Analyzing Student Work & Formative Jurying Welcome to LDC! Day 3: Analyzing Student Work & Formative Jurying

Our Facilitators Stacy Noah Effectiveness Coach, KDE stacy.noah@education.ky.gov @stacybryantnoah Kelly Philbeck LDC Instructional Specialist kelly.philbeck@education.ky.gov www.kellyphilbeck.com Twitter: @kellyphilbeck FB: Kelly R. Philbeck Mike York Effectiveness Coach, KDE mike.york@education.ky.gov @MikeYork_KDE

Analyzing Student Work Instructional Implications Goals & Outcomes Task/ Expectations Standards/ Instruction Analyzing Student Work Instructional Implications Reflection/ Revision

Analyzing Student Work: Critical Friends

Preparing for the Tuning Protocol Presenting teacher(s) have an opportunity to share the context for the student work: Information about the students and/or the class—what the students tend to be like, where they are in school, where they are in the year Assignment or prompt which generated the student work Student learning goals or standards that inform the work Samples of the work Rubric Focusing question for feedback

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Introduction (5 minutes) Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, guidelines, and schedule Participants briefly introduce themselves

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Presentation (15 minutes) Presenting teacher(s) have an opportunity to share the context for the student work: Information about the students and/or the class—what the students tend to be like, where they are in school, where they are in the year Assignment or prompt which generated the student work Student learning goals or standards that inform the work Samples of the work Rubric Focusing question for feedback Participants are silent; no questions are entertained at this time

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Clarifying Questions (5 minutes) Participants have an opportunity to ask “clarifying questions” in order to get information that might have been omitted in the presentation Clarifying questions are matters of “fact” The facilitator should be sure to limit the questions to those that are “clarifying”—judging which questions more properly belong in the warm/cool feedback section

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Examination of Student Work (15 minutes) Participants look closely at the work, taking notes on where it seems to be in tune with the stated goals/standards/task and where there might be a problem, misconception, or need for clarification Presenter is silent, participants do this work silently

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Pause to reflect on warm/cool feedback (2-3 minutes) Participants take a couple of minutes to reflect on what they would like to contribute to the feedback session Presenter is silent Participants do this work silently

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Warm and Cool Feedback (15 minutes) Facilitator reminds group of focusing question Participants share feedback with each other while the presenter is silent Begin with warm feedback (focus on task, standards, scoring elements of rubric student work provides evidence of mastery) Each participant shares Then move to cool feedback (misconceptions, gaps, need for clarification/further instruction) Presenter is silent and takes notes

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Reflection (5 minutes) Presenter speaks to the comments/question he or she chooses while the participants are silent This is not a time to defend oneself, but instead a time for the presenter to reflect aloud on those ideas or questions that seemed particularly interesting Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify, etc.

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Next Steps/Instructional Implications (10 minutes) Group discusses strategies to strengthen work

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Next Steps/Instructional Implications (10 minutes) Group discusses strategies to strengthen work

Analyzing Student Work: Tuning Protocol Debrief (5 minutes) Facilitator recaps main ideas Discusses suggestions for next meeting Explores ways to apply strategies across content areas

Reflection on Protocol & Module

CoreTools: Log On www.ldc.org 17 Introduce CoreTools Search for content specific tasks 17 © 2009 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 17

Jurying Screencast

Reflection/Formative Jurying

Teacher Talk Based on what you know now about LDC . . . What would you expect to see if you walked into a classroom that was implementing LDC at what you consider a high level of impact ? Provide time for talking about this with an elbow partner. Then ask lead teachers in listing on a chart the attributes of quality LDC implementation. Post.

Domain 1: Planning & Preparation Domain 2: Classroom Environment Ask who has seen the FfT. The FfT provides us a common language and criteria for what it means to be an effective teacher. Although there are other Frameworks out there, this is the one chosen by the Teacher Steering Committee for use by Kentucky. We can use this framework to reflect on our own practice. Teachers participating in the pilot are using the framework to reflection on their practice and identify areas of focus for their own professional growth. Domain 1: Planning & Preparation Domain 2: Classroom Environment Domain 3: Instruction Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities Domain 5: Student Growth

The TPGES System Teacher Professional Growth and Effectiveness System Observation Peer Observation formative Professional Growth Self-Reflection Student Voice Student Growth These provide different lenses for looking at teacher effectiveness. The TPGES is designed to look at teacher effectiveness through a variety of lenses. You can see these different “looks” on this slide. While the FfT provides us the language and specific rubric for effectiveness, these provide us a variety of ways to view effectiveness. State Contribution: Student Growth % Local Contribution: Student Growth Goals

Common Language Let’s look a the design of the FfT.

Note that the rubric is the top part of the pages – the component identification and description along with the indicators within the 4 performance levels. The critical attributes and possible examples provide more information for clarity.

& other Common Core Standards when appropriate LDC Framework TEMPLATE TASKS Target the 3 modes of writing in the Common Core State Standards Teacher/Student-Selected Texts or or Appropriate, grade-level texts that support selected content Argument (opinion at the elementary grades) Informative/ Explanatory Narrative & other Common Core Standards when appropriate Use this slide? The Literacy Design Collaborative provides a framework that fits within a unit for integration and implementation of the Common Core Academic Standards for reading and writing. The template tasks target the 3 modes of writing in the Common Core State Standards: Argument, Informative/Explanatory, or Narrative. (1 & 2) Beginning with a template task, teachers fill in the content to be addressed and select texts that are appropriate to meet grade-level complexity as well as the content to be learned. (3) Although the template tasks are designed around the first three writing standards, application of several other reading and writing standards is built-in to the framework. Appendix B (p. 49) in the LDC Guide for Teachers charts this integration of reading and writing standards within the template tasks as well as how other standards may be applied when appropriate. (Participants can pause here to read over Appendix B.) (4, 5 & 6) Once teachers fill in the template task, creating a teaching task, they are ready to design instruction. They choose the skills students will need to complete the task and the mini-tasks for building each skill. LDC provides us with sample skills and mini-tasks. The skills are clustered in a way that make sense teaching the skill. We are at liberty to use them, revise them, or develop new skills and mini-tasks. LDC has also provided rubrics specific to the mode of writing – not shown on this graphic. (Later, when participants take a look at the sample skills, point out the way they are clustered in a way that makes sense for teaching the task.) Supported by an Instructional Ladder Skills students need to complete the task Mini-tasks for building each skill

Digging Deeper into the FfT Analyze your assigned component of the FfT. Highlight language that connects to LDC implementation. Communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom. We want to take a few minutes to dig deeper into the FfT to get a clear picture of the connections between the LDC strategy and the framework. Remember, LDC is a strategy for implementing the literacy standards at a level of rigor in which they are intended. You will work with a group of about 3 to analyze a single component within the framework. You’ll first study the language in the Framework and highlight language that you think connects to what you do as a LDC teacher. The attributes you brainstormed a few minutes ago can be a reference for you. Next, you will communicate what this might look like in a LDC classroom. Let’s look at an example.

First, highlight language that connects to LDC implementation. Share the language I highlighted as an example.

Next, communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom. Share how extended upon the language to communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom

Digging Deeper into the FfT Analyze your assigned component of the FfT. Highlight language that connects to LDC implementation. Communicate what it might look like in a LDC classroom. Decide who will share. Give teams of 3 the appropriate page from the FfT, highlighters, and a 11x17 page to post. Domain 2: 2B and 2C Domain 3: 3B, 3C, and 3D

Why is this important? Because these initiatives align – they are interconnected. One impacts the other: TPGES and strategies for implementing standards Both lead to student achievement/success

Let’s revisit your brainstorming. What would you expect to see if you walked into a classroom that was implementing LDC at what you consider a high level of impact ? Overall, did you see what you brainstormed in the Framework?

Meeting Materials are on www.kellyphilbeck.com © 2009 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation