Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

EQuIP Rubric & Quality Review Training Session: ELA/Literacy Grades K - 5

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts (ELA)/literacy. During this session, reviewers will: Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP quality review process Develop a common understanding of the EQuIP Rubric including its criteria and rating scale Practice using the EQuIP quality review process and rubric to evaluate and provide feedback on CCSS-aligned instructional materials

EQuIP Quality Review: Principles & Agreements
CCSS: Before beginning a review, all members of a review team are familiar with the CCSS. Inquiry: Review processes emphasize inquiry rather than advocacy and are organized in steps around a set of guiding questions. Respect & Commitment: Each member of a review team is respected as a valued colleague and contributor who makes a commitment to the EQuIP process. Criteria & Evidence: All observations, judgments, discussions and recommendations are criterion and evidence based. 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. 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. Understanding & Agreement: The goal of the process is to compare and eventually calibrate judgments to move toward agreement about quality with respect to the CCSS.

EQuIP Quality Review: Process & Rubric Dimensions
The EQuIP quality review process is a collegial process that centers on the use of criteria- based rubrics for English language arts (ELA)/literacy and mathematics. The criteria are organized into four dimensions: The Four Rubric Dimensions 1. Alignment to the depth of the CCSS; Key shifts in the CCSS; 3. Instructional supports; and 4. Assessment. As educators examine instructional materials against the criteria in each dimension, they are able to use common standards for quality and generate evidence-based commentary and ratings on the quality and alignment of materials.

Using the Electronic Quality Review Rubric PDF Form

Using the Quality Review Rubric PDF Form
For each dimension: Select the checkbox for each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found. Make observations and suggestions related to criteria and evidence. Determine a rating for each dimension based on checked criteria and observations. For Dimension I: Use alignment rating to determine whether to proceed with review.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Five Steps
Step 1. Review Materials Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II – IV Step 4. Apply Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Step 5. Compare Overall Ratings and Determine Next Steps Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps This is an overview of the five steps. Remind participants that each step includes discussion and collaboration. The next two slides provide details for each step.

EQuIP Quality Review Process
Step 1. Review Materials Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF 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 serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Indicate each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record input on specific improvements needed to meet criteria or strengthen alignment Compare observations and suggestions for improvement Determine if the lesson/unit warrants a full review

EQuIP Quality Review Process
Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimensions II–IV Examine the lesson/unit through the “lens” of each criterion Indicate each criterion met and record observations and feedback When working in a group, individuals may choose to compare observations and suggestions for improvement after each dimension or wait until each person has rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV. Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating and Provide Summary Comments Individually review comments for Dimensions I–IV, adding/clarifying comments as needed Individually write summary comments on the Quality Review Rubric PDF When working in a group, individuals should record summary comments prior to conversation. Step 5. Determine Next Steps for Your Learning Community What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric? What communication and support will the developer receive? What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated into your practice.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Flowchart
Discussion and collaboration must occur after Dimension I and then again either for all dimensions after Dimension IV or … … separately after each dimension and … … always during the overall rating process and summary comments. Notes to the Facilitator: The Five Steps This slide provides visual learners with different view of the process. As you click through the slide point out the important places where discussion and collaboration take place.

EXAMPLE: Common Unit for Review — ELA/Literacy
Grade 1— Two Bobbies: A True Story of Hurricane Katrina, Friendship, and Survival

EXAMPLE: Step 1. Review Materials
Record the grade and title of the lesson/unit on the Quality Review Rubric PDF Grade 1, Two Bobbies: A True Story of Hurricane Katrina, Friendship, and Survival Scan to see what the lesson/unit contains and how it is organized Overview A lesson with instructional notes and assessment opportunities Checklists and rubrics Student handouts Model handouts Read key materials related to instruction, assessment and teacher guidance Lesson objective (p.1) Standards addressed (p.1) Teacher Instructions (p.1 – 2) The Lesson – Questions, Activities, and Tasks (p. 3–19) Culminating Task/Assessment (p. 19) What Makes This Read-Aloud Complex? (p. 14) Student and lesson materials (p. 15 – 19)

EXAMPLE: Step 1. Review Materials
Study and measure the text(s) that serves as the centerpiece for the lesson/unit, analyzing text complexity, quality, scope and relationship to instruction A copy of the book is not provided in the lesson. Refer to the book synopsis provided on p. 1 Refer to the What “Makes This Read Aloud Complex?” provided on p. 14

Criteria for Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of K-2 ELA/Literacy CCSS for teaching and learning. Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. Selects quality text(s) that align with the requirements outlined in the standards, presents characteristics similar to CCSS K-2 exemplars (Appendix B), and are of sufficient scope for the stated purpose. Provides opportunities for students to present ideas and information through writing and/or drawing and speaking experiences.

Criteria for Dimension I: Alignment to the Depth of the CCSS
A unit or longer lesson should: Emphasize the explicit, systematic development of foundational literacy skills (concepts of print, phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, high frequency sight words, and phonics). Regularly include specific fluency-building techniques supported by research (e.g., monitored partner reading, choral reading, repeated readings with text, following along in the text when teacher or other fluent reader is reading aloud, short timed practice that is slightly challenging to the reader). Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills. Build students’ content knowledge in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through a coherent sequence of texts and series of questions that build knowledge within a topic.

Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment
INDIVIDUALLY: Identify the grade-level CCSS that the lesson/unit targets Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials? Reviewers should: Select the box for each criterion where there is clear and substantial evidence. Leave the box blank if there is insufficient or no evidence of a criterion. Explain that criteria may be checked only if there is clear and substantial evidence of the criterion (there are no “half-checks”). There may be instances when reviewers find clear and substantial evidence of a criterion and constructive suggestions still can be made. In such cases, reviewers may provide feedback related to criteria that have been checked. Each team member should engage in the criterion-based analysis of the example’s CCSS alignment individually (and silently) before any discussion occurs.

EXAMPLE: Step 2. Apply Criteria in Dimension I: Alignment
The lesson/unit aligns with the letter and spirit of the CCSS: Targets a set of K-2 ELA/Literacy CCSS for teaching and learning. Includes a clear and explicit purpose for instruction. Selects quality text(s) that align with the requirements outlined in the standards, presents characteristics similar to CCSS K-2 exemplars (Appendix B), and are of sufficient scope for the stated purpose. Provides opportunities for students to present ideas and information through writing and/or drawing and speaking experiences. NOTE: Reviewers should be able to refer to evidence to support pattern of checkboxes selected.

A unit or longer lesson should: Emphasize the explicit, systematic development of foundational literacy skills (concepts of print, phonological awareness, the alphabetic principle, high frequency sight words, and phonics). Regularly include specific fluency-building techniques supported by research (e.g., monitored partner reading, choral reading, repeated readings with text, following along in the text when teacher or other fluent reader is reading aloud, short timed practice that is slightly challenging to the reader). Integrate reading, writing, speaking and listening so that students apply and synthesize advancing literacy skills. Build students’ content knowledge in social studies, the arts, science or technical subjects through a coherent sequence of texts and series of questions that build knowledge within a topic.

Dimension Rating and Descriptive Scales To Synthesize Judgment
Rating Scale for Dimensions I–IV: 3: Meets most to all of the criteria in the dimension 2: Meets many of the criteria in the dimension 1: Meets some of the criteria in the dimension 0: Does not meet the criteria in the dimension Descriptors for Dimensions I–IV: 3: Exemplifies CCSS Quality — meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension, as explained in criterion-based observations 2: Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations 1: Developing toward CCSS Quality — needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion-based observations 0: Not representing CCSS Quality — does not address the criteria in the dimension

Rating: 3 Exemplifies CCSS Quality — meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension as explained by criterion-based observations

Providing Feedback Writing effective feedback is vital to the EQuIP Quality Review Process. Below are the four qualities of effective feedback. Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Observations/Feedback and Rating This four day lesson plan targets a wide range of CCSS standards, including reading, writing, language, speaking and listening. Targeted standards are appropriate to the scope of the lesson. Some of the standards are more clearly represented in the lesson plan than others; for example, a great deal of time is devoted to Standard RL 1.4, but there is very little emphasis on Standards L 1.1 and L1.2. Teachers may want to focus on fewer standards when teaching and assessing this unit over the planned four day period. The goals for this lesson are appropriately rigorous and clearly stated, both in the lesson overview, and in the daily teaching plan. Teachers might consider sharing the stated purpose with students each day. Bold text indicates where evidence is cited. * Indicates an opportunity to provide more evidence, for example, “students share ideas and information through speaking and listening activities like on Day 2 of the lesson where think pair share about responses to text-dependent questions.”

Observations/Feedback and Rating The plan utilizes a challenging and engaging text, Two Bobbies, for close reading and discussion. With a Lexile measure of 810, the book falls within the upper end of the grade 2-3 reading band, making it appropriately complex as a read aloud in a first grade classroom. The book is of sufficient scope for the stated goals of the lesson. Throughout the four day lesson, students share ideas and information through speaking and listening experiences*. A culminating activity allows students to demonstrate understanding through writing and drawing.

Providing Feedback for Dimension I: Alignment
Identify where you see evidence of the first two qualities of effective feedback Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS
The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely (including read alouds) a central focus of instruction and includes regular opportunities for students to ask and answer text-dependent questions. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich text-based discussions and writing through specific, thought-provoking questions about common texts (including read alouds and, when applicable, illustrations, audio/video and other media). Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on explicitly building students’ academic vocabulary and concepts of syntax throughout instruction. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension II, it may be helpful to ask the following questions regarding criteria 1-4: For criterion 1: Is a text and the evidence contained within it the central focus of the lesson? Is it clear from the lesson that a majority of class time is to be spent reading, writing, or speaking directly about a text or texts? Are students being asked to read and reread (or listen to) the text, think deeply about it, participate in thoughtful discussions, and grapple with the particulars of the text? For criterion 2-3: Is there a series of questions that require evidence from text that work together to facilitate rich conversations and writing? If these types of questions are present, reviewers should check the criteria. (Note: There may be instances when reviewers find clear and substantial evidence of this criterion and constructive suggestions can still be made. In such cases, reviewers may provide feedback related to criteria that have been checked.)

Criteria for Dimension II: Key Shifts in the CCSS
A unit or longer lesson should: Grade-Level Reading: Include a progression of texts as students learn to read (e.g., additional phonic patterns are introduced, increasing sentence length). Provides text- centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent grade-level reading. Balance of Texts: Focus instruction equally on literary and informational texts as stipulated in the CCSS (p.5) and indicated by instructional time (may be more applicable across a year or several units). Balance of Writing: Include prominent and varied writing opportunities for students that balance communicating thinking and answering questions with self-expression and exploration

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials?

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension II: Key Shifts
The lesson/unit addresses key shifts in the CCSS: Reading Text Closely: Makes reading text(s) closely (including read alouds) a central focus of instruction and includes regular opportunities for students to ask and answer text- dependent questions. Text-Based Evidence: Facilitates rich text-based discussions and writing through specific, thought-provoking questions about common texts (including read alouds and, when applicable, illustrations, audio/video and other media). Academic Vocabulary: Focuses on explicitly building students’ academic vocabulary and concepts of syntax throughout instruction.

A unit or longer lesson should: Grade-Level Reading: Include a progression of texts as students learn to read (e.g., additional phonic patterns are introduced, increasing sentence length). Provides text- centered learning that is sequenced, scaffolded and supported to advance students toward independent grade-level reading. Balance of Texts: Focus instruction equally on literary and informational texts as stipulated in the CCSS (p.5) and indicated by instructional time (may be more applicable across a year or several units). Balance of Writing: Include prominent and varied writing opportunities for students that balance communicating thinking and answering questions with self-expression and exploration

Rating: 3 Exemplifies CCSS Quality — meets the standard described by criteria in the dimension as explained by criterion-based observations

Observations/Feedback and Rating This plan provides an excellent blueprint for close reading a challenging text with primary students. Reading text closely is the heart of this lesson plan, and students revisit central parts of the story to engage in rich discussion about characters, vocabulary and theme. The guiding questions lead students to delve deeply into the text as they tackle challenging vocabulary and reflect on characters' actions. While this plan utilizes teacher read aloud throughout the lesson, teachers might consider giving students opportunities to read all or portions of the text on their own during subsequent re-readings. Bold indicates an example of useful suggested feedback for improvement.

Observations/Feedback and Rating The sequence of the lessons in this plan is purposeful, allowing students‘ understanding of the events surrounding this true story to grow with each re-reading of the text. Questions presented to students are text dependent and lead students to synthesize information and cite evidence to support their thinking. A particular strength of this lesson plan is the use of both text and illustrations to provide text evidence. This lesson plan utilizes whole group oral discussion as students revisit the text each day. As an alternative, teachers might provide opportunities for students to take notes on post-its or copies of the text before the class discussion. This could allow students more time to consider questions carefully, and perhaps raise questions of their own. This might increase overall engagement and ensure that all students are involved. Bold indicates an example of useful suggested feedback for improvement.

Observations/Feedback and Rating This lesson plan provides explicit opportunities for students to build their academic vocabulary. Words and phrases are well-chosen; developing an understanding of this vocabulary leads the students towards a deeper understanding of story events. The use of text, illustrations, and supplemental photographs provide an excellent scaffold and enable students to develop an understanding of key words and phrases. A graphic for teacher use provides clear guidance for words and phrases that merit more time and attention. Bold indicates an example of clarity.

Providing Feedback Identify where you see evidence of the last two qualities of effective feedback: Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions.

Criteria for Dimension III: Instructional Supports
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing and speaking about texts. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use for teachers (e.g., clear directions, sample proficient student responses, sections that build teacher understanding of the whys and how of the material). Integrates targeted instruction in multiple areas such as grammar and syntax, writing strategies, discussion rules and aspects of foundational reading. Provides substantial materials to support students who need more time and attention to achieve automaticity with decoding, phonemic awareness, fluency and/or vocabulary acquisition. Provides all students (including emergent and beginning readers) with extensive opportunities to engage with grade-level texts and read alouds that are at high levels of complexity including appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of text. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension III, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 2: Does this set of materials address instructional expectations? Is it easy to understand and follow? Are the teacher resources (annotated responses, supports for ELLs, SPED, etc.) clear? For criterion 3: Does this lesson/unit integrate targeted instruction in multiple areas such as grammar and syntax, writing strategies, discussion rules and aspects of foundational reading?

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Focuses on sections of rich text(s) (including read alouds) that present the greatest challenge; provides discussion questions and other supports to promote student engagement, understanding and progress toward independence. Integrates appropriate, extensive and easily implemented supports for students who are ELL, have disabilities and/or read or write below grade level. Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read or write above grade level. As reviewers apply the criteria in Dimension III, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 6: Does this lesson/unit focus on sections of rich text(s) (including read alouds) that present the greatest challenge? Do discussion questions and other supports promote student engagement? Rich text(s) are texts that are worthy of rereading, include Tier 2 words, incorporate layers of meaning, and serve as mentor texts for writing. Challenging sections often require scaffolding for close reading.

A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Gradually remove supports, allowing students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills and/or student-directed inquiry. Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5. Indicate how students are accountable for independent engaged reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Instructional Supports
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence Write feedback using the four qualities for one of the criterion that you checked/not – checked COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence 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? Choose one piece of feedback for the group to share with entire room IMPORTANT NOTE: During table work time, participants will also write one piece of specific feedback.

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension III: Supports
The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Cultivates student interest and engagement in reading, writing, and speaking about texts. Addresses instructional expectations and is easy to understand and use for teachers (e.g., clear directions, sample proficient student responses, sections that build teacher understanding of the whys and how of the material). Integrates targeted instruction in multiple areas such as grammar and syntax, writing strategies, discussion rules and aspects of foundational reading. Provides substantial materials to support students who need more time and attention to achieve automaticity with decoding, phonemic awareness, fluency and/or vocabulary acquisition. Provides all students (including emergent and beginning readers) with extensive opportunities to engage with grade-level texts and read alouds that are at high levels of complexity including appropriate scaffolding so that students directly experience the complexity of text.

The lesson/unit is responsive to varied student learning needs: Focuses on sections of rich text(s) (including read alouds) that present the greatest challenge; provides discussion questions and other supports to promote student engagement, understanding and progress toward independence. Integrates appropriate, extensive and easily implemented supports for students who are ELL, have disabilities and/or read or write below grade level. Provides extensions and/or more advanced text for students who read or write above grade level.

A unit or longer lesson should: Include a progression of learning where concepts and/or skills advance and deepen over time (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Gradually remove supports, allowing students to demonstrate their independent capacities (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Provide for authentic learning, application of literacy skills and/or student-directed inquiry. Integrate targeted instruction in such areas as grammar and conventions, writing strategies, discussion rules, and all aspects of foundational reading for grades 3–5. Indicate how students are accountable for independent engaged reading based on student choice and interest to build stamina, confidence and motivation (may be more applicable across the year or several units). Use technology and media to deepen learning and draw attention to evidence and texts as appropriate.

Rating: 2 Approaching CCSS Quality — meets many criteria but will benefit from revision in others, as suggested in criterion-based observations

Observations/Feedback and Rating Two Bobbies is a highly engaging, challenging text that would be of high interest to first graders and is worth reading multiple times. The close reads provided in the lesson focus on the most challenging vocabulary and sections of the text, allowing all students to engage in the complexity of the text. The guiding questions further scaffold students as they develop a deeper understanding of story events. The lesson plan includes clear directions for the teacher, providing both the rationale and an explanation of the key ideas. Supplemental materials, including an explanation of text complexity and a chart of academic vocabulary, provide further support. The sequence of the lesson plan is easy to understand and follow, and graphic organizers and relevant photographs are also included, allowing for ease of implementation.

Observations/Feedback and Rating Suggestions for Improvement: While the lesson provides some websites and extension activities, it would be enhanced by explicit opportunities for advanced students to grow as readers and writers. Additionally, explicit supports for engaging students with challenges, such as the use of sentence frames, might help these learners meet the goals of the lesson plan.

Providing Feedback Each group shares their selected piece of feedback.
Identify where you see evidence of the qualities of effective feedback: Criteria-based: Written comments are based on the criteria used for review in each dimension. No extraneous or personal comments are included. Evidence Cited: Written comments suggest that the reviewer looked for evidence in the lesson or unit that address each criterion of a given dimension. Examples are provided that cite where and how the criteria are met or not met. Improvement Suggested: When improvements are identified to meet criteria or strengthen the lesson or unit, specific information is provided about how and where such improvement should be added to the material. Clarity Provided: Written comments are constructed in a manner keeping with basic grammar, spelling, sentence structure and conventions. Analyze one example of feedback from each table. Participants should identify where we see/hear evidence of the qualities of effective feedback from each example.

Criteria for Dimension IV: Assessment
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate foundational skills and targeted grade level literacy CCSS (e.g., reading, writing, speaking and listening and/or language). Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students. Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance and responding to areas where students are not yet meeting standards. A unit or longer lesson should: Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures. As reviewers apply the criteria for Dimension IV, it may be helpful to ask the following questions: For criterion 2: Do students have multiple ways to show what they have learned? For criterion 3: Do assessments produce a description of how close students have come to meeting expectations (e.g., annotated student work, descriptive rubrics/checklists).

Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment
INDIVIDUALLY: Closely examine the materials through the “lens” of each criterion Check each criterion for which clear and substantial evidence is found Record evidence for each check or where you looked and were unable to find evidence COLLECTIVELY: Compare and discuss checks and evidence What is the pattern within our team in terms of the criteria we have checked? Do our observations reference the criteria and evidence (or lack of evidence) in the instructional materials?

EXAMPLE: Step 3. Apply Criteria in Dimension IV: Assessment
The lesson/unit regularly assesses whether students are mastering standards-based content and skills: Elicits direct, observable evidence of the degree to which a student can independently demonstrate foundational skills and targeted grade level literacy CCSS (e.g., reading, writing, speaking and listening and/or language). Assesses student proficiency using methods that are unbiased and accessible to all students. Includes aligned rubrics or assessment guidelines that provide sufficient guidance for interpreting student performance and responding to areas where students are not yet meeting standards. A unit or longer lesson should: Use varied modes of assessment, including a range of pre-, formative, summative and self-assessment measures.

Rating: 1 Developing toward CCSS Quality — needs significant revision, as suggested in criterion- based observations

Observations/Feedback and Rating This lesson plan includes opportunities for students to share their knowledge through speaking, writing and listening. The oral sentence frame following the third reading allows students to draw individual conclusions from the class-generated T-chart. The culminating task requires that students cite text evidence and provides written feedback of students' understanding of story events. Both tasks flow naturally from the lesson plan sequence. Suggestions for Improvement: While multiple opportunities for student conversations are present throughout the lesson, ways in which this rich discussion could be informally assessed are not explicitly stated. Formative assessment might also be enhanced by accountable talk (such as think-pair-share), and/or opportunities for students to record their responses through drawing or writing (such as note taking during re-readings). It could also be helpful to include a rubric or guidelines for assessing the culminating writing activity. Such additions could provide formative feedback and might help to ensure that all students are both fully participating and successfully meeting the goals of this lesson.

Overall Rating and Summary Comments
Overall Rating for the Lesson/Unit: E: Exemplar – Aligned and meets most to all of the criteria in dimensions II, III, IV (total 11 – 12) E/I: Exemplar if Improved – Aligned and needs some improvement in one or more dimensions (total 8 – 10) R: Revision Needed – Aligned partially and needs significant revision in one or more dimensions (total 3 – 7) N: Not Ready to Review – Not aligned and does not meet criteria (total 0 – 2)

Determining an Overall Rating
Go back through dimensions and add up total to initially determine the rating category. Consider how your rating based on the total points matches your overall sense of the quality of the materials. Consider if you have your judgments and feedback are placed within the appropriate dimensions. Consider how your dimensional feedback supports your judgments. Consider if the lesson falls in the category you feel is appropriate.

Developing Summary Comments
Highlight the strongest aspects of the unit Succinctly summarize key areas for improvement articulated in the dimensional comments Explain to reviewers that the summary comments should highlight the most critical issues that have emerged over the course of the review. Summary comments should acknowledge what the developer has done well, identify the criteria that were not checked, and provide suggestions for improving the alignment and quality of instructional materials

EXAMPLE: Step 4. Apply an Overall Rating
E/I: Exemplar if improved This lesson earned an overall score of 9, designating it as Exemplar if Improved. This lesson plan is an excellent example of close reading with young primary students. Through repeated re-readings of portions of the text, students are challenged to delve deeper into the story to gain a richer understanding of characters, vocabulary, and theme. An additional strength of this lesson is the emphasis on using illustrations in conjunction with the written text to explore vocabulary, cite evidence and infer deeper meaning. Overall, this is an engaging and rigorous lesson plan with clear goals and a thoughtful sequence of learning activities. The inclusion of formative assessment, explicit opportunities for differentiation, and a rubric for assessing the culminating task would enhance this lesson plan and help ensure that all students are meeting the stated goals.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Step 5: Discuss Summary and Next Steps
Compare overall ratings and synthesize feedback: How do our overall ratings compare? Does this example serve as a model of CCSS instruction? What are its strengths? Areas for improvement? What communication and support will the developer receive? What are the next steps for this material? Notes to the Facilitator: Next Steps for the Materials Have teams compare their overall ratings and come to agreement then determine what the next steps for the materials ought to be.

EQuIP Quality Review Process Reflection
What additional practice is needed on the EQuIP Review Process and Rubric? What other ways can the EQuIP processes and materials influence and be incorporated into our practice? How will we plan for applying the EQuIP Quality Review Process? Who will be involved? Notes to the Facilitator: Reflection on the Process These questions should be used to guide a discussion of how the process will be carried forward from this training session. The next slide offers some suggestions for building review teams.

EQuIP Quality Review Process The Review Team
When forming and/or working with a review team: Make sure all team members have training in the process and know the CCSS (at least for their grade level). Have a review plan that considers the experience and expertise of all team members. Team members may choose to compare individual ratings after each dimension or wait until each person has individually rated and recorded all input for Dimensions II–IV before beginning discussion. Individuals should record their overall rating prior to discussion. Adjustments to ratings and/or commentary should take place as a part of the group discussion. Notes to the Facilitator: The Review Team As participants prepare to take what they will learn in this presentation home with them, they need to think about how they will form review teams. These bullet points will help them think about team-building.

Achieve th Street, NW / Suite 510 Washington, DC 20036

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Session Goals Use the EQuIP quality review process to determine the quality and alignment of lessons and units to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback