DDI and Assessments in Mathematics: Analyzing and Tracking Data at the 6-12 Level May 13, 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
In the Era of the Common Core Standards Network Meeting, January 11, 2012 Silicon Valley Mathematics Initiative Assessment for Learning.
Advertisements

Continuous Improvement in the Classroom
EBC and Beyond: Creating Effective Close Reading Lessons Implementing the CCSS with Fidelity EngageNY.org.
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support 2012 Mathematical Practice 3: Construct Viable Arguments and Critique the Reasoning of Others Mathematics.
© 2012 Common Core, Inc. All rights reserved. commoncore.org NYS COMMON CORE MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM A Story of Units Taking a Look at Rigor.
DDI and Assessments in Mathematics: Analyzing and Tracking Data At the K-5 Level May 15, 2014.
Mastering Common Core Instructional Shifts in ELA: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 CFN 206 Sarah Benis Scheier-Dolberg Close Reading, Text-
DDI Session II: Analyzing and Tracking Data May 2014 David Abel, Fellow for Curriculum and Assessment/ELA EngageNY.org.
DDI and Assessments in Mathematics: Designing Assessments that Provide Meaningful Data At the 6-12 Level February 4, 2014.
DDI and Assessments in Math Part III: from Data to Action October 9, 2014.
Common Core State Standards in Mathematics: ECE-5
© 2012 Common Core, Inc. All rights reserved. commoncore.org NYS COMMON CORE MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM A Story of Units Module Analysis Grade 5—Module 3.
Common Core-Aligned DDI Primer in Math: Designing and Leading DDI Using Assessment Guidance Documents July 9, 2014.
Common Core Summer Institute Fourth Grade July 31-August 2, 2012.
Welcome and thank you for coming!
PARCC Assessment Math Shifts Becky Justus Math Teacher Greene County Tech Junior High PARCC Educator Leader Cadre Member.
South Dakota Common Core State Standards Phase I - Mathematics July 7, 2011 K
Math Foundational Services SHIFT 1: Focus October 9, 2014 Cindy Dollman & Joe Delinski The PROE Center.
Grade 3-8 PARCC Math: Let’s Get Ready ! PARCC Math Readiness and Action Planning January 16, 2015 Sponsors:
Dates:Tuesdays, Jan 7 – Feb 11
Evaluating Student Growth Looking at student works samples to evaluate for both CCSS- Math Content and Standards for Mathematical Practice.
2 nd Mathematics Meeting Wednesday, November 16 Agenda.
UNWRAPPING THE MATH BUNDLES DIANE FOLEY, NETWORK LEADER CFN 204 Paul Perskin
Day 6. Agenda Just how is this thing supposed to go? Math! Evidence Collection Inter-rater agreement and reliability.
Elementary Math: Principals Professional Development Fall 2011.
DDI and Assessments in ELA Part III from Data to Action October 2014 David Abel, Fellow for Curriculum and Assessment/ELA EngageNY.org.
ELA Teaching is the Core Day 2 June 25, Think Back… Think back to our first meeting on May 4 th Turn and talk to a neighbor about what you remember.
Elizabeth Jean Bingham Central Elementary
 Participants will teach Mathematics II or are responsible for the delivery of Mathematics II instruction  Participants attended Days 1, 2, and 3 of.
Level 2 Training Session 3B: Rigor Instructional Shifts: Focusing on Rigor.
School Year Session 10: February 19, 2014 Geometry? Algebra? We Couldn’t Decide. What the Heck, We’ll do Both! 1.1.
Advances in the PARCC Mathematics Summative Assessment November
Elementary Math: 2 nd Grade Professional Development January 2012.
Mathematics Teachers High School October 11, 2013.
01.1 WELCOME TO COMMON CORE HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS LEADERSHIP SCHOOL YEAR SESSION 1 16 SEPTEMBER 2015 EMBARKING ON A LEADERSHIP JOURNEY.
Advances in the PARCC Mathematics Summative Assessment August
GOMATH! Day 2 Network 609 Core Curriculum Planning June 2013 Presenter: Karen Cardinali.
Have you implemented “Number Talks” in your classroom? What are the pros? What are the cons? Any suggestions?????
Leadership for the Common Core in Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Disclaimer Leadership for the Common Core in Mathematics (CCLM^2)
CFN Paul Perskin. Warm Up CIE2012 State Math AssessmentsThe Structure is the StandardsShift 2 – CoherenceErin’s ProblemsBreakLearning.
Elementary Math: Grade 5 Professional Development Fall 2011.
+ Operations and Algebraic Thinking Success Implementing CCSS for K-2 Math Day 2.
Grades 3-5 Fractions Pre K – 5 Mathematics Educators Summit PSESD October 25, 2014.
Is your classroom open for learning? Engaging Students Through The Use of Open Questions & Parallel Tasks.
SCS -TNCore Rollout 2013 Study Group # 1. Common Core State Standards Module 1: An Introduction: Making Sense of Tasks Setup and Implementation.
EXAMINING THE MODULES: ASSESSMENT PRACTICES LT 2c. I can analyze the role of student-friendly learning targets, aligned assessment, and effective curriculum-
P.R.I.D.E. School Professional Day :45 am- 3:30 pm.
Supporting Rigorous Mathematics Teaching and Learning Tennessee Department of Education High School Mathematics Algebra 2 Illuminating Student Thinking:
Mathematics Performance Tasks Applying a Program Logic Model to a Professional Development Series California Educational Research Association December.
Using SVMI & SDCOE Resources to Support Transition to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics.
“Charting the Course Together” Implementing the Common Core State Standards -Mathematics- Indiana Room Math Leadership Teams December 8, 2014.
13.1 WELCOME TO COMMON CORE HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS LEADERSHIP SCHOOL YEAR SESSION APR 2015 MARGINS: GREAT FOR ERRORS, NOT SO GOOD FOR.
Examining the Modules: Assessment Practices LT 2c. I can analyze the role of student-friendly learning targets, aligned assessment, and effective curriculum-
#1 Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them How would you describe the problem in your own words? How would you describe what you are trying.
Parent Night Understanding the Common Core. K-8  Former 1989 Standards were “a mile wide and an inch deep.”  Common Core standards were developed from.
Understanding by Design Stage 2: Determining Acceptable Evidence Summer UBD Workshop, Day 2 August 13, 2014.
MATHEMATICS YEAR TWO LEADERSHIP SERIES IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES TO ENGAGE STUDENTS AND RAISE ACHIEVEMENT FEBRUARY 19, MARCH 26, MAY 21, 2014.
Data Driven Instruction It’s not….. What did the Teacher Teach? It’s ………. What did the Student Learn? Prepared by Robin Hecht.
TRANSITIONING TO NGSS: FROM CONCLUSION WRITING TO ARGUING FROM EVIDENCE Day 3 Craig Gabler Regional Science Coordinator ESD 113.
Transitioning to the Common Core for Mathematics February 24 th, 2012.
Instructional Practice Guide: Coaching Tool Making the Shifts in Classroom Instruction Ignite 2015 San Diego, CA February 20, 2015 Sandra
Math and the SBAC Claims
Shift Happens Or does it? Leadership Summit Thursday, November 10
EDC 448 Seminar Bridging the Knowledge Gap while Supporting Struggle: Rigor & Accessibility in Disciplinary Teaching Practices.
Session 4 Objectives Participants will:
Targeted and Effective PARCC Strategies Mathematics – Grades 3-HS
Fractions A Vertical Look 3-8.
Reading Closely For Textual Details
K–8 Session 1: Exploring the Critical Areas
Elementary Mathematics
Presentation transcript:

DDI and Assessments in Mathematics: Analyzing and Tracking Data at the 6-12 Level May 13, 2014

Session Objectives Be able to describe what to look for when analyzing student work for a Common Core- aligned assessment Be able to create a data tracker for assessments Develop questions that drive data-analysis meetings around Common Core-aligned assessment data

Agenda Introduction Warm Up: Review of Assessment Design Looking at Student Work – Examples – Time with work you brought Tracking Student Work Leading a Data Meeting with Questions Q & A

Introduction Part I: Assessment (February) Part II: Analysis* (May) Part III: Action (July)

*Analysis is hard. We don’t want to “granularize” content… …but we have to do something to look “under the hood” We want our students engaged in rich tasks… …but we want to dig into the work associated with the tasks to learn specifics about what our students know and can do We don’t want to put rigor in silos or to create a “checklist” for rigor… …but we want usable information about how are kids are doing with respect to the demands of the Common Core

Warm Up: Review of Assessment Design 1. What makes this assessment Common Core-aligned? 2. Critique this. How could it be improved?

Review: What Two Things Make a Great Common Core Assessment? 1. Balance of rigor 2. Variety of levels

Think Aloud… I knew some of my students were functioning below grade level, so I used the RP domain heading to locate similar understandings at the 6 th grade level. This drove instruction for my unit and allowed for more differentiation. I tried to include a variety of prompts/question types that would offer a balance of rigor. This drove instruction for my unit and ensured a balance of rigor throughout the unit.

Examine Sample Assessment First Focus Question: “Imagine looking at some student work associated with this assessment. What kinds of errors do you think you’d see? What would these errors reveal about students?”

Looking at Student Work Second Focus Question: “Look at the work from Veronica and Englebert. What kinds of errors do you see? What do these errors reveal about students?”

This Evening’s Two Big Ideas: Analyze student work based on: 1. The grade level standard(s) being measured 2. The type of error, viewed through a rigor* lens

*Rigor Means Different Things to Different People Procedural Conceptual Application

Veronica

Englebert

Summary Notice: 1. The grade level standard(s) being measured 2. The type of error, viewed through a rigor* lens

Activity Spend some time with student work that you brought. – What standards are being measured? – What types of errors are being made? If you didn’t bring any student work, look at the annotated items.

How Do We Track Data?

Tracking The Class

Each Item, Through Multiple Lenses

Useful Disaggregation

Possible Modifications Break down data to show strategies employed (e.g., table, equation) Break down P, C, A further (e.g., “P – Division of fractions”) Include other “lenses” (e.g., vocabulary, writing) Also tag items at performance levels, using PLDs Tag items to more than one standard

Using Questions to Lead Data Meetings “Bambrick Model”—Based on Paul Bambrick- Santoyo’s Driven By Data We’ll look at: “Pre-Cursors” (what happens before a data meeting) “Conversation Starters and Re-Directors” (what happens during a data meeting) $64,000 Question: How might these look different using a Common Core-aligned assessment?

“Pre-Cursors”

How would we prepare differently for a Common Core assessment meeting? – What different activities would we ask teachers to do? – What different questions would we pose?

“Conversation Starters & Re-Directors”

What would be different during a Common Core assessment meeting? – What different activities would we ask teachers to do? – What different questions would we pose?

This Evening’s Two Big Ideas, Revisited: Analyze student work based on: 1. The grade level standard(s) being measured 2. The type of error, viewed through a rigor lens

Session Objectives Be able to describe what to look for when analyzing student work for a Common Core- aligned assessment Be able to create a data tracker for assessments Develop questions that drive data-analysis meetings around Common Core-aligned assessment data

Thanks! Q & A