Presentation on theme: "Put a playing card face down next to each set of handouts."— Presentation transcript:
1To save a time with passing out handouts, place all handouts in order at each seat. Put a playing card face down next to each set of handouts.[HO] = HANDOUT[D] = DISCUSSION[R] = RECORD
2Warm Up Find the others with the same number or face card as you. Briefly share with each another some of the ways your district and/or school is working toward the transition of the CCSS. Include your successes and/or challenges.Give 7 minutes to discuss.
3Common Core State Standards Our goals for today… Participants will…Briefly be reminded of content from the ELA CCSS session IBriefly review the purpose and highlights of the Smarter Balanced Assessment SystemDeepen their understanding of the vertical articulation of the standardsDeconstruct a standard and begin to evaluate its rigor as defined by Hess’s Cognitive Rigor matrixEngage in Vertical & Horizontal Alignment of Writing Standard 1Consider implications for their work
4(includes Speaking and Listening) Current WA Standards (GLEs) – Grades K-10 Common Core ELA Standards – Grades K-12ReadingWritingCommunication(includes Speaking and Listening)ELA Common Core StandardsSpeaking and ListeningReadingWritingLanguageMedia & TechWe will VERY BRIEFLY REVIEW SLIDES 5-16Our current Washington State standards are divided into the three content areas: reading, writing, and communication which includes speaking and listening.The CCSS are divided into Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening, and Language for conceptual clarity (in other words, it makes sense for how the book is laid out), however the learning processes are closely intertwined throughout the document.Research and media skills and understandings are embedded throughout the Standards rather than treated in a separate section and encompass all content stands. This allows students to develop mutually reinforcing skills, reading skills that support writing, language skills that support speaking and listening, etc.
5History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects CCSS for English Language Arts & Literacy inHistory/Social Studies, Science, and Technical SubjectsStandardsforReadingStandardsforWritingStandards for Speaking and ListeningStandardsforLanguageLiterature and Informational TextKey Ideas and DetailsCraft and StructureIntegration of Knowledge and IdeasRange of Reading and Level of Text ComplexityArgumentative,Informative/Explanatory, NarrativeText Types and PurposesProduction and Distribution of WritingResearch to Build and Present KnowledgeRange of WritingSpeaking and ListeningComprehension and CollaborationPresentation of Knowledge and IdeasLanguageConventions of Standard EnglishKnowledge of LanguageVocabulary Acquisition and UseThis graphic organizer shows the relationships between the strands in the ELA Standards in more detail including the subheadings (based on the CCRs) for each Strand.Foundational Skills K-5)1. Print ConceptsPhonological Awareness3. Phonics and word Recognition4. FluencyLiteracy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (Grades 6-12)
6The ELA Document Structure Introduction 1-10K-5 page 11ReadingFoundational SkillsWritingSpeaking and ListeningLanguage6-12 page 35ReadingWritingSpeaking and ListeningLanguageLiteracy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects[HO] Give a short minute for people to look at them.Overall structure of the complete documentAppendices A, B, C
7ELA Common Core Standards Framework StrandsSub-headingsGrade Level StandardsThe major areas or disciplines of study within each content area.“What” students should know and be able to do at each grade level and band.The main focus of the content within each strand.Here’s just another way to represent the structure of the ELA CCSS.The ELA Standards are organized by:Strands - major areas of study: reading, writing, listening/speaking and language.Topics - organizational grouping of the standardsStandard Statements - essential knowledge and skills to be learned at each grade level or grade bandReminder: This is the ELA common core format. The formatting of the Math Standards is different.
8Reading Strand Abbreviation Strand Sub-heading Grade Levels Quick review of the nomenclature.Sub-heading
9RL.4.3 The ELA CCSS Code Reading Literature Standard 3 Grade 4 Quick representation of how the ELA CCSS are coded.Grade 4
10Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium A Peek at the Assessment System
11The Purpose of the Consortium To develop a comprehensive and innovative assessment system for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards, so that......students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching[The assessments shall be operational across Consortium states in the school year]
12A National Consortium of States 28 states representing 48% of K-12 students21 governing, 7 advisory statesWashington state is fiscal agentNumbers in bullets reflect that Kentucky left the consortia in May, 2012
13A Balanced Assessment System Summative assessmentsBenchmarked to college and career readinessTeachers and schools have information and tools they need to improve teaching and learningCommon Core State Standards specifyK-12 expectations for college and career readinessAll students leave high school college and career readyTeacher resources forformative assessment practicesto improve instructionInterim assessments Flexible, open, used for actionable feedback
14English Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High School System HighlightsEnglish Language Arts and Mathematics, Grades 3–8 and High SchoolBEGINNING OF YEAREND OF YEARLast 12 weeks of year*DIGITAL CLEARINGHOUSE of formative tools, processes and exemplars; released items and tasks; model curriculum units; educator training; professional development tools and resources; scorer training modules; and teacher collaboration tools.INTERIM ASSESSMENTINTERIM ASSESSMENTComputer AdaptiveAssessment andPerformance TasksComputer AdaptiveAssessment andPerformance TasksPERFORMANCETASKSReadingWritingMathEND OF YEARADAPTIVE ASSESSMENTScope, sequence, number, and timing of interim assessments locally determinedPause for a moment to talk about:Again, the major components of the SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT SYSTEM include:A digital clearinghouse of formative tools, processes, and exemplars. Model curriculum units, etc., including Interim Computer Adaptive Assessment and Performance Tasks, and End-of-Year Summative Assessments which include Performance Tasks in Reading, Writing, and Math.Re-take optionOptional Interim assessment system—Summative assessment for accountability* Time windows may be adjusted based on results from the research agenda and final implementation decisions.Source:
15The Four Claims – Students can . . . Read closely and analytically to comprehend a range of increasingly complex literacy and informational texts.Produce effective and well-grounded writing for a range of purposes and audiences.Employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes and audiences.Engage appropriately research/inquiry to investigate topics, and to analyze, integrate, and present information.Talk a little about the four claims:The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Content Specifications for ELA is a bridge documentlinking the CCSS to the Smarter Balanced assessment claims and targets.There are four claims for ELA/Literacy, each with a number of targets which provide evidence to support each claim. The four claims are:Claim #1 – Students can read closely and analytically to comprehend a range of increasinglycomplex literary and informational texts.Claim #2 – Students can produce effective and well-grounded writing for a range of purposes andaudiences.Claim #3 – Students can employ effective speaking and listening skills for a range of purposes andClaim #4 – Students can engage in research/inquiry to investigate topics, and to analyze, integrate,and present information.Smarter Balanced ELA Content Specifications emanate from the Common Core State Standards anddemand the same rigor, the same complexity, and the same expectation of college- and career-readiness.**The Smarter Balanced assessment is different from previous assessments because it is more stringent, expecting students to demonstrate complex abilities in reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language. Performance tasks will provide opportunities for students to show their knowledge and skills over longer periods and in greater depth.
16Next Generation Assessments More rigorous tests measuring student progress toward “college and career readiness”Grades 3-8 and High SchoolHave common, comparable scores across member states, and across consortiaWithout reading slides verbatim- touch on each bullet.
17Next Generation Assessments Provide achievement and growth information to help make better educational decisions and professional development opportunitiesAssess all students, except those with “significant cognitive disabilities”Administer online, with timely resultsUse multiple measures[D] Pause to allow a few minutes discussion at tables. Each group will write questions, comments, concerns about anything covered to this point on a post-it note and place it on the chart paper provided.[R] Here’s where we will capture any comments, questions, concerns on post-it notes and have the groups place them on chart paper. Address a couple and then group/sort them while the other person is facilitating. Address more after breaks, as things come up during the presentation, etc.
18Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts Vertical Articulation and Cognitive Rigor
19Vertical Articulation Asks: How are the content standards/objectives related from one year/grade to the next?Deepening of the cognitive processes for the same contentKnowledge or skills extend to a wider range of contentNew content or skills are introducedLevel of scaffolding/teacher support is decreasedContent standards are clearly articulated across grades if:
20Example of Grade-Level Progression in Reading CCSS Reading Standard 3: Analyze how and why individuals, events, and ideas develop and interact over the course of a text.[HO] This slide page full-sized.A brief illustration of vertical alignment as well as the similarities between literature and informational text standards.[D] Discuss at your tables where you see:Deepening of the cognitive processes for the same contentKnowledge or skills extend to a wider range of contentNew content or skills are introducedLevel of scaffolding/teacher support is decreased
21Discuss at your tables where you see: Deepening of the cognitive processes for the same contentKnowledge or skills extend to a wider range of contentNew content or skills are introducedLevel of scaffolding/teacher support is decreasedParticipants look for these in the standards shown on the slide 21 handout. The idea is to set the stage for the work/activities that follow.Share out a couple for each.
23Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956)Labels the type of thinking (verbs) needed to complete a task; tracing the verbs reveals a deepening of the cognitive processes through a standard from K-12.Briefly show this. Emphasize that the verbs describe the depth of thinking.
24Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy Taxonomy of cognitive objectives1950s- developed by Benjamin BloomMeans of qualitatively expressing different kinds of thinkingAdapted for classroom use as a planning tool and continues to be one of the most universally applied modelsProvides a way to organize thinking skills into six levels, from the most basic to the higher order levels of thinkingIn Lorin Anderson (former student of Bloom) revisited the taxonomy, and as a result, a number of changes were made(Pohl, 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, pp. 7-8)A brief review of Bloom’s TaxonomyIn 2001, Anderson, et al. presented a structure for rethinking Bloom’s. The original taxonomy possessed one dimension, the revised taxonomy table applied two dimensions- cognitive processes and knowledge. The descriptions have been expanded and better differentiated for analyzing educational objectives. The revised descriptors consider both the processes (the verbs) and the knowledge (the nouns) used to articulate educational objectives.Source: Hess, Karin, K.; et al., What exactly do “fewer, and higher standards” really look like in the classroom? Using a cognitive rigor matrix to analyze curriculum, plan lessons, and implement assessments, Found at:
25A Comparison Original Revised EvaluationSynthesisAnalysisApplicationComprehensionKnowledgeCreatingEvaluatingAnalyzingApplyingUnderstandingRememberingBloom’s revised taxonomy.[D] Discuss at your tables. What are the changes in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Why do you think they were made?(Based on Pohl, 2000, Learning to Think, Thinking to Learn, p. 8)
26Bloom’s Taxonomy Levels Cognitive processVerbs Associated with Level/Process1. Remembering:Retrieving, recognizing, and recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memorychoose, define describe, find, identify, label, list, locate, match, name, recall, recite, recognize, record, relate, retrieve, say, select, show, sort, tell2. Understanding: Constructing meaning from oral, written, and graphic messages through interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, and explaining.categorize, clarify, classify, compare, conclude, construct, contrast, demonstrate, distinguish, explain, illustrate, interpret, match, paraphrase, predict, represent, reorganize, summarize, translate, understand3. Applying: Carrying out or using a procedure through executing, or implementing.apply, carry out, construct, develop, display, execute, illustrate, implement, model, solve, use4. Analyzing: Breaking material into constituent parts, determining how the parts relate to one another and to an overall structure or purpose through differentiating, organizing, and attributing.analyze, ascertain, attribute, connect, deconstruct, determine, differentiate, discriminate, dissect, distinguish, divide, examine, experiment, focus, infer, inspect, integrate, investigate, organize, outline, reduce, solve (a problem), test for5. Evaluating: Making judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.appraise, assess, award, check, conclude, convince, coordinate, criticize, critique, defend, detect, discriminate, evaluate, judge, justify, monitor, prioritize, rank, recommend, support, test, value6. Creating: Putting elements together to form a coherent or functional whole; reorganizing elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.adapt, build, compose, construct, create, design, develop, elaborate, extend, formulate, generate, hypothesize, invent, make, modify, plan, produce, originate, refine, transform[HO] Give as a handout:[D] Take a few minutes to review the handout. Then with an elbow partner look for evidence of these in the CCR Anchor Standards for Reading. (next slide)Works CitedAnderson, L. W., et. al. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.Bloom, B.S., et al. (1956). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook I, cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.
27College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for ELA College and Career Readiness (CCR) Standards – Overarching standards for each of four ELA strands that are further defined by grade-specific standardsReading - 10Writing - 10Speaking and Listening - 6Language - 6Discuss the idea of anchor standards, how many there are at each grade level and how they are followed by more specific standards by grade level. All subject areas will be referenced at this time.[HO] Full page handout of this slide (single-sided)See CCR Anchor Standards for Reading (page 10 grades K-5 or page 35 grades 6-12)Have participants read handout of Bloom’s Taxonomy Levels silently to themselves.Have participants read the anchor standards highlighting the verbsParticipants will locate the verbs within the Bloom’s handout[D] What do you notice when comparing the Bloom’s document and the 10 anchor standards? Briefly discuss what you notice.Facilitator -The verbs are high on the taxonomy, which indicates a high level of thinking reflected in the standards.Discuss how this document was designed backward. Point out that students need to attain the standard at each grade level in order to be ready for the next, and that each of the grade-levels is linked to the one above and below it through an upward progression of critical thinking skills, knowledge depth, and more refined content.
28DoK LevelsDOK-1 – Recall & Reproduction - Recall of a fact, term, principle, concept, or perform a routine procedureDOK-2 - Basic Application of Skills/Concepts - Use of information, conceptual knowledge, select appropriate procedures for a task, two or more steps with decision points along the way, routine problems, organize/displaydata, interpret/use simple graphsDOK-3 - Strategic Thinking - Requires reasoning, developing a plan or sequence of steps to approach problem; requires some decision making and justification; abstract, complex, or non-routine; often more than one possible answerDOK-4 - Extended Thinking - An investigation or application to real world; requires time to research, problem solve, and process multiple conditions of the problem or task; non-routine manipulations, across disciplines/content areas/ multiple sources[HO] Depth of Knowledge (Wheel)Webb (1997) developed a process and criteria for systematically analyzing the alignment between standards and standardized assessments. Since then the process and criteria have demonstrated application to reviewing curricular alignment as well. This body of work offers the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) model employed to analyze the cognitive expectation demanded by standards, curricular activities and assessment tasks (Webb, 1997). The model is based upon the assumption that curricular elements may all be categorized based upon the cognitive demands required to produce an acceptable response. Each grouping of tasks reflects a different level of cognitiveexpectation, or depth of knowledge, required to complete the task.It should be noted that the term knowledge, as it is used here, is intended to broadly encompass all forms of knowledge (i.e. procedural, declarative, etc.). The table reflects an adapted version of the model.
29Cognitive Rigor Matrix by Karin Hess Combines Bloom’s Taxonomy with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge framework.A tool for:Designing units of study that have a range of cognitive demand.Assessing tasks for the thinking they require of a student
30Webb’s DOK LevelsProvide an important perspective of cognitive complexityName four different and deeper ways a student might interact with contentAre used by states in test specifications to include both the content assessed in a test item and the intended cognitive demandComplexity of content (e.g., interpreting literal vs. figurative language)Task required (e.g., summarizing in your own words vs. using evidence from various sources to support your summary)Source: Hess, Karin, K.; et al., What exactly do “fewer, and higher standards” really look like in the classroom? Using a cognitive rigor matrix to analyze curriculum, plan lessons, and implement assessments, Found at:
31The Cognitive Rigor Matrix Depth + thinkingLevel 1Recall & ReproductionLevel 2Skills & ConceptsLevel 3Strategic Thinking/ ReasoningLevel 4Extended ThinkingRemember- Recall, locate basic facts, details, eventsUnderstand- Select appropriate words to use when intended meaning is clearly evident- Specify, explain relationships- summarize– identify main ideas- Explain, generalize, or connect ideas using supporting evidence (quote, example…)- Explain how concepts or ideas specifically relate to other content domains or conceptsApply- Use language structure (pre/suffix) or word relationships (synonym/antonym) to determine meaning– Use context to identify meaning of word- Obtain and interpret information using text features- Use concepts to solve non-routine problems- Devise an approach among many alternatives to research a novel problemAnalyze- Identify whether information is contained in a graph, table, etc.– Compare literary elements, terms, facts, events– analyze format, organization, & text structures- Analyze or interpret author’s craft (literary devices, viewpoint, or potential bias) to critique a text– Analyze multiple sources- Analyze complex/abstract themesEvaluate– Cite evidence and develop a logical argument for conjectures- Evaluate relevancy, accuracy, & completeness of informationCreate- Brainstorm ideas about a topic- Generate conjectures based on observations or prior knowledge- Synthesize information within one source or text- Synthesize information across multiple sources or texts[HO] Hess’ Cognitive Rigor Matrix & Curricular Examples: Applying Webb’s DOK Levels to Bloom’s Cognitive Process Dimensions – ELA[D] Talk at your table groups about any new understanding you have about cognitive rigor and these foundational frameworks used by the authors of the CCSS.Bloom’s Taxonomy and Webb’s DOK differ in both scope and application. Bloom’s categorizes the cognitive skills required of the brain to perform a task, describing the “type of thinking processes” necessary to answer a question. Depth of Knowledge relates more closely to the depth of content understanding and scope of a learning activity, which is demonstrated in the skills required to complete a task from start to finish.Source: Hess, Karin, K.; et al., What exactly do “fewer, and higher standards” really look like in the classroom? Using a cognitive rigor matrix to analyze curriculum, plan lessons, and implement assessments, Found at:
32Task Predicts Performance This is important because…Task Predicts PerformanceTEACHERSTUDENTCONTENTTASKElevate the cognitive demand of the task, and you elevate the performance.Briefly show that when the task includes a higher cognitive demand (or depth of knowledge) the students’ performance level is elevated.
33CCSS Key Changes and Their Evidence David Coleman Susan Pimentel ELA CCSS Team Coordinators Q: How do the key changes relate to cognitive rigor?Video is hyperlinked to slide heading. It is 6:25 in length.Discusses:• Historical context of the need for change in ELA Standards • Six critical shifts from earlier standards: text complexity; analysis, inference and evidence; writing to sources; mastery of writing and speaking; academic vocabulary • Importance of academic vocabulary, especially for English Learners[D] Discuss with your table group how do the key changes relate to Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy?
34The Spiral Staircase Using CCR Anchor Standard for Reading #1 Start at Kindergarten and work up to grades highlighting the additions and deletions of the grade level standard as it progresses toward the College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards (CCRS)Then go back and . . .Underline the key concepts (important nouns or noun phrases)Circle the verbs describing skills required of students[HO] Vertical Articulation Document for each CCR Reading #1[D] Discuss highlighted additions with a partner as you identify them.The Vertical Alignment pages align and articulate a K-12 pathway (staircase) linking elementary, middle, high school, and end-of-high school college and career readinessTalk about the reverse order or the back mapping.Model highlighting for grade 11-12Trace the vertical articulation in a given standard from Kindergarten through Grade 12, showing how each builds upon the next, highlighting the additions.Explain that this activity provides a foundation for further work in cognitive complexity and depth of knowledge and that it will inform instruction, lesson/unit design and assessment.Ask participants to choose a standard from the packet, and work with a partner to trace the additions from Kindergarten to the CCR.
35Analyzing the Standards Model highlighting additions
36ImplicationsWhat statements can you make regarding the vertical articulation of the standard you just analyzed?Use the cognitive rigor matrix to assist you.[D] In your table groups discuss (the questions on slide).Whip-around shareout.
38Let’s shift to Writing . . . Example: College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor Standard for Writing number 1 is about argumentative writing and the components needed in a logical argument.It emphasizes:Writing sound argumentsSufficient supporting evidenceValid reasoningThe need to read criticallyAnalysis of substantive topics/text
39Going DeeperUse the template provided to take a deeper look at Writing Standard #1.What questions do you have about the standard?What will be your next steps?[HO] Going Deeper: Writing Standard #1 TemplateTo close: What questions do you have about the standard? What will be your next steps?Analyzing the standard to the level of instruction and Depth of Knowledge (DOK). This activity will provide an opportunity for the participant to isolate one standard at their grade level and going deeper. With the framing of “how this impacts their instruction .”
40Considerations for transition and implementation As a result of your learning and work today, what can you bring back to your school and/or district to support the transition to the ELA CCSS and the implementation plan?[D] Question on slide.Quick Whip-around. 1 person per/district
41Common Core State Standards Our goals for today… How well did we?Briefly go over content from the ELA CCSS session IBriefly review the purpose and highlights of the Smarter Balanced Assessment SystemDeepen your understanding of the vertical articulation of the standardsDeconstruct a standard and begin to evaluate its rigor as defined by Hess’s Cognitive Rigor matrixEngage in Vertical & Horizontal Alignment of Writing Standard 1Consider implications for your work
42Resources for Implementation ELA overview documents (one-pagers) as connected with WA standards:Publisher’s Criteria in ELA and Literacy:Alignments cross-walk documents:Parent Resource Guides: