literary RI – Reading Information Evidences 27
28 Reading an Evidence Table for Grades 6 -11 Standards: In Grades 6 – 11 Literacy Standards for Reading History/Social Studies and for Reading Science/Technical are added RH – Reading History/Social Studies RST – Reading Science/Technical 28
29 Reading a Writing Evidence Table Standards: W – Writing
30 3 rd Grade Sample Informational Text: Main Idea Question RI 2 Provides a statement of the main idea of a text. (1) Provides a recounting of key details in a text. (2) Provides an explanation of how key details in a text support the main idea. (3) The question requires students to determine the main idea of the passage. Students must use close reading to not only determine the main idea but to select the textual evidence that will justify the chosen main idea. 30
31 Sample item: Use what you have learned from reading “ Daedalus and Icarus ” by Ovid and “ To a Friend Whose Work Has Come to Triumph ” by Anne Sexton to write an essay that analyzes how Icarus’s experience of flying is portrayed differently in the two texts. Develop your essay by providing textual evidence from both texts. Be sure to follow the conventions of standard English. 10 th Grade Sample Prose Constructed Response: Literary Analysis Text Evidences: Written expression (Development of ideas; Organization; Clarity of Language) Knowledge of Language and Conventions Like all PARCC PCR’s, this item aligns with all writing evidences
32 Reading Standard 1 on the Evidence Tables All questions are text-dependent and thus assess Reading Standard 1 All items measuring the reading major claim require students to read a text prior to responding to the items This standard is always combined with the assessment of other standards. 32
33 Key aspects of PARCC ELA items In all Evidence Tables for Grades 3 – 11 Standard 1 is always combined with the teaching of any of the other standards. More than one evidence may be combined with Standard 1. Texts need to be complex literary or informational text(s) that students will use as a basis for their answers. All items are text-dependent questions which require students to draw evidence from a text to support their answers. Careful and close reading is required in order to determine meaning and answer questions. Written tasks require writing to sources rather than a de-contextualized or generalized prompt and require students to apply their knowledge of language and conventions. 33
34 Today’s agenda 1 Overview of PARCC and evidence-centered design 2Math blueprints and evidence tables 3ELA blueprints and evidence tables 4Resources and conclusion
35 PARCC Resources PARCC assessment blueprints and test specifications, including narrated explanatory PowerPoints: http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs http://www.parcconline.org/assessment-blueprints-test-specs PARCC assessment policies, including PLD’s (performance level descriptors): http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-policies http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-assessment-policies PARCC administration guidance (including technology specs): http://www.parcconline.org/assessment- administration-guidancehttp://www.parcconline.org/assessment- administration-guidance PARCC accessibility accommodations and fairness: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-accessibility- accommodations-and-fairnesshttp://www.parcconline.org/parcc-accessibility- accommodations-and-fairness PARCC Model Content Frameworks: http://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworkshttp://www.parcconline.org/parcc-model-content-frameworks PARCC item prototypes: http://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypeshttp://www.parcconline.org/samples/item-task-prototypes PARCC timeline for future guidance: http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCommunicationsTimeline_March%202013_FINAL_0. pdf http://www.parcconline.org/sites/parcc/files/PARCCCommunicationsTimeline_March%202013_FINAL_0. pdf
36 How to stay informed www.tncore.org –Sign up for TNCore Updates –PARCC information (more will be added as it becomes available) email@example.com Sign up for PARCC updates at http://www.parcconline.org/http://www.parcconline.org/
Thank you! Lior Klirs Coordinator of English Language Arts Content and Resources Tennessee Department of Education firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com David Williams Coordinator of Mathematics Content and Resources Tennessee Department of Education firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.